INC NEWS - Premise of development industry's column isn't so simple

[RW Pickle]

Just so you guys will quit sending me email off the list asking me about
some of the postings John has sent out lately, he is making this stuff up.
Why? I guess to make a point. So it's not real, it's not attributed to
anyone but John (or his fictitious characters), so quit sending me email
asking me about it. He's just making the stuff up. And I might suggest to
everyone that just because you read it here or on the web, it's just
opinion. I think the benefit of these list servers is to allow input from
a wide variety of individuals. But very few people end up participating
for whatever reason. But discussion is a healthy thing.

To be fair (so that others have a chance to read the letter he referred to
in the weekend posting), it should
have been sent  so the comments could be seen in context. He leads readers to
believe that the article primarily spoke to residential development which
it did
not. It was relative to all development; residential, commercial,
institutional,
etc. It was about the development process and what the issues with it are.
The
authors knew a great deal, from first-hand experience, what they were
talking about.
They "walk the walk" instead of just talking about it. They weren't
credited as
being "the development industry". One a vice-chair of the Chamber of
Commerce and
the other the chairman of the City of Durham Capital Program Advisory
Committee
(CPAC). The latter also does a great deal of legal stuff for developers,
so he wears
a couple of hats. But they wrote the article as civic leaders who have an
opportunity to see the big picture.

Everything that is to be built has to go through some very specific steps.
Zoning is
only one of them. Only after a developer gets over that hurdle does any of
the
development review process really get started. Up to that point, talking
about
development before a property is zoned is just a waste. And due to
notifications
that are required, neighbors certainly know what is going on during the
zoning
process. Citizens have a great deal of opportunity at this stage for input.

But the plan review and development process (after zoning) gets very
little input
mainly because development is a defined process. The UDO directs what can
and can be
done. It's not that the developer and the Planning Department get into bed
together
and everyone comes out smiling. It's a set body of rules that have to meet
specific
criteria. that's the way development works. Break the rules (like soil and
erosion
control) and it'll land you a $1000/day fine. I remember the Toyota
dealership on
Garrett Road was more than a month late in opening because they had to
change out
all of their light fixtures in the outside lots because they were too
bright, tall,
and did not conform to the plans they submitted. Do we ever miss
something? Sure.
Everyone in the process is only human. But it would be hard to believe
that anything
is intentional.

All the additions/buildings to Duke University, NCCU, the Downtown
building boom,
additions to the corporations in the Park (like the $42M building at RTI),
our bond
projects to our own buildings (the City), as well as residential subdivision
development has to go through the same review process. There is not short
cut... So
all that takes time.

And delays in the process have an actual cash value in the amount of time
it takes.
People work normally 8 hours a day, five days a week. Interest on money
runs all
24/7. It costs developers as well as us taxpayers when it takes so long.
Anything
that uses taxpayer money in the building ends up costing us taxpayers more
when it
takes time. And when costs of various materials increase monthly (as well
as the
interest on the money), it just costs more overall. Not just to residential
developers, but to all developers.

So try to be fair about this issue when you tilt an article one way or the
other.
Just send it along as well. Hearing the pros and cons of it all will give
everyone a
better idea of what the issues really are that face us. I think we're all
smart
enough to make up our minds as to what an article says or doesn't say.

The next President (of INC), Craigie Sanders,  is a development lawyer. He
works for
one of the authors of the article you mention. I'd be curious to hear his
take on
all this since he will lead INC next year and set his own agenda.

In a recent private email discussion with one of our City Council members,
I was told that even though a development might make it past the PC
without a great deal of committed elements, that by the time they get it
for a vote, these committed elements have been added. And if you have ever
been at a Council meeting where some of these developments have been
discussed prior to a vote, you have heard them hash them out right there
in the Council chambers. So just because it leaves one group without
something, it doesn't mean that Council isn't looking out for us as well.

RWP
27 Beverly



> This week, the development industry wrote a column in
> the Herald-Sun saying we need to find a "quicker way"
> to get projects through because "new development
> creates much-needed property tax revenue for our city
> and county governments" (H-S, 5/22/08).
>
> Really? Were it so simple...
>
> New residential development doesn't pay for itself.
>
> Here's text from a Wake County/TJCOG/NCSU report...
>
> "The ratio for the residential sector is 0.65,
> implying that for each dollar in property tax and
> other revenues generated by residential land uses, the
> county spends $1.54 to provide services supporting
> those land uses. In other words, the residential
> sector is on balance a net user of local public
> finances... This contradicts claims that are sometimes
> made that residential development is a boon to county
> finances due to its expansion of the property tax
> base."
>
> You can read the full report here...
>
> http://www.onencnaturally.org/pages/obj/WAKE-COCS.pdf
>
> I'd only add that the more expensive the house, the
> better is the revenue/expenditure ratio.
> Unfortunately, the logical conclusion of many would be
> to build more Macmansions while discouraging
> affordable housing. (Another reason why we need a good
> mix of housing types in Durham.)
>
> Finding a "quicker way" to sprawl our way into the
> future won't address our growing problems with
> congested roads and kids going to school in trailers.
>
> Faster sprawl will only make things worse.
>
> best,
> John
>