Gentrification in Triangle neighborhoods

[dmccall]

In closing, I'm not trying to prove that a higher min wage lowers unemployment, only trying to prove a negative- that a higher min wage does not NECESSARILY lead to higher unemployment.

The data seems to be on my side, from a mere correlation basis. If you've got other data to explain it away, please bring it forward.

You are right that a higher min. wage does not necessarily lead to higher unemployment. I think I should clarifly my earlier statement by saying that a higher minimum wage ALWAYS puts an upward pressure on unemployment.

Employers' demand for labor is a negatively sloped curve (they want more labor when it's cheap, less when it's more). Conversely the supply of labor increases as wages in the market increase (people opt out of education, homemaking, volunteerism in favor of wage earning jobs)

The point at which the demand for labor satisfies the supply of labor is the market equilibrium. If a minimum wage is artificially fixed higher than the eq. point (P1), there are more people wanting jobs than there are employers offering: "unemployment". Raising the min wage from that point only increases unemployment.

One must remember that this is under the condition of ceteris paribus (all other things held constant). Where your hard research work may be misleading you to the wrong conclusion is the exclusion of exogenous factors. Going back to the supply/demand curve, these factors shift the demand and/or supply curves, thus distorting the equilibrium point. Factors such as war, tax rates, transportation costs, disease, workforce age, pregnancy rates, climate, and many others will change potential workers' and employers' attitude toward work.

As stated before, increasing the minumum wage further above the equilibrium point will always increase unemployment, ceteris paribus. Exogenous factors often overwhelm this increase (one way or another), but make no mistake, there is an upward pressure exerted on unemployment when minumum wages are raised. Even if unemployment falls with a rise in minimum wage, from an opportunity cost point of view, unemployment would have fallen further without the rise in minimum wage. The increase caused a "real decline in labor". Therefore raising minimum wages causes real unemployment to rise.

A basic discussion of supply and demand exists at wikipedia. Simply substitute "Wage" for Price and "Laborors" for Quantity. There is a plethora of information explaining my points across hundreds of labor economics textbooks written over the last half of the century.

[Jerseyman4]

That appears to show a "depression" can occur from that graphic. Just like in 1929 for that reason; too much supply and not enough demand.

[sax184]

You are right that a higher min. wage does not necessarily lead to higher unemployment. I think I should clarifly my earlier statement by saying that a higher minimum wage ALWAYS puts an upward pressure on unemployment.

That's a decent refinement of your statement, and I can certainly agree with it because anything that raises the cost of labor for business does exert pressure on the ability of firms to higher new workers.

I'm familiar with the concept of ceteris paribus (SP?) and I understand where you're coming from.

But the point I'm getting at with the real world data is that if we agree on your statement at the top of this post, what are the exogenous factors that happen to be correlated with higher min wages that produce lower unemployment in states where the minimum wage is above the national minimum?

Got any guesses? Education? Productivity per employed worker?

[Jones_]

Having managed fast food to get me through college I am familiar with hourly wages and the effects of labor costs on the bottom line. A typical franchised fast food restaurant needs about 1 million a year in gross sales to break even. My restaurant had three salaried employees accounting for about 15% of the entire operating cost. Hourly wages ranged from the minimum wage to about 10 dollars an hour accounting for roughly another 15% of operating cost ($3,000 per week at 52 weeks = about 150,000 dollars rounded, from 20 employees pulling in around $150 a week each average.) So labor costs are around a third of all expenses. A $1 dollar increase in minumum wage will affect about 1/3 to 1/2 of the hourly employees so say it would add about 10 employees times $1 per hour times about 25 hours per week for an increase in weekly labor to $3,250, or about $12,500 dollars per year or 1.25% total increase in operating costs. A 1.25% increase in price of a whopper combo is about 8 cents. I contend, based on this example that the influence of raising minimum wage on unemployment is like trying to equate the formation of a hurricane with the flutter of a butterflys wings on another continent ("the butterfly effect"). An examination of the effects of property tax increases, fuel prices, food costs (due to say the costs of water) are more significant and pertinent when analyzing employment capability in the fast food industry. I will also make the leap that over analysis of minimum wage as a major factor in unemployment is a scare tactic (..think "smoking gun" tactic used to get us in Iraq) politically conservative in nature, used to maintain class separation.

[dmccall]

But the point I'm getting at with the real world data is that if we agree on your statement at the top of this post, what are the exogenous factors that happen to be correlated with higher min wages that produce lower unemployment in states where the minimum wage is above the national minimum?

Got any guesses? Education? Productivity per employed worker?

Absolutely, far and away, #1 is war. Reserve officers leaving to serve duty opens up many jobs for workers. Other important factors we've seen over the last few years are the exportation of blue collar jobs and the shift toward more skilled, service-oriented jobs in the U.S. Real Transportation Costs were at an all-time low 2-5 years ago, so more workers could be flexible and drive to a higher paying job. The flattening of "women entering the workforce" has led to few wanting entry-level jobs, too. (Of course that isn't an all-inclusive list!)

All politics aside, one of my frustrations with this Bush administration is that we haven't heard much from the Secretary of Labor (do we all even know who it is?).....Elaine Chao . Robert Reich was much more prominent when Clinton was in office. While I agreed and disagreed with him on several topics, he was extremely articulate and visible as an active Comm. of Labor. Now he's just one crime-fighting dude with Conan O'Brien (if you missed that episode, you missed one of the funniest things I've ever seen on TV).

[ncwebguy]

No one showed up Saturday morning for the Eastside walk.

I guess that was to be expected, but no one even said they couldn't make it but would like

to try some other time.

I know there is a lot of "wouldn't it be nice if..." talk on here, but the opportunity to create a diverse

(racially and economically) community that's walkable to downtown does not appeal to people here.

Now back to your minimum wage discussion, already in progress....

Hopefully there won't be France like rioting based on economic disparity here in the near future.

Southeast raleigh has a similar feel to the initial flash points in the Paris suburbs:

- unchecked poverty for decades

- a haven where criminals feel free to do whatever whenever

- not able to get a job based on home address and transit issues

[Chtimi]

No one showed up Saturday morning for the Eastside walk.

I guess that was to be expected, but no one even said they couldn't make it but would like

to try some other time.

I know there is a lot of "wouldn't be nice" talk on here, but the opportunity to create a diverse

(racially and economically) community that's walkable to downtown does not appeal to people here.

Now back to your minimum wage discussion, already in progress....

Hopefully there won't be France like rioting based on economic disparity here in the near future.

Southeast raleigh has a similar feel to the initial flash points in the Paris suburbs:

- unchecked poverty for decades

- a haven where criminals feel free to do whatever whenever

- not able to get a job based on home address and transit issues

I agree.

I'm French and I know the experience of our cities. About the riots and the gentrification these are two posts that I wrote on the Columbia SC forum one month ago...

"[...] Besides I contend the American and French urban morphologies are similar.

There are not two but three levels here : the center, the faubourgs and the suburb. The difference is that our suburbs are less wide than yours because the downtown stays very attractive. The marginalized neighborhoods are often situated in the faubourgs between the suburb too distant and the center too expensive, close to the old industrial zones [...].

Everywhere there's the same problem. The citizen who has a job locks himself in his office. The citizen who has a car go here and there, but allways confined in his car, the citizen who has a home is closed in his house. Finally the street, the public space, deserted by citizens, becomes the place of marginals. The parking lots, risking to be a battleground, one resorts to means of repression. People are separated in families and communities unable to understand each other.

I think that Columbia can avoid this problem and have to bring together in its dowtown all the citizens.

Yes the gated communities in the downtown could be really "counterproductive". But, no half-measure : all sort of gated communities, anywhere, the privacy, the social exclusion are absolutely intolerable because that compromises the City, the civil peace, the democracy itself."

"[...]That happens also in my country, everywhere one resists against the urban sprawling, so, we construct apartments where there are parking lots, and abandoned railways areas or old warehouses (the historical center are protected).

The difference is that the cost is very hight in our city-centers now. There was a law obliging the municipalities to dedicate 20 % of the new housings as social housings (called HLM = moderate rent housings), but the mayors are not disciplined (The France' richest city Neuilly-sur-Seine has only 3 % of hlm !), then the socialist party envisions to oblige these 20 % in each building in order to thwart the spatial segregation...

I can't imagine the center of Columbia become a kind of Beverly Hills [...] or the contrary. It's harmful, better is to make the center highly lively and colorful."

Of course a lot of actions were done to ameliorate the situation of some neighborhoods (free zones, "big city projects", subways, tramways...) but that doesn't really resolve the problems of lodgings and jobs, that has accelerated the gentrification.

Since two years there's an important program of rehousing in order to replace these old bar-like lodgings for more human lodgings. To late.

I add that a problem of parallel economy, a real mafia. The socialist governement had implemented the principle of "dialogue" with the "police de proximit

[monsoon]

I saw this article on our portal about the unique gentrification taking place in Raleigh. Comments?

[dmccall]

How nausiating - even hinting that these people are doing anything wrong. This is the most racist argument I've heard since Glen Miller ran for President.

[ChiefJoJo]

Overall, I found it to be rather positive on the city's plans for the area and how it's being carried out. I mean, they did mention that 80% of the new low-income home owners who received loans are black, so so long as there are folks looking for an opportunity, it's there, and all the while, you have an ethnically mixed community as a benefit (I see it as such). So long as there remains ample opportunities for low-income residents, I can't see how there's anything bad about that.

[Jones_]

Its a completely valid question to wonder how existing residents can afford to stay in their own neighborhoods. Why is a 1200 squarefoot house in Boylan Heights valued at five times (or more) than an identical house in Martin-Haywood? Because the land is assesed at a higher value by the City. What does the city base this on?? Subjective crap....what others in the neighborhood have paid for their lots essentially. As soon as one person with money decides they want to move somewhere the owners (and new owners aka developers) see the chance to raise the price of their property in a resale. Thats all fine and dandy but now the City reappraises the land and folks that bought a house for 20,000 dollars in the 1980's now must pay taxes on a lot valued at near 100,000 in some cases...many times above inflation. A part of one fair solution is to hold the line on appraisals until the deed changes. Adjust tax rates as needed to balance the budget and reappraise when things turn over. The existing property codes allow...almost encourage gentrification and it has never been fair, it only taps its feet according to the tune the people with the most money play....

[avery]

I agree that there needs to be some sort of formal timeline for reassessments on property values. That may add to the justification of property tax increases. However, a person's property taxes are not going to remain low forever as the city and neighborhood around them changes. That being said, I do not see a problem with the city adjusting the tax values on properties in Boylan Heights area. As people purchase homes and fix them up, there should be a rise in tax values of surrounding properties. If there wasn't, there would be little incentive for persons to do the renovations or for the improvement of the neighborhood. As people improve the structure of their property, they have in essence, improved the value of the property and the surrounding neighborhood, justifying a tax value increase. This is a practice that the city of Raleigh is practicing throughout downtown. Without development, the town would find itself in a downward spiral of depression. If I were someone living in the Haywood Community, I would take out the gracious loan offering from the city and fix my place up. Then, I would sell it for a profit if I could no longer afford the taxes on it.

I see no racial undertones with this argument, only economic undertones. Not everything in life is fair. If you truely feel that gentrification is completely racially motivated, then I have to disagree. If this were the case, then you could apply this same logic across the board to the Wal-Marts running the small businessman out of town; to the real estate developers pushing the businesses in the warehouse district out. I dunno, I just see it as the law of economics. As demand rises, so do prices...irregardless of race, ethnicity, age, income, etc.

[Jones_]

Two notes before I start, 1) I did not mention race once, the word gentrification only implies race if you think poor=black, and 2) my whole theme here is that the mechanism for raising taxes is unfair not the inevitableness of it.

Oh and Avery, I am just using your words as an example of what I hear 99% of people say, which is not bad at all, and I am in fact all about revitalizing every inner city neighborhood in existance...just offering up what seems like a fairer system where all incentive to revitalize is still in place but people do not financially strongarmed out of their homes just because a rich neighbor moves in....

I agree that there needs to be some sort of formal timeline for reassessments on property values. That may add to the justification of property tax increases.

Agreed....what should that entail?

However, a person's property taxes are not going to remain low forever as the city and neighborhood around them changes. That being said, I do not see a problem with the city adjusting the tax values on properties in Boylan Heights area. As people purchase homes and fix them up, there should be a rise in tax values of surrounding properties.

Why must this be neighborhood dependant?

If there wasn't, there would be little incentive for persons to do the renovations or for the improvement of the neighborhood.

So paying more in taxes is an incentive? Most people improve properties for resale value or functional use not so they can pay more in taxes.

As people improve the structure of their property, they have in essence, improved the value of the property and the surrounding neighborhood, justifying a tax value increase.

Whether or not this "justifies" a tax increase is a matter of government policy and is not an objective argument by any means. I say it does not necessarily...any modification to the deed would raise your tax value in my proposal (adding a room a garage etc.), but your NEIGHBOR improving his property should not raise your TAX value.

This is a practice that the city of Raleigh is practicing throughout downtown.

True, and its precisely why reporters love to write about it

Without development, the town would find itself in a downward spiral of depression.

As far as job creation this may be true but development and the depressed state of a neighborhood are not inherently related.

If I were someone living in the Haywood Community, I would take out the gracious loan offering from the city and fix my place up. Then, I would sell it for a profit if I could no longer afford the taxes on it.

For a profit...great! Then the city can revalue the property....I am proposing that the city should not revalue property at regular intervals regardless of when people bought it. Some areas have "homestead" laws that help older residents keep their homes when surrounding property value increases...homestead laws allow an area to gentrify according to normal economics but keep people from being forced out due to that same economic upheaval and subsequent tax increases.

I see no racial undertones with this argument, only economic undertones. Not everything in life is fair. If you truely feel that gentrification is completely racially motivated, then I have to disagree. If this were the case, then you could apply this same logic across the board to the Wal-Marts running the small businessman out of town; to the real estate developers pushing the businesses in the warehouse district out. I dunno, I just see it as the law of economics. As demand rises, so do prices...irregardless of race, ethnicity, age, income, etc.

Again I am not making any sort of racial argument here and I agree that gentrification is unfairly tagged as a racial term. Economics? Fine with that too. Just not the tag along tax system that coattails on the economics. Raise taxes city-wide if necessary.

[ncwebguy]

As a resident of the area, I feel like I have to say something, and am interested in how the feedback on this board develops.

Anyway, the following line in the article is just plain wrong -- "Five white homeowners have recently moved in next to the DeBellis residence." I live two doors down from Mr. DeBellis, have been there four and a half years now, and moved in a couple of weeks before. The corner has been quite stable, with the most recent nearby sale being a year or two ago now. There have been a few other new homeowners in the area -- Swain and Jones just north of Edenton -- but not in/near Martin-Haywood. To help with economic diversity, Habitat for Humanity has built three or four houses near the Martin/Swain intersection, and another four in the Cooke/Jones/Swain area.

Also, the article does not mention that approx. 75% of the housing stock in the neighborhood is *rented*. 3/4ths of the current residents have *nothing* to gain by doing renovations or making any effort to improve the neighborhood, and that is where the problem lies. 90% of attendance at neighborhood watch meetings were the "new" residents -- the "old" residents either didn't care, were too scared, or happily lived with the high crime as long as it kept "The Man" from moving in. There has been an increase in Latino residents, but the neighborhood is overwhelmingly African American.

Most property owners are slumlords, doing the bare minimum to keep housing inspectors off their back. The city made an effort to do across the board housing inspections to bring the whole neighborhood up to code. The idea was good, but the implementation was bad -- external inspectors were brought in and determined some offenses to be worse than they were and treated the tenants (homeowner and renter alike) with little to no respect.

The problem now is these slumlords would rather board up their properties for a big pay off down the road, which in turn runs out the residents who have spent a significant portion of their life in the neighborhood.

This plus the lack of participation in neighborhood watch/community policing has left the door open for street hustlers to openly conduct business. This has changed, with RPD making a lot of arrests in recent weeks.

The average income of the "broader" neighborhood, bounded by New Bern, Tarboro/Rock Quarry/MLK, and East street is only 1/3 of that of the city average, but housing costs are on average almost 1/2 of the city as a whole. This leads to renters *never* being able to save enough to buy within the neighborhood. With all problems (real and perceived) people move out as soon as they can afford it. This is something that the old and new residents of the area are trying to change. Tools for this include the Habitat houses, the loans to help with repairs, building on empty lots and selling to residents at 80% or below of median income (reguardless of race), etc. The housing bonds approved in the recent election facilitate all these programs.

An Eastside Visioning process kicked off last Thursday, and will go on to the end of June 06 to figure out what can be done and how to go about instituting these changes in an equitable manner. If that meeting was any indication, there are people who care and want to get involved, to be be at the table, a stakeholder in the gentrification process, not inadvertanlty affected by it. The new planning director and other city planning staff were there so it seems like there is a lot of buy in on the city's part as well.

Race most plays a part when outside interests come in and tell the neighborhood what it wants. They come in and play the race card, making statements that "only African Americans should be allowed to live in the neighborhood" and "the city is on a big land grab, trying to run out/intimidate home owners into selling their houses on the cheap".

A meeting will be held in January specifically to discuss the gentrification issue.

[avery]

Jones 133. Good reply and your points are well taken. As for tax valuations...I think they should be adjusted every 2 years or so. I think it would be unfair to wait until property changes hands as it might leave potential buyers in the dark about what they can expect for taxes prior to a large investment. The whole idea of waiting until property changes hands sounds great in theory, but it does nothing to help our current economic needs of the county and city either. I think it would be unfair to expect newer homeowners to shoulder a greater burden of the tax needs than my fellow neighbor. We all benefit from the same city and county services, so why should I pay more? Because I moved in later? No, I think that it should be fair to both parties. Should tax rates be capped to a maximum increase per valuation? I think this could be looked into to create some equity across the board.

I also don't think Boylan Heights should be independant. I think taxation pratices should be carried out in a similar fashion to similar neighborhoods. I am hardly ever a fan of special treatment.

I think rising property values should ultimately lead to higher tax valuations. There has to be some sort of logical reasoning behind the valuation process. I don't think an arbitrary number should be used and most likely, should be based on the value of the property. This has more to do with supply and demand than it does renovations, etc. However, the two are interrelated and to some, higher tax values in the neighborhood and home prices on the rise does encourage fixer-uppers. Appraisals in the open real-estate market work similarly and the valuations should take on some of these characteristics, but to what extent, I don't know.

[Jones_]

I think it would be unfair to expect newer homeowners to shoulder a greater burden of the tax needs than my fellow neighbor. We all benefit from the same city and county services, so why should I pay more? Because I moved in later?

This is a good point, and one that I did not consider. I also know what I said had the negative impact of possibly being an incentive to not sell a home. Maybe something along the lines for residents at or above the age to receive social security checks can have property tax held constant as long as they remain at thir residence...that way working folks, who can better shoulder more tax burden will continue to do so, but those who are retired and on fixed income are not hit with that.....taking into consideration life expentantcy, a particluar property would never have its property tax value held steady for a huge length of time. Anyway, good discussion.

[avery]

This is a good point, and one that I did not consider. I also know what I said had the negative impact of possibly being an incentive to not sell a home. Maybe something along the lines for residents at or above the age to receive social security checks can have property tax held constant as long as they remain at thir residence...that way working folks, who can better shoulder more tax burden will continue to do so, but those who are retired and on fixed income are not hit with that.....taking into consideration life expentantcy, a particluar property would never have its property tax value held steady for a huge length of time. Anyway, good discussion.

I enjoy the discussion myself. Please don't take anything I say personally. I like your idea here of putting a cap on elderly. We all fall into tax brackets based on our household incomes. Maybe this would be a solution or a means to devising one. The only problem with this is it hurts the city's efforts on gentrification. I know that people don't like to hear that terminology, but it is what it is. I too like to see areas "turn around" and I realize making an area unaffordable to those who can't do anything with their properties is a way to bring in new people with the money. Unfortunately it just displaces these individuals and provides no solution to the underlying socio-economic problems. It does not help the existing people in the neighborhood most of the time. If the process keeps up, we will either push these people into a far corner of town or we will have to ante up and provide greater subsidized housing. Boy, politics can be tricky.

[Jones_]

I enjoy the discussion myself. Please don't take anything I say personally. I like your idea here of putting a cap on elderly. We all fall into tax brackets based on our household incomes. Maybe this would be a solution or a means to devising one. The only problem with this is it hurts the city's efforts on gentrification. I know that people don't like to hear that terminology, but it is what it is. I too like to see areas "turn around" and I realize making an area unaffordable to those who can't do anything with their properties is a way to bring in new people with the money. Unfortunately it just displaces these individuals and provides no solution to the underlying socio-economic problems. It does not help the existing people in the neighborhood most of the time. If the process keeps up, we will either push these people into a far corner of town or we will have to ante up and provide greater subsidized housing. Boy, politics can be tricky.

Indeed, underlying issues are where the problems are...why is there a race/economic correlation in the year 2005? The effort to densify our cities, always carries the weight of increased property values and the subsequent issues of affordability. The answer used to be to build places like Halifax Court and Chavis Heights, enclaves of government sponsered afforability, but as we both realize this nnot only fails to address underlying issues but encourages other problems to develop like increased crime. What to do? I agree its all very tricky. And of course no offense taken in any way. I appreciate the critiquing (sp) of my thoughts.

[ncwebguy]

There is a race/economic correlation in the year 2005 because such generalizations are easy. The media are quick to jump to conclusions such as "Here is a historic African-American neighborhood that is not doing well, therefore African-Americans are economically challenged."

On the tax issue, I don't know how it is everywhere, but in Wake County, structure and land are evaluated independently. So as a neighborhood improves, the land evaluation can go up while the structure valuation stays the same or increases at a slower rate. Or if the neighborhood/land has not significantly improved, but you add an extra room, garage, etc. then that can be increased.

In Martin-Haywood, most property sells for more than the tax value. Even the city of Raleigh has bought houses for more than tax value. Either they're paying a premium to slumlords who have done nothing to improve their house and the neighborhood, or they realize tax value apprasials are behind fair market value.

Keeping tax valuations low in "distressed" neighborhoods in theory frees up those dollars to go toward upkeep, rennovation and improvements, but it usually just ends up in the owner's pocket.

The problem is finding the balance of trying to encourage development while keeping the existing population happy, which is quite the tightwire act.

On top of all this, the tax dollars collected in southeast Raleigh have been funding improvments for the rest of the city while they have been left in a relative time warp.

[ericurbanite]

but your NEIGHBOR improving his property should not raise your TAX value.

Well if thats the case I would be living in San Diego baby!!

Of course the tax value is going to increase thats just the way it is, thats economics. Im not saying one neighbor is going to do that to YOUR tax value but over time generally a concentrated area that re-develops itself, property and tax values will increase and that desired concentrated area (land) will over time have less supply which inevitably will raise values across the board because of the increased demand.

Thats why the money being poured into downtown Raleigh is so great. Land Values are going up and when that goes up Private developers start snatching up availabe land, and hopefully we will continue to see the trend of increased development throughout downtown.

[avery]

Well if thats the case I would be living in San Diego baby!!

Of course the tax value is going to increase thats just the way it is, thats economics. Im not saying one neighbor is going to do that to YOUR tax value but over time generally a concentrated area that re-develops itself, property and tax values will increase and that desired concentrated area (land) will over time have less supply which inevitably will raise values across the board because of the increased demand.

Thats why the money being poured into downtown Raleigh is so great. Land Values are going up and when that goes up Private developers start snatching up availabe land, and hopefully we will continue to see the trend of increased development throughout downtown.

Yeah, it's all economics. There are going to be winners and there are going to be losers. Unfortunately, in order to have progress and revitalization the losers are going to cry foul as a defense. Instead of talking about the economics of the situation, the local media likes to take the side of the less fortunate and emphasize the negatives instead of the positives. Yes, the negatives are bad, but everything comes at a cost whether we like it or not.

[ericurbanite]

Yeah, it's all economics. There are going to be winners and there are going to be losers. Unfortunately, in order to have progress and revitalization the losers are going to cry foul as a defense. Instead of talking about the economics of the situation, the local media likes to take the side of the less fortunate and emphasize the negatives instead of the positives. Yes, the negatives are bad, but everything comes at a cost whether we like it or not.

Exactly and thats the Media. I watched the news Today and I think the first 5 storys were like murder, kidnapping and robberry, and the last one was the possibility of snow/ice here in the triangle. Even ESPN drives me nuts anymore, all they focus on is the soap opera in sports instead of just highlights of games.

I guess thats why World War 2 was a success(measured in a us victory of course not lives lost) because you didnt have the imbedded media giving daily updates of how many people died this day and that day.

[avery]

Exactly and thats the Media. I watched the news Today and I think the first 5 storys were like murder, kidnapping and robberry, and the last one was the possibility of snow/ice here in the triangle. Even ESPN drives me nuts anymore, all they focus on is the soap opera in sports instead of just highlights of games.

I guess thats why World War 2 was a success(measured in a us victory of course not lives lost) because you didnt have the imbedded media giving daily updates of how many people died this day and that day.

The media 60 years ago was much different than it is today. Censorship was a common practice. Even Ozzy and Harriet slept in seperate beds

Back then, it was the glory that was emphasized whether it be WWII, Babe Ruth or the scientific marvels of space travel. I wish a bit of that would come back to mainstream America. Unfortunately,TV rating dictate everything and people would rather see OJ Simpson, Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire, Temptation Island...

[Jones_]

Well if thats the case I would be living in San Diego baby!!

Of course the tax value is going to increase thats just the way it is, thats economics. Im not saying one neighbor is going to do that to YOUR tax value but over time generally a concentrated area that re-develops itself, property and tax values will increase and that desired concentrated area (land) will over time have less supply which inevitably will raise values across the board because of the increased demand.

Thats why the money being poured into downtown Raleigh is so great. Land Values are going up and when that goes up Private developers start snatching up availabe land, and hopefully we will continue to see the trend of increased development throughout downtown.

Again......economics and the mechanisms of how a government decides to tax its citizens are not the same. However most places do assess property taxes according to the economy driven value of a property. It is precisely this economy-tax policy conjunction that drives out poorer residents. I have elected to look at the possibility of removing that connection in certain cases....for all existing residents? For those over age 65? Don't know what would work if anything. Avery pointed out some problems with the first approach which I appreciate. Just telling me that "of course" the tax value will go up is not taking a hard look at what is going on here and deciding if it is worth another approach such as enacting some sort of homestead law. ncwebguy...race/economic correlations are about the easiest things to provide hard statistics for I have ever seen. There is not an african american equilivant to Hayes Barton anywhere in NC.

[ncwebguy]

race/economic correlations are about the easiest things to provide hard statistics for I have ever seen. There is not an african american equilivant to Hayes Barton anywhere in NC.

So is the converse of this argument true? Because there is not an African American equivalent to Hayes Barton anywhere in NC *that you know of*, you can make a race/economic correlation? I can't argue against logic that says "since Robert Johnson, Michael Jordan, Raymond Felton, Julius Peppers, etc. don't live in the same neighborhood, you can make a race/economic correlation".

This thread, and every other one on southeast raleigh, devloves into economic debates instead of discussion about the city of Raleigh itself, so I really have no need to contribute.