Jump to content

Some Raleigh Trash Talk


citiboi27610

Recommended Posts

Unfortunately, this rant is the sort of thing that results from ignorance of macroeconomics, a poor understanding of urban planning, and a lack of faith in liberal democracy.

Hey- an unsupported personal attack! Terrific. If you want to trot this kind of stuff out, at least go ahead and explain to me why you think I'm ignorant on a variety of subjects. I'll then be glad to respond. Finally, if you think city governance in Raleigh is liberal democracy, please put down the crack pipe. The real estate industry owns this town, and the people have very little sway by comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 48
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Overall Meeker has done his part in helping improve Raleigh, but there is only so much a Mayor can do. There also has to be improvements made at the county, state, and even federal level. State government can help by allowing counties to impose impact fees, while county governments actually imposing them. There seems to be momentum for these fees in lieu of all the year-round school debate, and the need for more schools.

The federal goverment could help by being more supportive of mass transit systems. Having a forward-thinking mentality, and having cities, like Raleigh, plan their growth around a transit system seems logical to most of us.

A combination of these ideas, along with a great mayor/city council would do wonders for Raleigh. The upcoming elections are an important way to get our voices heard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey- an unsupported personal attack! Terrific. If you want to trot this kind of stuff out, at least go ahead and explain to me why you think I'm ignorant on a variety of subjects. I'll then be glad to respond. Finally, if you think city governance in Raleigh is liberal democracy, please put down the crack pipe. The real estate industry owns this town, and the people have very little sway by comparison.

It's far from unsupported. The original post really speaks for itself. "The real estate industry owns this town"? Come on. I've posted brief criticisms of your views before, but this is hardly the place to provide anyone with a comprehensive understanding of how cities are built.

I do think that your post fits quite well in this thread. There's a nice correlation between it and the article that the OP mentioned. Both are rambling diatribes whose only common theme is that the author is angry that not enough people see the world the way he does. There's nothing wrong with that necessarily, but it can't be considered productive criticism, either.

Oh, and if you disagree with my use of "liberal democracy", I can only suggest that you consult a dictionary.

Hope that helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Cary can impose reasonable impact fees, why can't Raleigh? There are a lot of things about Cary I don't like, but their suspension of building permits, which seemed crazy at the time, made growth there slightly more managable.

Since schools are funded with county taxes, there should be a county impact fee to cover those costs. Local street maintenance falls to the city, so it should collect an impact fee as well, with a higer fee for new developments that add infrastructre vs. infill development.

I don't see how weekday morning planning commission meetings benefit anyone but people who can make those meetings on a regular basis. It is slightly more "democratic" as the poll tax and literacy tests of the past, since outlawed by the 24th amendment to the Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, this rant is the sort of thing that results from ignorance of macroeconomics, a poor understanding of urban planning, and a lack of faith in liberal democracy.

Give me a break. The point being made is that status quo macroeconomics results in poor urban planning. It is the definition of liberal democracy that politicians make decisions within the framework of a constitution to improve the lives of citizens. Liberal democracies are created because of lack of faith in laissez-faire to give a favorable end result to anyone but the self interested party. This is borne out all over this sprawling mess of a city, and you seem to be quite pleased with it......developer or recipient of lobbying dollars...which is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's far from unsupported. The original post really speaks for itself. "The real estate industry owns this town"? Come on. I've posted brief criticisms of your views before, but this is hardly the place to provide anyone with a comprehensive understanding of how cities are built.

I do think that your post fits quite well in this thread. There's a nice correlation between it and the article that the OP mentioned. Both are rambling diatribes whose only common theme is that the author is angry that not enough people see the world the way he does. There's nothing wrong with that necessarily, but it can't be considered productive criticism, either.

Oh, and if you disagree with my use of "liberal democracy", I can only suggest that you consult a dictionary.

Hope that helps.

The real estate lobby, while not the only interest in town, is the dominant force in Raleigh politics. Want evidence? Raleigh recently saw a 40+ story skyscraper, in a floodplain, that was in conflict with the comprehensive plan, go from announcement in the paper to rezoning approval by the City Council in one week. ONE WEEK. Where's the oversight? Where's the reasonable time period for citizens to review plans and comment? It's nonexistent. I could abide the approval more if there was a process and people were allowed to speak out with ample time to review plans and prepare comments, but process in Raleigh is for insiders only. Please find me another city in North America with anything resembling a functional economy where the citizens get shut out in such dramatic fashion.

And yes, when stuff like this happens, no citizen should have much confidence that good governance is what goes on in Raleigh, no matter how much "liberal democracy" delivered these people into office.

Want more evidence of real estate influence? Visit the WakePol blog at the N&O. Under "Local Advocacy Groups," there are 10 listed. 2 of them, Americans for Prosperity and Triangle Community Coalition, are focused fulltime on issues for the real estate lobby. The John Locke Foundation and Wake County Taxpayers Association, while ideologically broader, end up covering a lot of the same ground. That's 4 out of 10 groups working heavily on Real Estate's behalf.

Scroll down further and look at the various number of posts on the blog according to advocacy groups, and you'll see that most groups have a handful of posts related to them. The Homebuilders' Association has the most at 16.

Bob Geary has done a good job of covering the fact that most planning decisionmaking meetings happen during the day in Raleigh, which minimizes citizen input. In most other municipalities, these hearings happen almost exclusively IN THE EVENING so citizens can participate.

Now let's talk about economics, macro and micro. I assume if you had expanded your arguments, you'd tell me something about how the free market leads to all the crummy development in the area. I've covered that before in an earlier post:

Want to see how "free" the market is? Call up the building permit office and tell them there's a piece of land you have your eye on in a residential neighborhood just outside the beltline in North Raleigh. Tell them you want to tear down the house on the land, and build a 1500 sq ft ground-floor coffee shop/bar that comes right up to the sidewalk with 1 story of office above (also 1500 sq ft) and 2 stories with two 750 sq ft apartments on each floor above the offices. Total space 6000 sq ft.

Say "what do I have to do to get it built?" Write down the steps required.

Tomorrow, call up with a similar scenario except tell them the exact same thing except you want to build a 4500 sq ft single family McStarter Castle with a 1500 sq ft garage. Write down the steps required.

Compare. Contrast.

And since you missed the whole point of that paragraph you described as a rant, here it is. Bob Geary suggests we need to debate what makes a great city. I'm sure there are many people in Raleigh interested in doing so. However, there are powerful vested interests in the city that want nothing more than to keep that debate from happening because they are making a lot of money off the status quo, at the expense of our infrastructure, particularly in the education and transportation realms. Those who support debating how and why to make Raleigh a great city should know what they're up against, and it is most certainly germane to the original article.

In closing, I haven't seen significant evidence you know all that much about how cities are built "comprehensively." I think you have a good idea of standard "suburban planning" approval procedures in Raleigh, and you either don't notice or don't care about the negative consequences they have for the community at large. This is certainly worthy of debate in this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WOAH

This discussion if officially WAY over my head

anyone wanna dumb it down for me?

Although I can sense the catiness.

xD

I think it boils down to:

"Whose interests are represented by the development approval process in Raleigh-- the citizens who elect the Council or those who make significant profits off the status quo? If it's the latter, is the development approval process in Raleigh structured to the benefit the development community to the exclusion of voting citizens? If the previous question can be answered yes, is it by accident or design?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's as a defeatist an attitude as I have heard in a long time. Remember, we are a democracy and there are leaders that think like most everyone here in this forum (Crowder, Stephenson in Raleigh). It's a matter of people like you and me getting off our arses and getting involved.

I

Sorry, UP poster here with over 500 posts and I don't agree with Crowder on most items. I think he is stuck in his own timewarp. Word is still out on Stephenson but I like him better than Regan but that is not saying anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You obviously feel very passionate about these things. Unfortunately, your views reveal that you really know very little about the approval process or real estate development in general. You make accusations that suggest that these decisions happen in a vacuum. For the handful of proposals that actually see daylight in the press or on this forum, hundreds of others have been thoroughly researched, evaluated, and discarded.

The Soleil tower is an excellent example. You're obviously not happy that the developers discussed their project with city officials and worked out compromises in advance of a public announcement. That's the way all projects happen, in every city in the US. The developer takes a very significant risk with every new project, and they would be negligent if they didn't work these things out in advance.

These projects don't just "happen". The developer doesn't just come along and build crap and force people to buy it. They work out a compromise between the city, their investors, their clients, and the demands of the market to create a project that will SELL. And lots of projects don't sell. People on this board ask all the time "what happened to such and such development?" It didn't sell. Not yet, anyway. Meanwhile, that developer is losing money. They're paying architects and engineers to revise the plans, hoping a new design will attract a new tenant, or solving a problem that's holding up municipal approval. And lots of those projects get sold or go bankrupt.

Take a look at a major developer... Trump makes a good example. Or closer to home, how about Hatem? These guys have had huge, high-profile failures. But they manage to make enough projects work in order to keep going. Single-family development is no different. It just takes a little slump in the housing market or perhaps a lawsuit to force weaker builders out of business.

But none of these ideas fit within that other worldview. After all, people would ride mass transit and live in compact, urban developments if it were up to them, right? I mean, people don't willingly CHOOSE to live in places like Brier Creek or Wakefield. They live there because the zoning codes made them live there. Because the developer bought out the City Council, and the mayor is "afraid" (your word) to confront these evil builders.

If only the government would have the foresight to subsidize a public rail transit system and encourage dense, urban development, we'd all be better off, no? Perhaps they could increase the fuel tax for personal automobiles by a couple of dollars per gallon. Make it less attractive to drive automobiles, and encourage transit ridership. Just like Europe.... er... what's that? Between 1980 and 2000, European passenger travel has continued to favor private automobiles? In fact, the private automobile's share increased from 76% to 78%, while transit (all varieties) decreased from 21% to 16%? Despite the $6/gal gasoline, the centralized planning, the multi-billion dollar government transit projects, people increasingly prefer the convenience of the car to public transportation?

Regardless, let's continue to proceed from the notion that the entire city staff is in the pockets of the real estate lobby. Let's also consider that the large majority of the backers of the TTA regional rail project (certainly all of those with money) are also, in some way, involved in real estate development. Look around -- land speculators, developers, contractors, architects, engineers... aside from the environmental groups, there's nary a soul backing the project that's not financially involved in it.

So if the City does anything that the real estate lobby wants (your accusation), and if most of the people backing the project are members of the real estate lobby, then why hasn't it been built yet?

The contradictions are baffling. You complain that Raleigh didn't adhere to the comprehensive plan when they approved Soleil, and that it was too easy for the developer, then offer an example suggesting that it's too difficult to get a mixed-use project approved. Which is it? And no, it has nothing to do with "big" development versus "little" development. All of those things that you'd have to do in order to get your coffee house built are the things that "big" developers deal with day and and day out.

The lack of refinement is insightful, though. It's interesting to see how a generic term like "big real estate" can make faceless a group of individuals, each with his own unique opinions, goals, and beliefs. It also makes it easier to lump them all together under one banner, then sweep them all aside. Individually, we can laud folks like Hatem or Reynolds and vilify Sanjay Mundra. But aren't they all "big real estate"?

But that's just it. It's not about discussion. Geary wasn't interested in discussion, and it's not clear that transitman is, either. It's about assuming a worldview, dismissing the opinions of others, and then complaining that no one else sees things quite the way you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, UP poster here with over 500 posts and I don't agree with Crowder on most items. I think he is stuck in his own timewarp. Word is still out on Stephenson but I like him better than Regan but that is not saying anything.

Any leaders you do agree with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know why you guys are so critical of Meeker, he has done a great job. Directly because of the Fayetteville st. Renissance and the new CC we have

a) RBC

b) site 1

c) The Lafayette

d) The Marriott

Four new significant buildings, three of which have housing? Sounds like growth to me! Not to mention, no one Mayor will completely stop Raleigh's suburban sprawl, it takes TIME, some of you guys are so impatient. Right now, we are making a name for downtown, people know about, they think its kinda cool, they want to check it out, This is a CRITICAL first step. Have some patience, give this city 15 years and see where we are.

Agree...

Everyone being so critical calling for change better think twice. The next mayor is likely to be a "Art Pope" produced prot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any leaders you do agree with?

I agree (and disagree) with decisions. Nothing more and nothing less. And vote for people who move in the directions of what I think is right for the city. I agreed with Meeker and Crowder on certain things and I have not agreed on several. Much more with Crowder as I think he is a

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real estate/development lobby is one of the most powerful lobbies in every level of government of our country. They pour exorbitant amounts of money into campaigns that support their causes. Why? Because they want to continue taking advantage of the lack of regulations/fees, that make their industry highly profitable. The lobbying and campaign funding is simply an investment in their industry so they can continue exploiting the lack of regulations.

I will not go into the details of what expense this has on the rest of us (non real estate/developers). They include our dependence on foreign oil due to our car-dependence, the reduction of green/open spaces, existing homeowners paying for the cost of new development (sewers, roads, SCHOOLS) while developers pay for practically none of it, and MANY other reasons.

Many people do not a choice but to drive, since they do not have access to a transportation system that will meet their needs. BUT once you present them with a CHOICE, then we'll see how many people will choose to drive. A lot of Europe also has a problem with sprawl, which logically means more people are driving. But are these people driving because they are forced to or because they want to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of Europe also has a problem with sprawl, which logically means more people are driving. But are these people driving because they are forced to or because they want to?

They're driving because they've made a choice. They've weighed their own personal priorities and made a decision based on those things. It could be cost, convenience, personal preference, etc. It really doesn't matter, and we could come up with hundreds of different scenarios that might explain one choice over another.

Personal choice is a pretty basic principle that often seems to be misunderstood. It's like blaming developers for needing more schools and then insisting that they help fund them. More schools are needed because hundreds of people have decided to move to a new city. It isn't Field of Dreams, the developer didn't build the houses and thus cause the people to move here. And even if they did, where would one suppose that the money for the schools comes from?

It's a variation on the broken window fallacy. Let's say we impose higher costs on the developer instead of raising taxes on the population at large. A developer's profit margin doesn't decrease. They cut their costs and raise the sale price in order to make up the difference. So the carpenter gets paid less, the homeowner has to spend more, and the developer still makes about as much money as they would have made in the first place. That's not to say that there shouldn't be an impact fee, simply that raising such fees isn't a solution to the problem in and of itself. It's simple economic theory being confused for politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You obviously feel very passionate about these things. Unfortunately, your views reveal that you really know very little about the approval process or real estate development in general. You make accusations that suggest that these decisions happen in a vacuum. For the handful of proposals that actually see daylight in the press or on this forum, hundreds of others have been thoroughly researched, evaluated, and discarded.

The Soleil tower is an excellent example. You're obviously not happy that the developers discussed their project with city officials and worked out compromises in advance of a public announcement. That's the way all projects happen, in every city in the US. The developer takes a very significant risk with every new project, and they would be negligent if they didn't work these things out in advance.

These projects don't just "happen". The developer doesn't just come along and build crap and force people to buy it. They work out a compromise between the city, their investors, their clients, and the demands of the market to create a project that will SELL. And lots of projects don't sell. People on this board ask all the time "what happened to such and such development?" It didn't sell. Not yet, anyway. Meanwhile, that developer is losing money. They're paying architects and engineers to revise the plans, hoping a new design will attract a new tenant, or solving a problem that's holding up municipal approval. And lots of those projects get sold or go bankrupt.

Take a look at a major developer... Trump makes a good example. Or closer to home, how about Hatem? These guys have had huge, high-profile failures. But they manage to make enough projects work in order to keep going. Single-family development is no different. It just takes a little slump in the housing market or perhaps a lawsuit to force weaker builders out of business.

But none of these ideas fit within that other worldview. After all, people would ride mass transit and live in compact, urban developments if it were up to them, right? I mean, people don't willingly CHOOSE to live in places like Brier Creek or Wakefield. They live there because the zoning codes made them live there. Because the developer bought out the City Council, and the mayor is "afraid" (your word) to confront these evil builders.

If only the government would have the foresight to subsidize a public rail transit system and encourage dense, urban development, we'd all be better off, no? Perhaps they could increase the fuel tax for personal automobiles by a couple of dollars per gallon. Make it less attractive to drive automobiles, and encourage transit ridership. Just like Europe.... er... what's that? Between 1980 and 2000, European passenger travel has continued to favor private automobiles? In fact, the private automobile's share increased from 76% to 78%, while transit (all varieties) decreased from 21% to 16%? Despite the $6/gal gasoline, the centralized planning, the multi-billion dollar government transit projects, people increasingly prefer the convenience of the car to public transportation?

Regardless, let's continue to proceed from the notion that the entire city staff is in the pockets of the real estate lobby. Let's also consider that the large majority of the backers of the TTA regional rail project (certainly all of those with money) are also, in some way, involved in real estate development. Look around -- land speculators, developers, contractors, architects, engineers... aside from the environmental groups, there's nary a soul backing the project that's not financially involved in it.

So if the City does anything that the real estate lobby wants (your accusation), and if most of the people backing the project are members of the real estate lobby, then why hasn't it been built yet?

The contradictions are baffling. You complain that Raleigh didn't adhere to the comprehensive plan when they approved Soleil, and that it was too easy for the developer, then offer an example suggesting that it's too difficult to get a mixed-use project approved. Which is it? And no, it has nothing to do with "big" development versus "little" development. All of those things that you'd have to do in order to get your coffee house built are the things that "big" developers deal with day and and day out.

The lack of refinement is insightful, though. It's interesting to see how a generic term like "big real estate" can make faceless a group of individuals, each with his own unique opinions, goals, and beliefs. It also makes it easier to lump them all together under one banner, then sweep them all aside. Individually, we can laud folks like Hatem or Reynolds and vilify Sanjay Mundra. But aren't they all "big real estate"?

But that's just it. It's not about discussion. Geary wasn't interested in discussion, and it's not clear that transitman is, either. It's about assuming a worldview, dismissing the opinions of others, and then complaining that no one else sees things quite the way you do.

You are comparing apples and oranges...its not simply one development preference over another. Just like some developers go under because their methods in the short term didn't cut it, (poor marketing, poor construction estimates or management etc.) what people are screaming for is some consideration of long term development strategies. While a developer doesn't have to bear the cost of x-year present worth, the rest of us do. Downtown Raleigh has burned several times in the past. It was cost effective to build wood frame buildings at the time although brick buildings were certainly possible and built by those with the means and foresight to do so...banks, government buildings housing records, etc. After each fire there was a call to build more brick buildings, which got mixed results. The fires we face now are associated with energy costs and the sustainability of developments on that backdrop. "Big Time" development has the means and assumably the expertise to account for this but often chooses not to. So our liberally democratic city government (by definition) is supposed to step in and plan where immediate bottom lines suffer from doing so....and yet ours does little, according to Geary, and several people on this board, myself among them. It does not take a career on a development team, or an understanding of every current approval hoop to understand this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yesterday:

Unfortunately, this rant is the sort of thing that results from ignorance of macroeconomics, a poor understanding of urban planning, and a lack of faith in liberal democracy.
Today:

It's about assuming a worldview, dismissing the opinions of others, and then complaining that no one else sees things quite the way you do.

And I'm dismissive? Please.

The substance of what you respond to in my posts illustrates that you continue to miss the point. I'm very well aware that developers come into city planning offices all the time for site plan discussions with city staff, often for projects that never break ground. I understand very well that there are negotiations of "move that dumpster here" and "add a sidewalk there" that get resolved prior to going to a planning board meeting, never mind a City Council meeting.

You continue to misunderstand my objections to Soleil. I believe it's a crummy, anti-urban design at the base of the skyscraper, even though the top is reasonably attractive. That's one objection, but that's more aesthetic than anything else. The big objection is to the way the City Council rushed this thing from any awareness to rezoning approval, especially considering it is such a big project, in a floodplain, and it is in conflict with the allegedly citizen-driven comp plan. There's no way a neighborhood group had any amount of meaningful time to examine this project and weigh in. That's the City Council's fault. With such a project, 2 to 3 more weeks of opportunity for citizens to become aware of and review plans was not about to sink the Soleil Center. I don't think that necessary would have stopped Soleil from being built, but it would encourage a dynamic in which long-term considerations for the city are weighed in the balance with short-term considerations for the developers.

Of course not all, but a significant number of people would choose other housing arrangements other than the Brier Creeks and Wakefields of the world if they had more choice, and indeed, in areas where there are more choices, the market tells us that this is true. Most new urbanist subdivisions sell at a premium price per square foot over conventional suburban development. Southern Village in Chapel Hill was a perfect example of this when it came into existence.

As for "encouraging" dense urban development, I don't think governments even have to encourage it. They simply have to stop BANNING it. Why is housing ITB so expensive compared to elsewhere? Simple- there are very few new units going in, and resales are limited as well. You could probably make a great deal of money on the free market tearing down one $300,000 single family home ITB and building six smaller $275,000 condos on the same land, 2 to a floor, in a 3-story building. Of course, this type of action is generally prevented by zoning codes, so it almost never happens. The zoning restrictions ITB that preclude denser development are an artificial constraint on the supply of housing to meet the demand for ITB living.

In terms of talking about subsidizing transportation, all transportation is subsidized. What do you think an interSTATE highway from West Raleigh to North Raleigh (540) is? Do you think the massive access subsidy of that road to the land all around it didn't affect the settlement patterns and travel choices in North Raleigh?

I've never said developers were evil. That's your language. I do think that many of the tract home builders, like Toll Brothers or KB Homes, are greedy and consistently put their national shareholders ahead of the communities in which they build. The region and state of NC subsidized the construction of I-540, to North Raleigh, which had massive cost overruns. The subdivision developers who then built most of the homes along 540 were the primary beneficiaries, while the taxpayers absorbed overruns, with the development community not contributing any impact fees.

I could go on, and maybe will do so later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone have the numbers on Europeans who don't drive or take transportation but walk or ride a bicycle to where they need to go? Are those numbers up or down? In 80%+ of this state, there is no public transportation. Are those people making "choices" to drive? No, they can either drive or not eat, which really is not a choice. They can't choose to live in a place where they can walk or bike to work and the store because those places DO NOT EXIST due to the last few decades of *politically* set land use policy.

Let's say we impose higher costs on the developer instead of raising taxes on the population at large. A developer's profit margin doesn't decrease. They cut their costs and raise the sale price in order to make up the difference. So the carpenter gets paid less, the homeowner has to spend more, and the developer still makes about as much money as they would have made in the first place. That's not to say that there shouldn't be an impact fee, simply that raising such fees isn't a solution to the problem in and of itself. It's simple economic theory being confused for politics.

The devloper's profit margin does not stay the same by *their* choice, but the market's if it pays more money for lower quality product. If not, the developer lowers their profit margin or builds for a different market. When prices increase, the developer's *profit* grows if the profit margin stays the same. The more units large scale developers like Toll Brothers, KB, etc., can spread marketing, planning, lobbying, architecture costs across, the less it eats into the profits in each house. This leads to the cul-de-sac tract housing that delivers "affordablity" but doesn't pay the costs of the schools, roads, etc. There would be *no* market for this product if it was not accessible via 440, 540, 1/64 through Cary, 55 to Apex and beyond, etc. Developers are getting a free ride, with infrastructure doing their marketing for them.

This sprawling development puts people further from grocery stores, offices, etc. and makes the car required. When this is the only product available, citizens do NOT have a "choice". There are no brick buildings, only sticks.

Economic theory is confused for politics *because* "tax payers associations" (I pay taxes, yet I doubt I could be a member) make it so. When "don't raise my taxes" is their only issue, how do you seperate economics and politics? When political decisions are made during the day when only those with a financial interest can afford to get involved, those without a direct financial interest are shut out.

When "Glen-Tree" was approved, the room was packed. Were citizens given time to study plans? No. The closest nearby residents got to the approval process was a balloon in the sky. Were those who were not able to get in given an opportunity to speak? No. City Council only listened to those in the room, not the rest of the city outside it. That is where democracy in this city broke down, and continues to break down. Normal people do not accept it, they aren't making a "choice" -- they live with it because they can't vote for anyone but those who can afford to live on the $10,000/year council salary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I took a week and half respite from this site and come back to this? So much for the site getting boring !!!

I think the one conclusion that all these posts bring together is that maybe the next mayor should be a full time Mayor in a full time position. It may be in 2 years or may be in 10 years but it is something to think about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say we impose higher costs on the developer instead of raising taxes on the population at large. A developer's profit margin doesn't decrease. They cut their costs and raise the sale price in order to make up the difference. So the carpenter gets paid less, the homeowner has to spend more, and the developer still makes about as much money as they would have made in the first place. That's not to say that there shouldn't be an impact fee, simply that raising such fees isn't a solution to the problem in and of itself. It's simple economic theory being confused for politics.

They can't just raise the sale price. They have to remain competitive. The easiest thing to do would be to focus on more profitable units. In this case, smaller, more numerous, units. Arguably this would push us in the direction of urbanity. This is what impact fees do when used correctly, which we're not doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You continue to misunderstand my objections to Soleil. I believe it's a crummy, anti-urban design at the base of the skyscraper, even though the top is reasonably attractive. That's one objection, but that's more aesthetic than anything else. The big objection is to the way the City Council rushed this thing from any awareness to rezoning approval, especially considering it is such a big project, in a floodplain, and it is in conflict with the allegedly citizen-driven comp plan. There's no way a neighborhood group had any amount of meaningful time to examine this project and weigh in. That's the City Council's fault. With such a project, 2 to 3 more weeks of opportunity for citizens to become aware of and review plans was not about to sink the Soleil Center.

This is a specious argument.

The City Council vote in question was for site plan approval. The site was not rezoned. The vote was on November 1, 2005. This was after Planning Commission approved the site plan and building height at the meeting on October 25, 2005. You insist that there is "no way a neighborhood group had any amount of meaningful time to examine the project". You also said previously:

Raleigh recently saw a 40+ story skyscraper, in a floodplain, that was in conflict with the comprehensive plan, go from announcement in the paper to rezoning approval by the City Council in one week. ONE WEEK.

Now, you've also stated above that two or three weeks of additional time would have been enough for citizens to mobilize. So it sounds like you think there should be about a month of "reaction" time. Fair enough. Except that FOUR AND A HALF MONTHS passed between the time the project was publicly announced and the City Council vote. Check WRAL, WRAL, and N&O (aka the paper).

You should be able to contact your Council representatives and write a letter or three to the N&O in four months' time.

Most new urbanist subdivisions sell at a premium price per square foot over conventional suburban development.

Which is important, since they also cost more to build. Unfortunately, their benefits are strictly aesthetic, since they're rarely more dense than "conventional" suburban construction, and studies have been unable to show a decrease in automobile trips that's not attributable to self-selection. See further comments below...

As for "encouraging" dense urban development, I don't think governments even have to encourage it. They simply have to stop BANNING it. Why is housing ITB so expensive compared to elsewhere? Simple- there are very few new units going in, and resales are limited as well.

Please provide a citation. It appears that you're confusing living in a "wealthy" neighborhood with living inside the beltway in general. You can buy a large house in East Raleigh for less than $100k if you choose. There are also countless areas inside the beltway that are zoned as appropriate (and not coincidentally, outlined in the comprehensive plan) for multistory mixed use projects. The housing demand is not sufficiently high inside the beltway to encourage a lot of small mixed-use developments at this time. Roughly speaking, North Raleigh housing demand is twice as high as demand inside the beltway. For information on housing demand, see the TMLS statistics releases. It's my personal opinion that once most of the larger sites inside the beltway are occupied (3-5 yrs out), that we'll begin to see sufficient demand to infill the smaller sites with 2-4 story buildings.

You are comparing apples and oranges...its not simply one development preference over another. Just like some developers go under because their methods in the short term didn't cut it, (poor marketing, poor construction estimates or management etc.) what people are screaming for is some consideration of long term development strategies....<snip>...The fires we face now are associated with energy costs and the sustainability of developments on that backdrop.

Careful, land use in no way dictates the prevalence of automobile use. Energy costs, likewise, have little effect on the selection of transportation modes. If anything, high energy costs tend to prefer the private automobile, since its benefits of being relatively cheap and frequently replaced mean its more likely to be replaced with a higher-efficiency version if energy costs dictate the necessity. Again, see the suburbs of any major European city. They drive nearly as much as Americans, they just do it in smaller, more efficient vehicles.

They can't just raise the sale price. They have to remain competitive. The easiest thing to do would be to focus on more profitable units. In this case, smaller, more numerous, units. Arguably this would push us in the direction of urbanity. This is what impact fees do when used correctly, which we're not doing.

Remain competitive with all of the other homebuilders, who also have to pay higher impact fees, right? Smaller, more numerous units are rarely more profitable, in a general, "let's pick a rule of thumb" sense. Fixed costs (cough, impact fee) mean that a larger unit will usually be more profitable than a smaller one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Careful, land use in no way dictates the prevalence of automobile use. Energy costs, likewise, have little effect on the selection of transportation modes. If anything, high energy costs tend to prefer the private automobile, since its benefits of being relatively cheap and frequently replaced mean its more likely to be replaced with a higher-efficiency version if energy costs dictate the necessity. Again, see the suburbs of any major European city. They drive nearly as much as Americans, they just do it in smaller, more efficient vehicles.

Remain competitive with all of the other homebuilders, who also have to pay higher impact fees, right? Smaller, more numerous units are rarely more profitable, in a general, "let's pick a rule of thumb" sense. Fixed costs (cough, impact fee) mean that a larger unit will usually be more profitable than a smaller one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.