Should Cleveland become a town?

5 x 5 x 3.1415 = ~78.5 square miles
Clayton = 13.51 square miles
Garner = 14.8 square miles
That proposed "town" would be ~5.8 times the size of Clayton, 5.3 times the size of Garner or 2.8 times the size of BOTH .....

 

Cary is 54.4 square miles and 151,000+ people, just for reference.

The area I highlighted on the map I made was close to 14-16 square miles for reference.

 

I found a manual on municipal incorporation. There's some interesting reading in there! The manual was written in 2007, so some of this may have changed, but here are some interesting notes:

• Clayton would have to approve of parts of Cleveland's incorporation.
• Cleveland would have to have a population density of 250 ppl/sq. mi.
• Within 3 years of incorporation, the town must provide 4 of the following: police, fire, solid waste collection, water (since the county provides that, does it count?), street maintenance, street construction, street lighting, and zoning.

So, what's the population density in the proposed town drawn on the map? Maybe that's a reason for excluding large amounts of farmland (to keep the population density higher)? That would bring the size of Cleveland down sharply.

Here's the main page of the site where I found that manual.

 

Clayton has a density of 1200 ppl/sq mile average, Garner 1900 ppl/sq mile. I would think the 40/42 area is at least half of what Clayton is. It's hard to say though without access to more data like Census maps that go down to the square mile. I can tell you that JoCo as a whole averages 229 ppl/square mile.

The best I can tell you, is that census tract 41103 is 12,699 people and roughly 27 square miles, or about 470 ppl/sq mile. At least part of that would be Cleveland. So I think it would not be hard to satisfy the density requirement.

 

This is probably a more realistic ETJ for Cleveland, it follows some natural and some man-made boundaries. The JoCo/Wake line, the 70-bypass, the two major creeks, and some major roads. It's about 25-30 square miles. At most, maybe half of that would actually be incorporated.

 

On the maps shown my home is still outside any boundary for a town. I am literally two blocks from the new Cleveland High school.

I do remember that some of the old timer residents, the ones that have lived their entire lives here and are farmers were against any sort of incorporation.

 

And part of the reason for that opinion is playing out in front of your eyes. These maps are being drawn by someone who has no clue where Cleveland community is. This community was established a long time ago. The maps shown here are how you break a community up to the point you have no clout or sense of community.

 

If there is never an action to create an incorporation, it will never happen. If it is delayed long enough it will never happen because there will be more issues which will affect the ability. A "town" half the size of Fayetteville, for example will not survive creation due to the services which will have to be provided within a limited time frame. Three years to gain the finances and implement the required number of services will not be easy to meet for a smaller area and the probability decreases as the area included increases. It is a choice for the area and in this case not making a choice is also a choice for the future.

 

"Cleveland" area needs to crap or get off the pot. Talk is cheap. Someone has to take the lead.

 

Well why don't you draw up a map and show us where the lines should be. Keep in mind that you will want to include enough commercial property for a strong tax base, as well as the density requirements, stay far enough away from the current ETJ of Clayton or Garner, and keep the size smaller than Clayton or Garner. I'm sorry if I have only lived here for 8 years and not 50 like some other people.

 

This is one of the problems we had as a group: how do you define the town limits? Do you consider the bulk of the commercial development (40/42) to be the center, or do you consider the Cleveland School as the town center? Granted, it doesn't have to be an exact radius. Too big and it's tough to manage. Not big enough and you run the risk of allowing Clayton to gobble up parts.

 

Of course they are, but they have no problem cashing in on land sales that bring the population density that requires governance.

 

Police protection requirement can be met from the county via an agreement. This may need to be bolstered in the form of additional staff paid via New Town taxes, but the county already has the infrastructure, so to speak. As for another 3 services, water is also done via agreement with county, zoning is easily implemented and a third would be either a solid waste contract or fire protection via elevating the status capabilities of the existing volunteer fire stations (I think there are two). It can be done.

I'll also add that once it is formalized and taxes/budget are set up, staff would be hired pretty quickly considering the tax base. At a minimum, you'd need: Town Manager, Planning/Zoning Director, and Finance director although many of these roles can be initially filled by a couple of people and it also depends on what services you'll be providing, of course.

The best thing New Town would have going for it is an immediate tax base/ budget.

 

This is almost exactly what we had come up with some years ago. It was a good mix of old and new town center, and residential and commercial. It broke along natural or political boundaries and avoided (as much as possible) having one side of the street in versus the other out.

The area needs controls put in place that are simply not there from a county level and never will be. Archer's Lodge and Wilson's Mills did it, but they had it easy.

 

IMO, you need to include all of the 40/42 area up to Swift Creek, everything on 42 up to and including Cornwallis or White Oak Creek (future development will be in those areas), and hopefully everything at the 42/50 intersection. That would give you a large commercial tax base to start with. Any residential areas can or cannot be included based on other discussions, however I do think that most of the areas along Cleveland Road up to at least Barber Mill Road. But in the beginning, it needs to start small, and I think the 40/42 area and along Cleveland to Polenta is probably a good start.

 

What is it that would be provided by incorporation that the "Cleveland" residents do not already have? The only thing that I would want would be elimination of the traffic mess. But, that can not be eliminated now. More development would just make it worse. Yes, incorporation may guide new development in a less chaotic manner, but with so called community leaders (politicians), someone always has an agenda. We all know how that tune goes. Money talks and the BS walks. You would have to convince the majority of the residents that they would have something to gain for their increased taxes and fees. Good luck. I do not think that incorporation will happen anytime soon unless an annexation was imminent. Garner, Benson, Smithfield; too far away for annexation. Clayton, maybe. But, so what? Clayton already has a town structure set up. I will be out of here before any of that takes place anyway.

 

other than zonining, what do you want to buy?

 

From the discussion, that is a pretty important aspect that is more limited every day. More input would seem to be better than less input.

 

I just am so glad all you good people want to make a new town! It takes a village to raise a child. Make sure you raise the taxes high. Trust me we know how to use your money better than you. Nothing but immediate success by incorporating.

 

How cute, and why did this coward leave the Pit to post this here?