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.
RDU proposes to get into property development because they want to subsidize airfares, cure ebola, and fix global warming. If I am mistaken about that, then it makes no sense to destroy a park favored by many for biking, running, etc. Crabtree lake park would lose some of its attraction if buildings emerged right next to it. The emerging Metlife monstrosity is enough of an eyesore.
It is quite hideous with its big lettering on top and ugly deck nearly jutting out onto Weston Parkway.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
What's with the trend of local governments in Wake County expecting other government agencies to give them property for below market rates? First the City of Raleigh expects the State to hand over the Dix property, now Wake County expects the Airport Authority to give it the Crabtree Park land? In either instance, the land should be transferred at fair value.
Well the state had already signed a deal with the city for Dix Park; and I don't think Wake County has even released an official statement regarding what they'd like from the airport in this case. But they're all government agencies and I don't see why they shouldn't work together to use their land holdings to benefit the public good as much as possible.
Well the state had already signed a deal with the city for Dix Park; and I don't think Wake County has even released an official statement regarding what they'd like from the airport in this case. But they're all government agencies and I don't see why they shouldn't work together to use their land holdings to benefit the public good as much as possible.
Agree with this, and in general, governments should strive to get the best price for EVERYTHING, to save for the taxpayers. But in this case, buying land for cheap, so that a private sector developer can profit, all at the expense of taking the most used part of a public part that THE PUBLIC BUILT WITH VOLUNTEER EFFORTS would not fit "benefit the public good as much as possible".
(I didn't think you were suggesting it would. I posted to agree with your reasoning, but wanted to be sure I still came out against this potential decision...)
While I am actually not in favor of gathering pitchforks, I have to wonder if this is some careful wording, poor reporting or both. If they are considering area D on the maps (and when they say a parcel adjacent to the park, I can't see where else they could mean as all the rest of the indicated areas are across I-40) then it is in what some people (including Wake County on page 3 of the park brochure) http://www.wakegov.com/parks/lakecra...e%203-2013.pdf show as part of the park. It is not the developed part, but looks like Area D includes a bit over 50% of the mountain biking trails, assuming the Wake Co map is correct.
Is that actually "part of the park" or not? There are no structures or hardscapes in that area, evidently, just the volunteer built and maintained trails. Interesting that Wake Co never built anything there.
It is good that they did not "choose not to renew the lease" though if they say it usually takes a few months to iron out things and it expired at the end of 2013, October is outside of a few in most people's definition. Is it possible that they are just not in a hurry as it is no issue or maybe they are working out details on an agreement that is slightly different than previous ones so it is taking longer.
The last thing I want is more FUD, (and honestly, if they added trails elsewhere and built some buildings there, it would not bother me too much as Lake Crabtree is not some distant untouched wilderness anyway), but it still seems to me that the facts of this are not quite clear. It would be nice if someone would concisely state what they are looking to do and what potential impacts there are. Wake Co Parks Dept could clear this up if they wanted to also I imagine.
Parcel D proposed for development by the consultants definitely overlaps with trails north of the current access road and south of I-40. So yes, it would be nice if RDUAA would come out and explicitly say they're not considering Parcel D for development rather than this vague and confusing statement.
It does appear from my reading that they are distinguishing between the "Park" and the Area D parcel from this description. So, it is not as bad as the Save the Crab site hints at, but it does seem like long term, some of the land might get developed. Some people consider this land to be part of the park. Of course no decision has been made so it would all depend on what various board members want to do at some future time, weeks or years from now.
This story has evidently been picked up by the news and WRAL will have a story and speak to the Mayor of Morrisville and possibly other area mayors on the 6:00 newscast.
So yes, RDUAA is saying Parcel D is not actually part of the park and it is under long-term consideration for development. But to normal people, that area is part of the park. It's included on park maps (official ones, Google Maps, and other) and has bike trails running throughout.
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.
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.
