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.
NDL ... as a newcomer you missed one important part of the article the land owners ... "Land parcel owners are the White family, Springland and Clear Springs-Bradley Park."
The Springs family ... Springs Mills, Springmaid Beach, Springmaid Mountain, Springs Farms. The White family joined the Springs family when Samuel White's daughter Allison Grace White married Leroy Springs in 1892.
At one time Springs owned Fort Mill, Lancaster and Chester ... people worked at the mills and raised their children to work in the mill. Springs did a lot for the communities. Baxter Village is formerly Springs property.
if all the newcomers go to fort mill it will keep homes affordable for natives in rock hill
I suppose that's one way to look at it.
Yet I see it as the landscape will be permanently changed.
If you drive along Audrey Kell as I do, you'll notice that some of the condo developments are really well done. Yes, many condo/townhouse developments are tightly packed, but the condo's are done in a beautiful brick facade; there's reasonable parking allotments, etc.
Many of the developments in Fort Mill are nicely done. Yet a few others (which I won't name)...lets say that if not for the fact that they're in Fort Mill, they'd turn into slum housing in short time.
NDL ... as a newcomer you missed one important part of the article the land owners ... "Land parcel owners are the White family, Springland and Clear Springs-Bradley Park."
The Springs family ... Springs Mills, Springmaid Beach, Springmaid Mountain, Springs Farms. The White family joined the Springs family when Samuel White's daughter Allison Grace White married Leroy Springs in 1892.
At one time Springs owned Fort Mill, Lancaster and Chester ... people worked at the mills and raised their children to work in the mill. Springs did a lot for the communities. Baxter Village is formerly Springs property.
What I wonder is this: do people not realize that increased density means an increased burden on roads, water, sewer, trash, schools?
Why not restrict development to 3 or 4 acre minimum lots?
More homes/construction means more money in county taxes and if annexed city taxes. Developers want money, people need the jobs construction brings.
If you are ever on Hwy 274 at the SC DMV look across the street. There is a bank across the street and behind the bank you will see new homes. Right beside this new development you will see homes that have been there for years. A nice neighborhood brick homes not built on top of each other type of place. The new development was formerly a driving range and then a 9 hole golf course and when the owner decided to sell they sold to a developer.
The developer laid his plans out before York County Planning for this new development. Nice homes set at a certain price level, large lots, no door to door homes. The people in the older development reviewed the plans, developer to pave the roads ... all brick homes ... everything was approved as it appeared it would blend in with the older development.
Down the road a year no construction started. During this period of time the developer had returned to the County Planning Dept with some changes. The plan changes was approved and all of a sudden vinyl siding door to door, I mean on top of each other houses were under construction with prices starting at $120k.
Neighbors in the older neighborhood went to the county ... what's going on ... no one knew the answers. Then they found the revisions and approval. Developer agreed to constructing a berm and trees to block the view of the new development.
This resulted in our former chairman of the YC Council losing re-election and a person in the planning department was terminated.
It is all about money ... why waste land we can build six houses on 3 acres and convince buyers you have a beautiful half acre lot. Some people don't mind living this way look at so many of the new developments, some appear you can barely get a lawnmower between the homes.
Another former YC Councilman presented an ordinance restricting home builders to placing homes a certain distance apart ... I forgot the footage. He did this because he is a member of one of the volunteer fire departments and was present at a fire where one house was on fire and so close to the one next door it caught on fire. The fire even damaged vinyl on a third house.
Urban sprawl is the game ... more money in the city/county coffers ... it's all about money. I drove to work on Hwy 49 (2 lanes) for 31 years. My problem has always been with developers coming in and clear cutting for a strip mall or new development. Just give me a driveway and room to build a house and I will decide what needs to go and what needs to stay. LOL
I agree with CarolinaWoman on all but one point: the "beautiful half-acre lot" - coming from NJ, where we had a single family home on a .16 acre lot (no joke), we were thrilled to get a lot almost twice it's size (we have just over 1/4 acre). It felt humongous to us by comparison!
So, I'm sure there are a lot of people who move here who DO think 1/2 an acre is a great sized lot.
For me personally, 1/4 acre is about all I can handle. I can't imagine having to care for 1/2 an acre, much less 1-2 acres! That gives me a headache just thinking about it!
While I'm not a fan of urban sprawl (it's why we bought in an 20-year old established neighborhood), I do understand the opportunities it brings to the area.
My family lived for many years in Fairfax, VA and the Fairfax of my time (1980s) is NOT the Fairfax of 2013 - it's completely different and I frequently get lost when I drive through there. Houses, apartments, townhomes - EVERYWHERE. Roads moved, new roads, expanded roads. And yet, the place is doing great and is still a heavily desired place to live in NoVA.
My hope is that Fort Mill remains the heavily-desired place to live in our area. Even if it means growth beyond what some people are comfortable with.
I like the idea!!! It will bring much needed taxes to the town for schools and other things like roads. With this it will keep taxes from going up for people that already live here. do you realize how much taxes a 1000 homes will pay!!!
What I wonder is this: do people not realize that increased density means an increased burden on roads, water, sewer, trash, schools?
Why not restrict development to 3 or 4 acre minimum lots?
This is what york county and the city governments want...high density. I'm not sure what excuse they give.. I guess to reduce urban sprawl. They don't want the 1-2 acres lot with single homes anymore.
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.
...
