David, Mark Wednesday, May 07, 2008

Development Politics

Raleigh Recession or “Recession Proof”

Last week, Forbes Magazine released ten US cities that it deems “recession proof,” listing Raleigh at number five.  Meanwhile, at yesterday’s Planning Commission meeting in Raleigh, commission member and Real Estate agent, Waheed Haq was quoted saying “We are practically in recession,” as the planning commission voted down raising impact fees 8-4. 

The fact is simple:  Raleigh is in demand, and growing at a “recession-proof” rate.  Raleigh is the third fastest growing metro area in the entire country.  We are the number one place to start a business, according to Forbes, and on many lists, one of the best cities to live.  Raising impact fees will help pay for Raleigh’s record-breaking growth trends.  Bigger fees mean better parks and roads, and will attract more people to our area:  Raleigh is in such high demand, people will pay whatever it takes to build, and live here.  It’s not as if we’re struggling with impact fees; Marah Chambliss of the planning commission was quoted by the N&O as saying, “If you look at the neighboring communities, they are all well above us. We are a deal. Raleigh is a deal.”

It has been proven time and time again that impact fees don’t affect growth.  Especially in a place like Raleigh.  And growth has been booming--builders are building like we are at a peak.  The Forbes article says about Raleigh:

Stable home prices and growth across the different sectors of its economy have kept Raleigh strong. In the last 12 months, all industries measured by the U.S. Department of Labor have grown except for the city’s small information sector.

The commission is weighted with Real Estate and building constituents. These members aren’t looking to help the city, they are looking to help their industry.  What’s more funny about Mr. Haq’s statement is that Agents have bragged that 2008 has been better than 2007. We aren’t in anything like a recession. 

Lunsford Lane has recently showed how Planning Commissions member, and life-long (He worked for Reuters before his Dad hired him- see below.) developer, Brad Mullins behavior to deceitful and alludes to government collusion.  Lunsford quotes the Koopman from the March 18th City Council Meeting:

“Mr. Mayor, I would like to enter a comment into the record. Two weeks ago during the last City Council meeting I moved to approve a specific zoning case and I was given incorrect information. And for the record I want to just mention my displeasure with that situation because we are a part time Council, and if we cannot rely on the information given to us and then make decisions based on that we’re hurting the Citizens.”

Mr. Mayor tried to end it there, but Mullins was not amused. Mullins said yeah, he did give incorrect information, so what, if the Council didn’t like it, it could take another vote. The one thing that he was careful not to say was that he was sorry. Not a word, not even a hint of apology. The Mayor was quick to dismiss the whole incident as minor, and said that the Council doesn’t revote.

And that was that.

And for the record, the official minutes of the meeting say, “Planning Commission Chairman Brad Mullins admitted the Planning Commission had made a mistake and apologized for the error.” He did no such thing (the video doesn’t lie).

Whose side is this government on?  Why all the deceit?  Why do existing home owners have to be saddled with the cost of new homes?  Observationally--building is happening at an amazing pace--have you been to places that aren’t growing like Raleigh?  The market has to be good when tiny old neighborhoods have a dozen new construction projects happening on any given street. We don’t need to incentivize new building, and impact fees are the best way to pay for the growth.  Builders want you to believe these impact fees would hurt our market. But other NC counties that have implemented Impact Fees and transfer taxes and have faired just fine.

Despite allegations from homebuilders and realtors, these counties have not suffered adversely from the implementation of these taxes. For each of these counties,

  • home values remain affordable,
  • job and retail growth remains robust,
  • residential growth is vibrant,
  • schools are benefiting immensely,
  • property taxes remain stable.

These counties have benefited tremendously from the transfer tax because they have embraced three key principles: 1) taxpayer protection through tax limitation; 2) multipronged efforts aimed at Economic Development, 3) continuous monitoring of the effects of the local tax structure on citizens.

Later on that Same Report Concludes:

Adhering to the three Guiding Principles has allowed these counties to contend with the challenges of growth while simultaneously exhibiting sound fiscal stewardship.

1. Taxpayer Protection through Tax Limitation
2. Focus on Continued Economic Development
3. Maintain cognizance of total tax picture

It is evident that North Carolina’s experience with the land transfer tax shows this is a valuable tool for counties. Because the revenues have been targeted to infrastructure development and because officials have adhered to the principles above, concerns that transfer taxes inhibit growth, lead to skyrocketing home prices and unduly burden homeowners can be allayed.

A balanced approach to taxation clearly benefits elderly citizens and those on fixed incomes by lessening the pressure on property taxes. This allows these citizens to remain in their homes without fear of losing them to increasing tax rates or tax values.

But then again, what does Waheed care for old Raleigh residents?  The tiniest bit of friction has this guy scared in one of the strongest real-estate markets in the country.  Don’t believe the hype.

Welcome to New Raleigh. We welcome your participation in the ongoing discussion. If you are new we invite you to register with our site. With registration you can upload a picture, message other users, and comment more easily. If you want to keep up with the site, subscribe to our RSS feed or get emailed every time we post.

  • Betsy05/07 07:04 PM

    And impact fees are better than many other means of paying for growth precisely BECAUSE they generate more revenue or less revenue in tandem with the growth rate. 

    A hike in general property taxes hits every owner regardless of the community growth rate. 

    But an impact fee on new development tracks the growth rate just about exactly, thus providing more capital funding when it’s needed (because of new demands placed by new homes), and less revenue when growth slows down and there is less need for new capital facilities.

    Which leads to precisely the opposite conclusion from that drawn by Haq.

  • Betsy05/07 07:05 PM

    Also, it’s very important not to forget the REAL choice: which is between [impact fees] and [making everyone pay].  By voting against impact fees, the Planning Commission simply chose to make YOU and ME bear the cost of growth through property taxes. 

    You’d think all the concern about imposing costs in a recession would extend to current residents???

  • Kevin L05/27 05:01 PM

    So, how do I help to contribute to the removal of Brad Mullins from the position of Chairman of the Commission?

    Maybe our citizens need to beome more involved in the politics of our city.

  • brad05/28 12:22 PM

    Mark and David,

    I was unable to find a direct email link to you, so I’m posting this in your comments section.

    I am writing in response to your coverage of the Planning Commission’s contemplation of impact fees in which you cite Anonymous Blogger Lunsford Lane’s defamatory comments toward me as follows:

    Lunsford Lane has recently showed how Planning Commissions member, and life-long developer, Brad Mullins behavior to deceitful and alludes to government collusion.  Lunsford quotes Roger Koopman from the March 18th City Council Meeting:

    “Mr. Mayor, I would like to enter a comment into the record. Two weeks ago during the last City Council meeting I moved to approve a specific zoning case and I was given incorrect information. And for the record I want to just mention my displeasure with that situation because we are a part time Council, and if we cannot rely on the information given to us and then make decisions based on that we’re hurting the Citizens.”
    Mr. Mayor tried to end it there, but Mullins was not amused. Mullins said yeah, he did give incorrect information, so what, if the Council didn’t like it, it could take another vote. The one thing that he was careful not to say was that he was sorry. Not a word, not even a hint of apology. The Mayor was quick to dismiss the whole incident as minor, and said that the Council doesn’t revote.
    And that was that.
    And for the record, the official minutes of the meeting say, “Planning Commission Chairman Brad Mullins admitted the Planning Commission had made a mistake and apologized for the error.” He did no such thing (the video doesn’t lie).

    First, it is very disconcerting that you would use an anonymous blogger as a “source” and then use that “source” to reach any type of conclusions. Since video tapes of all Planning Commission and City Council meetings are readily available to the general public, it seems that responsible journalism would require that one review those tapes before citing someone else’s interpretation of those tapes. If you had done that in this instance, you would find that what the Lunsford Lane blogger stated is not even remotely accurate.  In fact, I believe it is an intentional falsehood about me.  Yes, there was an innocently made calculation error by the planning staff that I repeated; but I did not lie, nor was I, in your own words, “deceitful.” Also, you would have been able to determine that after my suggestion to Mayor Meeker that the City Council may want to reconsider the matter given the error in calculation, Mayor Meeker dismissed the inaccuracy as inconsequential and found it unworthy of reconsideration.

    Second, I am not a “life-long developer” and I do not appreciate you making this statement about me in an effort to further demonize me.  I have never developed property in the City of Raleigh or in Wake County. I graduated from N.C. State in 1999 and then went to New York City to work for Reuters Inc., a legitimate news service based out of London, for 3 and a half years.  I moved back to Raleigh 5 years ago and obtained a Real Estate Brokerage license, but again, have never developed property in the City of Raleigh or in Wake County.  At 31 years old, I would hardly qualify as a “life long developer”.

    As you might expect, I cannot let these baseless attacks on my character, reputation and professionalism go uncorrected. Thus, I would respectfully insist that you print a retraction of your statement to the effect that my behavior is “deceitful” and to further point out that Lunsford Lane’s description of the meeting was inaccurate at a minimum, or intentionally misleading. 

    I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter with you further and you can find my contact info on the same city of Raleigh website where you can actually view the meetings.  Thank you.

    Brad Mullins

  • Kevin L05/28 12:37 PM

    Wow..a very concise response from Mr Mullins and given this response, I decided to do something I as a reader should not have had to do which is validate the quotes in the article above.

    From the minutes of the meeting on 3/18. Look at the 20080318 document and search for error in word viewer. Note the direct reference below. Not only was the error admitted to but there was also an apology from Mr. Mullins for that fact.

    PLANNING COMMISSION – ERROR – COMMENTS RECEIVED

    Mr. Koopman noted for the record that at the last Council meeting two weeks ago, he made a motion to approve a specific zoning case and found out he had been given incorrect information about the case.  He expressed his displeasure about that situation.  He said if the Council is basing decisions on information that is not reliable, it is hurting the citizens.

    Planning Commission Chairman Brad Mullins admitted the Planning Commission had made a mistake and apologized for the error.  Mayor Meeker said the matter is behind everyone now, and he is sure the Planning Commission will be more careful in the future

    Guys, better journalism next time or people will start to discount information on this site.

  • 15005/28 12:55 PM

    Good responses from both Mr. Mullins and Kevin L to give a different side to the story.

    Kevin:  I happen to agree with your last statement, because I already am at that point with this site.  On the other hand, we should all remember this is just a blog, and not a news outlet, so they can give their opinion as much as they want. 

    I like this site for keeping an eye on Raleigh, but I’ve learned to read it with caution.

  • David05/28 01:40 PM

    To clarify the above contentions:

    1)Mr. Mullins is son of R.W. Mullins founder and now VP of the construction/development company Mr. Mullins works.  By “life-long” we meant born into the industry. We will strike “life-long” from the article.

    2)Nothing from our quote from Below the Beltline was “inaccurate” as you said. Lunsford Lane was correct in asserting that there was no apology as the video shows at 44:55. Lane also clearly states, just as you have, that the Mayor dismissed it as trivial.

    Kevin L, sorry you were inconvenienced but if you reread the quote you can clearly see we are talking about a discrepancy between the minutes and the video.  And the video does infact show BTBL’s point.

    The opinions expressed on New Raleigh belong to the writers themselves.  That said the site has no intention to decieve its audience.  I hope the above clarifications suffice.





Remember my information for next time I comment

Send me an email of follow-up comments?