INC NEWS - short answer to a long question: Adequate Public Facilities Or...

Tue Oct 30 12:31:12 EDT 2007

Mike is so right, it hurts.

If we had just one dollar for every committee and task force, with  important 
sounding names, who's good work went unused...... we could probably  pave 
several streets or build a school.

While there is much to rejoice about, our tendency to produce "all show,  and 
no GO!" is still an Achilles heel for Durham. And that which we applaud has  
cost us dearly.

In an over simplified example, compare the city to your own home. Yes, you  
like the new deck that's finally been completed, but if it took three years and 
 $75,000, we'd all know something was wrong. How many of us can spot such  
craziness when the price tags are in the billions?

How many of us have the knowledge to question the price tag of a pool  
costing millions? We might avoid being ripped off by pointing to a building that  we 
can buy for half that, that contains a pool, but we never seem to grow any  
smarter. We're too busy bracing for the next error to avoid.

Sometimes it seems like we can never relax out on our over-priced deck,  
because we need to be in the front yard, defending against some idiot offering  to 
paint our house for a mere $200,000.

Today's riddle: How many volunteer hours are required of devoted citizens,  
to defend against the advice of high priced consultants, to keep us from 
blowing  ridiculous sums.

Keep the answer handy, you'll need it again next month.

Bill Anderson

In a message dated 10/30/2007 10:48:34 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
mwshiflett at hotmail.com writes:

The  debate that follows this issue is one that has been on-going for over a  
decade.

In many peoples (read developers, land speculators,  investors, etc) minds 
the increase in tax base from farmland and wild  forested areas (~$2 to 5 
thousand/acre) to residential property that can  reach $250-750,000/home site 
more than makes up for the cost of the  infrastructures to pay for them.

The problem as I see it is that if  this were true, given the extraordinary 
growth we've had over the past 10  years +,  why are our roads, waterways, 
and trash pick-up services  and other basic needs so badly underfunded?

Those in the first category  complain that it's been wasteful spending by our 
municipal  governments.

Some in the latter feel underserved and over  taxed.

It's a good debate.

Several years ago both the city and  the county initiated a study commission 
here in Durham to look at  this.  It was called the Adequate Facilities 
Ordinance Taskforce and  it looked at not only water supplies, but schools, 
parks, transportation,  solid waste and many other 'basic needs' that must be 
provided to its  citizens.

It was quite an educational journey.

The main point of  which is that for a community to grow in a sustained, 
healthy and  prosperous manner it must first establish minimum Levels of 
Service for  each one of these.

Once established (and agreed upon) 'growth' could  only take place or be 
approved if there was either a capacity to handle it  or the money put away 
with a plan to accommodate it when eventually built  out.

Obviously,  we didn't succeed.   The taskforce  submitted its recommendations 
and the study is still sitting on a shelf  somewhere gathering dust while 
growth continues to expands without its  benefits and forethought.

Mike Shiflett

----- Original  Message ----- 
From: "Melissa Rooney" <mmr121570 at yahoo.com>
To:  <inc-list at durhaminc.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 10:25  AM
Subject: INC NEWS - Fwd: Letter to Herald Sun--Growth &  
Drought--SoundFamiliar?

> Please see the following letter to  the Durham Herald
> Sun in Today's paper:
>
>  ______________________
>
> Let's conserve resources by managing  our growth
>
> Gov. Mike Easley requested a 50 percent water  use
> reduction. On the same day Easley made the request,
> Durham  County Commissioners approved rezoning some
> wetland areas north of  Treyburn for the construction
> of 175 new homes.
>
> If we  are truly strapped for water, why are we
> allowing growth? After the  2002 drought, I suggested
> in a letter to the editor that new building  should be
> allowed only when a sustainable source of water has
>  been identified to supply that growth. It is unfair,
> in my opinion, to  continue constricting the water
> supply of existing residents while  adding more homes
> and businesses that will further strain our  water
> supplies. Why should we be asked to limit our showers,
>  etc, when our governments show no restraint in
> approving growth that  will only make this resource
> even more scarce?
> These droughts  are cyclical and will continue to
> occur. Ignoring that fact, and not  planning for
> sustainable growth will only turn this area into  a
> nightmare for those who live here. I wish that your
> paper  would address this problem instead of telling us
> it is our patriotic  duty to conserve every last drop
> of water. Maybe running completely  out of water will
> wake our officials to the reality that  outstripping
> our water supply is an irresponsible way to  manage
> growth. When our governments walk the walk, then I'll
>  listen to them talk.
>
> Jennifer Fortney
> Durham
>  October 29, 2007
>
> Note: forwarded message  attached.
>
>
>  __________________________________________________
> Do You  Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection  around
>  http://mail.yahoo.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--

>  _______________________________________________
> INC-list mailing  list
> INC-list at rtpnet.org
>  http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
>  

_______________________________________________
INC-list mailing  list
INC-list at rtpnet.org
http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list

************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20071030/0ad3f29d/attachment.htm 