Jump to content

North Hills East

dmccall

By dmccall
in The NC Triangle

Recommended Posts

Cary NC Whistle-Stop

Cary NC

Posted
Posted
Yeah, it raises serious issues as far as policy. Shouldn't the city set policy and then have developers react to it? The city has probably dropped the ball in not anticipating this and acting on a policy first. This reactionary situation is certainly not ideal, even if the project has merits. For politicians, the notion of a $800M development is VERY tantalizing, and has a way of muddying the water, so to speak. Frankly I was floored that the Wake Commissioners approved the TIF unanimously.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 484
  • Created
  • Last Reply
ChiefJoJo Town

ChiefJoJo

Posted
Posted
ugh. Nevermind the fact that downtown needed a subsidy and NH is booming on its own. Coble never said whether or not he supports the TIF or not. Either way, he could be accused of speaking out of both corners of his mouth. If he's FOR the TIF, then he isn't a true conservative. If he's against the TIF, then he upsets a major developer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffC Hamlet

JeffC

Posted
Posted

Coble is a conservative troll of the worst sort, and a cancer on any sort of positive initiative to improve anything in Wake County. He has built his career on negativism and. as far as I know, has never really stood FOR something unless it benefitted his developer cronies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChiefJoJo Town

ChiefJoJo

Posted
Posted

This is what I've been waiting for... Meeker makes his argument against TIFs for Kane:

The city would wind up paying more than $140 million over the 20-year life of the loan.

...

Meeker stated three reasons for his opposition to Kane's request: It's bad public policy, Kane is underestimating the development he could undertake without public money, and a state law prohibits any refund of paid property taxes.

...

North Hills East would sit across Six Forks Road from Kane's thriving North Hills retail, office and condominium project. Kane also has already struck a deal for an office building and a residential project at North Hills East.

"Given all of these factors, it does not make sense for the city to intervene in the market to cause development to occur that the market would otherwise not support," Meeker wrote.

He also pointed to projects near Crabtree Valley Mall and along Oberlin Road to demonstrate that dense developments can occur without public support. Kane has said that without the city's help, North Hills East would more closely resemble a strip mall than his mixed-use North Hills development.

...

"By my count, we have over 20 projects in various stages of development that involve structured parking," he wrote. "It would be improper, and indeed inequitable, to provide free parking to one builder of a development with structured parking while all of the other builders are expected to pay for their own parking decks."

Meeker nailed it right on the head... It's on baby! Choose your side...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rjgeary Crossroads

rjgeary

Posted
Posted

I am a regular reader here and occasional poster, JeffC.

The column I wrote in the Indy was changed some by an editor (and not for the better), but the point of it wasn't to tell y'all--who are pretty expert on this stuff--anything you don't already know about Kane's parking decks. Rather, it was to put the issue to the leading candidates for at-large Council seats in the October 9 election, including the one incumbent who's running, Russ Stephenson.

Stephenson, as you perhaps also know, opposes subsidizing Kane's decks. He reaffirmed his position when I called him.

Mary-Ann Baldwin, Paul Anderson and Helen Tart all took a pass on the issue when I talked to them. I was hoping they'd take a clear stand against it. Helen was sort of against it. The others ducked--Baldwin said she didn't know enough about the issue yet, Anderson said he'd study it and call me back but didn't.

Here's the thing. The current Council is split 4-4 on Kane's proposal that we give him $75 million for his decks. The only way he's going to get the money, then (barring a flip by James West) is if both at-large seats are won in October by folks who then vote Kane's way. That means Stephenson would have to lose to Baldwin and Anderson, say, after which those two got off the fence and joined a 5-3 majority for Kane. (Remember, Joyce Kekas, a Kane backer and the other at-large member currently, isn't running for re-election.)

The only other contested Council seats involve Kane supporters -- Jessie Taliaferro's District B seat and Tommy Craven's District A seat. If they're re-elected, it gains Kane no votes. If they lose, I would guess--though I haven't them--that their opponents would vote against a Kane subsidy.

In the three other district seats, the incumbents are unopposed. Crowder (D) and West are anti- the Kane subsidy. Isley (E) is pro-Kane.

And Mayor Meeker, also anti-Kane, is running unopposed as well.

So, to repeat, Kane's best chance of getting the $75 million (our $75 million) is if Stephenson doesn't run first or second in the at-large race and is replaced by a pair of Kane backers.

By the way, David Williams, also an at-large candidate whom I've never met, wrote me this morning and said he's opposed to a Kane subsidy. He's a Goldwater Republican who thinks the market should dictate all land-use decisions, no zoning and no subsidies either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ncwebguy Burg

ncwebguy

Posted
Posted

In a reply to the comments on the Indy article, the city has not *spent* $1 billion downtown. It has contributed to the over $1 billion in public and private spending downtown. Public projects include the Fayetville Street pedestrian mall removal, the new convention center, and the hotel subsidy. The city and county are spending less than $400 million (from hotels and meals taxes, not property taxes) and is close to getting $1.2 billion in private development stimulated (RBC, Site 1, Edison, Hue, the L building, etc.) that otherwise would likely not have happened. That last part is one of Meeker's key oppositions to North Hills East and should not be taken lightly.

Kane could turn the NHE land into a big parking lot for the existing part of North Hills. Comparing that to the "build big" plan, it would generate even more tax money. But that doesn't entitle Kane to get it back via reduced tax collections.

If the city did offer the "we'll build the deck and own it" option to Kane and decided to go the TIF handout route instead, I have no sympathy for him at all. He can't make the claim that the city is "attacking our project", a quote attributed to him in the WRAL story. From what I can tell, the Wake County board of commissioners still doesn't have a TIF policy -- it only approved giving Kane his TIF. While not official policy, Meeker's memo is as close to policy the city will get in regards to TIFs, at least until after the October election.

BTB's remarks are true as well. If the at-large candidates (Baldwin, Anderson, and Tart) don't have a stance on this issue less than two months before the election, when will they? They have not followed one of the biggest development projects in they are running to represent? What other issues do the not have a stance on? Dix campus? Mass transit? Growth? Transfer taxes and impact fees? Candidates who won't stand for something ill fall for anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffC Hamlet

JeffC

Posted
Posted
I am a regular reader here and occasional poster, JeffC.

The column I wrote in the Indy was changed some by an editor (and not for the better), but the point of it wasn't to tell y'all--who are pretty expert on this stuff--anything you don't already know about Kane's parking decks. Rather, it was to put the issue to the leading candidates for at-large Council seats in the October 9 election, including the one incumbent who's running, Russ Stephenson.

Stephenson, as you perhaps also know, opposes subsidizing Kane's decks. He reaffirmed his position when I called him.

Mary-Ann Baldwin, Paul Anderson and Helen Tart all took a pass on the issue when I talked to them. I was hoping they'd take a clear stand against it. Helen was sort of against it. The others ducked--Baldwin said she didn't know enough about the issue yet, Anderson said he'd study it and call me back but didn't.

Here's the thing. The current Council is split 4-4 on Kane's proposal that we give him $75 million for his decks. The only way he's going to get the money, then (barring a flip by James West) is if both at-large seats are won in October by folks who then vote Kane's way. That means Stephenson would have to lose to Baldwin and Anderson, say, after which those two got off the fence and joined a 5-3 majority for Kane. (Remember, Joyce Kekas, a Kane backer and the other at-large member currently, isn't running for re-election.)

The only other contested Council seats involve Kane supporters -- Jessie Taliaferro's District B seat and Tommy Craven's District A seat. If they're re-elected, it gains Kane no votes. If they lose, I would guess--though I haven't them--that their opponents would vote against a Kane subsidy.

In the three other district seats, the incumbents are unopposed. Crowder (D) and West

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmccall Burg

dmccall

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Are you serious? I guess SE Raleigh is another city? Bragg st, Martin st, State st, Lane st, Oakwood ave.................................... Are all economically "O"ppressed. Southeast and East Raleigh are both rundown sections of town, with decent pockets in betweeen. Meeker will certainly not get my vote for neglecting these areas all these years. He has done an excellent job so far as DT is concerned, but he's almost completely ignored SE Raleigh. There haven't been any serious city investment in the area since the late 90's. Classisim, Elitism and Rascism are the main dividing factors between SE Raleigh and the rest of the city. It's obvious everywhere. I also feel that displacing citizens and regentrification are not synonymous with restoring a community.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Atlside Whistle-Stop

Atlside

Posted
Posted

Is North Raleigh becoming North Carolina's version of Atlanta's Dunwoody/Sandy Springs district, where Atlanta has some of tallest non-downtown skyscrapers. Or is the region becoming more like Buckhead or SouthPark in Charlotte?

http://www.newsobserver.com/business/story/698577.html

Older article:

http://www.wral.com/business/story/1229271/?print_friendly=1

http://www.architectmagazine.com/industry-...rticleID=455015

CB Richard Ellis is expected to lease the 20-story Raleigh tower planned by Indianapolis real estate investment trust Duke Realty and Raleigh-based Kane Realty.

The building is scheduled to sprout northeast of Interstate 440 (Beltline) and Six Forks Road in 2009.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.