The state of Raleigh's leadership

[RaleighRob]

I don't think most supporters of the new council would want a total end to suburban growth, really. They'd prefer it to be less random sprawl and more of a smart, well-planned type thing. Give us more Southern Village & Meadowmont-types of suburban developments and less Brier Creeks or Wakefields, and I'd be satisfied with that. (And certainly, more like North Hills.)

And yes, I do want more emphasis on density and infill but so should the folks outside-the-beltline, if even for only one good reason: Less strain on infrastructure...which equates to better for the city, economically. That really benefits everyone in the city.

But I agree the council will need to watch themselves very carefully to avoid the political pendulum come crashing back down to the right.

[ncwebguy]

When Raleigh's impact fees are in line with the rest of the area, developers will develop where it makes sense, not where they have (had) a slight economic advantage.

Want to build 4-5,000 square foot houses on half acre or larger greenfield lots? Go nuts! But you have to pay for the infrastructure to get there and fit in with the surrounding area. i.e. don't create a maze of frustrating interior roads -- the Wakefield/Brier Creek model.

"Mixed use" won't be the "retail here, offices there, and housing over yonder, seperated by oceans of parking" a la Brier Creek and the Triangle Town Center area. Development can take on the form of urban/suburban hybrids like North Hills and 5401. There haven't been many outside the beltline examples of this because the old comprehensive plan and developer-owned planning commission/city council haven't required them.

City departments like the Urban design center can show developers how to implement the types of development we want on this board.

I think there will be more support for the arts, parks, and other non-tangable quality of life improvements. That being said, I hope the council doesn't go too overboard either, and can continue to solicit corporate support to enhance the city's cultural options. One "Time + Light tower" can undo all the gains of this election.

With only one at-large Republican candidate and none in two district races (and Jesse T's not requesting a run-off), the "hope the Convention Center fails and pounce on the Democrats" theory holds some weight. But if this council does what it is saying it can do, and the national downturn doesn't hit too hard locally, the 2009 incumbents will have a strong campaign platform.

[c_harmons]

Note that C_harmons is in favor of pumping up sales taxes. He rails on 'punishing developers' with impact fees, but he's apparently very comfortable with punishing commerce already existing in the city. My guess is he runs a chain store.

[c_harmons]

Well, that says it all! Harmons, you seem to believe that the purpose of a city government is to serve developers -- to help them "get something done." The mayor happens to believe that the purpose of a city government is to serve its citizens.

[RaleighRob]

But wait until a mixed-use project or infill project is proposed near an established neighborhood. I do not believe this Council will be able to stand up to a neighborhood outcry. If they do thet will be billed as "developer" friendly.

[DB78]

You must be talking about this column in the N&O... It's informative that the ole N&O has decided to put a big fat "slow growth" label on the elections in Wake Co by default, and everyone laps it up. The assumption is that if impact fees are raised in Raleigh, then slow growth is an automatic result, discounting the fact that several neighboring towns have had higher fees and tougher codes for a few years now.... not to mention the fact that Raleigh only just recently got around to raising the fees that had gone ~20 years without modification.

[c_harmons]

You've mentioned this a couple times now without a specific example named. (I'm guessing you're thinking about Coker Towers, cuz I can't think of hardly any other well-known examples.)

If it's a good, high-quality, well-planned development....with citizen input taken seriously...then why assume the neighbors would even have an outcry at all?

I think that says it all right there.

[cthayes75]

I hope everyone steps back and realizes that all this talk of "slow growth" is just a bunch of BS. You can't sit there and act like growth in Raleigh or Cary happens in a vacuum. While Raleigh or Cary may apply some breaks on growth in those two cities, all that does is increase growth in other communities.

Look, we've got a great little place we live in, and fortunately, lots of people want to move here. If they aren't moving to Raleigh or Cary, they'll be going to Zebulon or Wake Forest or Fuquay or wherever else. You don't slow growth, you only shift it to other places that will welcome it with open arms. (For example, has anyone counted the number of homes being proposed out 64 Bypass? It's in the thousands.)

Everyone with the pipe dreams of mixed use and condos everywhere to create density need a reality check. People move here to get a big SFH and land. If they wanted condos (and high taxes) they would have stayed up north. SFHs and new developments are being built because... that's what the market wants! Living downtown in a 80 yr old house that you pay $275/sq ft isn't for everyone.

The problem we have is we are playing catch-up on building schools and roads. Well, the solution is easy, get in front of it! Want to build a 400 home development? Fine. But the county should do everything possible to encourage (tax breaks, neighborhood schools) the developer to build an elementary school in the development.

How about instead of using a TIF on private development downtown, use a TIF on that same 400 home development to build a school nearby and serve a public purpose.

There are plenty of options other than just simply slowing growth and raising taxes/impact fees.

[Jones_]

I hope everyone steps back and realizes that all this talk of "slow growth" is just a bunch of BS.

[Beth Y]

Everyone with the pipe dreams of mixed use and condos everywhere to create density need a reality check. People move here to get a big SFH and land

[tjoad]

I hope everyone steps back and realizes that all this talk of "slow growth" is just a bunch of BS. You can't sit there and act like growth in Raleigh or Cary happens in a vacuum. While Raleigh or Cary may apply some breaks on growth in those two cities, all that does is increase growth in other communities.

Look, we've got a great little place we live in, and fortunately, lots of people want to move here. If they aren't moving to Raleigh or Cary, they'll be going to Zebulon or Wake Forest or Fuquay or wherever else. You don't slow growth, you only shift it to other places that will welcome it with open arms. (For example, has anyone counted the number of homes being proposed out 64 Bypass? It's in the thousands.)

[ncwebguy]

People are moving here because their job brings them here and/or because their kids will have a good education. Some like a single family house on a cul-de-sac, but for decades, many others have settled for that because they didn't have the option to live in a mid rise or high rise condo.

Why? Because the comprehensive plan and unchanged impact fees made it easy to crank out track houses and townhouses with no reguard for their impact to schools, roads, or anything else. Council after council bought into (or were bought by?) the devlopment lobby's "growth pays for itself" while the growth didn't pay.

The newly elected council will "fix" both of these problems. There will be houses built wherever cheap land can be acquired. The chances of that happening are greater in Knightdale, Wendell, Wake Forest, Franklin County, Johnston County, etc. so yes, a lot of "development" will go there.

*Smart* growth will create better infill and create more affordable housing opportunities, though not in the form of detached houses.

Recent announcements from the Fed chair and Treasury secretary confirm the liquidity cruch is going to get worse in the short term. That is NOT the fault of the recently elected, yet it seems Republicans are ready to pin that to any Democrat they can.

Like the impact fee increase and school build out, development for this area was way overdue and we're just now catching up. The pieces will fall in place if city leadership stays focused. The council should listen to citizens when the citizens know more about a particular issue, but also educate the citizens when their local/obstructed view needs to take a back seat to benefitting the city as a whole. Developers are welcome to the table, but they need to learn their role as answering to the city and its residents, and not dictating policy as they have done in the recent past.

[Spatula]

No on both counts. I don't support raising taxes.

[Jones_]

Orwellian references are my favorite ^^

[askmisterbrown]

You're right, tjoad: None of the City Council candidates said anything about "slowing growth" or "curbing growth." That was made up by the N&O, which evidently has been directed by McClatchy to shill for the development & real estate community. Perhaps single-family developments require more ad space than condo buildings.

cthayes, you are right that many people come here for a cheap single family house on a cul-de-sac. If we are satisfied with attracting people who are looking for nothing more than cheap land, cheap construction, and cheap taxes, then that's what we'll get.

If we want smart, creative, motivated, innovative, cultured people, who bring better quality jobs, business, culture, and entertainment, we must provide them with alternatives.

Development can follow the market, but it can also can create a market, or at least discover untapped markets.

c harmons, the new development to which I refer is the Blount St. Commons, on about 16 acres northeast of downtown. It will consist of about 490 residential units: some single family, some condos, some row houses, some apartments. There will also be offices and retail. People in my adjacent neighborhood will buy units because they want to stay in the area but are done with maintaining an old house, or they want an office close to home, or they want an investment. This big development is supported by the neighbors because it is well thought out, respectful of surrounding neighorhoods, has parking under the buildings to save space, will restore the historic houses of Blount St., will require few new streets or other infrastructure, and will bring an interesting mix of people and business to the area.

[ChiefJoJo]

Geary's take on the elections.

I don't think most supporters of the new council would want a total end to suburban growth, really. They'd prefer it to be less random sprawl and more of a smart, well-planned type thing. Give us more Southern Village & Meadowmont-types of suburban developments and less Brier Creeks or Wakefields, and I'd be satisfied with that. (And certainly, more like North Hills.)

And yes, I do want more emphasis on density and infill but so should the folks outside-the-beltline, if even for only one good reason: Less strain on infrastructure...which equates to better for the city, economically. That really benefits everyone in the city.

But I agree the council will need to watch themselves very carefully to avoid the political pendulum come crashing back down to the right.

[Subway Scoundrel]

Geary's take on the elections.

Rob & webguy, I agree with you both 100% here. Development will continue, just smarter and more strategic.

Also, Subway, don't misconstrue what I have been saying. I only brought up those downtown projects as evidence to show that the winning incumbants are not unreasonabe to new developments if they are done in a well-planned fashion... think Southern Village, Meadowmont, North Hills, 5401, etc. If we don't make cheap, suburban-strip development either prohibitively expensive, or barr it via code, we will be well on our way to becoming what everyone says they don't want.... Atlanta and Houston.

[RALBOI]

I understand and I have been thinking about this as I have several contacts "very very very close" to many of these candidates. I am not as worried about the candidates as I am worried about what people say on this board "Get rid of Isley" or "now we can build what we want" and the people who voted for these canidates. Are they looking for their "Capital to be spent"

The worry for me is the people who supported these candidates and what their expectations are. I think many of the people who voted this time were DT oriented and almost expect a mandate. I am just worried about the backlash if the people who voted in these candidates press for what is good for them or a single vision of Raleigh and not what is good for all of Raleigh--whether you live in a DT condo, Country Club Hills or Brier Creek.

[Gard]

It looks like city leaders are going to be updating the city growth guide, which hasn't been touched in two decades. This could have implications for years to come and beyond the present council: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/growth/story/748682.html

[DanRNC]

Looks like the power shift in Raleigh politics is getting ready to occur. You have to wonder about people that are proud of being "dumb" and quoting half-witted country singers and their capacity to help lead a city. Also, if I hear that stupid cliched Gandhi quote (courtesy of Kekas) one more time I think I am going to rip my hair out. Good riddance. I only wish that dolt Isley would have been packing his bags too-maybe he is another one who is proud to be stupid.

Story

[ChiefJoJo]

From the article:

The meeting began with Council Members Joyce Kekas, Jessie Taliaferro and Tommy Craven thanking their constituents and city staff for their support. The meeting ended with Meeker placing two major issues from last month's election -- impact fees and project development financing -- on the agenda when the new council meets in January.

The move was a clear sign that the balance of power on the council has shifted, with Meeker and his allies now holding a majority. Taliaferro and Craven lost to candidates who support Meeker's desire to raise impact fees and to reject public financing for developer John Kane's North Hills East project.

We knew this was coming, but it look's by the end of January we'll know where things stand. I do think there is still some disagreement about how high impact fees should rise and how they should be implemented (lower fess for urban redevelopment, etc). Meeker wants to double them and some others want them tripled. Also, I hope they don't completely shut the door on TIFs altogether. I think it should be seriously considered as a method for achieving a rail transit system without federal funding, and perhaps could be used to encourange development of SE Raleigh and Hillsborough St... basically to stimulate development in areas in need and with a clear public purpose.

[ChiefJoJo]

Meeker laid out his agenda for the next council:

• higher impact fees

• year-round water conservation and higher water fees for major users

• more energy efficient city facilities, vehicles, LEDs, etc

• improved transit funding for CAT & TTA

• enact a TIF policy targeted towards "blighted" areas of the city that need redevelopment (ie, not NH East)

He said to expect a graduated fee system for smaller homes/condos which is sensible, but I hope they also try to look at location as well, such as ITB/downtown where the majority of facilities have existed for several decades at least... if I'm a developer who does a quality infill project, I should have an incentive to do so... charge that guy a minimal fee... but for the Toll Brothers out in Brier Creek, lay it on 'em heavy.

[ncwebguy]

I like that the "agenda" speech is seperate from next week's inagruation.

A lot of these plans are extending the downtown reinvestment plan to other areas (infrastructure, water, energy, transportation) -- Investments and hard work today will pay off multiple times over the next several decades both financially and in making us attractive o new residents, buisness, etc. Using TIFs as the tool most people voted for via NC Amendment One -- infill in areas that otherwise would not see redevelopment -- is another way to become a connected city.

All new construction should have some impact fee, but can also be used as a tool to encourage infill. An infill Toll Brother project would have less of an impact, and therefore should have less impact fees vs. a greenfield Toll Brothers project.

[DanRNC]

^Meeker still does not lay out a comprehensive transportation plan other than to say more money needs to be spent on roads and more buses.

[ChiefJoJo]

The new Raleigh City Council took office last night, and is expected to discuss impact fees and TIFs today at it's first meeting. Meeker said that the impact fee issue will be raised, the Duncan Report recommendations reviewed and questions asked, but that action likely won't take place until January or Feb.

EDIT: Here are some potential issues (besides just fees, TIFs, teardowns, and the comp plan) for the new council from Bob Geary's blog:

• transit funding in future transportation bond referenda (from Crowder, who’s proposing that 1/3 of future bond issues should be committed to transit.)

• domestic partner benefits for city employees

• city-wide wifi

• affordable housing