INC NEWS - short answer to a long question: Adequate Public Facilities Or...
TheOcean1 at aol.com
TheOcean1 at aol.com
Tue Oct 30 12:31:12 EDT 2007
Mike is so right, it hurts.
If we had just one dollar for every committee and task force, with important
sounding names, who's good work went unused...... we could probably pave
several streets or build a school.
While there is much to rejoice about, our tendency to produce "all show, and
no GO!" is still an Achilles heel for Durham. And that which we applaud has
cost us dearly.
In an over simplified example, compare the city to your own home. Yes, you
like the new deck that's finally been completed, but if it took three years and
$75,000, we'd all know something was wrong. How many of us can spot such
craziness when the price tags are in the billions?
How many of us have the knowledge to question the price tag of a pool
costing millions? We might avoid being ripped off by pointing to a building that we
can buy for half that, that contains a pool, but we never seem to grow any
smarter. We're too busy bracing for the next error to avoid.
Sometimes it seems like we can never relax out on our over-priced deck,
because we need to be in the front yard, defending against some idiot offering to
paint our house for a mere $200,000.
Today's riddle: How many volunteer hours are required of devoted citizens,
to defend against the advice of high priced consultants, to keep us from
blowing ridiculous sums.
Keep the answer handy, you'll need it again next month.
In a message dated 10/30/2007 10:48:34 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
mwshiflett at hotmail.com writes:
The debate that follows this issue is one that has been on-going for over a
In many peoples (read developers, land speculators, investors, etc) minds
the increase in tax base from farmland and wild forested areas (~$2 to 5
thousand/acre) to residential property that can reach $250-750,000/home site
more than makes up for the cost of the infrastructures to pay for them.
The problem as I see it is that if this were true, given the extraordinary
growth we've had over the past 10 years +, why are our roads, waterways,
and trash pick-up services and other basic needs so badly underfunded?
Those in the first category complain that it's been wasteful spending by our
Some in the latter feel underserved and over taxed.
It's a good debate.
Several years ago both the city and the county initiated a study commission
here in Durham to look at this. It was called the Adequate Facilities
Ordinance Taskforce and it looked at not only water supplies, but schools,
parks, transportation, solid waste and many other 'basic needs' that must be
provided to its citizens.
It was quite an educational journey.
The main point of which is that for a community to grow in a sustained,
healthy and prosperous manner it must first establish minimum Levels of
Service for each one of these.
Once established (and agreed upon) 'growth' could only take place or be
approved if there was either a capacity to handle it or the money put away
with a plan to accommodate it when eventually built out.
Obviously, we didn't succeed. The taskforce submitted its recommendations
and the study is still sitting on a shelf somewhere gathering dust while
growth continues to expands without its benefits and forethought.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Melissa Rooney" <mmr121570 at yahoo.com>
To: <inc-list at durhaminc.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 10:25 AM
Subject: INC NEWS - Fwd: Letter to Herald Sun--Growth &
> Please see the following letter to the Durham Herald
> Sun in Today's paper:
> Let's conserve resources by managing our growth
> Gov. Mike Easley requested a 50 percent water use
> reduction. On the same day Easley made the request,
> Durham County Commissioners approved rezoning some
> wetland areas north of Treyburn for the construction
> of 175 new homes.
> If we are truly strapped for water, why are we
> allowing growth? After the 2002 drought, I suggested
> in a letter to the editor that new building should be
> allowed only when a sustainable source of water has
> been identified to supply that growth. It is unfair,
> in my opinion, to continue constricting the water
> supply of existing residents while adding more homes
> and businesses that will further strain our water
> supplies. Why should we be asked to limit our showers,
> etc, when our governments show no restraint in
> approving growth that will only make this resource
> even more scarce?
> These droughts are cyclical and will continue to
> occur. Ignoring that fact, and not planning for
> sustainable growth will only turn this area into a
> nightmare for those who live here. I wish that your
> paper would address this problem instead of telling us
> it is our patriotic duty to conserve every last drop
> of water. Maybe running completely out of water will
> wake our officials to the reality that outstripping
> our water supply is an irresponsible way to manage
> growth. When our governments walk the walk, then I'll
> listen to them talk.
> Jennifer Fortney
> October 29, 2007
> Note: forwarded message attached.
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> INC-list mailing list
> INC-list at rtpnet.org
INC-list mailing list
INC-list at rtpnet.org
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the INC-list