GUEST COLUMN
By Joan Guilkey
Part of Eastgate (the Blue Hill area) has been sold again, to a developer based in Indiana, and rumor has it the owner plans more market-rate apartments! Just what Chapel Hill does not need!
The excuse the town council uses for approving more luxury apartments via a rezoning is that banks like to loan money for that purpose and we might be sued if we restrict private land uses.
Oh, then why did we, the people and town staff, just spend a boatload of money and time to write a Future Land Use Plan? And why did staff and the council ignore the last Future Land Use Plan that was supposed to encourage more commercial and other non-apartment uses? We don’t need the new plan or any plan if all we do is approve every application for apartments.
There are two good cases in point right now.
The North Chapel Hill Plan area, which lies between I-40 and Weaver Diary Road, is fraught with flooding, steep slopes, noise and particulate pollution, absence of transit and criss-crossed with utility easements. Yet it is being examined for apartments. And not for affordable ones. We hear the cost of building on this land is too high for builders to opt for the low-income structures so many of our citizens need.
Another example is Columbia Street South (called the Annex) next to NC Hwy 54 Bypass and across from Merritt’s Grill. This topography is terrible, too, but also under the microscope to become mostly market-rate apartments. In short, every bit of undeveloped land in town is a target for luxury apartments.
As density rises amidst all this rezoning, town control decreases and our cost to maintain town services increases. If the new residents moving here live in apartments, they don’t pay residential property taxes, but do continue to drain our budget coffers for services.
We have some council and planning commission members who vote for unlimited growth, and consequently for unlimited apartments, as if there is no cost to us for their decisions. They say more density is a cure for our slow-growing revenue and that all growth pays its way.
Research shows that all growth has built-in costs. For example, growth demands we pay for new fire trucks, ambulances, police, for garbage and recycling, for part of the cost of OWASA and Duke Energy services, for town staff and especially for streets/roads.
Because no type of growth is free, we need decision-makers on the council and advisory bodies who approve what the greater community wants to pay for, and nothing else.
We now have thousands of market-rate apartments, some of which are empty, and ever-rising rental rates. Meanwhile, our costs to service the units accelerate. It is way past time to stop feeding the apartment beast and look for leaders who are willing to reexamine the rezoning frenzy.
Joan Guilkey is a long-time resident of Chapel Hill who has volunteered for many governmental and nonprofit community service organizations.
“As density rises amidst all this rezoning, town control decreases and our cost to maintain town services increases. If the new residents moving here live in apartments, they don’t pay residential property taxes, but do continue to drain our budget coffers for services. ”
This is claptrap. This statement is only true if one ignores economics.
“If the new residents moving here live in apartments, they don’t pay residential property taxes, but do continue to drain our budget coffers for services.”
Sorry what? Surely the author is not suggesting that these multi-family properties somehow escape with not paying property taxes? This would be news to them. Of course they pay property taxes, lots of it. What utter nonsense. And who do you think pays those property taxes? The tenants do, as part of their rent. Does the author have no actual knowledge in these matters for which they have such strong opinions?
Here’s another gem: “We now have thousands of market-rate apartments, some of which are empty, and ever-rising rental rates.” So, what is the complaint here exactly? Empty apartments? I thought they were worried about a “drain on services,” so they should be pleased about empty apartments. Also, if the apartments are empty (they’re not), that would make rent levels fall, not be “ever-rising.” Supply and demand. It must be difficult to perform such logical gymnastics, to contradict your own sentence within the space of 5 words.
Furthermore the author goes on to complain about the “cost of growth,” something for which they seem to have a very limited understanding. The developers pay for the added service lines for both Duke Energy and OWASA, as well as hefty fees for upgraded storm water services and any roadway improvements or extensions. Fire and police service must be expanded, yes, which is an argument in favor of MORE density, not less, to minimize expansive sprawling areas of operation.
Growth is neither good nor bad, but it is inevitable as our population grows, and should be managed carefully by those with foresight, wisdom, and a basic grasp of economics and city planning. This author does not qualify.
lol. lmao.
“As density rises amidst all this rezoning, town control decreases and our cost to maintain town services increases. If the new residents moving here live in apartments, they don’t pay residential property taxes, but do continue to drain our budget coffers for services.”
this is so wildly disingenuous, trying to act like the apartments dont generate revenue for the town because the renters arent paying it. girl, the person who OWNS the property is still paying the tax! and im gonna tell you a much bigger concern draining our budget is rich, white, property owners who live in chatham county to avoid chapel hill’s property taxes emailing us 3000 times a day about how we owe them more pickleball courts.
the people who make this town run cant afford to live here because you prioritize your own property values over quality of human life and the survivability of this planet.
i am so tired of this.