Fayetteville, Arkansas

[masons_dad1]

There are a lot of other places that are cheaper to live than here. Fayetteville is reasonable but far from the cheapest place to live. Any city in North or South Dakota is cheaper. Kansas City is larger and cheaper. Omaha is cheaper. Heck, Tulsa is probably cheaper than here. Not to mention Springfield, MO--it's cheaper. We are far from the cheapest place to live. I hate to disagree with you but the quality of life is pretty high here.

I don't know anything about North or South Dakota or why anyone would want to live there except for ranchers. Kansas City is much larger, has so much more culture and leisure and professional sports, top 15 college program, better education, slightly higher cost of living than Fayetteville, BUT it's still ranked 95 on the Forbes list because of lower job & income growth, higher cost of doing business and higher crime than Fayetteville. I'm actually surprised that Springfield, MO isn't in Fayetteville's slot with the 5th lowest cost of doing business, top 50 college program, nearly as low cost of living as Fayetteville, and respectable job growth and net migration. The only drawbacks to Springfield is it's limited culture and leisure (realistically more than Fayetteville) and it's crime rate (higher than Fayetteville).

The quality of life here is great for people accustomed to it. People looking for more arts, live music, family fun, high quality entertainment, sports, and nightlife would consider any of the other top 50 metros having a higher quality of life than Fayetteville. Overall, the more expensive metros have much higher incomes that generally make up for the higher cost of living. The only drawback to many of the other metros is higher crime, which Fayetteville won't really have to worry much about since this metro is geared more for middle income business types than street thugs.

[razorbackfan]

No offense, but UA is a pretty average school. It has strong programs (like business and creative writing), but it also has other average and weak programs. UA is ranked 24th among public undergrad business program. That automatically eliminates the privates, which tend to perform better. In addition, business undergrad programs are not that common as compared arts and sciences (i.e. not everyone has them, as with engineering schools). For interest, here are business week's most recent rankings (UA doesn't make a blip): http://tinyurl.com/2yyfej

I disagree with you that the UofA is a pretty average school...I got a degree last year from the UofA and the Walton College and I think my education was very good. I did not have any problem finding a job out of school and I had quite a few offers to choose from. Everyone I talked to thinks the UofA is a good school and to say its average is wrong. The UofA is no Harvard, Yale, Stanford or anything along those lines, but for a public university you get a damn good education.

[johnnydr87]

I disagree with you that the UofA is a pretty average school...I got a degree last year from the UofA and the Walton College and I think my education was very good. I did not have any problem finding a job out of school and I had quite a few offers to choose from. Everyone I talked to thinks the UofA is a good school and to say its average is wrong. The UofA is no Harvard, Yale, Stanford or anything along those lines, but for a public university you get a damn good education.

To each his own.

[strmchsr77]

There are a lot of other places that are cheaper to live than here. Fayetteville is reasonable but far from the cheapest place to live. Any city in North or South Dakota is cheaper. Kansas City is larger and cheaper. Omaha is cheaper. Heck, Tulsa is probably cheaper than here. Not to mention Springfield, MO--it's cheaper. We are far from the cheapest place to live. I hate to disagree with you but the quality of life is pretty high here.

Tulsa is much cheaper than Fayetteville to live. Especially when buying real estate. Believe me, I know. It is hard to find a home for under 100K in Fayetteville, but in Tulsa they are almost everywhere, and not just in bad areas of town either.

[OnDickson]

Fayetteville gets mentioned so much because it's a cheap place to live and do business, but that's really about all there is.

You should really get out more.

[cowbreath]

NWANEWS article On Possible Tiered Impact Fees

It looks like Fayetteville might give a study on doing tiered impact fees a chance (like we had talked about on this thread). It is sad that we have been presented with such a simplistic plan up front.

[bagelw]

In any case, Fayetteville overall does offer a good quality of life. Everything is very convenient, we have fairly low crime, good environmental quality, pay rates aren't bad compared to cost of living, there are some smart people here, and we have beautiful terrain. Our city, in spite of some problems, is getting better every day. I have travelled extensively throughout the U.S. and could live anywhere and I chose here, believe it or not. I lived in the Boston area for 17 years, and still have offices in San Fran, DC, NYC, Atlanta, and Chicago. I could have also gone to Columbia, MO or Lawrence, KS. Or, we could have gone anywhere else, for that matter. It is the balance in all things---not the best in anything--that Fayetteville offers that I really appreciate.

I'm in complete agreeance with you. I grew up in Little Rock and moved to Fayetteville for the U of A. I lived in Chicago, St Louis, and Dallas before moving back to Rogers. I rented in Rogers a few years but when it came time to buy a place I decided on Fayetteville. There is a certain character that Fayetteville has that none of the other NWA cities seem to have. I think someone has to live in other areas of the country to really understand and appreciate what that "character" is. I can't even really explain it. I work in Rogers still (and yes the 540 commute stinks) but once I get home I'm proud to be in Fayetteville. Many of the people that I work with don't understand why I moved to Fayetteville but the majority of them either grew up in the Rogers area or are from somewhere else (somewhere smaller) in the state. The other people I work with that live in Fayetteville completely understand me though.

[mcheiss]

Which was my point in my bottom line. Fayetteville gets mentioned so much because it's a cheap place to live and do business, but that's really about all there is.

You really should come down to Fayetteville. Dickson Street, Razorback Games, etc are just some of the things you're missing out on.

[itk]

NWANEWS article On Possible Tiered Impact Fees

It looks like Fayetteville might give a study on doing tiered impact fees a chance (like we had talked about on this thread). It is sad that we have been presented with such a simplistic plan up front.

I generally agree with Coody on this one.

[masons_dad1]

You should really get out more.

You really should come down to Fayetteville. Dickson Street, Razorback Games, etc are just some of the things you're missing out on.

You must have misread my posts. I never said Fayetteville didn't have decent entertainment, practically every town the size of Fayetteville does. I have to admit though I liked Dickson Street more when Cheeburger Cheeburger was still open, it was a great 50's style diner. My posts actually refer to the Fayetteville (metro) as indicated by the Forbes report. Your comments would be better served by directing them to the Forbes people who rated Fayetteville's (metro) Culture & Leisure pretty low on the list. I mean come on, Fayetteville (metro) being ranked 198 for Culture & Leisure on a list of 200 metros is nothing to brag about. It's actually sad that Fayetteville (metro) ranked so high on the list only to have such poor rankings in Colleges, Culture & Leisure and Educational Attainment. Forbes may salute Fayetteville (metro) for being a cheap place to do business, cost of living and job growth, but the Forbes report also exposes Fayetteville (metro) as very lopsided.

[CentralArkansas]

No offense, but UA is a pretty average school. It has strong programs (like business and creative writing), but it also has other average and weak programs. UA is ranked 24th among public undergrad business program. That automatically eliminates the privates, which tend to perform better. In addition, business undergrad programs are not that common as compared arts and sciences (i.e. not everyone has them, as with engineering schools). For interest, here are business week's most recent rankings (UA doesn't make a blip): http://tinyurl.com/2yyfej

US News has the Walton College at 42nd when including private schools.

So, as much as you seem to love to bash the UA, you are off-base when bashing the Walton College. It's an extremely good school.

[astrife]

US News has the Walton College at 42nd when including private schools.

So, as much as you seem to love to bash the UA, you are off-base when bashing the Walton College. It's an extremely good school.

You do realize that he's right in saying the UA as a whole at best is an average flagship state school. You are defending it based on your own emotional attatchment to it. Look at US News and World Report and you'll see its in the third tier of National Universities. There was an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education that said the UA was underfunded by roughly 30 million dollars a year; that's pretty bad.

While I can see how you feel about your alma mater; it's not an educational powerhouse like the University of Michigan or anything is.

[Arkansas Student]

I know people love to cite US News & World Report rankings, but from what I understand there exists a serious amount of contention over their accuracy among academics. The factors that US News uses often have more to do with the funding that exists for a particular school or program than it's actual educational competency. I'm curious to see who exactly is polled to determine the results.

Picking where to spend $20,000 or more for college based on the suggestion of a weekly news magazine (or defending it solely based on arbitrary rankings) is a dangerous thing, IMO.

[astrife]

I know people love to cite US News & World Report rankings, but from what I understand there exists a serious amount of contention over their accuracy among academics. The factors that US News uses often have more to do with the funding that exists for a particular school or program than it's actual educational competency. I'm curious to see who exactly is polled to determine the results.

Picking where to spend $20,000 or more for college based on the suggestion of a weekly news magazine (or defending it solely based on arbitrary rankings) is a dangerous thing, IMO.

Yes, there are problems with US News and World Reports, but it does incorporate ways to rank education quality. This entails retention, graduation rates, and alumni support which is shown to be a direct link to a students satisfaction with a school. Funding despite what you think, also plays a key factor in the quality of faculty, facilities, and support services which directly affects educational attainment.

It's better than nothing is what I tell people.

[andrewjensen]

NWANEWS article On Possible Tiered Impact Fees

It looks like Fayetteville might give a study on doing tiered impact fees a chance (like we had talked about on this thread). It is sad that we have been presented with such a simplistic plan up front.

I understand what they are trying to do (suggesting the "tiered" system), but I don't see how it makes sense. How do you set the borders? What do you do when growth reaches the outskirts? Do you move the borders farther out? In-fill projects cause increased traffic, too, and they cause increased traffic where there is already a lot of traffic. For example, Mall Avenue needs to be expanded. Should a developer putting up a hotel or commerical center or a new restaurant have to pay less impact fees because it is infill when they are attracting more traffic to an already overwhelmed corridor?

Does a hotel that generates $150K in sales tax really pay its share of a $5M stretch of road widening (as a hypothetical, say the Hampton Inn and the overloaded Exit 62)? Would an $8M hotel really not locate in Fayetteville because of $200K in impact fees? Especially a national chain that is used to paying impact fees all over the country?

There already is a tiered system in place. Office/retail (which will generate more traffic) will have a higher impact fee than a warehouse (generating less traffic). The home impact fee is based on averages of how many daily vehicle trips originate from a home. These are averages, so a one-bedroom house (and who is building a one-bedroom house, really) and a five-bedroom house are given equal weight in the formulas. I think it is something like 4.6 trips per day for an average household. That seems about right for work, school and a trip to the store or out to dinner.

I understand the developers' position, but from researching the subject I couldn't find studies showing impact fees had stifled growth (in cities already enjoying rapid growth, where impact fees are usually used as an alternative funding method).

The independent studies I read concluded improved infrastructure attracts growth, it doesn't hinder it, and also increases the supply of buildable land. Florida has had impact fees for the longest of anyone (more than 20 years) and five of the top 10 American midsized cities in terms of job growth are in Florida in towns with much, much higher impact fees than proposed in Fayetteville. Buyers pay as much as $17K for a house and developers as much as $9-$10K per 1000 SF of retail space.

The biggest impact is going to be lower land prices. Developers end up offering lower prices for raw land to offset the cost of impact fees. I just can't see how some impact fees are going to drive development out of the largest city in NWA. Either way, those road projects need funding somehow. The city can't keep going deeper into debt. There is a case to be made against impact fees, but I don't think it is the breathless, "we're going to kill Fayetteville" hyperbole going around now.

This is a pretty good study on the subject from The Brookings Institution.

"A conservative interpretation would at least claim that no discernable adverse economic impacts from impact fees could be found. A liberal interpretation of these model results would argue that the imposition of impact fees typically results in positive effects on local employment, at least in Florida during the 1990s."

http://www.brook.edu/es/urban/publications...nimpactfees.pdf

[CentralArkansas]

You do realize that he's right in saying the UA as a whole at best is an average flagship state school. You are defending it based on your own emotional attatchment to it. Look at US News and World Report and you'll see its in the third tier of National Universities. There was an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education that said the UA was underfunded by roughly 30 million dollars a year; that's pretty bad.

While I can see how you feel about your alma mater; it's not an educational powerhouse like the University of Michigan or anything is.

I was speaking of the business school only; I realize overall it's not the University of Michigan. I've yet to see anyone compare it to that, and it would be idiocy to do so. But to say it doesn't have its own outstanding programs within the overall university is simply ignorant. And, the business schools is one of those outstanding programs.

[Aporkalypse]

I was speaking of the business school only; I realize overall it's not the University of Michigan. I've yet to see anyone compare it to that, and it would be idiocy to do so. But to say it doesn't have its own outstanding programs within the overall university is simply ignorant. And, the business schools is one of those outstanding programs.

Agreed, and I've seen ranking that had the B-school in the top 25. That's what large amounts of money can do for a program. We have the Waltons to thank for that.

[cowbreath]

I understand what they are trying to do (suggesting the "tiered" system), but I don't see how it makes sense. How do you set the borders? What do you do when growth reaches the outskirts? Do you move the borders farther out? In-fill projects cause increased traffic, too, and they cause increased traffic where there is already a lot of traffic. For example, Mall Avenue needs to be expanded. Should a developer putting up a hotel or commerical center or a new restaurant have to pay less impact fees because it is infill when they are attracting more traffic to an already overwhelmed corridor?

Does a hotel that generates $150K in sales tax really pay its share of a $5M stretch of road widening (as a hypothetical, say the Hampton Inn and the overloaded Exit 62)? Would an $8M hotel really not locate in Fayetteville because of $200K in impact fees? Especially a national chain that is used to paying impact fees all over the country?

There already is a tiered system in place. Office/retail (which will generate more traffic) will have a higher impact fee than a warehouse (generating less traffic). The home impact fee is based on averages of how many daily vehicle trips originate from a home. These are averages, so a one-bedroom house (and who is building a one-bedroom house, really) and a five-bedroom house are given equal weight in the formulas. I think it is something like 4.6 trips per day for an average household. That seems about right for work, school and a trip to the store or out to dinner.

I understand the developers' position, but from researching the subject I couldn't find studies showing impact fees had stifled growth (in cities already enjoying rapid growth, where impact fees are usually used as an alternative funding method).

The independent studies I read concluded improved infrastructure attracts growth, it doesn't hinder it, and also increases the supply of buildable land. Florida has had impact fees for the longest of anyone (more than 20 years) and five of the top 10 American midsized cities in terms of job growth are in Florida in towns with much, much higher impact fees than proposed in Fayetteville. Buyers pay as much as $17K for a house and developers as much as $9-$10K per 1000 SF of retail space.

The biggest impact is going to be lower land prices. Developers end up offering lower prices for raw land to offset the cost of impact fees. I just can't see how some impact fees are going to drive development out of the largest city in NWA. Either way, those road projects need funding somehow. The city can't keep going deeper into debt. There is a case to be made against impact fees, but I don't think it is the breathless, "we're going to kill Fayetteville" hyperbole going around now.

This is a pretty good study on the subject from The Brookings Institution.

"A conservative interpretation would at least claim that no discernable adverse economic impacts from impact fees could be found. A liberal interpretation of these model results would argue that the imposition of impact fees typically results in positive effects on local employment, at least in Florida during the 1990s."

http://www.brook.edu/es/urban/publications...nimpactfees.pdf

Obviously, you've thought more about this than I have. I guess if impact fees are a way to increase road improvements while also achieving continued economic improvements then I guess it isn't a bad thing. If, however, we are to discuss the positive/negative impact of infill development in a city with poor traffic arteries...another time... It's time to consider density to improve alternate methods of transportation.

[masons_dad1]

Anybody else notice Kirkland's and Orange Julius/Carvel are closed in Northwest Arkansas Mall? Should be some more clothing stores replacing them pretty soon.

[andrewjensen]

Obviously, you've thought more about this than I have. I guess if impact fees are a way to increase road improvements while also achieving continued economic improvements then I guess it isn't a bad thing. If, however, we are to discuss the positive/negative impact of infill development in a city with poor traffic arteries...another time... It's time to consider density to improve alternate methods of transportation.

I had to write a story on it, so I did a bunch of research.

http://www.arkansasbusiness.com/article.as...p;k=impact+fees

The thing I learned about impact fees is they aren't new, they are everywhere across the country. Fayetteville didn't just pull this idea out of thin air and Arkansas is actually one of the most recent to legislate them. The constant is always developer opposition, so Fayetteville is not unique from that angle either.

The problem I can see for developers is that the impact fee must be paid when the certificate of occupancy is issued. That means that even if a developer hasn't leased all 60,000 SF of office space, he still has to pay the impact fee when the building is completed. Then he has to fill the building before he can start recovering that impact fee from his leasees. If anything, I could see impact fees encouraging developers to build more wisely.

As for infill, I was not trying to make a case against it. The Mall Avenue improvement is one of Fayetteville's unfunded road projects. More infill there is fine as long as the access is improved. If developers are going to keep infilling around the mall corridor, some sort of funding is needed to fix the snarls over there.

[cowbreath]

Thanks for posting by the way, Andrew. It's nice to have your kind of input on here.

If anything, I could see impact fees encouraging developers to build more wisely.

That was one thought that came to mind while reading your post. Do you think that impact fees are common among areas of enormous growth only? Does the information lead you to think that development still occurs as long as a place remains a preferred location of development?

As for infill, I was not trying to make a case against it. The Mall Avenue improvement is one of Fayetteville's unfunded road projects. More infill there is fine as long as the access is improved. If developers are going to keep infilling around the mall corridor, some sort of funding is needed to fix the snarls over there.

Yeah, I'm tempted to say, "just build it and forget the traffic -- traffic improvements will follow." It's a little easy to say because I don't live in one of the congested areas. So hopefully we can all find some common ground with Fayetteville's budget to improve what is necessary. It's too bad we are just too far behind on traffic arteries. I've never met a metro with roads that are on pace with development, but Fayetteville seems a little more behind or limited (due to topography). Fortunately I'm moving to a place a little closer to work, so close I can walk or ride a bike without hills. Hopefully others can adjust in different ways as traffic gets worse and gas goes up.

[andrewjensen]

That was one thought that came to mind while reading your post. Do you think that impact fees are common among areas of enormous growth only? Does the information lead you to think that development still occurs as long as a place remains a preferred location of development?

cities experiencing rapid growth are more likely to choose impact fees as a funding method. for one thing, they aren't a tax, no matter what the campaign says, and they are based on capacity consumed just like the sewer impact fee. years of scientific research coming up with these trip averages is more solid to me than anecdotal reasoning by developers about how much extra traffic they will create.

the fact Fayetteville is way over budget on the water treatment plant is the main reason they didn't seek more bond money for roads. Now, it can certainly be argued Fayetteville mismanaged the sewer plant process and now taxpayers are covering the cost of those mistakes, but it was the rapid development that caused such an urgent need for a new wastewater facility in the first place.

would impact fees cause developers to be more conservative? probably, but isn't there already concern about an oversupply of unoccupied commerical real estate? I think anything that encourages smarter growth would have benefits down the line.

[jiggyK]

cities experiencing rapid growth are more likely to choose impact fees as a funding method. for one thing, they aren't a tax, no matter what the campaign says, and they are based on capacity consumed just like the sewer impact fee. years of scientific research coming up with these trip averages is more solid to me than anecdotal reasoning by developers about how much extra traffic they will create.

the fact Fayetteville is way over budget on the water treatment plant is the main reason they didn't seek more bond money for roads. Now, it can certainly be argued Fayetteville mismanaged the sewer plant process and now taxpayers are covering the cost of those mistakes, but it was the rapid development that caused such an urgent need for a new wastewater facility in the first place.

would impact fees cause developers to be more conservative? probably, but isn't there already concern about an oversupply of unoccupied commerical real estate? I think anything that encourages smarter growth would have benefits down the line.

i totally agree. that's why i'm going to vote in support of impact fees later today. better roads will make fayetteville more attractive for better, smater development in the long run. those who say that they will drive it away to "other nwa cities" are caught up in misguided hype.

[jdevers]

the fact Fayetteville is way over budget on the water treatment plant is the main reason they didn't seek more bond money for roads. Now, it can certainly be argued Fayetteville mismanaged the sewer plant process and now taxpayers are covering the cost of those mistakes, but it was the rapid development that caused such an urgent need for a new wastewater facility in the first place.

I agree with everything you say, except for WHY the wastewater plant is WAY behind schedule and incredibly overbudget. The reason for most of that is due to micromanagement (micromismanagement???) by Coody. I can't provide any specifics since well, I like my job, but last second alterations by our good mayor designed to "save hundreds of thousands of dollars" ended up costing us millions along the way. One of the best examples of not seeing the forest for the trees I have ever personally seen in local government.

[astrife]

I agree with everything you say, except for WHY the wastewater plant is WAY behind schedule and incredibly overbudget. The reason for most of that is due to micromanagement (micromismanagement???) by Coody. I can't provide any specifics since well, I like my job, but last second alterations by our good mayor designed to "save hundreds of thousands of dollars" ended up costing us millions along the way. One of the best examples of not seeing the forest for the trees I have ever personally seen in local government.

I cannot help but laughing at that.