You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Happier New Year”.
Happier New Year
by Nancy Oates on January 1, 2018
• Permalink
Posted in Community life, Council Members, Downtown Chapel Hill, Environment, Housing, Land Use, Lifestyle, Spending, Taxes, Town staff
Posted by Nancy Oates on January 1, 2018
http://chapelhillwatch.com/2018/01/01/happier-new-year/
Previous Post
Hot Spots
Hot Spots
Next Post
Requiem to a Newspaper
Requiem to a Newspaper
Recent Comments
- Nancy Oates on We’re still here
- Deborah Fulghieri on We’re still here
- Pluramus on Greene Tract series continues
- Nancy Oates on Greene Tract series continues
- Nancy Oates on Greene Tract series continues
- Plurimus on Greene Tract series continues
- Plurimus on Greene Tract series continues
- Nancy Oates on Greene Tract series continues
- plurimus on Greene Tract series continues
Blogroll
Categories
- 140 West
- Budget
- Business
- Carolina North
- CH2020
- Committees
- Community life
- Council Members
- County business
- Courts
- Courtyards of Homestead
- COVID-19
- Deer
- Downtown Chapel Hill
- Economic development
- Elections
- Environment
- Ethics
- Food Trucks
- Homeless Shelter
- Housing
- Land Use
- Library
- Lifestyle
- Media
- Museum
- Northside
- Occupy Protests
- Parking
- Police
- Politics
- Public Works
- Roads
- Sanitation workers
- Schools
- Social justice
- Spending
- Taxes
- Technology
- Town staff
- Transportation
- Trees
- UNC
- Uncategorized
- Work and Money
Tag Cloud
123 West Franklin advisory boards affordability American Legion annexation Bicycle Apartments bond referendum BRT Bus ads candidates Carolina Flats cell phones Central West CH2020 Charterwood Community Home Trust comprehensive plan county commissioners county government development Ephesus-Fordham fireworks form-based zoning Franklin Street Friends of Downtown Growth health care Historic District Commission historic districts Holidays Light Rail Obey Creek park-and-ride personalities real estate sales Rogers Road Shortbread Silent Sam students The Edge Timber Hollow towing traffic Trinitas VOEMeta
plurimus
/ January 3, 2018An interesting read in this mornings NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/upshot/zoning-housing-property-rights-nimby-us.html?em_pos=small&emc=edit_up_20180103&nl=upshot&nl_art=0&nlid=32431568&ref=headline&te=1&_r=0
Nancy
/ January 3, 2018Interesting piece about the balance between encouraging people to invest in the community (which drives towns to invest in schools, transportation, recreation & other quality-of-life issues) and protecting property owners’ ability to maximize their profit.
CitizenWill
/ January 3, 2018Interesting call to save NYC subway also https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/magazine/subway-new-york-city-public-transportation-wealth-inequality.html
Interesting that the citizens built-out a network that developers profited from – and that those enriched developers will fund further improvements (or defray the original taxpayer investments).
Sound familiar? #DOLRT
“If the story of the subway is the story of density, it is also the story of land — and more to the point, the story of land value. Before the first tracks had even been laid, real estate speculators were gobbling up farmland and empty lots along the proposed route and then quickly flipping their parcels at huge premiums to builders. When the subway recovered from its last major crisis, it again began throwing off enormous returns for the owners of the land above it. From 1993 to 2013, the average price for a co-op or condo in TriBeCa rose from $182 per square foot to $1,569. In the process, prime real estate in Manhattan was transformed from a place where people lived and built businesses into a high-yield investment in which absentee owners parked their money and watched it grow.”
CitizenWill
/ January 3, 2018I meant to say – the developers will NOT be funding additional transit from their taxpayer provided windfalls.
plurimus
/ January 5, 2018Chapel Hill and Manhattan Island share a kind of odd relationship in that Manhattan is physically an island with hard geographic borders. Chapel Hill is an artificially created island contained by logical borders in the form of a “rural” buffer (really a buffer of expensive subdivision sprawl interspersed with few actual farms).
I think it’s still lost on people that the advantage Chapel Hill enjoys in this comparison is that a logical constraint could be made flexible (in certain areas) without sacrificing the “rural” character. Also with the appropriate effort the buffer could be improved upon making available advances that bring the advantages of rural living into the 21st century without mcMansions.