Office-retail only

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Office-retail only”.

by on April 14, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in Economic development, Housing, Land Use, Lifestyle, Spending, Taxes
Tagged ,
Posted by Nancy Oates on April 14, 2014

http://chapelhillwatch.com/2014/04/14/office-retail-only/

Previous Post
Next Post
Leave a comment

8 Comments

  1. many

     /  April 14, 2014

    The non-cache “functional items” can be bought less expensively online (as can most things) and your size 12 carbon footprint is delivered more efficiently by FedEx, UPS or DHL.

    IMO an even more practical way to get to revenue positive is a VAT tax at the state level shared with the goods destination municipality. Then using the balance to bring competitive internet services as well as online health services and education to a much larger statewide population. This could become self perpetuating both in revenue and in economic development.

    O.K I am going to put on my tin-foil hat and move the the basement now. Let loose the dogs of the internet!

  2. Julie McClintock

     /  April 27, 2014

    Yes one of the surprising twists in the E-F proposal saga is that most of the new buildings inthe first phase will be residential, not the mixed use that was touted.

    Ken Pennoyer’s financial analysis deserves more scrutiny before we reach consensus on what it means. On the face of it , it appears he forgot to factor in transit costs.

    The other surprising fact that emerged from last week’s budget materials is that Chapel HIll will not have money for transit “for the foreseeable future”. Transit friendly communities can’t be built without transit. Can they?

  3. DOM

     /  April 28, 2014

    Remember Chicken Little? “The sky is falling! The sky is falling!” There will always be fear-mongering from the few who don’t want change. And they’ll use any excuse to try and stop it.

  4. Deborah Fulghieri

     /  April 28, 2014

    On planning board (a volunteer citizens’ advisory board) I get to see individual homeowners who hire architects and engineers and surveyors at great expense in order to ask permission to replace a broken deck on a house built near wetlands before the Resource Conservation District (RCD) rules came into effect, or convert a garage in a pre-RCD house to living space– and they draw persnickety flak from the Town Planning Department about exacerbating downstream flooding.

    The E-F plan that came to the planning board (and is being tweaked following public comment) is mostly in an RCD, and it is the Town planning department itself drawing up plans for projects tens of thousands of times bigger than any one homeowner has ever brought up, without regard for wetlands and flooding downstream.

    In this case, individuals are 2-ounce tax-paying hatchlings, and the E-F plan is a giant cow telling the public “Eat Mor Chikn.”

  5. DOM

     /  April 28, 2014

    “…Individuals are 2-ounce tax-paying hatchlings, and the E-F plan is a giant cow telling the public “Eat Mor Chikn.”

    The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

  6. many

     /  April 28, 2014

    If they do not address the water problem, next time we have a significant rain in a short period “the sky is falling” will be an apt metaphor.

  7. DOM

     /  April 28, 2014

    “If they do not address the water problem…”

    As I said above, there will always be fear-mongering from those who don’t want change.

  8. many

     /  April 28, 2014

    Don’t be afraid DOM, just buy flood insurance and a good pair of boots.