INC NEWS - INC-list Digest, Vol 36, Issue 2

[TheOcean1 at aol.com]

Actually Melissa, Ken's suggestion would indeed effect all of Durham County  
to some degree. But unfortunately it will likely remain a theory, rather than 
a  new common practice. Those developers generally like to be able to predict 
their  return on investment, easier to do without variables like trees getting 
in  the way.
 
So it "might" be more profitable to take those same development dollars,  and 
the same construction crew members, apply them to a block of existing  
housing stock. Those dollars would buy up a lot of boarded up houses, and fill  the 
need of folks moving into Durham. Predictably, that would lessen the need  
slightly, due to a larger available housing stock.
 
Developers understandably look for large tracts of land, it's a shame they  
ignore the ones inside the city.
 
Bill Anderson
 
In a message dated 12/2/2007 8:46:56 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
mmr121570 at yahoo.com writes:

I  totally agree with Ken (and Jim). But as I live in
suburban South Durham,  re-development/renovation
doesn't really help us down here. 

Clearly  there are a lot of people who want to live in
suburban Durham, as evidenced  by all the new
development down here and on other outskirts of the
city  (Brier Creek comes to mind). 

Unfortunately, there aren't many homes  down here to
renovate....plus there is little stopping developers
from  buying up land, clear-cutting and mass-grading,
an option which is clearly  less-expensive and thus
preferred, both by developers and future home  buyers.
Our schools down here are already overcrowded
(Creekside  Elementary has 8 Kindergarten classes with
over 20 students a piece!).  There is talk/fear of
redistricting, and this school is only 3 years old!  A
lot of people moved to my neighborhood BECAUSE they
want their kids to  go to Creekside. They're gonna be
pretty upset if we go the way of Wake  County.

In addition, the water quality of Jordan lake is
suffering  more and more, and we're being required to
cut our water usage to the  extreme. We cannot support
MORE new homes down here.

Infrastructure,  environmental requirements and water
should come BEFORE development, not  the other way
around.

It's apparent that we have to use every angle  we can
to get the gov't to eliminate the loopholes, ammend
the UDO and  require truly responsible (environmentally
and infrastructural-ly)  development in rural/suburban
Durham. We are running out of land...and  options.

It's already working, as the JCCPC has sent back the
UDO  for amendments to remove loopholes currently
available to developers (to  avoid accommodating
citizen input and concerns) via the  conservation
subdivision and within the rural/suburban tier. It's
slow  going, but hopefully with everyone's input and
involvement, it will be fast  enough to have some
impact on what little remains of rural/suburban  Durham
to develop.

As always, I welcome anyone's input -- I learn so  much
from INC members. But active INC members are
predominantly  city-folk, and we need some support here
in the  suburbs.

Sincerely,

Melissa (Rooney)


--- Jim Tuttle  <jim at braggtown.com> wrote:

> That's the Durham I want to live  in.
> 
> Jim
> 
> > Melissa,
> > 
>  > I have a thought on topic of curbing development,
> but not on  current water
> > crisis.
> > 
> > There may be a  better and much more effective way
> to slow new development?
>  > 
> > What if folks were encouraged to, and then
>  applauded for, re-developing
> > disadvantaged parts of our city? We  already have
> roads, sewer, utilities,
> > etc in these areas.  In other words, re-developing
> does not require the
> >  infrastructure that developing does.
> > 
> > Demand drives  supply. If boarded-up homes were
> fixed up, perceptions of
> >  public safety were brought in line with reality
> and folks just  simply
> > believed in our older neighborhoods, folks would
>  fill them back up. With
> > folks filling up these homes, they will  not buy
> new homes and the developers
> > will slow their  building. And,... instead of
> building new homes, they could
>  > turn their resources toward re-developing?
> > 
> >  Respectfully,
> > 
> > Ken Gasch
> > 
> >  
> _______________________________________________
> INC-list  mailing list
> INC-list at rtpnet.org
>  http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
> 



______________________________________________________________________________
______
Be  a better sports nut!  Let your teams follow you 
with Yahoo Mobile.  Try it now.   
http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ
_______________________________________________
INC-list  mailing  list
INC-list at rtpnet.org
http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list










**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest 
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20071202/73ee004c/attachment.htm