Is Raleigh's growth getting out of hand? (Cary, Hillsborough: transplants, real estate)

[saturnfan]

Please run for office here. Please, we need you.

You have very precisely explained the problem and I tip my hat to you.

[convergent]

Originally Posted by rnc2mbfl

This is not so easy to do. Let me see if I can capture a typical housing post from this board....and I paraphrase (this is not literal) "I am looking for a 4 bedroom house with 2500 S.F. on a half acre of land in a safe quiet neighborhood near good schools for under $300,000".

And why is this wrong? Some people like to live in the country and some people like to live in the city. I am buying a 5 bedroom, 3700 sq ft house, on an acre... in an established neighorhood. I fail to understand what exactly would be the reason why you would want to force people to live in a certain model that you've decided is best. I work from my home and prefer to have plenty of space for me and my family to live our life.

We don't have a collective understanding that suburban development is the most taxing on our natural resources and is the most expensive develpment to support from an infrastructure perspective.

If this were the case, then why are the inner city houses more expensive than the suburban houses? If this were the case, then why would the ultimate US experiment in urban living, NY City, be sucking the tax base out of an entire state to help keep its failing infrastructure running. The whole state of NY's sole purpose of existing is to feed tax money and natural resources into NY City and try to help feed and fix its broken system. I would argue that spreading things out is better for the environment than cramming everything together and then having to ship in resources and money to support it.

Ironically, the homes on the far flung reaches of our cities cost less and therefore provide less revenue in property taxes than similar properties closer to the city centers.

If this were true, then why would the cities and towns be falling all over themselves to annex these developments so that they can provide them resources in exchange for tax dollars? The far flung homes cost less because the property is worth less. Are you suggesting that people should spend more on land and less on their house, just so they can be closer to the inner city? What if they work in the suburbs? What sense would that make? What if they work from home like I do... again, what sense would that make?

Since 1957, the average American home has doubled in size from about 1250 sf to about 2500 sf. All the while, the size of the family in that home has shrunk on average. The automobile and the planning models that are supported by it have allowed us to move further away in order to consume more than we ever had at the expense of the tax payer.

Hmmm... my wife and I have more kids than either of the families we grew up in. So should we limit how many children that someone can have? That seems to be where you are going with this... government control. I believe this is the model that the People's Republic of China has. It seems to be working out for them. Not my cup of tea.

...then we ought to be looking more closely at making urban model housing affordable to more people. If we publicly pay for the infrastructure of new homes with roads, sewers, etc., we ought to find ways to financially assist the growth we actually want.

OK, here we go... this is the one that always kills me. If it is so much cheaper and uses so much less resources, then why do "we" have to financially assist it? All these social experiments that people come up with are always needing more tax dollars to keep them going. Why don't people buy electric cars? Because they cost too much to make, and they don't really save much in the way of resources? Why don't people live in the inner city? Because they don't want to. If it was cheaper and used less resources, and if it was what "we" wanted, then I guarantee you that someone would jump on it and get it done. The "we" in this quote is really the "you". If "we" wanted it, then "we" would do it. But the reality is "you" want it, and "you" want "we" to pay for it.

In the end, nobody comes to a city and complains about not having suburbs. They come to cities and complain that there's nothing to do downtown.

Um yeh... actually they do. I read posts all the time in here about people complaining that they have to drive a long ways to get to a particular store or restaurant that they want to go to. One that I just saw was why there was only one Costco. I would go to the inner city occaisionally to see the museums or sites, but otherwise have no interest in going there. I would imagine that a lot of other people feel the same way, otherwise it would be crowded down there and you wouldn't have to be coming up with ways to try and incent people to go there. The city I'm in in NY state is seeing untold tax payer's dollars being dumped into "revitalizing" the downtown. The latest is spending I think what is approaching three quarters of a billion dollars on a convention center. If it was such a great idea, then why wouldn't a business want to do it? Within 1 mile, and directly across the river from the site of said tax payer funded convention center, a private investor just agreed to build an entire school district a brand new campus and relocate all students there for free, just so that they could have the river front parcel of land that is currently occupied by the existing high school. One project has merit and thus plenty of money invested... the other project has no merit and the local government wants the state and federal government (which is the tax payers) to pay for it.

I am all for saving natural resources and planning, but what you seem to be upset that a lot of people are interested in a different model of living than you are. If you want to live in the city, then by all means... there are a number of them to choose from if Raleigh doesn't do it for you... NY City, Phillidelphia, and many more... all big cities with a ton of urban opportunity. I can't speak for Phili, but I can tell you that NY City sucks a lot of resources from the northeast to keep it running. This is one big reason why I'm moving out of NY. I'm tired of seeing my tax dollars used to fund NY City when I don't live there. Or if you want probably the ultimate urban compression... Tokyo is probably the place to go.

I believe that something worthwhile is going to fund itself. It shouldn't need to be "made" more affordable artificially by the government to cause people to want to do it. The government can certainly pass guildelines for safety, environmental control, planning, etc., but in the end, they shouldn't be forcing people to live a certain way. It seems that the future of Raleigh has been set in motion a long time ago, and apparantly some people like it or they wouldn't be moving there. I grew up in a city in Virginia that specifically prevented growth from happening. It is still pretty much the same way it was then... 30 years ago. It had one of the worst school districts in the State then, and I'm sure it still does. As soon as people graduated from high school, most of them were on the first bus out of town, and never came back. That is the opposite of growth... stagnation and deterioration.

[North_Raleigh_Guy]

Originally Posted by convergent

I would argue that spreading things out is better for the environment than cramming everything together and then having to ship in resources and money to support it.

I respectfully disagree with that point. There is nothing about suburban sprawl that is good for the environment. I live in the suburbs too, but I recognize that there is virtually nothing about this kind of lifestyle that can be portrayed as conserving natural resources.

Originally Posted by convergent

If this were the case, then why are the inner city houses more expensive than the suburban houses?

In Raleigh the downtown living locations are more expensive than their suburban counterparts becasue they offer a superior location providing closer proximity to entertainment, dining, and employment. I work with several people who live downtown and they walk to the office we work at. Meanwhile I have to drive 20 minutes each way using a road the city had to build for me and others like me to travel to downtown.

FWIW, I undestand why some people choose to live in the suburbs (I live there myself). Life is about choices, but as a person living in the North Raleigh "burbs", I can't pretend that my lifestyle is actually helping the environment.

[StoneOne]

Originally Posted by convergent

I believe that something worthwhile is going to fund itself. It shouldn't need to be "made" more affordable artificially by the government to cause people to want to do it.

Not always. While capitalism has proven itself to be the best system, or, more precisely, the least evil system attempted to date (taking into account of course the regulatory aspects that have improved it with time), it is still always about the short-term and what's good today and maybe tomorrow, but certainly not the day after tomorrow, let alone 10-20 years down the road.

Suburban sprawl is good for the short-term, whether you're talking about the pocketbooks of developers or the immediate consumer cravings of the masses. It gives it all, very fast, very efficiently -- in the short-term. As such, of course it's going to fund itself. But is it worthwhile? I don't know, maybe for some people. Are the convention center and other urban revitalization projects worthwhile? For some people, most definitely. But given their longer-term nature, they're not going to fund themselves, simply because the capitalist system we have (again, the best that we've come up with and likely will come up with) is not set up to see them as worthwhile.

And there you have the role of government - a natural check to the short-term interests of the capitalist system and the masses it's designed to feed. Not an opponent, not an adversary, but a check to manage it over the long term.

[rnc2mbfl]

It seems that I have stirred up trouble. It doesn't surprise me and I think it needs to be done. When I have the energy and time, I'll be responding in full.

[saturnfan]

We were discussing this in the leasing office of my complex a few days ago. I'm a Neighborhood Watch volunteer, and builders were flooding mailboxes with fraud telling tenants they could buy for less than rent. The catch was interest only loans, builder buydown rates, and adjustable rate. The quoted payment left out principal, HOA fees, and maintenance.

Our manager, a very intelligent grad student, agreed with me that the "expectations" and "American Dream" concepts push folks into moving into the suburbs to "own" a home.

Of course, many are only two payments away from losing it, but they are owners not "lowlife renters" like ourselves.

The tax code takes from me and helps pay mortgages on McMansions. Does that encourage responsible stewardship of our resources?

There are good reasons to live in the country. However, we should not encourage those who choose to do so to waste our resources by commuting many miles daily.

If you live far out, you can expect a trip to town to shop as in older days. If you want close in shopping, the city welcomes you. We do have some nice flats available.

[miamiblue]

Originally Posted by convergent

I would argue that spreading things out is better for the environment than cramming everything together and then having to ship in resources and money to support it.

Is it me, or does this argument just not make sense? "[S]hip in resources and money to support [a dense urban core]"????? Cities are historically industrial and commerce centers. In most cases, goods and services are being transported out of city cores to provide for farther flung areas. The more spread out people are, the more strip malls need to be built to cater to everyone's needs. More trucks need to burn fuel to supply these stores. Etc., etc.

Are you suggesting that people should spend more on land and less on their house, just so they can be closer to the inner city? What if they work in the suburbs? What sense would that make? What if they work from home like I do... again, what sense would that make?

I don't think onyone on this thread is suggesting anyone 'should' or 'has to' do anything. Some are just trying to paint a picture of smart growth. There must be a balance. The closer people live to where they work, the less resources they use to get there. If you are able to work from home, kudos to you for using no resources to get to work! But that's not how it works for everyone. It is when you have a large number of people making commutes akin to Clayton to RTP that causes infrastructure deficiencies and major traffic issues.

Hmmm... my wife and I have more kids than either of the families we grew up in. So should we limit how many children that someone can have? That seems to be where you are going with this... government control. I believe this is the model that the People's Republic of China has. It seems to be working out for them. Not my cup of tea.

Nowhere in this thread did anyone say anything about imposing restrictions on size of family. The point was that in some cases people with smaller families than in the past are inhabiting far larger houses nowadays, seemingly unecessarily.

Um yeh... actually they do. I read posts all the time in here about people complaining that they have to drive a long ways to get to a particular store or restaurant that they want to go to. One that I just saw was why there was only one Costco.

These statements validate rnc2mbfl's point. As more and more people move out to exurban areas, they then tend to demand amenities that would be easily found closer to the city (you don't necessarily have to be in the inner city). I'm sorry, but people know what is available nearby when they choose a neighborhood to live in. I cannot sympathize with anyone who moves out to Holly Springs, Clayton, etc. and then complains that there is not a Costco or Bed Bath & Beyond around every corner once they get there. If that is what they really wanted, they should have moved closer in to the metro where such amenities are available. That is why the land farther out is cheaper - fewer amenities. Sometimes we have to pony up for the things we really want. If you don't want those things, then you should be fine!

I believe that something worthwhile is going to fund itself. It shouldn't need to be "made" more affordable artificially by the government to cause people to want to do it.

This is definitley not the case. In our society things will be funded if they will provide a worthwhile profit for someone (which is perfectly understandable, not saying this is a bad thing). However, things that are worthwhile to the general well-being of society are not always profitable to the person putting up the capital. Does that mean the state of such things should just be left as they are? There is no money to be made in providing low-income families safe and affordable housing, does that mean they should be left to their own devices so their cycle of poverty can just continue ad infinitum?

I agree that growth is a good thing for Raleigh, but as has been stated by others, it must be smart in order for the quality of life here to continue to be good. The water situation that is going on right now is a great example of politicians underestimating the power of growth when faced with an 'unexpected' natural phenomena. I was shocked and disgusted by how long it took for the city to institute water restrictions, and once they finally did, it was a joke! If you tell people they can only water every other day based on their address with no time restrictions, they are just going to water longer on the days they are allowed to, providing almost no water savings whatsoever. It took several months for the public to catch on that the city was serious about this, but I place the blame squarely on city officials who did far too little, much too late.

Ok, off my little soapbox.

[convergent]

Good discussion guys... I admit I'm taking a hard one-sided position on some of my replies, but I didn't see anyone else going there. As always, the healthiest position is probably somewhere in the middle. People can be selfish and greedy by nature.

On the mortgage comment made by saturnfan, I am totally in agreement that the government should not be bailing people out that bought a huge house that they couldn't afford on a low variable rate mortgage. They knew what they were getting into. But wait... talking to some folks in the mortgage industry, I was told that there are some very shady people that probably signed some of these people up without disclosing what was going to happen to them. I know that they will qualify you for WAY more than you can really pay for so the consumer has to be smart enough to know this going in. Should the government bail them out for being ignorant about what they signed? I don't know... that's a tough one. The affect on the economy of millions of foreclosures would be pretty big, and who would benefit from that? The folks that swoop in and pick up the foreclosures and flip them for a profit? That is a tough one. I'd vote for not bailing them out unless there was proof that they were intentionally lied to by the mortgage company, and then I'd expect the government to go after the company for reimbursement. But that is all in an ideal world.

Now back to the urban/suburban thing. What I like and want is living in the suburbs. I have zero interest of doing anything downtown. If I go there, its usually going to be for something specific like a museum or something. If I worked downtown, I still wouldn't want to live there. While working, I'm in a building and am not really affected by where I'm at. When I'm off and have my own time, I'd much rather spend it playing a sport, fishing, swimming, or taking a walk in the woods. If I lived in the city, I'd spend my time driving out of the city to get to what I want to do. For people that live in the city and like it, thats great. But all of this comes down to personal choice and trade-offs. I like living in the suburbs, whether I worked from home or not.

Fun discussion... and its great to see we can have a discussion like this on here and people don't turn it personal and get out of hand.

[autumngal]

Please take a moment to review the Original Post of this thread. And lets try not to let it veer off too much or become a "National" discussion. Please start a new thread if you feel you would like to have discussions that perhaps are not suitable for this thread. Thanks .

[saturnfan]

Getting back to the original post, Raleigh may well be "riding the crest" and setting up for a fall.

Pollution, water shortages, transportation issues, increased taxes, increased crime, school overcrowding/reassignments, may well take Raleigh off the "best places" list.

Please let that happen soon!