INC NEWS - Act Now For NC's Future -- support the transfer fee or impact

Tue Jul 17 23:30:12 EDT 2007

In this regard, it would help greatly if you would all
email our DUrham County legislators and tell them
that, you approve of the transfer tax legislation if
they:

 1) exempt renovators from this tax
and 
 2) exempt senior citizens who have lived in the
county for 10 years or more.

I've already written them that these are the two big
problems that have been discussed by the INC (both at
meetings and on the listserv). Now let's bombard them
with emails from individual members of the INC, so
that they can see I'm telling the truth :)

The email addresses for Durham County Representatives
are:

Larryh at ncleg.net, Paull at ncleg.net, Mickeym at ncleg.net,
Winkiew at ncleg.net, Boba at ncleg.net, Floydm at ncleg.net

Melissa

Melissa Rooney
mmr121570 at yahoo.com

--- TheOcean1 at aol.com wrote:

>  
>  
> If Melissa can get yes answers to both 1) and 2),
> you might see me switch  
> sides rapidly! 
> Bill
>  
> In a message dated 7/17/2007 4:51:39 P.M. Eastern
> Daylight Time,  
> mmr121570 at yahoo.com writes:
> 
> That is  my understanding of the legislation as
> well,
> Chris. And that's the reason  for my support of the
> transfer tax. 
> 
> The alternative is waiting  longer for desperately
> needed legislation with regard to the impact fee 
> (on
> new development), and I fear that by then it will be
> a
> mute point,  at least for Durham County (since there
> will be little land left to  develop).
> 
> I presume the passage of the current transfer  tax
> legislation will give Durham the ability to impose
> such an impact  fee...that is, that the impact fee
> (on
> new development) would be considered  a 'type' of
> 'transfer fee,' and thus would FINALLY be legal for
> Durham  County. If this is the case, once the
> transfer
> fee legislation is passed,  then we can lobby our
> county gov't for imposition solely on new 
> development.
> 
> 
> Some believe the transfer tax legislation is an all 
> or
> none deal, but I'm still trying to get definitive
> clarification on  this.
> 
> Since Orange and Person counties can already legally
> impose  impact fees, it is only fair that other
> counties be able to do so. Even  withdrawal of
> Orange
> and Person counties' ability to impose  these
> restrictive fees would not be fair to other
> counties,
> since Orange  and Person have already financially
> benefited from impact
> fees for  years.
> 
> At any rate, I emailed our Durham County legislators
> to ask  that, if they approve the transfer tax
> legislation, they 1) exempt  renovators from this
> tax
> and 2) exempt senior citizens who have lived in  the
> county for 10 years or more.
> 
> At least one response has indicated  that
> negotiations
> are still on the table, and that this request will 
> be
> passed on to the legislators.
> 
> Thanks for the continued  discussion,
> Melissa
> 
> --- Chris Sevick <csevick at verizon.net>  wrote:
> 
> > Bill,
> > 
> > I'm a bit confused by your  opposition to the real
> > estate transfer tax bill.  As I understand  it, if
> > the bill passes, it won't mean that the transfer
> tax
> >  will be imposed.  It just means that each NC
> county
> > will have the  authority to let it's residents
> vote
> > on whether or not to institute  the tax.
> > 
> > Even if you oppose the tax, you should support 
> this
> > bill.  If the majority of the people in this
> county
> >  don't want the tax, they can just vote against
> it. 
> > I can't think of a  much more democratic way to
> > address the issue.  If we really care  about our
> > local community, we should entrust our local
> >  community with these decisions.
> > 
> > - Chris Sevick
> >  
> > =====================
> > From: TheOcean1 at aol.com
> > Date:  2007/07/16 Mon PM 08:34:46 CDT
> > To: mmr121570 at yahoo.com,  inc-list at durhaminc.org
> > Subject: Re: INC NEWS - Act Now For NC's Future 
> --
> > support the transfer fee    or impact ...
> >  
> > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0
> >  Transitional//EN">
> > <HEAD>
> > <META  http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html;
> > charset=UTF-8">
> >  <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3132"
> >  name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
> > > bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7  topMargin=7
> > rightMargin=7>> face=Arial color=#000000  size=2>
> > <DIV>
> > <DIV>
> > <DIV>
> >  <DIV>I hate to disagree so strongly with one of
> my
> > favorite  community activists, 
> > but I must.</DIV>
> > <DIV>  </DIV>
> > <DIV>In fact, after reading your Melissa's 
> letter,
> > I'd suggest using the email 
> > addresses below for  exactly the opposite purpose,
> to
> > ask our representatives to 
> >  oppose this bill.</DIV>
> > <DIV> </DIV>
> >  <DIV>Here's my reasoning:</DIV>
> > <DIV>  </DIV>
> > <DIV>While the county's impact fee was recently 
> over
> > ruled, I think it was well 
> > aimed at new  construction.</DIV>
> > <DIV>It is after all, the new families  moving in
> > that create the new burdens on 
> > our school systems  and infrastructure. This tax
> has
> > a much greater effect on 
> > the  SELLER of property, than the newcomer moving
> in,
> > as it is passed to  the 
> > seller in the selling price of real estate.</DIV>
> >  <DIV> </DIV>
> > <DIV>Even Melissa recognized this, with  the
> > exception she tried to include of 
> > historic properties.  But it's an "all or nothing
> at
> > all" bill, and that 
> > exception  can not be incorporated. Sorry Melissa,
> > but would you still support  
> > this bill if you knew that your friendly amendment
> > can't be  incorporated?</DIV>
> > <DIV> </DIV>
> >  <DIV>For that reason, far too much of this new
> > burden would be  borne by senior 
> > citizens selling their almost historic home  they
> > built years ago, as 
> > they try to raise the needed funds  to move to a
> > retirement community, while 
> > they pass their  homes to up and coming families.
> > Those new families will 
> >  renovate those older homes, while they add to the
> > burden. Their entire  
> > neighborhoods will experience great gains in
> > property values  as multiple 
> > properties change hands in this way, and in each
> >  case it will be the exiting 
> > senior citizen who's once again paid the  toll.
> This
> > time, it happens at the time 
> > they can least afford  it, at the tail end of them
> > paying their "share" of the 
> >  burden, thirty years after their children
> > stopped adding to  it.</DIV>
> > <DIV> </DIV>
> > <DIV>No, I do  NOT support this bill, and I hope
> > others will join me in 
> >  opposition. </DIV>
> > <DIV> </DIV>
> >  <DIV>If Melissa's amendment could be included,
> then
> > I'd agree  she's right on 
> > target. Taxing new construction logically places 
> the
> > burden where it's being 
> > created, but as it is crafted,  this bill unfairly
> > burdens our senior citizens, 
> > and  discourages renovation and revitalization of
> > areas of North Carolina,  such 
> > as East Durham.</DIV>
> > <DIV>  </DIV>
> > <DIV>Let's not discourage the private sector  from
> > undertaking the expensive and 
> > risky investment they've  shown willingness to
> make,
> > in the most historic 
> > sections of  Durham, while we unfairly whack our
> > elders with the expenses of  
> > folks who've noticed that our city tops a lot of
> 
=== message truncated ===

      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Luggage? GPS? Comic books? 
Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz