Along Elliot Road in Chapel Hill sits a modern rental apartment building called the Berkshire Chapel Hill. Though nondescript, several years ago this “luxury” apartment complex rocked Chapel Hill’s political landscape. In 2015, a new mayor and slate of like-minded Town Council members won election following community outrage after the Berkshire replaced a perfectly nice asphalt parking lot.
CHALT are disingenuous snobs. They are great at twisting liberal-sounding talking points to do their bidding but they don't really care about anyone but themselves, and they certainly don't have the long term interests of Chapel Hill in mind. I still can't believe anyone gives them the time of day.
Agree completely with Geoff. If CHALT and others who are writing gut-informed opinion pieces would do some homework and understand the real numbers before spouting said opinions, we might get policy that better supports the town and it's goals. Here's a short talk by NC's own Joe Minicozzi, breaking down the real value and revenue numbers involved in urban development. 30 minutes well spent, humorously presented, with well-researched numbers from a diversity of places. Watch and learn. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BewLJWJNhs0
Small correction: if you ask Solid Waste Services, they will tell you that dumpster services to large buildings cost more than is collected for the service. So, the single-family homes subsidize dumpster service in Orange County.
Mr. Green’s comments are spot on. For one thing, the construction of more single-family housing in Chapel Hill is a thing of the past; last time I checked there were fewer than a half-dozen house lots for sale within two miles of the town center — and their average price was around $250-$300K!
Higher density alternatives are the only way left to provide housing for newcomers, not to mention the 20,000 folks who enter Chapel Hill to work every day and then leave again at rush hour.
The issue is not so much opposition to growth as it is opposition to the type of housing--and the fact that rentals drain money out of the town (placing $$$ into the pockets of developers) making it impossible for the town to get the financial benefits of the multiplier effect. While there are some places where apartment buildings are appropriate, Chapel Hill does not have the infrastructure to support a 10% increase in population which will not pay for itself and will strain town services, schools, roads and water resources.
UNC has failed in its responsibility to house its students instead of expecting the town to do it at a cost of reducing the availability of affordable housing.
Many current and future residents would like to have a home of their own--not an apartment. They are young families as well as minimum wage earners who are forced to live in trailers. All are priced out of the market. And we know that home ownership is the best way to close the wealth gap.
Anyone who thinks that more apartments will result in more affordable housing obviously hasn't been paying attention to the fact that the 6,000+ apartments that have gone up--and are still going up--have not resulted in any major increase in affordable housing.
Chapel Hill is built on a human scale with green space that enhances its livability and contributes to its uniqueness and charm. It is NOT just another featureless urban entity; and that is exactly why many residents—old and new have chosen to live here.
Linda, let’s subsidize rentals—supporting Empowerment for example. The only way to continue to improve our green spaces, parks, trails and great civic programs is to have the density to support them. Please read the article carefully. Your arguments don’t hold water.
I realize that not everyone wants the responsibility and headaches of being a home owner. Rentals should be available for those people. Yet subsidizing rentals does not create economic security--and only makes the rich richer and increases the wealth gap. I support opportunities for home ownership via community land trusts, like the one I helped to establish in Baltimore - https://www.nehihomes.org/
Homeownership give families a way out of poverty by the creation of equity, and provides them with an asset that can be leveraged and/or passed on. (And do we really want a community where the majority of residents are renters, and only a privileged few own homes?)
It's not an issue of not wanting responsibility. Many are not in a position to buy a home. There are many reasons people need to rent, including temporary work assignments (such as residencies), having to support family elsewhere, or needing to share quarters to save money, among many others. You are also ignoring the fact that you can OWN an apartment in a condominium building 9 stories high and build wealth. In many cities of the world only the ultra-rich own single-family homes, and I assure you the families in those apartments are well-adjusted and happy.
We have Community Home Trust in Chapel Hill. It has helped a few hundred folks become home owners (and Condo owners!). They do great work. I also know several CHT homeowners who have moved on and now rent those homes at market value... so, no longer affordable. Having Empowerment be the property owner keeps properties affordable and helps house our essential workers who cannot afford Chapel Hill now.
You are wrong about net-zero buildings taller than 4 stories. There are amazing designs all over the world that you can find on YouTube.
I guess the bottom line is whether we want to enact progressive ordinances or just call ourselves enlightened liberals because 50 years ago some of our citizens stood for integration... while we continue to become more exclusive and do little to address climate change or the racism of the 2020's.
Rentals are necessary for a variety of reasons. That is not the issue, and condos are certainly preferable to apartments, yet that is not what young families want. They want homes of their own with a yard. People who work all of their lives deserve to have something to show for it. Townhomes are less expensive, require less in the way of upkeep making them more affordable over all. Placing them on town-owned land with a 99-year heritable lease that makes them even more affordable. As someone who grew up in a segregated, disinvested community, I think I understand structural racism better than better than those with a white savior complex co-opted by the neoliberal economics spouted by The Hoover institution who think they know better.
CHALT are disingenuous snobs. They are great at twisting liberal-sounding talking points to do their bidding but they don't really care about anyone but themselves, and they certainly don't have the long term interests of Chapel Hill in mind. I still can't believe anyone gives them the time of day.
Because they have a PR machine that spreads disinformation.
Agree completely with Geoff. If CHALT and others who are writing gut-informed opinion pieces would do some homework and understand the real numbers before spouting said opinions, we might get policy that better supports the town and it's goals. Here's a short talk by NC's own Joe Minicozzi, breaking down the real value and revenue numbers involved in urban development. 30 minutes well spent, humorously presented, with well-researched numbers from a diversity of places. Watch and learn. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BewLJWJNhs0
Small correction: if you ask Solid Waste Services, they will tell you that dumpster services to large buildings cost more than is collected for the service. So, the single-family homes subsidize dumpster service in Orange County.
Mr. Green’s comments are spot on. For one thing, the construction of more single-family housing in Chapel Hill is a thing of the past; last time I checked there were fewer than a half-dozen house lots for sale within two miles of the town center — and their average price was around $250-$300K!
Higher density alternatives are the only way left to provide housing for newcomers, not to mention the 20,000 folks who enter Chapel Hill to work every day and then leave again at rush hour.
p.s. From what I've heard, the net influx and outflow of workers into and out of Chapel Hill each day could be closer to 40,000. Gulp.
The issue is not so much opposition to growth as it is opposition to the type of housing--and the fact that rentals drain money out of the town (placing $$$ into the pockets of developers) making it impossible for the town to get the financial benefits of the multiplier effect. While there are some places where apartment buildings are appropriate, Chapel Hill does not have the infrastructure to support a 10% increase in population which will not pay for itself and will strain town services, schools, roads and water resources.
UNC has failed in its responsibility to house its students instead of expecting the town to do it at a cost of reducing the availability of affordable housing.
Many current and future residents would like to have a home of their own--not an apartment. They are young families as well as minimum wage earners who are forced to live in trailers. All are priced out of the market. And we know that home ownership is the best way to close the wealth gap.
Anyone who thinks that more apartments will result in more affordable housing obviously hasn't been paying attention to the fact that the 6,000+ apartments that have gone up--and are still going up--have not resulted in any major increase in affordable housing.
Chapel Hill is built on a human scale with green space that enhances its livability and contributes to its uniqueness and charm. It is NOT just another featureless urban entity; and that is exactly why many residents—old and new have chosen to live here.
Linda, let’s subsidize rentals—supporting Empowerment for example. The only way to continue to improve our green spaces, parks, trails and great civic programs is to have the density to support them. Please read the article carefully. Your arguments don’t hold water.
I realize that not everyone wants the responsibility and headaches of being a home owner. Rentals should be available for those people. Yet subsidizing rentals does not create economic security--and only makes the rich richer and increases the wealth gap. I support opportunities for home ownership via community land trusts, like the one I helped to establish in Baltimore - https://www.nehihomes.org/
Homeownership give families a way out of poverty by the creation of equity, and provides them with an asset that can be leveraged and/or passed on. (And do we really want a community where the majority of residents are renters, and only a privileged few own homes?)
Furthermore, you can't get net-zero in buildings taller than 4 stories. It is arguments to the contrary that don't hold water. The amount of energy needed to get utilities to upper floors is only one of the issues. https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/pioneering-biourbanism-using-design-tools?fbclid=IwAR0Q1MBQc0C-nUIFM7DeBmAEAhaMr2vDc0RBFPxBRHpH7uu_I4ExeWvnDCU
It's not an issue of not wanting responsibility. Many are not in a position to buy a home. There are many reasons people need to rent, including temporary work assignments (such as residencies), having to support family elsewhere, or needing to share quarters to save money, among many others. You are also ignoring the fact that you can OWN an apartment in a condominium building 9 stories high and build wealth. In many cities of the world only the ultra-rich own single-family homes, and I assure you the families in those apartments are well-adjusted and happy.
We have Community Home Trust in Chapel Hill. It has helped a few hundred folks become home owners (and Condo owners!). They do great work. I also know several CHT homeowners who have moved on and now rent those homes at market value... so, no longer affordable. Having Empowerment be the property owner keeps properties affordable and helps house our essential workers who cannot afford Chapel Hill now.
You are wrong about net-zero buildings taller than 4 stories. There are amazing designs all over the world that you can find on YouTube.
I guess the bottom line is whether we want to enact progressive ordinances or just call ourselves enlightened liberals because 50 years ago some of our citizens stood for integration... while we continue to become more exclusive and do little to address climate change or the racism of the 2020's.
Rentals are necessary for a variety of reasons. That is not the issue, and condos are certainly preferable to apartments, yet that is not what young families want. They want homes of their own with a yard. People who work all of their lives deserve to have something to show for it. Townhomes are less expensive, require less in the way of upkeep making them more affordable over all. Placing them on town-owned land with a 99-year heritable lease that makes them even more affordable. As someone who grew up in a segregated, disinvested community, I think I understand structural racism better than better than those with a white savior complex co-opted by the neoliberal economics spouted by The Hoover institution who think they know better.