Pirate....do you still believe that land value will go up? I can use another example to show you that it will not if that would help.
Land Value will go up Land value will go up and this plan will not create the problems that people are worried about it. People will still be able to afford houses. Nobody will have to give away houses. Currently the density is set at 1.5 houses per acre. If they move it to .5 houses per acre I think the change will be positive. Their needs to be a balance between development, government, environmentalist, and plain old tax paying citizens. It is time for the citizens of this county to have a voice that is listened to. A lot of citizens are concerned about housing developments being built and other areas building to the out of control state like they are in the 40/42 area.
Ok...ive given you 2 examples on how land value will go down. I can give you another. I would like for you to give me an example, using numbers and not just saying.....well i think they will go up so there, neener neener......and show me how you believe they will go up. You keep saying this is good and how land will go up. Show me. See, this is the problem with people sometimes. They say "well there has got to be a better way" and scream it from the top of the mountains, but can not give data to back up their claims.
Allright...should have expected that one but....since im not an economics major, im just a person that has been involved with land for the past 22 years, explain it to a simple person like me. Give me a real world (Johnston County) example like i have given you twice, on how land values will go up. Please use real numbers since that is what we are debating about.
simple econ Ok simple numbers People want to move to Johnston County. We know this do to the ranking out of the top 100 counties in the country in growth. Their is 1000 acres in Johnston County to be purchased and the value is x The state takes 500 acres and gives them to Wake. Their is 500 acres in Johnston County and the same people are still coming. They will pay more to get their piece. No, but it does have an effect to slow growth. Did you or someone you know want a PS3 for Christmas. I know somebody who wanted one. They list for like $600, however some people paid $3000 to get it. Law of Supply and Demand.
Um....what? You are saying, i think, that there was 1000 acres in JC with a value of X (that X is very important by the way and when you just say X, it throws out the entire arguement as to value of land but be that as it may....) and the state takes 500 and gives to Wake Co. 1000 acres that the owner was asking 12 million for. The state takes half of that and now he only has 500 acres but the developer still has to pay 12 million, right? So before where 1000 acres at 12 million is $12,000 per acre, now its 500 acres at 12 million so its now $24,000 per acre? So his land value just went up? So thats Supply and Demand? Where the heck have i been the last 42 years. Seesh. Thats easy. Then you said "They will pay more to get their piece. No, but it does have an effect to slow growth." um..you are saying they will or will not have to pay more to get their piece?
Let's put it in simplistic terms: Take into account what was also brought up last night a few times, farmers and older landowners in this area consider their land their 401K. As one gentleman pointed out, a developer would offer him x amt of dollars for his land to put 150 houses on but if the developer could only build 50 houses on the same amount of land, he would be only willing to pay him much less.
Land Value will go up if their is less land availible people will pay more per piece of land. Some people will go elsewhere as suggested by devillock and some will still come. You are now slowing growth which is the intention of the GMC and by request of the citizens
Bottom Line for this Taxpayer The GMC spent 18 months on this Plan. This is what they recommend. The shock and awe tactics coming from the developers, builders, and real estate agents make me think their is truth to the fact this will slow growth. I do not think it will stop growth. I support the plan because we have to do something
Thank you, Ken. I've been silent waiting for someone to put into other words. Pirate, seems we're on opposite sides of the table on this. Does anyone else have a synopsis of the meeting or have notes been published? I want to do some more research on the situation. Thanks! Frogger
How is the infrastructure going to be built? It won't just magically appear out of thin air. One problem with dense housing is all the traffic you have on two lane roads. Widening projects are very expensive. (I appreciate the points you raised and they make sense to me. I'm not just trolling, but I think this is a good place for the discussion to go.) Snuff
I think EVERYONE involved in this discussion (including those on this board, those who attended the meetings, etc.) has completely ignored that the GMC has presented alternatives to the 2 acre proposal. That alternative is the Special Use Permit, which (as I understand it) is basically a more in depth review of the impact the proposed development has on the immediate area if it is to be more dense than the 2 acre proposal. That review process will work to find a way to help support the needed infrastructure and bolster up the area in the form of road widening or turn lanes, schools, parks, etc. essentially offsetting the impact of the development. i.e., the developer becomes partially responsible for their impact on the County. If it is infrastructure we need, then the special use permit causes it to be thought of before the development goes in and not put the burden soley on the County after that fact. Slowing growth allows the County to actually plan for infrastructure as opposed to constantly playing 'catch-up' while the developers keep their fingers in the mus-My Friend. In fact, when one landowner was asked about how he felt about the SUP he stated he knew nothing about it. I beleive his exact words were "Do what? I don't know nothing about no Special Use Permit!" No one from the real estate or building industry made a single comment about it. Whether they don't understand it, or they want to conveniently ignore is subject to debate. Regardless, anyone know how the GMC voted last night?
Harvey, you make some very good points. I actually did mention the SUP option once or twice in this thread, briefly, and I'm glad you went into more detail on it. That one landowner at the public hearing all but came out and said he did not care or want to learn about the Special Use Permit process. Wish I had the answer to your question about how the committee voted. As I understand it, they will bring their recommendation to the County Commission for action, so I certainly want to attend that meeting. There are other ways to regulate growth, besides addressing density issues. I wonder if the committee considered impact fees, land transfer taxes, or an Adequate Public Facility Ordinance? That last is new to me, but Cabarrus County is charging developers a fee of some $4,000 for each new house, to pay 1/2 of the cost of infrastructure made necessary by residential growth. Unlike an impact fee, the APFO would not require a special act of the General Assembly. It seems to me that all options should be on the table.
You all have to realize that things like developer fees, impact fees or any other kind of fees....the developers do not pay these, builders do not pay these. The home buyer pays all of these fees. Whatever is charged by counties, cities, towns...whatever...they all get passed on to the buyer.
Well, you know it's not quite that simple and straightforward. Certainly some, perhaps most, of the cost will be added to the price of the home, but chances are the developer will have to eat part of it in the form of lower profits. That's just the way the market works. They will not sell the same number of homes for a higher price. If they could, the price would already be higher. If the market is working properly, price equilibrium will occur at the level where sellers make the most profit. When costs change, a new equilibrium will be found.
Whoever pays it, it needs to be paid because the unfair tax burden on folks on the East side of the County is out of whack. So in my mind an impact fee, passed on by the developer or not, is a good thing. Also, if the builder tries to pass it on to the buyer then the free market should take over and the buyer will not pay more per square foot than what the market will bear. Money, money, money...it all comes back to money. What about quality of life? I'd pay a little extra in taxes or impact fees if we had parks, greenways, adequate schools and no traffic problems. I guess we could just contniue to mortgage the county's future with bonds to pay for all of the things developers won't put in themselves. BTW, the planning board did, in fact, pass the the recommendation on to the commissioners. It was in the N&O today. The commissioners will review the recommendation during a retreat and then hold public meetings. What else is there to discuss? The commissioners appint the planning board to make these kinds of decisions, which they did. Then the planning board was asked to hold public meeting, which they did.
Yes, it does not look good. It seems as though the Board caved to the whims of big business. From what I have heard they will continue to study ways to control growth, but with a much larger panel consisting of developers, builders, realtors and surveyors (no general public). This was apparently agreed to at their Friday night 'retreat' at the Sheraton in New Bern. I don't know if they need to study the fact that growth needs to be controlled, but I wish they would get off their @rses and do something about it.
