U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Charlotte
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-30-2014, 08:05 AM
 
547 posts, read 536,050 times
Reputation: 218

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TooLogical View Post
Agreed on the small impact from a property tax standpoint and a small % of the population. The issue here is the vast % of land that 'could' be developed (and eventually a lot more will). It's a double edged sword. Developed land would be taxed at the full rate and bring in more $, but if its all residential we take on the burden on the infrastructure (roads, schools, etc.)
Right. Residential Development = Drain on Tax Revenue. I once saw a study (which I can't find at the moment) that said services for residential growth cost I think it was around $1.20 per dollar of revenue residential growth brings in. While the cost of services to famers was $0.80 or something like that that per $1.00 of tax revenue they generated. So, even though farmers may get a tax break, they are still paying for more than their share of the services.

A hundred houses on a hundred acres could mean as many as 150 or so kids to educate, depending on demographics, while one farmhouse on 100 acres probably means two kids to educate. With education expenses being the largest portion of the County's budget, we are obviously much better off with one farmer as opposed to a 100 house development.

The Cost of Community Services studies done for various counties by N.C. State University illustrate my point. There isn't one listed for Union County in particular. http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/wq/lpn/cost.html

We aren't the only county experiencing this clash between farming and development. http://www.farmland.org/resources/su...g-counties.pdf

Key Findings and Recommendations from the Sustaining Agriculture in Urbanizing Counties Report.
  • Farmers were more likely to be positive about agriculture’s future in their county, if they regarded local government as sympathetic, or at least even-handed in resolving conflicts between farmers and non-farmers.
  • State governments should enable, and local authorities should operate, effective programs for purchasing development rights to farmland, thereby, either adding to the base that agricultural zoning supports, or, achieving what zoning fails to realize.
  • Local governments should apply zoning policies (e.g., large minimum-lot requirements, cluster zoning, urban growth boundaries) that help to preserve an adequate land base for farming.
  • There are often insurmountable obstacles to young or beginning farmers purchasing and renting land, especially if they are not related to the current farm owners. Public and private agencies should encourage farm families to plan carefully for the transfer of ownership and management to their children or other relatives.
  • Public and private agencies should encourage the launching and sustainability of farm enterprises likely to be profitable on the urban edge and on small acreages— such as high value specialty crops or livestock.

Last edited by BubbaHelms; 05-30-2014 at 08:34 AM..

 
Old 05-30-2014, 08:47 AM
 
397 posts, read 518,906 times
Reputation: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by BubbaHelms View Post
Right. Residential Development = Drain on Tax Revenue. I once saw a study (which I can't find at the moment) that said services for residential growth cost I think it was around $1.20 per dollar of revenue residential growth brings in. While the cost of services to famers was $0.80 or something like that that per $1.00 of tax revenue they generated. So, even though farmers may get a tax break, they are still paying for more than their share of the services.

A hundred houses on a hundred acres could mean as many as 150 or so kids to educate, depending on demographics, while one farmhouse on 100 acres probably means two kids to educate. With education expenses being the largest portion of the County's budget, we are obviously much better off with one farmer as opposed to a 100 house development
I think 1 acre min lot would be a good start
 
Old 05-30-2014, 08:52 AM
 
527 posts, read 636,953 times
Reputation: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by raithfan View Post
I think 1 acre min lot would be a good start
Agree... not 1 house per acre, but 1 house on an acre lot. Big difference between the two
 
Old 05-30-2014, 08:56 AM
 
397 posts, read 518,906 times
Reputation: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaxhawMike View Post
Agree... not 1 house per acre, but 1 house on an acre lot. Big difference between the two
Agreed...min lot size. Not number of homes per acerage developed.
 
Old 05-30-2014, 08:58 AM
 
136 posts, read 157,269 times
Reputation: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by BubbaHelms View Post
Right. Residential Development = Drain on Tax Revenue. I once saw a study (which I can't find at the moment) that said services for residential growth cost I think it was around $1.20 per dollar of revenue residential growth brings in. While the cost of services to famers was $0.80 or something like that that per $1.00 of tax revenue they generated. So, even though farmers may get a tax break, they are still paying for more than their share of the services.

A hundred houses on a hundred acres could mean as many as 150 or so kids to educate, depending on demographics, while one farmhouse on 100 acres probably means two kids to educate. With education expenses being the largest portion of the County's budget, we are obviously much better off with one farmer as opposed to a 100 house development.

The Cost of Community Services studies done for various counties by N.C. State University illustrate my point. There isn't one listed for Union County in particular. Land Preservation Notebook Website - Cost of Community Services

We aren't the only county experiencing this clash between farming and development. http://www.farmland.org/resources/su...g-counties.pdf

Key Findings and Recommendations from the Sustaining Agriculture in Urbanizing Counties Report.
  • Farmers were more likely to be positive about agriculture’s future in their county, if they regarded local government as sympathetic, or at least even-handed in resolving conflicts between farmers and non-farmers.
  • State governments should enable, and local authorities should operate, effective programs for purchasing development rights to farmland, thereby, either adding to the base that agricultural zoning supports, or, achieving what zoning fails to realize.
  • Local governments should apply zoning policies (e.g., large minimum-lot requirements, cluster zoning, urban growth boundaries) that help to preserve an adequate land base for farming.
  • There are often insurmountable obstacles to young or beginning farmers purchasing and renting land, especially if they are not related to the current farm owners. Public and private agencies should encourage farm families to plan carefully for the transfer of ownership and management to their children or other relatives.
  • Public and private agencies should encourage the launching and sustainability of farm enterprises likely to be profitable on the urban edge and on small acreages— such as high value specialty crops or livestock.
The #'s interest me most. To a 1st approximation...

[100(1.2)-100]÷[1(0.8)-1] = [20]÷[-0.2]

A 10,000% swing in the financial impact... and judging from residential density in Lawson and Indian Trail, a very conservative estimate. Moreover, the balance swings deep into the red.

We are no longer a purely agricultural county (haven't been for several generations). We can't adopt a purely residential model (unsupportable). To make it balance, there needs to be a third variable in the equation - industry other than agriculture. Bottom line - balance the equation and we can buy you more schools.
 
Old 05-30-2014, 09:32 AM
 
547 posts, read 536,050 times
Reputation: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by waxhawdoc View Post
The #'s interest me most. To a 1st approximation...

[100(1.2)-100]÷[1(0.8)-1] = [20]÷[-0.2]

A 10,000% swing in the financial impact... and judging from residential density in Lawson and Indian Trail, a very conservative estimate. Moreover, the balance swings deep into the red.

We are no longer a purely agricultural county (haven't been for several generations). We can't adopt a purely residential model (unsupportable). To make it balance, there needs to be a third variable in the equation - industry other than agriculture. Bottom line - balance the equation and we can buy you more schools.
Since people probably won't read the studies, here are the Revenue/Expenditure Ratios from national studies and for Wake Co. and Durham Co. in NC as examples.


Residential /Commercial /Agricultural

National Median 0.87 / 3.57 / 2.78

Wake Co. 0.65 / 5.63 / 2.12

Durham Co. 0.87 / 3.03 / 1.70
 
Old 05-30-2014, 10:36 AM
 
985 posts, read 1,650,935 times
Reputation: 377
GOVERNOR AND FIRST LADY TO VISIT SUN VALLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ON MONDAY!
Governor Pat McCrory and First Lady Ann McCrory will visit Sun Valley Elementary School on June 2, 2014 from 9:00 a.m. - 10:00 a.m.
During the visit, the Governor will address students and staff members in a special assembly to congratulate them on their efforts in reading and discuss the importance of continuing to read during the summer.
Sun Valley Elementary School earned recognition through the Scholastic Summer Reading Challenge by reading books and recording minutes read over the summer. The school achieved 1st place in the state and 2nd place in the world during the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years. During the summer of 2013, Sun Valley Elementary School students logged 6,042,663 minutes read. The students are featured in the Scholastic Book of World Records 2013 for the number of minutes they logged reading over the summer.
The Governor and First Lady graciously donated 100 books to Sun Valley Elementary School in honor of the students’ achievement.
-ucps-
 
Old 05-30-2014, 10:50 AM
 
527 posts, read 636,953 times
Reputation: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by waxhawdoc View Post
Bottom line - balance the equation and we can buy you more schools.
That's funny... you don't want MCRs and you don't want new taxes. Exactly where do you think all the new people will go to school? If the solution was to balance the equation MCRs should have been leveraged as a temporary solution. As it stands there is no plan for tax base balance and there is no path to enrollment management other than construction.

But we didn't need a long term comprehensive plan with input from all stakeholders...
 
Old 05-30-2014, 11:33 AM
 
136 posts, read 157,269 times
Reputation: 114
I feel like i'm back on the merry-go-round again. Didn't we go around on this two-hundred pages back?

I think new taxes are coming, I see no way around it (and I will probably end up supporting it). MCR's solve an emergent problem, but cost much more in the long-run. I believe that we have real, but isolated capacity issues now - appropriate redistricting solves that problem more efficiently. You believe (I think) that we don't have enough resolution in the current capacity #'s. I agree, and hope your CAPS buddies learn something from their legal discovery - i want to see the math too. Doesn't change the immediate concerns.

I want to treat the primary disease rather than accommodating secondary symptoms. Build a commercial tax base is the long-term plan, our ability to build new schools depends on this. Until then, we'll need to use our current facility (and capital) investments more efficiently and build (yes, construct) capacity where we can (improve-on and build-on existing facilities).

Don't make me the straw-man, there are plenty of new unsuspecting members in the discussion for that. Perhaps an MCR for WxwMike's kiddos would keep them at a showcase school - I think that's a valid concern. I also have problems with the redistricting plan as it came together - but you were there to see it go down too.

Last edited by waxhawdoc; 05-30-2014 at 12:37 PM..
 
Old 06-02-2014, 11:48 AM
 
547 posts, read 536,050 times
Reputation: 218
Way to go, Doc! You appear to have killed the thread. Of course, there really is nothing to discuss until CAPSMEMBER unveils his brilliant legal strategy for us. Still waiting...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Charlotte
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:18 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top