The state of Raleigh's leadership

[Gard]

That is GREAT news!!!!

I thank Jessie for bowing out and respect her for looking out for the taxpayer's money and her family. I look foward to seeing what the next council does.

A little off topic, but I consider them a business leader of Raleigh...does anyone think that the death of Progress Energy's CEO will have any impact on how active they are in promoting Raleigh?

[Subway Scoundrel]

I definitely think that we are set for smart growth, as opposed to slow growth. To be honest, i don't think that any entity will be able to actually slow the growth at this point, with all of the new business and development scheduled to come online within the next few years. What I do see happening is the new city council taking a more proactive stance against dealing with growth issues going forward (i.e. light rail and other transit planning)

[DwnTwnRaleighGuy]

YEP!

Today, Taliaferro said she had changed her mind. She said it's the best decision for Raleigh, which now won't have to go through a costly runoff election, and her family.

"I will finish serving my term through December, and then I'm going to regroup and decide what I'm going to do next," she said. "There are a lot of opportunities."

Koopman called Taliaferro's decision "courageous."

"That's the toughest call you have to make as a politician," Koopman said. "The fact that she has protected the taxpayers from having to go through another election and to have saved her family and my family of all the mudslinging

[c_harmons]

I will go ahead and be the naysayer here. Raleigh and Cary are in trouble.

You are are CRAZY to think this election will lead to "smart" growth downtown. I predict growth slows dramatically. Compare announcements now versus announcements in one year. Very few - if any - new towers will be proposed and some on the boards, dead. This was coming in part anyway because of the national slowdown.

That is in fact what I find so ironic. A national slowdown is here. And it has come to the Triangle already. Ask anyone selling a house or any real estate agent. They will say these are very slow times in the Triangle.

So what do we do (and what do many people on this site encourage)? elect people wanting to increase controls and fees on new development / investment.

You may think I am crazy, but time will tell. I predict in a year or two, many people will be saying we might have hit the brakes at a bad time.

My prediction is either..

1) Towns like Knightdale, Apex, Holly Springs, etc will now boom because people continue to want to come here even though we are one of the worst sprawling areas in the country and developers move from Raleigh and Cary out to more friendly Towns where they can build cheaper housing that all the newcomers want. Which in turn will mean more traffic commuting farther away and a lower quality of life.

2) Or, the growth rate slows and no real boom happens anywhere. People then start to look at how few Fortune 500 companies are here, how new commercial construction comes to a crawl, etc. People will ask why we are not recruiting new jobs, why taxes are rising, and traffic is getting worse.

To some degree I agree with Isley. The golden goose of the Triangle was a very low cost of living. Kill that and why would someone not move their company to say Charlotte? There is a downtown core, a vareity of housing available, and lots of cultural benefits. Including a hub airport. They also seem to promote growth. Read the Charlotte Observer to see what I mean. That paper is the best promoter of Charlotte around. Versus the N&O which loves to talk about how bad things could be.

I was really taken aback to read what I think the new Cary Mayor said when he remarked he wanted Cary to just be single family lots. High density housing and mixed-use is not what Cary should be. I actually think a lot of people in the Triangle think that way, which is why it has always grown out, and not up. And if we don't grow dense, how does one promote public transit, urban parks, and places one can walk to eat or work?

Agree or disagee with the above, but in one to two years, we will see how many people are changing their tune regarding the "developer" Councils.

[plus2]

You may think I am crazy, but time will tell.

[Gard]

Yes, I do think you are crazy. What is the point of growing if it kills the quality of life and increases existing resident's property taxes to no benefit in return? Growth is good, but we have to have responsible growth. We will kill the golden goose if we overgrow our school system and other infrastructure too quickly. When I school system goes to hell, our roads become impassable and we run out of water...that's when growth will stop.

The only way to continue growing and continue to prosper is to take on these challenges now. Not when its too late.

C_harmons, You have been talking down good progressive smart-growth candidates for months on this board. And guess what...the people of Raleigh don't agree with you.

[c_harmons]

C_harmons, You have been talking down good progressive smart-growth candidates for months on this board. And guess what...the people of Raleigh don't agree with you.

[c_harmons]

I will also add that the only thing that allowing this continue the way it has been would have done on top of what Plus2 said is make it even harder to implement more mass transit, such as light rail. The further we spread out, the more costly it will become. We have plenty of land INSIDE the current city limits that is empty to develop and even more that is blighted and could be redeveloped.

[ChiefJoJo]

N&O on the "Meeker majority."

You are are CRAZY to think this election will lead to "smart" growth downtown. I predict growth slows dramatically. Compare announcements now versus announcements in one year. Very few - if any - new towers will be proposed and some on the boards, dead.

...

I was really taken aback to read what I think the new Cary Mayor said when he remarked he wanted Cary to just be single family lots. High density housing and mixed-use is not what Cary should be. I actually think a lot of people in the Triangle think that way, which is why it has always grown out, and not up. And if we don't grow dense, how does one promote public transit, urban parks, and places one can walk to eat or work?

Agree or disagee with the above, but in one to two years, we will see how many people are changing their tune regarding the "developer" Councils.

[Jones_]

When taxes start to rise because of slower growth

[plus2]

Generally in this area, this is an incorrect statement. Taxes here went up last year to accomodate the demands of massive growth. Usually only a shrinking economy, not a more slowly growing one, will be the other situation where taxes go up....a moderately growing area is optimal....

[Gard]

Do you really think a "slow growth" Council will approve infill projects where neighbors shout NIMBY? Maybe what you are saying we should develop only blighted areas where no one cares, but no one probably wants to live, work, or shop there either.

Unfortunately, if you truly want infill development, you need a Council that can take the heat when neighbors say no.

What Raleigh really needs is a Council that says the betterment of the City should take priority over the indivdual's concerns. So if we need to have more density closer to employment nodes, that is what we will do. Whether inside the belt homeowners like it or not. And of course you need a Council that curbs growth out where it is easy (i.e. no neighbors) because that leads to sprawl.

I think the previous Council started to make headway on pushing over knee jerk reactions from neighbors in infill spots. But they probably let sprawl get out of hand too. This new Council will probably curb sprawl but will not push over CACs to help grow up instead of out.

Which brings me back to my original point that I predict little new development over the next few years. And that will have an impact.

[tjoad]

Here is Geary's take on the elections

The new council will likely take on issues that the current one didn't. The first immediate priority is to consider sharply increasing impact fees on new developments in Raleigh. The current group raised impact fees 72 percent, but that increase followed 20 years during which fees were never raised at all, and it left them far below what Raleigh's allowed to charge under state law-and below all of its neighboring communities. Meeker wants the new fees doubled; Crowder and Koopman say they should be tripled, which would still leave them below the legal limit.

The second priority will be to quietly bury North Hills developer John Kane's request for a $75 million subsidy from the city for his North Hills East project. Kane's ambitious plans include parking decks with a total of 5,500 spaces; he was asking the city to pay for them directly, with tax-increment financing (TIF for short), or indirectly by cutting his future property taxes with what's known as "a synthetic TIF."

Beyond those two issues, the impact of the new council could be felt most in the rewrite of the city's comprehensive plan, the first time that's been attempted in 20 years. City Planning Director Mitchell Silver's timeline calls for that job to be finished in the next 18 months, with Council approval the final step.

It is important for the city provide a new 'rulebook' to developers. Instead of rubber-stamping practically any project presented, the city will have to ask more from them. As Geary says, the previous comprehensive plan promoted growth in a very suburban fashion, but that cannot continue. Instead of growing at the edges, the city will have to grow within the current area in order to be sustainable in the long run. It is not about stopping growth, it's about how you grow.

Let's hope this council can live up to our expectations .

[JeffC]

You know, to the extent that our rapid growth recently is due to the fact that people can enjoy sprawling residential cul-de-sac living for a fraction of the cost elsewhere, then that indeed needs to stop. Hey, if you want to live on a 3/4 acre lot and have to get in the car to eat out or buy anything or go to the gym, than bless you and more power to you...but why should we, the existing taxpayers, subsidize your decision? You and your developer should bear the full cost of extending sewer and water lines, building schools, parks and greenways in these previously pristine areas, and you should pay the going rate that folks in other parts of the country pay.

If this was an economically depressed area, the "we need to give people what they want at the price they want" argument might hold some merit. But it isn't. This is a vibrant and broad-based economy that is not dependent on cheap land and housing to work. Personally, I really like Raleigh the physical size it is right now. We could fit at least 30,000 more people in this city right now without plowing under a single more acre of field or forest just from infill or redevelopment of blighted areas.

[Jones_]

...but why should we, the existing taxpayers, subsidize your decision? You and your developer should bear the full cost of extending sewer and water lines, building schools, parks and greenways in these previously pristine areas, and you should pay the going rate that folks in other parts of the country pay.

[c_harmons]

We could fit at least 30,000 more people in this city right now without plowing under a single more acre of field or forest just from infill or redevelopment of blighted areas.

[c_harmons]

N&O on the "Meeker majority."

FWIW, I agree with you on mixed-use in Cary. They can't just build single family homes, and while he had broad-based support, I've been a little underwhelmed at how he has seemed to pander to the voters on urban development, density and the 540 toll question (he is against it).

[RaleighRob]

Do you honestly believe this Council will support higher density projects when neighbors come out and say they don't want it near their homes?

[ChiefJoJo]

I really like reading the pipe dreams people have on this site.

Do you honestly believe this Council will support higher density projects when neighbors come out and say they don't want it near their homes? If they do, they will be considered too developer friendly and removed. And these people who were just elected will NOT go against angry neighbors.

Look at Cary. They approved mixed-use projects near single family homes and the whole Council was dumped the next day.

Also, doubling or tripling impact fees will only make infill development that much harder. Why spend big bucks to buy infill property, fight the CACs who will say not here, only to pay the same in impact fees you would if you built out on a farm in Knightdale?

To show I am not just a naysayer without offering solutions, I would recommend Council actually give incentives to build infill. To raise impact fees on all development will be a BIG mistake.

[RALBOI]

Again, this election wasn't just about development, and I've described above a multitude of examples to support that and why I think you are going over-the-top with your reaction here. The existing and future council members I've spoken with favor an incentives-based impact fee system... incentives (low or no fees) for quality infill development and disincentives (highest fees) for fringe development. Funny that you prdeict development will move to Knightdale, etc, when most other communities have both a higher fee and a much more progressive planning code.

Also, I'll remind you that the council will still have three pro-development members, Isley, West, and Baldwin, on the council... plus Mayor Meeker, who is really more of a centrist on development. Look at our local economy... RBC, Campbell, RTP, universities, etc... growth isn't going to stop anytime soon. If the council can stay focused, we'll be a much better place in the future.

[Spatula]

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.

[DB78]

If the intent is simply to let some infrastructure catch up, that seems alright. Discouraging people from moving here via impact fees that get passed along to them seems aimed at keeping people away with strong NIMBYism.

As an article I recently read mentioned, "slow-growth" means different things to different people. To some it is a way to raise more money for local infrastructure and a tool to get more developers building denser projects. That sounds ok, but there's another side to that coin. Slow-growth is also really a tax on future people migrating here. It may help curb urban sprawl at the expense of pushing people away from Cary and Raleigh city limits. Those people end up in places like Clayton, Wake Forest and such, so has it really helped urban sprawl??

I think a lot of Cary's election of a slow-growth mayor is NIMBYism at its height of hypocrisy. The strong opposition towards the development at High House and Davis Drive is a great example of people wanting to shut the door behind them.

Person coming to see if they want to move to Cary: "Wow, what a nice town/small city. And it's growing fast. I can see why. There's a lot of good amenities for its size. I can't wait to move here."

Same person a couple of years after moving to Cary: "OK, that's it. People have to stop moving here. The roads are too crowded and I don't like so many people everywhere. No high density housing allowed. It will ruin my Truman Show like town by allowing people that make less than $100K household income in. We need to stop people from moving here!"

I fear the end result will be even more urban sprawl (which we sure as hell don't need) towards the outlying areas of Wake County or people who would otherwise move here deciding to look elsewhere.

OT- that word "progressive" I keep seeing pop up here makes me cringe. It usually means socialist in the political context.

***PUTTING ON FLAME RETARDENT SUIT***

[ChiefJoJo]

As an article I recently read mentioned, "slow-growth" means different things to different people. To some it is a way to raise more money for local infrastructure and a tool to get more developers building denser projects. That sounds ok, but there's another side to that coin. Slow-growth is also really a tax on future people migrating here. It may help curb urban sprawl at the expense of pushing people away from Cary and Raleigh city limits. Those people end up in places like Clayton, Wake Forest and such, so has it really helped urban sprawl??

I think a lot of Cary's election of a slow-growth mayor is NIMBYism at its height of hypocrisy. The strong opposition towards the development at High House and Davis Drive is a great example of people wanting to shut the door behind them.

[askmisterbrown]

When you elect a Mayor who says citizens get to rule the town, you end up not getting anything done.

[Subway Scoundrel]

N&O on the "Meeker majority."

FWIW, I agree with you on mixed-use in Cary. They can't just build single family homes, and while he had broad-based support, I've been a little underwhelmed at how he has seemed to pander to the voters on urban development, density and the 540 toll question (he is against it).

On Raleigh: I think you are way overreacting. Meeker, Stephenson, etc, are smart people, and they will keep the city going forward, but in a smarter direction. For an example, they have voted to support almost every major downtown and even other good projects... they support the city plaza, and underground decks, RCC & hotel, Hillsborough St, Tucker, RBC, Hue, West, 222, Bloomsbury, Reynolds (1st try), 5401 North way out at 540, oh and all except Crowder even supported Soleil Center... and those are just the ones I can remember. How, by any stretch of the imagination, can those votes/projects be construed as anti-growth or anti-downtown?

The problem hasn't been with these types of projects, which are almost all good... it's been the especially sprawling single family subdivisions in the hinterlands (Brier Creek?) that have significantly hurt our tax base and ability to provide much needed services such as transportation, schools and parks to the city and county.. not to mention water use! What about the sorry state of transit in Raleigh? Bike lanes? What about the stacked deck that is the planning commission? What about planning and providing for affordable housing in downtown, so regular workers (city & state ) can live here? What about preserving open space that we're losing by acres a day? Viability of the CACs? What about the arts (remember the chandeliers)? What about supporting regional transit? What about a stronger, more urban comp plan?

These are just a few of the topics that have not been well addressed by the previous council, in large measure due to the presence of the outoging members. I'm not saying that the new council will definitely agree on or address these, but they now stand a *MUCH* better chance. At the end of the day, the citizens weren't being served well by some of their representatives, and I think that more than anything was what I took from the election results.