Misc. Uptown Projects/News

[Popsickle]

1 hour ago, kermit said:

yea, from a personal perspective its different strokes. Having to drive for every errand and trip is a huge annoyance to some (like me) but not others.

The bigger pain point for suburban living is its hidden cost to society. Suburban homes rarely pay for themselves in terms of property taxes paid vs the cost of municipal services provided -- suburbanites are subsidized, and this makes living there appear to be more attractive than alternatives.  If the subsidy went away I suspect that many (but not all) suburbanites would feel differently about their lifestyle choice. 

 

I'd like to see a breakdown of taxes paid by the suburban and urban group to see which comes closer to covering their share. 

 

Additionally, I don't believe just property taxes cover those services listed in your chart from the cost of sparkling.com, which I did visist

Edited April 16, 2017 by Popsickle

[kermit]

11 hours ago, Popsickle said:

I'd like to see a breakdown of taxes paid by the suburban and urban group to see which comes closer to covering their share. 

The tax revenue side of the equation seems pretty self-evident to me -- people choose the burbs becuase real estate is cheap and property taxes are levied based on value. Other revenue sources (mostly sales tax revenue) certainly are used to cover the unpaid cost of the burbs. However everyone (suburban and urban) pays those, so they also create wealth transfers from urban to surburban.

Given the greater cost of servicing suburban residents the most equitable solution might be an additional municipal services tax on residents of low density areas to cover their higher costs. The toll lanes are an initial glimmer of this strategy. A property tax rebate for high density areas might be an even better strategy (hat tip to windsurfer).

12 hours ago, Dale said:

Do you live Uptown ?

Not sure I see the relevance of your question to the discussion. That said, I do live in one of Charlotte's highest density areas.

Edited April 16, 2017 by kermit

[caterpillar2]

2 hours ago, kermit said:

The tax revenue side of the equation seems pretty self-evident to me -- people choose the burbs becuase real estate is cheap and property taxes are levied based on value. Other revenue sources (mostly sales tax revenue) certainly are used to cover the unpaid cost of the burbs. However everyone (suburban and urban) pays those, so they also create wealth transfers from urban to surburban.

Given the greater cost of servicing suburban residents the most equitable solution might be an additional municipal services tax on residents of low density areas to cover their higher costs. The toll lanes are an initial glimmer of this strategy. A property tax rebate for high density areas might be an even better strategy (hat tip to windsurfer).

Not sure I see the relevance of your question to the discussion. That said, I do live in one of Charlotte's highest density areas.

In the suburbs, practically all new and newer neighborhoods are under the authority of the Home Owners Associations which are state government regulated. The purpose of HOAs is to turn over many of the former responsibilities of municipalities to the HOAs to free up time and costs of the municipalities.  What was formerly paid for by municipalities for street repairs, sewage, neighborhood lighting and other issues is often now paid for by HOAs through HOA annual fees. Result, less taxes are spent on suburban neighborhoods than in the past by the city. Most of the cost of maintaining and running neighborhoods are through their HOAs. Your suggested
"additional services tax on residents of low density areas to cover their higher costs" is the HOA fees.  Density may or may not be relative. 

 

[kermit]

^HOAs only cover a small portion of the costs listed above, and they only cover those costs until the HOA dissolves, at which point those costs (basically just maintaining subdivision roads and maybe sidewalks) revert to the city.

HOAs are a red herring in this debate.

[Dale]

2 hours ago, kermit said:

The tax revenue side of the equation seems pretty self-evident to me -- people choose the burbs becuase real estate is cheap and property taxes are levied based on value. Other revenue sources (mostly sales tax revenue) certainly are used to cover the unpaid cost of the burbs. However everyone (suburban and urban) pays those, so they also create wealth transfers from urban to surburban.

Given the greater cost of servicing suburban residents the most equitable solution might be an additional municipal services tax on residents of low density areas to cover their higher costs. The toll lanes are an initial glimmer of this strategy. A property tax rebate for high density areas might be an even better strategy (hat tip to windsurfer).

Not sure I see the relevance of your question to the discussion. That said, I do live in one of Charlotte's highest density areas.

Higher-density-than-thou ?

[kermit]

6 minutes ago, Dale said:

Higher-density-than-thou ?

Perhaps. I do like it when people pay their way.

[Dale]

12 minutes ago, kermit said:

Perhaps. I do like it when people pay their way.

We're resolved to live like fugitives until they find us.

[kermit]

1 hour ago, Dale said:

We're resolved to live like fugitives until they find us.

With the added irony most of them (this is not directed at you) choose to beotch about transit taxes and congestion while they hide. 

[Spartan]

17 hours ago, Dale said:

Just chiming in here, maybe I don't get it, but I don't have the perception that living in the suburbs is painful. I've never worked an Uptown job. My townhouse is nice and affordable with a fenced-in backyard for my dog. And my fiancée and I are minutes from most places we like to go. If I did have a driving job, I doubt that living Uptown would make it any easier. Finally, Uptown is like an attraction to me, a place I drive to once or twice a month for jollies.

 

Again, my point is that it's a matter of perspective. For example, to me it's interesting that you say you are minutes from the places you like to go. The presumption in that statement is that you a only a few minutes DRIVE from where you need to go.

I view having to drive everywhere, sitting at long traffic lights, looking for parking, walking through hot parking aisles and the generally terrible aesthetics of strip malls as inconvenient and unpleasant. I drive to these places because I have to - Charlotte isn't quite at the level of having all of my needs within walking/biking distance yet. I don't particularly enjoy it though. I would love it if I could exist in this city without a car, but it's just not practical (even though it's technically possible).

The core concept here is that our way of life is centered around the car. We, as a society, have invested untold sums of money in terms of infrastructure to make it easy to drive everywhere. Roads, traffic signals, highways, etc. We even changed the rules of how buildings are designed to better accommodate cars with mandatory parking fields and drive thru's and houses with built in car storage instead of front doors. We then allowed our buildings that didn't comply with these new norms to be razed in favor of more parking and buildings that serve a single purpose, rather than multiple uses. And all of this has led to the car being so ingrained in our society that I can say "Oh I'm only 5 minutes away from X" and people assume that it's a 5 minute car trip. It also results in statements like "A pedestrian was killed by a car on X street" rather than "A person driving a car killed a pedestrian on X street" as though the car is a sentient being. It also means that most people apply a "drive till you qualify" mentality when it comes to real estate. Bigger houses = better, so I must get a house with X square feet in order to be happy. That attitude, in turn, results in (most) people viewing car-based transportation as a necessity rather than a lifestyle choice. And thus, we use the verb"GO" as a substitute for "DRIVE."

So, my point here is that we've designed our entire economy and society and cities around the car. It's natural that some people may think that making it easier to drive in order to make it desirable is the only way to succeed. Sadly, my only evidence that this approach is not necessary is every city in all of history that existed prior to 1950.

 

16 hours ago, kermit said:

yea, from a personal perspective its different strokes. Having to drive for every errand and trip is a huge annoyance to some (like me) but not others.

The bigger pain point for suburban living is its hidden cost to society. Suburban homes rarely pay for themselves in terms of property taxes paid vs the cost of municipal services provided -- suburbanites are subsidized, and this makes living there appear to be more attractive than alternatives.  If the subsidy went away I suspect that many (but not all) suburbanites would feel differently about their lifestyle choice. 

 

This is a great chart. I love this chart.

[HopHead]

RIP this thread.

[caterpillar2]

2 hours ago, kermit said:

^HOAs only cover a small portion of the costs listed above, and they only cover those costs until the HOA dissolves, at which point those costs (basically just maintaining subdivision roads and maybe sidewalks) revert to the city.

HOAs are a red herring in this debate.

Not a "red herring."  HOAs are part of the big picture. HOAs can't really ever dissolve, per se. For example, neighborhood lots in many lake communities have  septic systems that require a very expensive pump house (2) to pump waste to city connections as well as the other self contained items like roads, street lights, etc. discussed earlier. Cities don't just take over homeowner HOA  expenses from a dissolved HOA. The city has to agree to do so, and if they do, you can bet that their individual property taxes will be raised significantly to pay the costs.Anotherwords, property taxes would end up being what they were when cities handled everything without HOAs. Obviously you live in a condo. They work pretty much the same way. If the property is dense, more people pay the cost and condo fees are normally shared and cheaper than it is for a person in a not-densely populated place. The HOA factor is a "red herring" if you want to present all facets of the issue. 

 

[caterpillar2]

6 minutes ago, HopHead said:

RIP this thread.

Keep the thread, trash the topic it has evolved into. 

[Popsickle]

5 hours ago, kermit said:

The tax revenue side of the equation seems pretty self-evident to me -- people choose the burbs becuase real estate is cheap and property taxes are levied based on value. Other revenue sources (mostly sales tax revenue) certainly are used to cover the unpaid cost of the burbs. However everyone (suburban and urban) pays those, so they also create wealth transfers from urban to surburban.

Given the greater cost of servicing suburban residents the most equitable solution might be an additional municipal services tax on residents of low density areas to cover their higher costs. The toll lanes are an initial glimmer of this strategy. A property tax rebate for high density areas might be an even better strategy (hat tip to windsurfer).

Not sure I see the relevance of your question to the discussion. That said, I do live in one of Charlotte's highest density areas.

People also choose the burbs they are typically safer and a multitude of different reasons not just cheap, have you ever been house shopping in the burbs?  All real cheap properties out there...  While there are neighborhoods in Charlotte that have higher density than the brubs, but lower property values and income resulting in an exponential net loss for the city/county (providing services).

Wealth transfer is not one directional by far, i.e. Blue Line, uptown public spaces, BoA Stadium, tax breaks for businesses locating uptown, the list could go on.  All these things make uptown or higher density living/working in general more desirable. 20 years ago the uptown population was around 4,000 people, now it is five times that number, why?  Because the city invested money into the uptown area to attract more people, and people of higher income.  Only through gentrification can this process be supported. 

Additionally, there should not be an additional tax for residents living in the burbs to cover the additional cost of services.  Do we charge residents and businesses an additional tax because of their proximity to public transit? (I've never seen a city bus in the burbs and the Blue Line serves, what like 0.01% of the Charlotte tax payers?) No.  Every residential area of Charlotte/Mechlenburg County or even the CSA in general has its pros and cons, just because you don't like the way of life in on area, does not justify taxing that area. 

100 years ago, everybody wanted to live in the city, then the street car followed by the actual car allowed residents move out to the burbs, or more accurately, create the suburb.  Now, generations later, people are realizing that they would like to live in the city, to have access to more and easier to access activities.  In another 50 years with self driving flying cars, everybody will want to live in the mountains and commute to Charlotte via self driving flying cars while they receive a massage from their robot servant.

[kermit]

40 minutes ago, Popsickle said:

Additionally, there should not be an additional tax for residents living in the burbs to cover the additional cost of services.  Do we charge residents and businesses an additional tax because of their proximity to public transit?

Dude. After you look into subsidies to drivers please let me know what public benefits urbanists receive that suburban residents dont. 

To be clear, uptown residents have no more park space per capita, uptown businesses don't get more incentives and Boa stadium is certainly not an amenity that only belongs to urbanites. What else you got?

Edited April 16, 2017 by kermit

[Popsickle]

2 minutes ago, kermit said:

Dude. After you look into subsidies for driving please let me know what public benefits urbanist receive that suburban residents dont. (uptown residents have no more park space per capita, uptown businesses don't get more incentives and Boa stadium is certainly not an amenity that only belongs to urbanites.)

Brah...I am not saying that there are not subsidies for driving, we are a car based country and have been that way since Eisenhower elected to go with an interstate system over the train system common in European countries.  The car gives the individual freedom in the purist sense of the word, freedom to live, and travel to where they desire.  Not limited to some "benevolent" city planner. 

I never said additional park space, I stated easier to access, how many parks are in uptown?  Can you walk to one?  The closest park to my house in the burbs is owned by the HOA, closest city park is about 3 miles, it's about ease of access. 

You are right, BoA Stadium is not an amenity that only belongs to urbanites.  However, the location of the stadium positivity affects uptown more than it does people that live out in the burbs.  (jobs, access to entertainment, land values, entertainment)

[kermit]

8 minutes ago, Popsickle said:

You are right, BoA Stadium is not an amenity that only belongs to urbanites.  However, the location of the stadium pIositivity affects uptown more than it does people that live out in the burbs.  (jobs, access to entertainment, land values, entertainment)

I live about 1.5 miles from Boa stadium. It has a negative eeconomic benefit to me due to traffic and tailgater BS.

Edited April 16, 2017 by kermit

[Popsickle]

4 minutes ago, kermit said:

I live about 1.5 miles from Boa stadium. It has a negative eeconomic benefit to me due to traffic and tailgater BS.

Only negative? And you've lived there for about 30 years? You know, before the stadium was planned...

 

Additionally, it's not just about you, you live in a community. I am sure with the same area we could find at least two people who do benefit from the stadium. 

Edited April 16, 2017 by Popsickle
Moar

[kermit]

5 minutes ago, Popsickle said:

Only negative? And you've lived there for about 30 years? You know, before the stadium was planned...

When did I say that?

And about those subsides for drivers....?

 

Edited April 16, 2017 by kermit

[Popsickle]

5 minutes ago, kermit said:

When did I say that?

And about those subsides for drivers....?

 

You implied that by only saying what would help your argument. 

As far as subsides for drivers, I admitted before that there were subsides and everybody knows that there are, so I am not sure what you are getting at.  Would you like to end the subsides for drivers? 

[kermit]

7 minutes ago, Popsickle said:

Would you like to end the subsides for drivers? 

Yup.

That would make America Great Again

[Popsickle]

5 minutes ago, kermit said:

Yup.

That would make America Great Again

Can't tell if serious or butt hurt...

[kermit]

How would ending subsides for drivers be a bad thing?

[urbanlover568]

Why is everybody feeding the "Brah" popsicle? Obviously a pot stirrer. How about that uptown news?

[Popsickle]

I'll bite

19 minutes ago, kermit said:

How would ending subsides for drivers be a bad thing?

I'll bite Kermit (do your work for you), It would not be a bad thing in the long run.  If tomorrow all levels of government together put out a piece of legislator that stated, essentially, "fudge you drivers, love government", roads would still be used until they become impassable, not unsafe, but impassable, unsafe is subjective and with no government oversight, who is going to tell me which bridge I can and cannot drive over, so we have lots of people dying (of course not from urban areas, those folk don't use roads, like in Back to the Future, the one in the future, not the first one).

Slowly at first, economic progress would begin to slow, the government would struggle to create a new national rail/air/sea system to transport the increased amount of cargo and passengers who can no longer utilize the roads.  The government would be unable to handle the demand of cargo and passengers via there shinny new system and economic progress would grind to a halt.  The value of the dollar would collapse, foreign governments and investors would stop buying US debt to fund the government.  The government would be unable to sustain itself .

Then most likely one of two things happen, Russia and China finish their plan from the previous recession which was selling all US debt, which would further cripple the US economy or seeing a weaken US with little infrastructure to fight of an invasion and ability to muster a fight, they invade.  Or an awesome combination of both.

 

Nevertheless, as I said, in the long run it won't matter, because eventually, somebody will  subsides the method in which the majority of the country moves.

7 minutes ago, mpretori said:

Why is everybody feeding the "Brah" popsicle? Obviously a pot stirrer. How about that uptown news?

mpretori, I am not trying to "stir the pot" I just want justification to kermit's points.  And it's not everybody ;), but you would be included in everybody FYI

 

Is the point of urban planet forums, not the ability of individuals to come together and talk about their community and how they wish it to be developed?

Edited April 16, 2017 by Popsickle

[kermit]

Global economic competitiveness is all about efficiency. If the US is locked in to the most energy inefficient mode of transportation (single occupant automobiles and truck freight) then we are doomed to failure. iIf we can't reduce costs  we Will be the next high cost producer -- like the EU 15 years ago. 

In the context of global competition do you really want to hang our hat on heavily subsidized road transportation?  There are -no- other nations that are as invested as internal combustion. 

Edited April 16, 2017 by kermit