HomeNewsWake County  }

Two races could flip the Raleigh City Council's approach to growth

Pro-development incumbents face stiff challenges in October

29 AUG 2007  •  by Bob Geary, rjgeary (at) mac (dot) com

Will the makeup of Raleigh's political leadership be any different as a result of the Oct. 9 elections?

It might not look like it, what with Mayor Charles Meeker and three of the five district representatives on the city council all unopposed for re-election. And even in the citywide race for the council's two at-large seats, where six candidates are competing, if incumbent Russ Stephenson is re-elected and voters pick a like-minded replacement for outgoing member Joyce Kekas, it'll be the status quo there, too.

A major realignment could happen, nonetheless, depending on the two contested district elections. In each, incumbents aligned with the development interests in Raleigh face stiff challenges from the left—and one of the two, Councilor Jessie Taliaferro, has a challenger on her right as well. If the two progressive challengers win, it could turn the eight-member body upside down, resulting in tighter planning, higher impact fees on developers and more curbs on sprawl.

The two races to watch:

  • In District A, neighborhood leader Nancy McFarlane, a registered independent ("unaffiliated") whose views are on the progressive side, is running hard against Republican Tommy Craven, himself a developer. The district takes in the geographic center of North Raleigh. Craven won it narrowly two years ago against Democrat Paul Anderson in a quiet campaign marked by very low voter turnout.

  • In District B, a pair of ex-military men, progressive Democrat Rodger Koopman and conservative Republican Angel Menendez, could squeeze out Taliaferro, a Democrat who's lost favor with many in her party by backing developers. She captured this seat in a runoff four years ago after a similar three-way election, against much weaker opponents. Two years ago, she was unopposed.

Here's the math, and it's a bit complicated. On this nonpartisan body—no party designations are listed on the ballot—Mayor Meeker leads an ostensible 6-2 Democratic majority. But on many development issues, Taliaferro, Kekas and District C member James West (Southeast Raleigh) join the two Republicans to create their own five-member majority, outvoting Stephenson and District D (Southwest Raleigh) member Thomas Crowder. Meeker, trying to "govern from the middle," as he says, sometimes votes with the one side, sometimes the other.

On downtown development spending and the city budget as a whole, however, Taliaferro, Kekas and West generally return to Meeker's fold, rejoining Crowder and Stephenson. Budget votes have been tricky, though. Crowder, Stephenson and Meeker support higher impact fees to cut the property tax rate, but on the current council, they've been outvoted 5-3. And since the two Republicans, Craven and District E's Philip Isley (Northwest Raleigh), always vote no on the budget, Meeker can't get it passed if both Crowder and Stephenson hold out for their position and vote no also—so the last two years, one of them held out, but the other didn't.

The bottom line: On some issues, there's a Meeker majority. But on growth questions, Taliaferro's usually seen as the majority leader.

So who's out to topple her majority? We asked the three challengers to tell us about themselves and the changes they'd like to see Raleigh make.

Nancy McFarlane: "Better balance" in District A



McFarlane's been out knocking on doors. She says a lot of people "think their concerns are not being met, nobody's listening, nobody's representing them—the special interests are the only ones represented."

What concerns? One is the chronic stormwater problem in District A. As a longtime leader—now president—in the Greystone neighborhood association, the soft-spoken McFarlane, 51, knows all too well about that one: Heavy rains can wash the dirt off upstream developments, and it stops down in Greystone's lakes, forcing residents there to spend "hundreds of thousands of dollars" over the years dredging them out. The city's improved its stormwater rules lately, but that didn't help a couple of months ago when developers of the 50-acre Wayward Farm tract essentially clear-cut it before installing their erosion controls, she said. A big rain followed—and another big mudslide.

A second issue is traffic congestion, McFarlane says. It points up the lack of balance between the city's all-out development policies and its inadequate investments in roads and other infrastructure. "We need a better balance in our policies."

But the biggest issue on the voters' minds is crowded schools, McFarlane says. It reminds her of an early foray she made into city politics, as a PTA leader, when her part of Raleigh had no schools and the city council rezoned for a big apartment complex anyway. "I asked, Where will the kids go to school?," she recalls. "Their answer was, We don't care—that's the county's problem."

McFarlane, a pharmacist, owns a company that supplies complicated injections, and the nurses to administer them, to patients with diseases like multiple sclerosis. She started it five years ago and it took all of her working hours, precluding her seeking public office. But now it's grown to the point, with 21 employees, that she can devote the time to the council. She and her husband, who is also a pharmacist, have three grown children.

She's got a fairly simple agenda. She supports higher impacts fees, like Meeker, to help pay for roads and parks. She disagrees with Craven that the city's spending too much on downtown. The infrastructure to support development already exists downtown, she says. What's wasteful is that 80 percent of the city's capital budget is spent supporting sprawl "out on the rim," she says.

More balance, and "thoughtful, more foresighted" planning, is what she's got in mind if she wins.

Rodger Koopman: "Ambitious" for District B and Raleigh



In contrast to the soft-spoken McFarlane, Koopman, the "progressive Democrat" running against Taliaferro in District B, is outspoken, funny and often blunt. Without progressive leadership, he says, "the little people get screwed—and it doesn't have to be that way."

Koopman, 47, has lived in Raleigh for just four years, arriving with his veterinarian wife and their 7-year-old son from California to run a local office for Itron, which sells and services utility meters. He left that job after a corporate buyout. Before that, he was a captain in Air Force intelligence who served all over the world, including a stint with the counterterrorism branch of the Southeast Asian command. His military experience bolstered his idealism, he says, but it's not the source of it. That he traces to his paternal grandparents, who were Holocaust survivors—"barely"—in his native Holland. Other family members didn't survive.

"I'm very motivated and informed by a sense of purpose," Koopman says. "I know it sounds corny and cliché, but if you have the means to do something about a problem, no matter how small, and you don't do it, you're complicit in that problem."

Koopman will tell you what he thinks of the war in Iraq (he's "incensed" by the lies) and was preoccupied with national issues before coming to Raleigh, where he decided he could have the greatest impact on issues that matter to the most people by serving in local government. He ran last year for a seat on the Wake County Commissioners, losing to conservative Republican Paul Coble. His objective this year is different, but his message isn't: Raleigh and Wake County are on top now, but they won't stay there unless current policies change.

"Raleigh is a gem of a city," Koopman says, but has lately been living off "the courage and thoughtfulness" of the leaders who 30 years created a merged school system and 50 years ago started the Research Triangle Park.

Today's leaders must be just as ambitious, he says. But in the '90s, Raleigh fell under the sway of conservatives like ex-mayors Coble and Tom Fetzer "who said we could have our cake and eat it too" by enjoying the fruits of those past investments while they cut taxes and failed to invest in the future.

Koopman's investments would include better bus service ("and rail, but that's a 20-year project"), finishing the greenways, protecting the Horseshoe Farm and Durant nature parks and making Dorothea Dix a great destination park. He'd rein in developers, raise impact fees and create a "framework" for smart, sustainable growth within which—he insists—builders would make more money, not less. He'd also push for affordable-housing and living-wage ordinances, saying both would help Raleigh's prosperity by putting money into the pockets of people who'd spend it right back into the local economy.

Angel Menendez: Cut taxes, help District B



Menendez, 44, is also ex-military. A career master sergeant in the Marine Corps, he's a longtime conservative Republican who smiles easily and who agrees with Tommy Craven that Raleigh "doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem." His prescription: Prioritize spending; pay "careful attention" to development and provide important services; and cut taxes so that the people can choose how more of their money's spent, not government.

"I think our leaders need to be a lot more prudent in the way money's spent," he says. "I do think we're spending too much downtown at the expense of the other parts of Raleigh, especially District B."

Menendez is a New York City native who's lived and worked in Raleigh "on and off" over the last dozen years while posted to recruiting offices and finally to Quantico, Va. After he retired, he went to work for a private employment firm, running the Durham office. It's his first time seeking a public office. Like Koopman, he says it's about his "passion for serving things that are greater than myself."

"I'm a devoted husband and father [of two teenagers]," he says. "I love my country and I love serving my community." One thing he takes very seriously: If elected, he'd be Raleigh's first Hispanic council member. "That would be meaningful, absolutely ... in District B and for the whole city."

31 COMMENTS

There is a group called Community Scale that is actively supporting Roger Koopman. This activist group has also petitioned the City of Raleigh to downzone 140+ neighbors (against their will) in the Five Points area. Is Koopman in favor of this style of community activism?
by Char Raleigh 3 Sep 2007, 7:31am Report this comment
I want to make it clear I have not endorsed any specific community group. Furthermore, Community Scale is not actively supporting my campaign. I know several of its members; they happen to be neighbors of mine. Furthermore, in the course of my campaign I spend a lot of time visiting with people and groups of people. Thus, some folks who belong to Community Scale may also decide to support my campaign. I assume that's because they're dissatisfied with their current representation. However, that's very different from a group that organizes solely around getting a candidate elected. Part of my platform is to make sure we restore representative government to the city of Raleigh so that ALL citizens are represented and not just those who have resources. When citizens bring issues that are important to them to the council I think it's important we respect the fact people have taken their valuable time to participate in the political process. We should encourage, not discourage, that because representative democracy only works when as many people as possible actively participate in their government. Currently, citizen participation is being marginalized by often ignored input and advice from groups like the Citizens Advisory Councils (CACs). I think that's wrong. As an elected representative it's my job to ensure ALL people's needs are represented, and not just those few who happen to have the resources to make themselves be heard. Specific to Community SCALE, I know several of its members and I know they're involved in neighborhood issues that are important to them. However, I have not paid particular attention to exactly what they're advocating for and thus I have not taken a position as to the merit of their argument. That will come after I'm elected and after the entire city council has gone through the normal process of evaluating requests from citizens and/or citizen groups. In terms of downzoning 140 neighbors against their will, this is the first I've heard of it. Property rights issues need to be dealt with in the most respectful and deferential manner. Nobody as far I as can tell is going to get something like this shoved down their throats. But again, I have not spent any time looking at Community Scale's specific issues so cannot comment on the merit of their position. I do believe, however, we should applaud the fact citizens are willing to come together in a neighborly fashion to address issues that are important to them. Any group of people. Take for example Horseshoe Farm Park. It was generously given to us, the citizens of Raleigh, with the express intention of keeping it as a nature park. Then all of a sudden, because of backroom politics by a few developers and my opponent, there was talk of building a giant gym right in the middle of the park. If it hadn't been for concerned citizens' willingness to make their voices heard and to ensure the issues involving Horseshoe Farm Park were given the full benefit of a public discussion, that park would not exist as a nature park today. I think that's a very good thing and I'm glad citizens acted and stood up to protect Horseshoe Farm Park. The same can be said for Durant Nature Park. Currently there is a discussion about clear-cutting over 10 acres of a mature wooded area to build an asphalt parking lot. However, no clear need for this has been established and very little discussion has taken place whether or not this truly reflects the needs of ALL citizens or just a few. Fortunately, citizens organized to speak up about this and that in turn will cause the city to become more accountable for its decisions. Again, I think that's a good thing. The founders of our country expressly embedded many checks and balances into our political processes because they recognized it's sometimes very easy for the needs of the few to override the concerns of the many. We truly have the best form of representative democracy on earth. But it only works when all of us stand up to be counted and participate to let our voices be heard. No one small group should get some form of publicly funded benefit if it's injurious to many others. If that is called community activism then I welcome it. Sincerely, Rodger Koopman Candidate, Raleigh City Council District B www.rodgerkoopman.com
by Rodger Raleigh 4 Sep 2007, 5:49pm Report this comment
Rodger: seriously you just said: "Specific to Community SCALE, I know several of its members and I know they're involved in neighborhood issues that are important to them." Their entire agenda is about downzoning the area but you know nothing about it? Second: you say you haven't been endorsed by any specific group yet your website broadcasts all sort of endoresments from various city officials and organizations. None, as you say are for the city council race yet you POST them anyway. As far as your stance on Impact fees, which we agree, I say we take it a step further. For example: You paid $540,000 for your house but you only are taxed at $291,000 rate. I wonder how much more money the city would have for worth while projects if people like you who move here actually paid there fair share of the tax burden. Your statements prove that you are the "typical" politician who will say what it takes to get elected. Thanks for reminding me it is politics as usual.
by Ms. Happy Raleigh 6 Sep 2007, 12:16am Report this comment
Mr. Happy, you need to do a better job reading the words. Mr. Koopman says that HE HAS NOT ENDORSED any specific group. We can ignore your harsh judgment until you give it another read, if you like.
by RDU WTF (wtf@rduwtf.com) Raleigh 6 Sep 2007, 11:22am Report this comment
It's Ms. Happy. He said he was friends with members of a group but did not know what their purpose was? Then gives an explination of what they stand for. Feel free to comment on the impact fees vs. being taxed appropiately or both. Paying your fair share would help pay for dearly needed social programs that are being overlooked.
by Ms. Happy Raleigh 6 Sep 2007, 12:42pm Report this comment
*Wake County*, not private citizen Rodger Koopman, established the tax system currently in place. The current, outdated system reevalutates property every *eight* years. That is an issue that should be addressed by the Wake County Board of Commissioners, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen. Out of the three candidates for the District B council seat, only one has posted here with his or her name. The incumbent in District B is "politics as usual" personified. If I lived in District B, I would be proud to have Mr. Koopman representing me on City Council. He is the only candidate for the seat interested in impact fees and making growth pay for itself. The other candidates appear to want to cut spending that would keep Raleigh great in order to pad the pockets of people "developing" (and I use that term loosely) the city's edges.
by ncwebguy Raleigh 6 Sep 2007, 1:54pm Report this comment
Yes wake county did establish the property tax. Mr. Koopman is the one that dug the hole I have pointed out no one else. I am glad you like him but please stop portraing another politician as something they are not. FYI.. We might not need an impact fee or property tax hike if people PAID their fair share. Shouldn't collecting taxes already in place be a higher priority than imposing new ones. District B citizen as well.
by Ms. Happy Raleigh 6 Sep 2007, 6:47pm Report this comment
As a district B resident I myself am concerned about the status of Mr Koopman's citizenship. I understand that only natural-born citizens can run for President or Vice President & wish that were true for all elections. No offense to Mr Koopman but alot of people feel this way . I personally do not think Rodger Koopman has earned the right to be my councilman.Koopman grew up in the Netherlands a country well-known for its liberal policies toward drugs, prostitution, abortion, and euthanasia. I am not sure if Raleigh is ready for this type of leadership.
by Barrys5points Raleigh 6 Sep 2007, 7:27pm Report this comment
John Adams said, "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God and there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence."
by Jenmaris Raleigh 6 Sep 2007, 8:23pm Report this comment
"coming together in a neighborly fashion" did not happen in this downzone situation. Those that are protecting themselves are spending untold hours and money on attorneys to protect their property rights. This is community activism at it's worst. Good luck to you with this crowd. You would be making a deal with the devil.
by Jenmaris Raleigh 6 Sep 2007, 8:31pm Report this comment
The comments by Barrys5points are ludicrous at best. I am sure that not everyone in the Netherlands supports abortion, prostitution, euthanasia and drug use. If all Barrys5points can do is engage in character assassination by broadbrushing a local candidate, then it doesn't say much for his ability to discuss substantive issues. I agree that for the office of President of the United States, a person should be born in the US. But, for local candidates that rule would be very shortsighted and just plain silly. Every country in the world has its strong and weak points. The US is no exception. A visit to Mr. Koopman's website (www.rodgerkoopman.com) shows that he was in the US Air Force for 15 years. That was a serious commitment. And guess who was consulted after the Katrina disaster? Dutch engineers who are familiar with proper dike/levee engineering. Barrys5points certainly has the right to express his opinion, but the manner in which he has done so is unwelcome.
by ScreenedPorch Raleigh 7 Sep 2007, 9:17am Report this comment
Are you kidding me? Koopman knows exactly what Community SCALE is about. His post was ridiculous!!!!!
by breynold81 NC 7 Sep 2007, 10:00am Report this comment
What hole have you pointed out? That he is paying the same taxes that the previous owner would have paid until the 2008 reevaluation? That the current system isn't great and it is Mr. Koopman's fault despite the fact he hasn't been able to change the system? Do you really want to tie tax assessment to sales price? If a property is handed down to an heir, does the heir only pay taxes on a valuation based on the original purchase price? Or if someone wants to help a friend out and sells a property for well below what it is worth, should the tax value be set to that figure? As for impact fees, when new roads, sewer, etc. are built for new subdivisions on the city's borders, the bill is due before the first tax payer moves in. Contractors don't get paid in 20 yearly installments as the tax revenue gradually builds. Who ends up paying the bills? The existing population. Wake County schools are overcrowded *because* families who haven't paid their share are moving to the area and expect there to be small classroom sizes for their kids because they paid a year or two of taxes. They are "paying what they should be" right away, but they have not yet paid enough to cover the *impact* their new house has on the city and county. We wouldn't need a property tax hike if there was an appropriate impact fee. The city and county have done a heck of a job short changing tax payers outside of North Raleigh, Cary and Apex to fuel their growth. Yet the people there are the same ones who complain when a dime happens to be spent elsewhere. Repeatedly spewing "growth pays for itself" doesn't make it true.
by ncwebguy Raleigh 7 Sep 2007, 2:42pm Report this comment
I can't put a nuclear waste dump, tire fire, or gin joint on my property, yet anarchy and tyranny has yet commence. Common sense, neighborhood character, and community pride used to matter in this city, but that is slowly slipping away as "what can we accomplish" has replaced with "I'm going to get mine by any means necessary".
by ncwebguy Raleigh 7 Sep 2007, 2:50pm Report this comment
The fundamental question is: What did the homeowner buy? And would a change in zoning deprive him of what he paid for? Since the houses are individually paid for, adjacent neighbors never paid for a "view" in perpetuity. What right does one homeowner have to deprive the other owner of the benefits of building on their property or selling it to a builder? For those who are attempting to stop the new building in this neighborhood. There was no guarantee that the houses would remain the same forever. Whoever buys the house buys its current privacy and the chance -- not a certainty -- that the homes in this neighborhood would remain the same size forever. It is unreasonable to think so. If a homeowner wanted a guarantee that the neighbor's homes would remain as is, he could have bought the property surrounding him. That way he would be paying for what he wanted, rather than expecting the government to deprive someone else for his benefit. If the predatory downzone effort is realized then the effect would turn a chance that someone paid for into a guarantee that they did not pay for, such as a guarantee that a given community would retain these homes forever. In the normal course of events, things change. Such downzoning requests purport to help preserve the existing character of the community, at the expense of others. Because they can't retain the buildable space they paid for, their value of their land is reduced drastically. The biggest losers are those families who are deprived of housing and those families who are deprived of the standard of living they could have if they did not have to pay for sky-high rents or home prices due to an artificial scarcity of housing. Another rationale for laws restricting land use is that "open space" is a good thing, that it prevents "overcrowding" for example. But preventing people from building homes in one place only makes the crowding greater in other places. This is just another fig leaf for the self-interest of those who want other people to be forced to live somewhere else. Whatever their rhetoric or rationales, these groups have no more rights under the Constitution than anyone else.
by Jenmaris Raleigh 7 Sep 2007, 4:40pm Report this comment
The builders in our area have said that being inside the beltline is what newcomers want, because of the charming older neighborhoods and closeness to downtown. And thus, we have seen a lot of speculative building of $1 to $2 million homes that don't seem to be moving very quickly. In some cases, citizens who have been living in modest, affordable apartments have been displaced so progress can be made. My concern is for those citizens who have lived inside the beltline because of needing access to the bus line. How long before there will be more citizens who need affordable places to rent than there are apartments available? Smart growth requires that we care for all citizens and not just those who can pay for what they want. If we do not take care of our elderly, handicapped, and those with lesser means who NEED to be close to public transportation for their existence and independence, then our community has come to be one where greed will always win over compassion. I appreciate Mr. Koopman being willing to represent people who need a voice and don't have the financial backing to be heard.
by hummer Raleigh 7 Sep 2007, 5:14pm Report this comment
My understanding is the five points CAC and Scale gave the thumbs up to Gordon Grubbs to knock down all the affordable housing off of Pine Street. It's okay to knock down that affordable housing, but not for people to keep their current zoning? That doesn't compute.
by Jenmaris Raleigh 7 Sep 2007, 6:10pm Report this comment
It would have been nice on Pine as well as other areas where housing is being demolished, if the redevelopment included economically diverse housing options. However, that does not provide the best return on the dollar. I find the taxing debate interesting. It is every eight years that taxes are reviewed. The folks who live on a street where all the houses were $2 to $3 hundred thousand dollars are going to see their taxes going way up because of new houses that are $1 to $2 million dollar properties. The folks for the redevelopment of Old Raleigh say "Well that only increases the value of your home." Not really. If your home and your property have not changed, then why should you be taxed for the influx of homes that are overpriced for the area and are usually being built on speculation? What is friendly or neighborly about that? I suspect there is a calculated "hope" that many of those folks who cannot afford the inflated taxes will have to sale their homes so "the haves" can "have some more." In industry, isn't that called hostile takeover?
by hummer Raleigh 8 Sep 2007, 6:49am Report this comment
Your assertion that your property taxes go up because of the new big homes is wrong. The tax assessors office compares as close to the same size/age/acreage home to another in the area. It does not compare your home to a newly built home. Declines in property values mean lower tax values. Call down to the tax office and ask. They will confirm this.
by Jenmaris Raleigh 8 Sep 2007, 7:00am Report this comment
If someone owns a small bungalow style home on Anderson Drive, it's tax value will not change right away when a $1,000,000 +/- house is built next door. However, after the County reassesses all properties this year the taxes for that little bungalow will increase. With lots (tear-downs) selling for $350,000 and more, the ground underneath that modest bungalow will skyrocket in value.
by ScreenedPorch Raleigh 8 Sep 2007, 8:12am Report this comment
Of course our property taxes are going to increase. I would hope our property values have increased in the last eight years. My God, what do you expect? Go live somewhere with depreciating property values then. I will gladly live in a place that is thriving and property value increases over time. What a sticker of an investment otherwise. Again, call the tax assessors office. You will be pleasantly surprised.
by Jenmaris Raleigh 8 Sep 2007, 8:56am Report this comment
Hey, Jenmaris. I made a calm, thoughtful statement/observation. I was not complaining. You seem a bit touchy ("My God, what do you expect? Go live somewhere with depreciating property values then."). What's up with the attitude?
by ScreenedPorch Raleigh 8 Sep 2007, 11:30am Report this comment
Probably, “ touchy” because you are complaining about things that you are creating. Mr. Koopman is promoting activism. Sounds great as long as what you are promoting actually has a positive benefit to society as a whole. SCALE is not doing any of that. Here's why: 1. A change in zoning doesn't protect from McMansions in fact it Creates them. Larger lots create opportunity not smaller ones, think about it. Large houses are scattered all around the ITB area and it was never a problem before. Taste is subjective and some of the greatest artist would never have been if you had activist groups like scale around. 2. Houses that overshadow their neighbors like on Glenwood are not created by zoning. It wasn't even created by a developer but by an individual. Agree or disagree zoning wouldn't have prevented this house only a HOA would have. HOA's are developed to maintain and increase property values. If you want to be able to paint your front door purple then you have to accept that your neighbor might not have your same taste. It is called tolerance. 3. Downzoning doesn't do anything but harm a few people’s property values. It doesn't change what is built, it doesn't save a tree, it doesn't protect perceived character of a neighborhood it just hurts people. And a group dedicated to hurting a minority of people for nothing isn’t a group of people that should be associated with. Activism for no other reason accept to be in “control” with no real substance is no different than Ann Coulter rallying her base with lies and deception. Both are wrong. Back to Mr. Koopman a Community Center for families to have a place to recreate is not a terrible thing. Horseshoe farm could have had both a nature preserve and a center it would have been a compromise that benefited the whole instead a vocal minority wins out yet families lose. Lecturing people on your service to our country does not explain your not voting in the last city election or your great need for power. Your website is filled with endorsements from an election that you lost so why mislead people? I could go on but someone else will just spin things another way. As for the blogger who continues to talk about the 8 year evaluation system, state law says that you can reavalutate every 2 years Local officials choose the 8 year time frame. As how that relates to a impact fee: Mr. Koopman moved here bought an existing house for 250k more than he is paying taxes on. Joe blow moves here forced to live in the suburbs pays an impact fee for buying a new home is that fair? Both created the growth problem that you define but only one has to pay a fee.
by Ms. Happy Raleigh 10 Sep 2007, 9:24pm Report this comment
Thank you for making my point of needing an impact fee for me. Lets use your example, using initials to protect the not-so-innocent: Mr. K buys an ITB home. The roads, sewer, schools, police, fire, sanitation, etc. were alredy in place for the ITB home's previous residents. Charging an impact fee is not necessary. I think tax assessment should be done every four years, but neither I or Mr K can decide such things. When assessments are done, the taxes will be collected. Ms. T, buys a new house north of 540. There were *no* roads, sewers, schools, police, fire, sanitation, etc. in place for the north of 540 house, since there were no previous residents. Ms. T's move in creates an additional *impact* on the infrastructure already paid for by the previous owner of Mr. K's ITB house. The real estate lobby is trying hard to rob Mr. K to sell Ms. T a house for less. Some of the "savings" are passed on to the homeowner, but some also goes into the "profit" of selling a home with all the extras thrown in without having to pay the impact fee. Some of the profit goes to "educate" and finance city council election campaigns. While Ms. T thinks Mr. K should pay more taxes to cushion her impact because he decided to buy an established home, that doesn't make it right or fair.
by ncwebguy Raleigh 11 Sep 2007, 11:33am Report this comment
Your example makes no sense. I guess I have to explain why. You have to pay for water and sewer, roads ect.. when you develop undeveloped land, did you know this?. Even a tear down has to pay an impervious surface fee if it is greater than the existing structure, did you know that? So paying for growth is already incorporated on what you just made a bad example of saying it wasn’t. The existing population cost comes at the education level nowhere else. That is why I said I support an impact fee for that reason and that reason only. However, that fee might not be needed if people like Mr. Koopman paid their fair share when they moved in. Growth causes new developments. Mr. Koopman is a product of GROWTH, something you seem to be against. But unless you want to limit the size of families (like China)it is mathematically inevitable. I welcome Mr. Koopman and his family to the area as growth is inevitable if you have nice area to live. However, his lecturing us on his grandiose ideals he should at least vote in one city election before he is ruling law maker telling the rest of us how to live. Showing growth as a problem then supporting a candidate that is causing the problem that you are complaining about just doesn’t make sense does it. I guess I can call myself a teacher now like Mr. Koopman does on his website.
by Ms. Happy Raleigh 11 Sep 2007, 10:51pm Report this comment
There is a differnce between being against growth and wanting growth to pay for itself. This is a difference that is blurred by the real estate lobby because they don't want to pay their way. Portraying people in favor of impact fees as being anti-growth is a dirty trick that only works when you withhold the true costs of development. For the record, I am for growth paying for itself. It seems Mr. Koopman is as well. It is sad that this puts a bullseye on his campaign for the District B city council seat, but that is politics as usual around here. Misinformation (new homes don't require expansion of city and county services?) and misdirection (former resident of the Netherlands? China-like population control?) are necessary when the truth provides a different answer. Fact - there is more to water and sewer than the pipes. Those are provided by builder TO THE PROPERTY LINE. How do they connect to they city's system? Magic? No. For pop up developments in the far reaches, the existing system has to be extended to get to that property line. Who pays for that? The rest of the city. Do they gain any benefit from that? No, unless they move to the subdivision. Also, there is the matter of the water that those pipes transmit. It has to be captured in a resivour and treated before it can be delivered to residences. If Raleigh was only supplying water for 10,000 or 20,000 citizens, it could still be using Lake Johnston for its water source. But those days are long gone. Lake Wheeler and Falls Lake are soon not going to be enough to meet the demands that come with the growth (not replacement) of the area's population. When Brier Creek, Wakefield, Falls River, etc. pull from the same water source, it starts to run low. There are already plans being drawn up to create a new lake east of Raleigh. How should we pay for that? If you don't charge an impact fee, you're charging the existing homeowners for the increased water capacity that only benefits the the new *houses*, not home owners. And roads. While they are provided by the builder (again only to the property line), they increased development puts a strain on other roads in the street network. When all the roads off 540 were widened, did developers pay for that? No. Were the taxes collected on the developments up there enough to pay for it? No. Taxes and bonds pay for that. Most of the roads inside the beltline are occasionally resurfaced, but not expanded. Fact - as new developments come online, police, fire, and sanitation departments need to be expanded to serve the larger population. A fact that often goes ignored, as this summer's sanitation strike proved. The costs of more facilities, employees, equipment, vehicles, training, health benefits, etc. comes from everyone's taxes, since the border areas don't pay enough. Going back to my earlier example, Mr. K's existing house was already covered by those city and county services, while Ms. T's was not. Her property taxes and fees alone don't pay the bills. Her growth had an IMPACT whereas Mr. K's did not. When Mr. K bought an exsisting house, he DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO GROWTH. He and his family is *replacing* an existing family that a) moved somewhere else in town, making them the source of the "growth" b) moved out of the area, making Mr K. and family a replacement and not growth c) passed away, so the new family a replacement and not growth. That Mr. K chose to move here (and his willingness to pay what he did for his house) have an *indirect* impact in making the area more attractive to potential residents. The city didn't need to hire more staff or buy additional equipment. If there was a whole neighborhood that emptied out, causing the city and county to lay off personel, then yes, his move would have had an impact. But that was not the case. Ms. T's new neighborhood, on the other hand, added to the deman for these resources. The alleged "teacher" is nothing more than the class clown who didn't pay attention and now wants to pull pranks to distract from the fact that questions can not be answered because nothing was learned.
by ncwebguy Raleigh 12 Sep 2007, 5:58pm Report this comment
Wow,, sounds like you know your stuff. So people who move to the area are causing growth and should pay for it. Koopman moved here but he is just filling the void of someone who left, so he isn't the problem it is the other guy who moves here? Glad you cleared that up. The new lake that is being proposed,, would that be like Jordan Lake? Who paid for that lake, where did the money come from? Why did we have enough money then with less taxes than we do now with more taxes? I must be wrong about Mr. Koopman. I mean we must believe what he says since he has such a strong record to run on. Oh wait, he hasn't even voted in a city election. So he cares so much about our great city but he didn't bother to vote? Hmmm. Ok.. So we all should remember the existing democrat is bad because she tried to provide a parks and recreational facility for families. Koopman is good because he moves here and can tell us all how the west coast does it better. Got it... Thanks for the help. By the way isn't the west coast the place where moderate to low income real estate has fallen off the face of the earth? Boy I look forward to his planning expertise.. Thanks again for setting me straight.
by Ms. Happy Raleigh 13 Sep 2007, 11:24pm Report this comment
Appreciative of the factual posters out there. So many good points.
by Georgia Raleigh 13 Sep 2007, 11:43pm Report this comment
Present company excluded. : ) It really is not that hard to understand. Person G buys an older existing home 40 years ago in town. Person G pays property taxes for 40 years. The city grows and property taxes are raised to pay for it. The older land in the city is not being improved, simply maintained, but the older home owner lives closer to the center and in-town property values are rising. Person G pays 3 times the taxes of person X Y and Z who have recently arrived and bought out in the new suburbs. Every year a new tax rate arrives on each property owner. It is based on Valuations. Person G has little load on the city, being a small house on a small lot in an older neighborhood, but is paying more taxes than new neighbors X Y and Z, who are exhibiting a larger load on the infrastructure. Person G gets a Million Dollar spec mansion across the street. The land value on this street is $300K based on recent sales of comparable lots in the neighborhood. Person G's new 2008 tax base will be $300K for his lot, and the house value will be rated separately and comparatively. Person G's new tax basis is now at least 3 times last valuation - for the land, plus the house value. Persons X Y and Z valuations rise 100% because of land values in their area. Person G renovates his home, spends half the home value to update and renovate. Speculator buys up three more houses next to the mansion and builds 3 more $1M plus homes on the street. Character of neighborhood is changed. Now speculators are looking for more lots on the street. Person G can sell home for teardown for about $450K, but not to a family to enjoy because of the changing character on the street and the huge tax bill. Technically Person G is ahead, but is also behind, as the house renovated should be worth $550K on an open stable market, like the others on the street, but the teardowns are driving a speculative market for land. Person S objects to paying more to get into the game, even when causing huge strain on old infrastructure, and displacing a stable community who has dutifully paid high taxes to build this infrastructure, trusting that the City would protect their investment. It is a serious problem kids. This town was bought and paid for by your elder neighbors. Asking them to bear more of the burden and the risk to their investment (some planned to live in their modest home until death do us part) and moving them away from public transportation is not cool. So my question: Koopman is the problem?
by Georgia Raleigh 14 Sep 2007, 12:41am Report this comment
You might want to look to Virginia to solve the againg population tax burden problem as they put limits on taxes for the elderly with certain incomes. Great Idea! Koopman is the problem when comes to power over policy. Seriously, who runs for office in a city that they haven't even taken the time to vote in a city election. Perfect example of I will say or do anything for power persona.
by Ms. Happy Raleigh 15 Sep 2007, 10:49pm Report this comment
Ms. Happy seems very, very unhappy. You keep mentioning that Rodger Koopman is not qualified to run for public office because he didn't vote in the last election. You've repeated this argument ad nauseum, and it just doesn't hold water. If not voting in an election became a legitimate reason for someone not to run or to be in office, there would be a lot of empty seats across the country. Your tactics are typical of someone who has run completely out of meaningful, thoughtful arguments and is now desperately grasping at straws.
by ScreenedPorch Raleigh 16 Sep 2007, 3:08pm Report this comment
Add to the discussion
Post your comment
Add to the discussion
Post your comment
 
return to top