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.
It's still there, and I suspect it will still be there 11 years from now.
BTW, it's my understanding that RHA was created by the NC General Assembly in 1938 as an entity separate from the City. RHA has its own Board of Commissioners and although it's unlikely they will go to war with City Council, they are autonomous.
The tax value of the buildings and land is right around $20 million. 600 West St has a tax value of $3mil and just sold for $4.6mil. Plus the building was constructed in the 1960s.
I would think a new building could be constructed with more amenities in a quieter area.
The tax value of the buildings and land is right around $20 million. 600 West St has a tax value of $3mil and just sold for $4.6mil. Plus the building was constructed in the 1960s.
I would think a new building could be constructed with more amenities in a quieter area.
Sure, but the elderly would be "gentrified" out of their homes. Nobody cares, right.
The people there are renters in a subsidized housing project. No one is taking their homes from them. Surely any deal that ends up happening there will involve someone building a similarly sized building elsewhere in the city that would allow continued subsidized housing. If the developer is smart, it will be a larger number of units. Than Glenwood Towers has now. I can tell you, having been all in that building and on the roof doing a renovation (among other things we upgraded the exhaust fans to try to lower the number of burned food fire calls) project 20 plus years ago that it is not exactly nice inside. Any new building would be much nicer.
And as mentioned, it's not going to be an easy deal to make work, but as land values rise, the community can be much better served by having more money in the coffers of the housing authority and more affordable housing units than before instead of essentially wasting valuable real estate with an outdated facility.
I'm less concerned about the elderly being displaced than the poor who don't have a vehicle and need to live close to employment centers to make a living.
That is correct. But I am going on the assumption that another building will be built for them.
I'd make it a prerequisite for any developer that might acquire the property. You want that chuck of land, you build something elsewhere to replace it. Period. If in fact the property is part of the public trust I don't have any problem whatsoever about putting that restriction on it.
Before anyone goes off on saying that would make development cost prohibitive, I would counter that it might effect the developer's desired ROI. In other words, where are we obligated to insure someone makes a 30% return on investment? (please free free to use what ever number you're comfortable with). Considering the prime location and such, do we really need to drop our panties for the first person that comes along saying "You must let me make X amount of money on this before I'll put a shovel in the ground"? There well may be someone else that is entirely comfortable with an 18% ROI (again, use your own numbers) and would welcome an opportunity to make some money and do good.
It's not at all unheard of for these kinds of restrictions, and if a particular developer cries foul doesn't mean it's necessarily a bad idea it just means you've not found the right dance partner. Considering the city's growth and desirability it's best to use your leverage while you can. You're not always going to have that luxury.
I'd make it a prerequisite for any developer that might acquire the property. You want that chuck of land, you build something elsewhere to replace it. Period. If in fact the property is part of the public trust I don't have any problem whatsoever about putting that restriction on it.
Before anyone goes off on saying that would make development cost prohibitive, I would counter that it might effect the developer's desired ROI. In other words, where are we obligated to insure someone makes a 30% return on investment? (please free free to use what ever number you're comfortable with). Considering the prime location and such, do we really need to drop our panties for the first person that comes along saying "You must let me make X amount of money on this before I'll put a shovel in the ground"? There well may be someone else that is entirely comfortable with an 18% ROI (again, use your own numbers) and would welcome an opportunity to make some money and do good.
It's not at all unheard of for these kinds of restrictions, and if a particular developer cries foul doesn't mean it's necessarily a bad idea it just means you've not found the right dance partner. Considering the city's growth and desirability it's best to use your leverage while you can. You're not always going to have that luxury.
It will work eventually for someone. And honestly, if you do the deal right, you can get the housing authority to pay you some mo year for the new building anyway, especially if it's increasing the total number of apartments. Then there are affordable housing credits from the Feds and so on. Lots of moving parts, but at some point there will be too much money out there for all parties for it not to happen.
It will work eventually for someone. And honestly, if you do the deal right, you can get the housing authority to pay you some mo year for the new building anyway, especially if it's increasing the total number of apartments. Then there are affordable housing credits from the Feds and so on. Lots of moving parts, but at some point there will be too much money out there for all parties for it not to happen.
I think you're right, or at least I hope so. I just get weary of this 'race to the bottom' where government is all too willing to fold like a two-dollar suitcase in the name of growth. There's no need to time and time again settle for something less particularly when we're all going to have to live with the consequences for years to come.
I think you're right, or at least I hope so. I just get weary of this 'race to the bottom' where government is all too willing to fold like a two-dollar suitcase in the name of growth. There's no need to time and time again settle for something less particularly when we're all going to have to live with the consequences for years to come.
You are so right.
Many of the junk apartments built recently will become slums quickly as the cheap junk put in them falls apart.
Then, what have we gained?
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.
