[Durham INC] Herald-Sun article: Monthly garbage, recycling fee sought
Barry Ragin
bragin at nc.rr.com
Tue May 31 22:27:44 EDT 2011
Bill - i think if we're going to use property values as our marker, the
news is even worse, especially here on the east side of the neighborhood.
As i pointed out on the PAC 2 list, there's a one thousand square foot
house on Ruffin near Green listed at $185K (or $185/square foot). That
has a tax value of $135K or so. There's a similar, if slightly smaller,
house on Avondale also recently listed. That one is 860 or so square
feet, listed at $30K, or about $35/square foot. That's more than a five
fold difference in price per square foot. And that has a current tax
value of about $65K. So things continue to move in the wrong direction
over here.
Obviously, there are other factors besides the surrounding properties
that affect the resale value of these houses. School attendance zones,
for instance, probably play a big part of the difference in these two
properties. But people's expectations of what their neighborhood is
going to look like in the future is also a major factor. That's why,
even in the midst of a major downturn in housing in much of the country,
Durham neighborhoods like Cleveland-Holloway and OND continue to appreciate.
I've put a fair bit of money into my place over the past ten years. I'd
like to think that there's at least an even chance i might get most of
that back when it's time for me to sell. Right now, that's not looking
very likely.
Barry Ragin
On 5/31/11 10:06 PM, TheOcean1 at aol.com wrote:
> My bad, Barry... I hadn't looked closely at the pile, just reported it
> when I saw it as I turned onto Roxboro.
> But in general, a mattress or a couch, is no longer an illegal set
> out. Picking stuff up at the curb is actually another city service and
> the dept does a pretty good job of making sure it's not out there very
> long.
> I'm not sure how a landlord could avoid renting to future victims of
> homicides. If I recall, it was a mother and daughter who were shot,
> should the landlord refuse to rent because they looked like the kind
> of people who would get shot?
> What is more likely to get the property owner's attention is improving
> the neighborhood around his property. It will surely increase the
> neighbor's vigilance reporting code violations, etc, because the
> neighbors are working hard and investing in their own property. At
> some point it becomes illogical to keep a $400 rental unit in the
> middle of a $900 a month neighborhood. Some parts of gentrification
> are due to the landlords fixing up their units so they can double the
> rent, often spurred on by the owner occupants just trying to improve
> their homes.
> I've been in touch with this particular landlord, mostly to inform him
> that he's in the middle of a beautiful neighborhood, and to suggest he
> clean up a bit. (So I wasn't unhappy to see the pile of crap at the curb)
> Property owner seemed like a nice guy who couldn't figure how such a
> nice neighborhood could contain such a crummy apartment building like
> the one right behind his property.
> I failed to supply him with a good answer.
> Those nasty apartments do supply that particular property a good
> reason not to look like the rest of the street. How "negative"
> properties effect "positive" properties, as well as property values,
> seems to be at the heart of what NIS is shooting for. For us it might
> be quality of life, but property values will do a fine job of showing
> where the quality of life is rising or falling.
> We all know the sure fire way to raise the property values is to
> renovate all the homes. But since we're all individuals, quality of
> life will mean different things to each of us. Property values will
> follow more than just the houses, Duke Park is a fine example. How
> much of our property values are effected by our intensely active
> community? Not just the Beaver Pageant (this Saturday at 4PM), but the
> impromptu bowling adventures, or the group who trades canned goodies,
> or the book club, etc, etc. If moving into a neighborhood feels more
> like joining a huge family, that's serious quality of life stuff. Now
> look at Duke Park, do you think that contributes to the property values?
> It means that in addition to fixing and maintaining our homes, we can
> increase our property values just by enjoying our neighbor's company!
> Party together like Duke Park, and you might accidentally raise your
> property values out of reach of the diverse community you'd most enjoy
> as part of your family.
> Tough problem to have since embracing diversity was part of our cool
> to begin with.
> I'm sure the city staff will dispose of the heap properly, and have a
> word with the party responsible if they see that need.
> *Bill "pardon that ramble" Anderson*
> In a message dated 5/31/2011 4:54:51 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> bragin at nc.rr.com writes:
>
> How in the world is that legal? There's yard waste, electronics, and
> recyclables, not to mention several paint containers and who knows
> what
> else in the middle of the pile. And i can guarantee you that even if
> (maybe especially if) this pile is picked up with no consequences
> to the
> landlord, there will be another pile of trash just as large in the
> back
> by the end of the year.
>
> You might have thought a double homicide at that address would have
> encouraged some more attention to detail on the part of the landlord,
> but you would have been wrong.
>
> Barry Ragin
>
> On 5/31/11 4:48 PM, TheOcean1 at aol.com wrote:
> > I knew that's what the photo would be~! I've already alerted our
> > Impact Team, Daryl Hedspeth.
> > That would once have been an "illegal setout" and Durham had
> plenty of
> > them, so the solution was to make them legal! Presto chango... no
> > more illegal set outs!
> > On a positive note, we'll only see that pile for a day or
> two..... in
> > the old days we'd see it forever in the back yard.
> > *Bill *
> > In a message dated 5/31/2011 4:41:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> > bragin at nc.rr.com writes:
> >
> > Geez, Bill, you don't even have to look too hard to find
> this kind of
> > dumping. Just head east on Markham about a quarter mile from
> your
> > place,
> > and look to your right on Roxboro.
> >
> > Why would we want to give our crappy neighbors another reason to
> > increase their demands on the city services that we already
> pay for?
> >
> > Barry Ragin
> >
> > btw - if the attached photo doesn't come through, i've put
> it and
> > some
> > others up on my blog.
> >
> >
> *http://dependableerection.blogspot.com/2011/05/because-current-system-doesnt-encourage.html*
> >
> > On 5/31/11 1:00 PM, TheOcean1 at aol.com wrote:
> > > I've always believed that there are a great many illegal yard
> waste
> > > dumps annually. These are nearly impossible to see because they
> > blend
> > > in with the leaves {unless they are in bags}.
> > > Charge for garbage collection and the resulting dumps won't be
> > > anywhere near as invisible!
> > > I seem to recall the figure $450 per ton ~ the amount it costs the
> > > Impact Team to pick up an illegal dump site. That was many years
> > ago.
> > > I learned that while serving on a committee to address illegal
> > dumping
> > > that had become an over night sensation due to a short lived
> > raising
> > > of the tipping fees at the dump.
> > > Those fees were instantly reduced, but it took awhile to catch
> > up with
> > > many of the illegal dumpers who hadn't learned that the fees had
> > gone
> > > back down because they were no longer visiting the city dump!
> > > Hope we don't have to learn that lesson the hard way ~ all over
> > again.
> > > *Bill Anderson*
> > > REALTOR
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 919 282-8209 Cell
> > > ------------ ~ -------------
> > > 919.324.3911 fax
> > >
> > > www.SeagrovesRealty.com
> > >
> > > In a message dated 5/31/2011 12:25:53 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> > > matt.dudek at gmail.com writes:
> > >
> > > I also agree, is this something INC can take a position on? I
> > > really don't want to see an increase in illegal dumping in my
> > > neighborhood, or anyone else's.
> > >
> > > Great assessment Kelly.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Matt Dudek
> > > *Master's Degree Candidate 2011*
> > > *Department of City and Regional Planning/*
> > > *School of Government*
> > > *UNC - Chapel Hill*
> > >
> > > matt.dudek at gmail.com <mailto:matt.dudek at gmail.com>
> > > 919.381.7577
> > > Sent with Sparrow <http://www.sparrowmailapp.com/?sig>
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, May 31, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Sally Clark wrote:
> > >
> > >> I totally agree with Kelly Jarrett's assessment.
> > >> Sally Clark
> > >> Prudential YSU Realty
> > >> 921 Morreene Road
> > >> Durham, NC 27705
> > >> 919-270-7558,cell
> > >> 919-313-3469,office
> > >> 919-282-1398, E-FAX
> > >>> ----- Original Message -----
> > >>> *From:* Melissa Rooney <mailto:mmr121570 at yahoo.com>
> > >>> *To:* kjj1 at duke.edu <mailto:kjj1 at duke.edu> ;
> > >>> inc-list at DurhamINC.org <mailto:inc-list at DurhamINC.org> ;
> > >>> owdna at yahoogroups.com <mailto:owdna at yahoogroups.com>
> > >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 31, 2011 11:33 AM
> > >>> *Subject:* Re: [Durham INC] Herald-Sun article: Monthly
> > >>> garbage,recycling fee sought
> > >>>
> > >>> Totally agree with you Kelly. At least taxes hold the
> property
> > >>> owner responsible for the aesthetics in the neighborhood
> (s)he
> > >>> hopes to profit from...renters who are temporary residents
> > don't
> > >>> have such an investment in Durham in the long run.
> > >>> Melissa
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>> *From: *Kelly Jarrett <kjj1 at duke.edu
> <mailto:kjj1 at duke.edu>>;
> > >>> *To: *<inc-list at DurhamINC.org
> > <mailto:inc-list at DurhamINC.org>>;
> > >>> owdNA <owdna at yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:owdna at yahoogroups.com>>;
> > >>> *Subject: *[Durham INC] Herald-Sun article: Monthly garbage,
> > >>> recycling fee sought
> > >>> *Sent: *Tue, May 31, 2011 2:46:21 PM
> > >>>
> > >>> Durham neighbors--
> > >>>
> > >>> I don't know how many of you saw the article in today's
> > >>> Herald-Sun, but Donald Long (Solid Waste Management
> > Director) is
> > >>> proposing that Durham begin charging a monthly fee for
> > garbage &
> > >>> recycling service. I've pasted a link and the article below.
> > >>>
> > >>> My initial response to this proposal is: What a terrible
> idea.
> > >>> We see how badly this fee-for-service system works with yard
> > >>> waste. When it became fee based, people opted out. To make
> > >>> garbage & recycling fee-for-service based in a community
> > such as
> > >>> ours, with a 50% rental housing rate, is a recipe for
> > disaster.
> > >>> What happens if residents don't pay the fee? Their garbage
> > isn't
> > >>> picked up? Whose responsibility is it to see the fee is
> paid:
> > >>> the residents? The property owner? The property manager?
> If a
> > >>> resident moves, does their trash fee move with them or would
> > >>> they have to pay again at a new property? Who will
> insure that
> > >>> fees are paid and trash is collected for each household?
> What
> > >>> happens if a property manager or rental owner goes
> > belly-up and
> > >>> these fees aren't paid? How will the current legislation
> > pending
> > >>> that would prohibit rental registries and limit inspections
> > >>> impact problems with trash pick-up, non-payment of fees?
> What
> > >>> happens if owners decide not to pay? Who will clean up
> > after the
> > >>> inevitable surge of illegal dumping? Handle complaints from
> > >>> businesses who find other people's garbage in their
> commercial
> > >>> bins? Will animal control increase their responses to
> rat and
> > >>> pest infestations?
> > >>>
> > >>> According to Long, this will enable Dept. of Solid Waste
> > >>> Management to "reduce its annual demand for property tax
> > >>> revenues." Bonfield says the move won't reduce the
> > department's
> > >>> operating needs: "This is all just about how you pay for the
> > >>> service." This is a kind of "robbing Peter to pay Paul"
> > >>> accounting in which the losers are taxpayers, who will be
> > >>> saddled with a non-deductible fee for a service that is now
> > >>> tax-based and deductible. See the numbers Gronberg provides
> > >>> below: paying for the service will cost us $35/year;
> property
> > >>> tax rollbacks would lower property tax rates by
> $15--hardly a
> > >>> deal for taxpayers. I say--stop the smoke-and-mirrors
> > accounting
> > >>> and don't nickle-and-dime Durham residents with fees for
> > >>> essential services like trash collection. Keep these
> > services in
> > >>> the tax-base, where at least they are deductible and you can
> > >>> insure that everyone will receive the services.
> > >>>
> > >>> Kelly Jarrett
> > >>>
> > >>> Monthly Garbage, Recycling Fee Sought
> > >>>
> >
> <http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story/13496064/article-Monthly-garbage--recycling-fee-sought?instance=homesecondleft>
> > >>> By Ray Gronberg
> > >>>
> > >>> gronberg at heraldsun.com <javascript:return>; 419-6648
> > >>>
> > >>> DURHAM -- Solid Waste Management Director Donald Long is
> > telling
> > >>> elected officials he thinks it's "imperative" for Durham to
> > >>> emulate other North Carolina cities and begin charging
> > residents
> > >>> a monthly collection fee for garbage and recycling.
> > >>>
> > >>> Long said the move would enable his department to reduce its
> > >>> annual demand for property tax revenues, which in fiscal
> > 2011-12
> > >>> will cover $12.5 million of a $21.3 million budget.
> > >>>
> > >>> He noted that Durham is an outlier among major North
> Carolina
> > >>> cities in not charging a collection fee. Ten of the 12
> > >>> communities Durham usually compares itself to already have
> > such
> > >>> a levy, Greensboro and Winston-Salem being the major
> > exceptions.
> > >>>
> > >>> A recent accounting change that labeled the Solid Waste
> > >>> Management Department's operation purely an "enterprise"
> fund
> > >>> implies that the department should lower its reliance on the
> > >>> city's tax-fortified general fund, Long said.
> > >>>
> > >>> Long floated the idea during a recent City Council budget
> > >>> review. His boss, City Manager Tom Bonfield, was quick to
> > point
> > >>> out that his fiscal 2011-12 budget request doesn't
> include any
> > >>> request for a fee.
> > >>>
> > >>> "It is not a recommendation" for the coming year, though
> it is
> > >>> something administrators are "continuing to explore" for
> > future
> > >>> years and that might be worth talking about in detail
> early in
> > >>> the council's budget review for fiscal 2012-13, he said.
> > >>>
> > >>> Bonfield added that a change from tax-paid to fee-paid
> > >>> collections wouldn't be driven by Solid Waste's operational
> > >>> needs. "This is all just about how you pay for the
> > service," he
> > >>> said.
> > >>>
> > >>> Long's comments took City Council members by surprise.
> "Thanks
> > >>> for waking us up," Councilman Eugene Brown quipped,
> > alluding to
> > >>> the subject having cropped up fairly late in a daylong
> > meeting.
> > >>>
> > >>> Reaction among them was mixed.
> > >>>
> > >>> Mayor Bill Bell pointed out that the imposition of a
> > collection
> > >>> fee would allow a future council to roll back property
> > taxes by
> > >>> an amount equivalent to the new revenue.
> > >>>
> > >>> Long singled out as a potential example for Durham to
> > follow the
> > >>> $2.95 monthly fee Asheville charges residents for
> > recycling service.
> > >>>
> > >>> He said a similarly sized levy here would raise about $2.3
> > >>> million, about the same amount as a penny on the city's
> > property
> > >>> tax rate generate for the city.
> > >>>
> > >>> But Councilwoman Diane Catotti -- who's stepping down at
> > the end
> > >>> of her term later this year -- noted that a collection fee
> > could
> > >>> hurt lower-income residents.
> > >>>
> > >>> "Clearly, fees for general services are more regressive
> > than the
> > >>> property tax," she said. "I might rather leave [garbage and
> > >>> recycling collections] in the tax rate."
> > >>>
> > >>> Were an Asheville-sized fee on offer in Durham for fiscal
> > >>> 2011-12, it would cost most homeowners $35.40. A
> > >>> revenue-equivalent rollback of property taxes would put only
> > >>> about $15 back in the hands of the owner of a $150,000
> house.
> > >>>
> > >>> But anyone with a house valued in the neighborhood of
> $350,000
> > >>> and above would get more back from a property tax rollback
> > than
> > >>> the fee would cost. Business owners and anyone else who
> > uses use
> > >>> a private dumpster collection service would also benefit.
> > >>>
> > >>> Durham officials have long chafed at comparisons of their
> > city's
> > >>> tax rate to those of other cities, such as Raleigh, that
> rely
> > >>> more heavily on service fees than their own. Those that
> do can
> > >>> use lower tax rates, but the overall, fee-inclusive cost
> > burden
> > >>> for residents can be a little different.
> > >>>
> > >>> Over the years, Long has been more willing than most Durham
> > >>> department directors to suggest major changes to the
> financing
> > >>> of his operation.
> > >>>
> > >>> In 2007, he floated the idea of establishing a $51.90
> > annual fee
> > >>> to finance expanded yard-waste and bulky-item pickups. That
> > >>> proposal never made it past the talking stage, as then-City
> > >>> Manager Patrick Baker declined to support it.
> > >>> <http://addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Read more:The Herald-Sun - Monthly garbage recycling fee
> > sought
> > >>>
> >
> <http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story/13496064/article-Monthly-garbage--recycling-fee-sought?instance=homesecondleft#ixzz1NwKKyFJ5>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> Durham INC Mailing List
> > >>> list at durham-inc.org <mailto:list at durham-inc.org>
> > >>> http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Durham INC Mailing List
> > >> list at durham-inc.org <mailto:list at durham-inc.org>
> > >> http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Durham INC Mailing List
> > > list at durham-inc.org
> > > http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Durham INC Mailing List
> > > list at durham-inc.org
> > > http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Durham INC Mailing List
> > list at durham-inc.org
> > http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
> >
>
More information about the INC-list
mailing list