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.
No area in the US is perfect. Either the towns/cities don't grow which leads to no work for the population of "long timers" and their families, as one poster has put it. Or the area grows, develops, and creates new jobs, which in turn brings new people from outside the area and disrupts the good ole ways of years past. This isn't rocket science and the same simplified fork in the road scenario is true all over the world. Either you embrace change and development or watch the city/region slowly decay. People can't have it both ways.
i think its like investing right
slow steady growth is what's desirable and not roller coaster take offs and crashes
I'd also like to add that I think easier to obtain credit has increased expectation among Americans. Should we all have new wardrobes every season, have a car less that 3 years old and brand new home with granite countertops amongst other things?
I live in a neighborhood built in the 1950's. I suspect most of these homes would be unappealling to families because they are mostly 3 bedrooms and 1 bath and roughly 1000 sqft. These homes catered to familes larger than the ones we have now for more than fifty years, but somehow won't work in 2016.
I've seen on these forums, where a potential new transplant mentioned she was trying to keep her/his budget around $250000. She and her husband were high earners based on their proffessions, so one of the first comments posted, was 'why is your budget so low?.'
Expectations have gone up faster or just as fast as COL, is my observation.
I think I made that comment, and it was because finding a place that met her requirements for 250k around here wasn't going to be possible, not really.
It was certainly not because I don't think that you cannot find a nice place for that price.
You just cannot find a nice place with 4 beds, 3.5 baths, a .5 acre lot, new construction...
See what I mean?
So, if people indicate that their incomes are higher, I am naturally inclined to ask why their budgets are that low if they expect a home that's larger and has more rooms/acreage and/or is new/newer.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
How exactly do you determine someone is overpaid? Do you really think companies just indiscriminately overpay their workers?
I think "overpaid" is code here in this case to "paid a good deal more than they'd need to live comfortably in the Triangle area.
People being paid higher salaries (and I'm not knocking it because my family falls into that category) do tip the scales out of favor of people who made mid-range to lower salaries.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
slow steady growth is what's desirable and not roller coaster take offs and crashes
How do you control growth? If a major company wants to move to the area but you have already had a huge influx of people with other jobs, are you really going to turn them down? (hypothetically)
I'd also like to add that I think easier to obtain credit has increased expectation among Americans. Should we all have new wardrobes every season, have a car less that 3 years old and brand new home with granite countertops amongst other things?
I live in a neighborhood built in the 1950's. I suspect most of these homes would be unappealling to families because they are mostly 3 bedrooms and 1 bath and roughly 1000 sqft. These homes catered to familes larger than the ones we have now for more than fifty years, but somehow won't work in 2016.
I've seen on these forums, where a potential new transplant mentioned she was trying to keep her/his budget around $250000. She and her husband were high earners based on their proffessions, so one of the first comments posted, was 'why is your budget so low?.'
Expectations have gone up faster or just as fast as COL, is my observation.
YES. A thousand times, yes. And it's true that this problem is not limited to the Triangle. It just might be a little bit more pronounced here because people who come from "traditionally" higher COL areas see the shiny big new house with all the amenities that they can get for the same price of their "average" house where they came from. And no one ever seems to turn that down, so the new housing market caters exclusively to it now. It's accentuated the difference between those who are just starting to grow their wealth (young families) and those who make high salaries to begin with and/or arrive here with more equity.
No area in the US is perfect. Either the towns/cities don't grow which leads to no work for the population of "long timers" and their families, as one poster has put it. Or the area grows, develops, and creates new jobs, which in turn brings new people from outside the area and disrupts the good ole ways of years past. This isn't rocket science and the same simplified fork in the road scenario is true all over the world. Either you embrace change and development or watch the city/region slowly decay. People can't have it both ways.
This is setting up a false dilemma. It isn't either no growth/decay (and suffer for it) or extreme growth (and deal with it warts and all). It does not have to be that way. Growth IS a good thing. However, as my post pointed out -- not even asking developers to give up a couple of lots for a turning lane for access to a huge new subdivision off of a previously rural road is not asking for the moon. And we don't even seem to be able to do that. A lot of investigations of dangerous intersections are only performed by the DOT AFTER a death occurs in that intersection. A little planning now would go a loooong way toward maintaining quality of life in the future -- and the powers-that-be seem short-sighted in that regard. It's probably better in some areas than others (there are a lot of small towns and multiple counties involved in managing high-growth areas here, after all). But, overall, it's still a valid concern that many long-term (and even some short-term) residents have.
I think I made that comment, and it was because finding a place that met her requirements for 250k around here wasn't going to be possible, not really.
It was certainly not because I don't think that you cannot find a nice place for that price.
You just cannot find a nice place with 4 beds, 3.5 baths, a .5 acre lot, new construction...
See what I mean?
So, if people indicate that their incomes are higher, I am naturally inclined to ask why their budgets are that low if they expect a home that's larger and has more rooms/acreage and/or is new/newer.
Didn't mean to make a dig at you, if it appeared that way. I don't recall if it was you who made the comment. I appreciate your counter argument.
Didn't mean to make a dig at you, if it appeared that way. I don't recall if it was you who made the comment. I appreciate your counter argument.
It's alright. I didn't think you were making a dig. You were calling out a comment you'd read, and I just wanted to clarify my reason for asking what I'd asked in that particular scenario.
If someone showed up here wanting to spend 250k for 2 beds/1.5 baths in a cute little bungalow built around WW2, I would not ask them why they didn't want to spend more unless they told me they needed that bungalow to be right in the middle of Five Points, because that's just not gonna happen now with the price of RE in that particular area.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
This is setting up a false dilemma. It isn't either no growth/decay (and suffer for it) or extreme growth (and deal with it warts and all). It does not have to be that way. Growth IS a good thing. However, as my post pointed out -- not even asking developers to give up a couple of lots for a turning lane for access to a huge new subdivision off of a previously rural road is not asking for the moon. And we don't even seem to be able to do that. A lot of investigations of dangerous intersections are only performed by the DOT AFTER a death occurs in that intersection. A little planning now would go a loooong way toward maintaining quality of life in the future -- and the powers-that-be seem short-sighted in that regard. It's probably better in some areas than others (there are a lot of small towns and multiple counties involved in managing high-growth areas here, after all). But, overall, it's still a valid concern that many long-term (and even some short-term) residents have.
I have questioned the city and town planning commissions' behaviors around growth. I mean, growth is generally a good thing, but we are not in a recession and this area is quite popular. There's no need to lose our minds and not be practical about how we grow the area.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
How do you control growth? If a major company wants to move to the area but you have already had a huge influx of people with other jobs, are you really going to turn them down? (hypothetically)
Make them pay full freight for the infrastructure needs their coming creates.
Most come after being bribed.
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.
Didn't mean to make a dig at you, if it appeared that way. I don't recall if it was you who made the comment. I appreciate your counter argument.
