Southeast Raleigh

[DwnTwnRaleighGuy]

Article on WRAL.com this morning concerning the area just east of downtown Raleigh.

http://www.wral.com/news/9236221/detail.ht...0205182006&ts=H

Why are the people who live in this are so very bothered by the potential of development? I have always been under the believe that it's not that your area is being developed, but HOW?

[avery]

Why are the people who live in this are so very bothered by the potential of development? I have always been under the believe that it's not that your area is being developed, but HOW?

The story states it right there from one of the residents. The fear is that increased incomes and property values will cause a loss of black population from the neighborhood. I don't buy into the argument that it will result in a loss of historical character though. I think revitalizing blighted areas through preservation adds to the historical character.

This is a touchy subject that often starts controversy, even here in the forum. I think the city can strike a comprimise by including affordable housing and public developments mixed in the redevelopment. I just don't like buying into the entire race issue with regards to development. I'm color-blind when it comes to these issues. I'm always on the side of economics irregardless of a resident's race (white, black, green, purple, etc.). I also don't see rising property values as a way to push people out. Nobody is saying that a resident MUST sell their property. Those that do so, do it to make a profit. With regards to property taxes, it may cost the homeowner another $150 a year or a little over $10 a month. If it were me, I would be estatic to see the value of my residence rise.

I'm sure I will get flamed now by someone. If there is more to the story maybe I would feel differently, but I doubt it.

[DanRNC]

It is the responsibilty of the city government to revitalize/rehab neighborhoods that are blighted and crime ridden.

[DwnTwnRaleighGuy]

The story states it right there from one of the residents. The fear is that increased incomes and property values will cause a loss of black population from the neighborhood. I don't buy into the argument that it will result in a loss of historical character though. I think revitalizing blighted areas through preservation adds to the historical character.

This is a touchy subject that often starts controversy, even here in the forum. I think the city can strike a comprimise by including affordable housing and public developments mixed in the redevelopment. I just don't like buying into the entire race issue with regards to development. I'm color-blind when it comes to these issues. I'm always on the side of economics irregardless of a resident's race (white, black, green, purple, etc.). I also don't see rising property values as a way to push people out. Nobody is saying that a resident MUST sell their property. Those that do so, do it to make a profit. With regards to property taxes, it may cost the homeowner another $150 a year or a little over $10 a month. If it were me, I would be estatic to see the value of my residence rise.

I'm sure I will get flamed now by someone. If there is more to the story maybe I would feel differently, but I doubt it.

Thank you! and I totally agree with you. I would also be ecstatic if my property value were to rise as high as there's might. Also, I am so with you on this race thing. It has no place in economics to me. Money is green regardless of the race of the persons involved. (And this is coming from a GAY man whom has several ethnic backgrounds)!

It is the responsibilty of the city government to revitalize/rehab neighborhoods that are blighted and crime ridden.

Sounds nice, but where exactly is this written?

[avery]

Thank you! and I totally agree with you. I would also be ecstatic if my property value were to rise as high as there's might. Also, I am so with you on this race thing. It has no place in economics to me. Money is green regardless of the race of the persons involved. (And this is coming from a GAY man whom has several ethnic backgrounds)!

It's unfortunate, but I do think that it gets played on too much in order to strike fear against the opposition.

I actually think the redevelopment will be good for all people involved. Pride can be like quicksand. The longer you stand on it, the more likely you will sink. The city just needs to address the concerns of the citizens and move forward.

[DwnTwnRaleighGuy]

It's unfortunate, but I do think that it gets played on too much in order to strike fear against the opposition.

I actually think the redevelopment will be good for all people involved. Pride can be like quicksand. The longer you stand on it, the more likely you will sink. The city just needs to address the concerns of the citizens and move forward.

If you ever run for office, let me know I will help in any way I can, I really admire your thinking!

[pdxheel]

It is the responsibilty of the city government to revitalize/rehab neighborhoods that are blighted and crime ridden.

I also believe that it is the role of city government to provide affordable housing.

[Eastwestrob]

I also believe that it is the role of city government to provide affordable housing.

It is also evey "American Citizens" responsibility to get off their ass and find a job and make their own way. You and everyone working day to day and paying taxes are paying peoples lazy ways.

[pdxheel]

It is also evey "American Citizens" responsibility to get off their ass and find a job and make their own way. You and everyone working day to day and paying taxes are paying peoples lazy ways.

Your comment is definitely uncalled for. There are many reasons why people cannot afford housing. To suggest that it is merely laziness is unfortunate and ignorant.

[reed]

It is also evey "American Citizens" responsibility to get off their ass and find a job and make their own way. You and everyone working day to day and paying taxes are paying peoples lazy ways.

I didn't know G.W. posted here.

[dmccall]

There are many reasons why people cannot afford housing.

This is VERY true. Many people have enormous obstacles and many people need a helping hand. However, to ignore the fact that there are lazy people and dishonest, opportunistic people out there is also an unfortunate oversight.

Where is the public voice out there for "affordable" cars and "affordable" food? I've never heard that mentioned. Just wondering!

[pdxheel]

This is VERY true. Many people have enormous obstacles and many people need a helping hand. However, to ignore the fact that there are lazy people and dishonest, opportunistic people out there is also an unfortunate oversight.

Where is the public voice out there for "affordable" cars and "affordable" food? I've never heard that mentioned. Just wondering!

Never said there are not lazy people. Its my opinion, however, that the majority of people who cannot afford are not lazy or dishonist or opportunistic. Like you, I would also like to see affordable and viable transportation options for all as well as the assurance that all have access to food. It is just a simple notion that we should look out for those who are not as fortunate as us.

[MR-2]

I think Eastwest is being sarcastic.

[bullcity76]

This is VERY true. Many people have enormous obstacles and many people need a helping hand. However, to ignore the fact that there are lazy people and dishonest, opportunistic people out there is also an unfortunate oversight.

Where is the public voice out there for "affordable" cars and "affordable" food? I've never heard that mentioned. Just wondering!

Affordable houses and cars are readily available. Affordable housing is another story. There are many people who make less than $30K a year and work hard for their money. There are people in the world rich or poor that will look to take advantage of situations. Many people lost a ton of money due to greed of Enron and Worldcom execs (I being one). While government usually leads the push for Affordable Housing or Community Revitalization, it is definitely possible for a developer and like-minded investors to take on the risk and/or reduced initial profits to rebuild a neighborhood or include an affordable component. Please no more concentration camps of poverty...

Back to the real issue, there is an imbalance between bettering a community and gentrification (tried not to use that word). The good hard working citizens want the crime element removed but it often results in the transformation of the whole community which is good economically but not socially. The hostility comes from the fact that current owners do not reap the benefits of properties tripling in value. They may be forced out by code enforcement requirements or increases in their tax bills which may disrupt their fixed-income balance sheet. I really think their needs to be more educating on this latter matter of taxes and increase values.

BTW, the G.W. thing was funny...

[rusthebuss]

One thing you have to remember is that this a capitalistic society. You have to strive to make it. When someone gets help all the time they get to the point they expect it. Nothing wrong with people helping each other but when you help and nothing changes there is something wrong. People can only change this not systems. People on these systems have to want to improve themselves.

[only]

Thank you! and I totally agree with you. I would also be ecstatic if my property value were to rise as high as there's might.

That's the problem -- the majority of folks in those neighborhoods don't own their property. Some of them have lived in the same house for 30 years, and rented the entire time. Others do own their own homes, but fear a rise in surrounding property value would result in higher taxes they don't think they could afford.

[Eastwestrob]

I think Eastwest is being sarcastic.

Never sarcastic. Just tired of flipping the bill for other people that can't even wipe their *%@. I am not saying that everyone is like this. Ride through these areas and see some of the people and notice all the ones that are capable but just don't want to. Then notice the ones that might have a new cadillac sitting in front of their driveway.I could do nothing all day and collect Section 8 and welfare but I am better than that. I take the initiative to get up every morning and work till after the sun sets. I feel good about myself and I depend on nobody.

[bullcity76]

One thing you have to remember is that this a capitalistic society. You have to strive to make it. When someone gets help all the time they get to the point they expect it. Nothing wrong with people helping each other but when you help and nothing changes there is something wrong. People can only change this not systems. People on these systems have to want to improve themselves.

That is an excellent point Only and the main reason that they rent is because they cannot afford the maintenance of a house. Others just don't want the hassle.

Rus, some people just want to be left alone to enjoy their two/three bedroom house. One man's shack is another man's mansion. In a lot of these neighborhoods, you can clearly tell the owner-occupied properties from the rentals. It is unfair group a whole neighborhood or community in a basket until you've spent a little time walking and talking to the people. I think you'll realize who the "minority" is in these communities.

[Transplant]

This debate could go on for a long, long time.

The fact (as I see it) is that the Eastern portion of Downtown Raleigh will be developed. It will be developed soon, and once it starts, it won't stop for several years.

There are 'barriers' on the other sides (mostly 'nicer'/more-expensive houses).

No one wants to run good, hard working people out of town. But the conundrum is how do you develop an area and handle those whom will be displaced?

I don't think anyone has figured this out. Mostly, cities will build 'affordable housing'. From what I've seen, this would not be affordable to those in the $15k/year salary range. So what to do? Again, no one knows.

[ChiefJoJo]

There are many reasons why people cannot afford housing.

I can barely afford to live DT, and I am firmly in the middle class. Affordable doesn't automatically mean it's for a person who's on welfare. Affordable housing could mean the city provides low interest loans and a certain percentage of below market-rate options in a condo development. For example, a 5% loan on a 120k condo (that normally goes for say 180k), with certain income restrictions.

[pdxheel]

Coming from the West Coast I know of many cities where the middle class and even upper middle class (thinking of SF) cannot afford to live DT or even close to DT. Its an issue that will only get worse and one that I believe should not be ignored.

[avery]

If you ever run for office, let me know I will help in any way I can, I really admire your thinking!

Thanks

[avery]

That's the problem -- the majority of folks in those neighborhoods don't own their property. Some of them have lived in the same house for 30 years, and rented the entire time. Others do own their own homes, but fear a rise in surrounding property value would result in higher taxes they don't think they could afford.

I have even less sympathy for someone who has rented for 30 years. If you rent, you just have to face the fact that it does not equal ownership. There is no hidden obligations. Sorry, but if I rented out a house to someone and I decided to sell it, it is my decision...not the tenant. Get an apartment somewhere else in the city or explore other options...sorry.

As far as taxes go, it would not be that drastic of an increase. What...$200/year? People can find that in their budget/lifestyles if it is that important to stay where you want. Life isn't easy and scrapping up another $10-$20 a month is not hard for anyone if their home for 30 years is that important to them.

[dombalis]

I have even less sympathy for someone who has rented for 30 years. If you rent, you just have to face the fact that it does not equal ownership. There is no hidden obligations. Sorry, but if I rented out a house to someone and I decided to sell it, it is my decision...not the tenant. Get an apartment somewhere else in the city or explore other options...sorry.

Well, i agree with second part of your post, but, come on. Not everyone has good enough credit to buy. You don't think that they would love to own a house? It's just a simple fact that alot of people are eith 1) not educated about good credit and/or 2) Have had hardships that have caused things to go bad financially. Some people just get the short end of the stick, and that's the bottom line. I completely understand the residents' concerns over in East Raleigh. I DO think that developing East Raleigh is crucial to Raleigh's long-term growth as a city, however. Should be interesting to watch over the next 10-15 years or so.

[avery]

Well, i agree with second part of your post, but, come on. Not everyone has good enough credit to buy. You don't think that they would love to own a house? It's just a simple fact that alot of people are eith 1) not educated about good credit and/or 2) Have had hardships that have caused things to go bad financially. Some people just get the short end of the stick, and that's the bottom line. I completely understand the residents' concerns over in East Raleigh. I DO think that developing East Raleigh is crucial to Raleigh's long-term growth as a city, however. Should be interesting to watch over the next 10-15 years or so.

I hear you, but the reason I have no sympathy for the renters is because they have the option to rent elsewhere. It may be hard to part ways with a residence you've called "home" for maybe 30 years without ownership, but it still doesn't entitle you to protest redevlopment for fear of the owner selling out from under you. Maybe sympathy is the wrong word, but I think you catch my drift.