INC NEWS - Column: Image problem just a figment of the imagination(Durham News)

[Deb Christie]

The real question about growth is:  how many of the folks moving to Durham 
are middle- and upper-income?  If we are experiencing exponential growth of 
low-income folks, that can be problemmatic, to say the least.  Does anyone 
have those figures?

I have been told by various Durham elected officials that we have too many 
apartments, and not enough single-family housing; that inceases in our 
school populations are for mainly due to an influx of low-income children, 
particularly Hispanics; that we don't have enough "executive housing."

So larger population per se is not necessarily an advantage; indeed, it can 
be a disadvantage.  Our planning board knows only too well that residential 
development puts more burden on services than it pays in taxes, despite 
developer claims to the contrary.  It is of course industrial and commercial 
development which is profitable to local government.

Cheers -

Deb Christie

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Schelp" <bwatu at yahoo.com>
To: <inc-list at DurhamINC.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 11:00 AM
Subject: INC NEWS - Column: Image problem just a figment of the 
imagination(Durham News)


> Column: Image problem just a figment of the
> imagination
> By Frank Hyman, Correspondent
> N&O Durham News, 25 Feb 2006
>
> Durham, some say, has a "serious image problem." This
> problem, they claim, causes too few people to move to
> Durham. Set that notion aside for a moment. And
> instead imagine that Durham has an image problem so
> bad that people are moving away from here. Try to
> imagine Durham depopulating as fast as a Kansas farm
> town smacked by tornadoes and wilting crop prices. Or
> as fast as a Dakota farm town with no multiplex
> theater.
>
> That, my friends, would be a "serious image problem."
>
> Fact is, despite a reputation for the worst crime in
> the Triangle, the sorriest schools in the solar system
> and the highest taxes in the known galaxy, Durham's
> population has just about doubled in the 22 years I
> have lived here. That rate of growth puts us a far cry
> from your average Dakota farm town. Heck, it puts us
> beyond the growth rate of more than nine-tenths of the
> country! Fact is, during the '90s, according to the
> U.S. Census Bureau, Durham County grew at a faster
> rate than Orange County. Moreover, the City of Durham
> grew at a faster rate than the City of Raleigh. ...
> Fact.
>
> So I want to know for whom, exactly, is that growth
> rate not fast enough? Which person is it who is not
> experiencing enough congestion on his or her ride to
> work? Who is it that wants to see more kids going to
> school in trailers? Who among our leaders really
> thinks that Wake County should be some kind of model
> for the growth and development of our hometown?
> Sheesh.
>
> Nearly 100,000 people moved to -- or chose to stay in
> -- Durham in the last couple of decades. Were they not
> aware that Durham has a "serious image problem"? Did
> they not listen to the Wake County-based Realtors?
> Were they not reading the newspapers' coverage of
> terrible crime, high taxes and bad schools? Are these
> 100,000 people just fools who don't know that they
> would be safer, happier, wealthier and wiser living in
> Holly Springs or Johnston County? I don't think so.
>
> The folks pushing the most recent incarnation of the
> "we need to overcome Durham's serious image problem
> through sophisticated marketing ploys" largely hang
> their case on the concern that not enough local people
> are holding local jobs. They point out that many of
> the jobs in Research Triangle Park are going to people
> who don't live in the county. (Let's set aside the
> fact that many of the jobs in Orange and Wake go to
> people from other counties as well, but no one calls
> that an image problem.)
>
> In making their case they overlook zoning, geography
> and transportation issues that affect the distribution
> of RTP employees. One such issue is a zoning policy
> that outlaws even upscale apartments within RTP.
> Another barrier is the lack of an East End Connector
> between U.S. 70 and Interstate 40 that would make
> north Durham neighborhoods like Treyburn accessible to
> RTP.
>
> These "serious image problem" folks also seem unaware
> that gaining jobs at a faster rate than we gain
> households -- as has been the case in Durham for about
> a decade -- keeps local government in the black. Don't
> believe me? Read any recent article on Wake County's
> upcoming $1 billion school construction bond. Booming
> bedroom communities are driving this costly campaign.
> Businesses pay more in taxes than they need in
> government services. Households, on the other hand,
> pay less than what it takes to service them with
> schools.
>
> This growth in good-paying jobs has given us a
> consistent single digit unemployment rate that
> surprisingly hasn't erased our double-digit poverty
> rate. New and old Bull Citizens are working, but many
> are not getting ahead.
>
> So, is it possible that we can all agree that not
> enough locals are holding the good local jobs? If so,
> do we really want to give steroids -- and cash -- to
> pump up Durham's already high residential growth rate?
> Or do we want to invest that effort into our people,
> thereby making sure more Bull Citizens have those good
> jobs?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> INC-list mailing list
> INC-list at rtpnet.org
> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list