Understand, first, this proposal does not require new homes to be built on 2-acre lots. A density of one house per 2 acres means that 50 houses could be built on a 100 acre tract. That could mean 25 acres of the tract would have homes on 1/2 acre lots, and the other 75 acres could be open land, recreational use, natural area, reserved for future school or whatever. When you look at supply and demand, if the number of new homes is restricted, that should preserve the value of existing homes, more than unlimited growth. I think most people are willing to pay a premium for a new, never-lived-in home, so if there is no limit to the number of new homes that can be built, that would reduce demand for existing homes. Regulating density of development is just one of many ways to control the rate of growth. Another way would be to say, we will approve X number of new homes per year, and then who determines which applications get approved? Is it the first ones to get to the planning board, even if they are not well-planned subdivisions, and then another developer who takes more time in planning gets cut out? Or do you set a cut-off date for proposals for the coming year, and then let the planning board decide which of the proposals to accept? That system, it seems to me, would put a lot more discretion in the hands of the planning board than we might prefer. Of course the above comments do not come close to covering the topic, those are just a couple of ideas off the top of my head.
Will they retain the draw? I doubt it. Well it might for those people who dont want a yard, or less yard. If i had a choice between the same sized house on a 25,000 sf lot (.57 acre) or on a 2 acre lot? To me its a no brainer and i go with the 2 acre lot but thats just me. What you are doing if we do go to a 2 acre lot size only from now on is instead of telling the entire public that 1/2 acre lots are your only choice in this area (excepting 1/4 acre sewer lots), that now you can choose between 1/2 acre lots or 2 acre lots. That divides your buying public in half (more or less). Course, i dont see 1400 sf houses going on 2 acre lots either, instead you are looking at 2000 sf+ houses so there will still be a market for the 1400 sf homes.
Well let me ask you Granny....take Flowers Plantation. Becky might end up with 5000 houses on 2000 acres. If you go with the 1 per 2 acre, you could then end up with 5000 houses on 10,000 acres. How does that preserve land for the future? The developer now has to build infrastructure over 10,000 acres. Thats a lot more road to be built. Thats a lot more school bus stops a bus has to make. There arent enough schools here not because of developers, but because JC did not build them fast enough.
I'm not saying I have all the answers. I am saying we should look at ways to control the rate of growth. We need to have sufficient water and sewer capacity; we need to be able to build enough school capacity so we don't have to put up trailers at all the schools. We need to do some planning for traffic. To me, controlling density seems to be an equitable way to regulate the rate of growth, without putting an inordinate amount of discretion in the hands of the board. Do you have alternative suggestions? Or do you favor unregulated growth?
Well that is not the answer i wanted to hear being that we do own an over 2000sf home on .65 acre:cry:
Nobody has done the research I would like to see the numbers that Lindenul is using. The pro over development side will say property values will fall and that we will not be able to afford to build affordable houses. In my opinion something needs to be done as the density of housing is increasing and the infrastructure and land will not support it. Let's use basic supply and demand. We say more land should be used for a house. Doesn't that make the land more valuable as we need twice as much. Again you can still build 50 houses on 50 acres, but you have to have an exception or 50 acres left as "open"
In its current form, the county requires 10% of all development to be left in open space. That is high and dry open space. All land in wetlands, riparian buffers and whatnot are required to be designated as open space but do not count towards your 10% high and dry. A 100 acre tract that uses only 50 acres because of the 2/1 requires 10 acres high and dry open space. Lets assume the entire tract is high and dry with no riparian buffers. That leaves 40 acres of land that will not be designated as open space. That 40 acres will be built on one day, in one way or other because the new subdivision will be required to stub streets to it. It may end up being commercial, who knows but it will be built on somehow. No you would not have to have an exception. They are looking for density, not saying all lots have to be 2 acres and above. As for Grandma, there is no such thing as unregulated growth. The market demand dictates growth. 1000 new people will not move here next year if they all know their children will be all stuck in trailers with no hope of getting out. There could very well be some town somewhere with no planning department or commission and they allow 5000 houses a year to be built there and no one cares a thing about who/what/where/why and how. It would probably be ugly as sin and services to that are would be lacking. Therefore people would not move in and you have 3000 empty houses a year. There is your growth control. Commercial development only comes when there is enough residential to support it. Then again people do not move into areas where there is no commercial to support the residential. Take the Archers Lodge area. Its growning by leaps and bounds but you cant name a single shopping center out there unless they go all the way over to Flowers Plantation. They are getting new schools in that area because the population dictates it and eventually the commercial will come there as well. What i favor is not telling a person who owns 500 acres what they can or can not do with their land. If they want to sell it and a developer puts in 1000 houses becuase he thinks they will sell, then thats their choice and not up to come county commissioner who has never worked a day in his life or had to meet payroll but got his money the old fashioned way.....he inherited it. The area market is the determining factor as far as growth. Look at Sneeds Ferry down next to Topsail Island. Why are there no big chain resturants? No department stores? No strip malls? Sure its crowded as can be during the summer and it takes over an hour to get throgh Food Lion on a Saturday but during the rest of the year the place is a ghost town for the most part. Commercial can not exist on 4 months of revenue so they do not come. Its the same everywhere.
So, just let them build until it becomes unlivable, and then they'll stop. The developers will move on, but the residents will still be here.
Lindenul, Any idea as to what type of development? I was under the impression (and could be wrong) that when land is sold for development, usually re-zoning is needed and approved/disapproved by the County commissioners. Before the meeting, signs are usually posted so residents in the area can be made aware of the meeting and can learn more about the proposed plans. I'm assuming that's how it works from seeing signs in the past for other developments in the area. I never saw any signs...(I may have missed it) so how does someone find out more about the development? If I knew Mr. Cunningham I'd pick up the phone and call, mostly because I'm just curious, but I dont.
Yes i know whats going in there and its going to be nothing like this county or state has ever seen. It will be the first development of its kind in this state. You do not have to get property rezoned if its zoned AR already, which that tract is but you are right that if you do get it rezoned, you see all the signs and whatnot. Just about all the land in this county has an AR zoning which allows residential development.
Linden... I know you probably can't say, but I've heard from two sources that the land we've been talking about (behind AP) are going to have at least 300K+ homes in it...I don't really care, as long as our neighborhood isn't a drive through (more traffic) and if it is, then hopefully we can get speed bumps through it to slow people down. I figure if it's more expensive housing, then my property value is going to go up.
I am 100% confident that the houses will be at least 300k and up and they will all sell as fast as they are built.
Ok, so who is going tonite? KD'sgrandma and i are riding together and she has room for two more if anyone wants to ride.
Just wanted to let you guys know that the meeting was very interesting. Heard a lot of good comments and suggestions, hope the committee was listening.
My Recap of the Meeting With over 100 people from the real estate industry present can you doubt they are scared. Never fear they will save the county. I invite you to visit my recap of the meeting for a much more detailed viewpoint.
i see one major flaw in your blog - the gentleman asked for all those associated with the building industry to stand, not the real estate. i believe the builders outnumbered the real estate agents i saw there. Also, myself being just a home owner and not part of either of those industries, am looking out for the future of my children and grandchildren and i do not want them outpriced of buying a home. With the overflowing schools we have now, do we really want all our children moving to other areas because there is no affordable housing available to young couples or young people to buy? Also, the woman who spoke from the commercial industry made some very valid points concerning bringing grocery stores etc into our area. They base their determination of where to build on how many houses are in the particular area, not the income of fewer houses. Or maybe we should all continue to spend our money in Wake County and lose the taxes that commercial can bring to our area. It's ok, we will just raise the property taxes and let the people carry all the burden of growth. As several people pointed out, the growth is here, it is not going to stop, we need a plan to manage that growth and coming up with one idea after 18months just seems a little lacking. i think they should go back to the drawing board, take all the suggestions and comments they have heard from the citizens, builders, etc and try again. Or we could just incorporate our area and make our own decisions as the determination of the board will not affect incorporated areas.
In the blog, Pirate said "People will continue to come to the county, but their will be less land to build on. Land Value would increase as it directly relates to the law of supply and demand." See, this is, with you not being in the development profession you do not understand how land is bought for subdivision development" and this is why you think like you do. Most developers, if they buy raw land that is either for sale, the owners are thinking of selling, or going up for auctions, base the amount of money they are willing to spend by the number of lots they believe they can get out of that land. Most cases a preliminary map is drawn up by a land surveyor or enginner and a lot proposal type map is made. This way a developer gets a good idea on the number of lots they can get from any tract without spending a lot of money surveying it first. Thats the beauty of GIS and other info associated. Take a 100 acre tract. With the current 1.5 per acre the developer knows he can get 150 lots max from it. Land conditions may dictate the developer can only get 125 lots from it (bad topo, stream crossings, wetlands etc...). The developer then has a figure in mind that he can pay for the land. As an example, the developer offers $13,000 per lot he can get to the land owner. Lets just say the 125 lots x $13,000 and he buys the land for $1,625,000. Same 100 acre tract and you have the 1 per 2 acre denisty which allows for 50 lots. Same 50 lots at the same $13,000 and you have $650,000 for the land owner. How does that raise land value? Sure you can say that the developer has to pay more than $13,000 per lot then, maybe jack it up to $25,000 per that he has to pay the land owner to make it even. Well you cant do that because of development cost, construction costs and whatnot, a $13,000 lot (after all costs) then becomes a $25,000 lot and the developer sells them to the builder for $40-$45,000 per lot. If he had to pay $25,000 per lot, after construction costs it becomes a $37-$40,000 lot and then it gets sold to the builder for $50-$55,000 per lot. Then the builder will make a little off the lot so after the house is built, the lot is then sold for $65,000 (along with the house) making a $250,000 house now cost $280,000............and so on. How does this benifit the potential homeowner, having to pay $30,000 more for the same house that he would have had to pay before a 1 per 2 acre? And if it was on a 2 acre lot, it gets even more expensive than a 1/2 acre lot. Now if you get technical, built on lot prices goes up if its after the 1 per 2 acre rule. Raw un-developed land values go down.
Understanding Development I understand the development of land and how the price is valued. However if I was only interested in making money off land then I would be opposed to the plan as well. Their are other things to life than turning every plot of land into subdivisions and figuring out how many houses to put on it.
