-
Decorate with Raleigh
Downtown Raleigh, North Carolina 
State Capitol, Raleigh, North Carolina 
Fayetteville Street, Raleigh, North C... 
Greetings from Raleigh, North Carolina
Aug
16
Meeker Outlines Position Regarding North Hills East Tax Breaks
Written by S. Beaumont and filed under Government
The N&O just posted an update to the North Hills East/Tax break debate. The article outlines Meeker’s position against the breaks, a view shared by the majority of our readers who voted in the web-poll or took the time to leave comments. (See previous article: North Hills East - Will Kane be Able).
The article contains a quote from Meeker, stating: “It is not good public policy to provide subsidies in development in areas of our City where development is already occurring.”
Read the full article on the N&O website
Comments
2 Responses to “Meeker Outlines Position Regarding North Hills East Tax Breaks”
Leave a Reply
-
Stay Informed
-
Local Businesses Wanted:
We don’t need public money going up to the sprawled-out “shit-bread-sandwich”. Now those public funds can be made available for good public interests like Dix306.
I have not seen any numbers on this and am not sure that I have made my mind up on this issue. I agree that you should not use public money to line a delveloper’s pocket.
That being said, think about the numbers. Parking deck allows more parking utilizing less real estate. This leaves more land available for denser development vs less sq footage with surface parking. Denser development means more rental income for the project. More rental income equates to more value for the project. More value for the project equates to more taxable income for the city and county. If this income is more than what would be recieved without the higher density, then it makes fiscal sense as long as the repayment is within a reasonable time. This should be simple math based upon the allowable sq ft of denser development. The municipalities should be allowed full disclosure on construction costs to determine what rental rates are needed compared to where the market is. If the developer can build the entire project and can get the rental rates to cover the cost of the improvements to include the deck…no public $. If he can’t and the public money will subsidize the value to increase the tax revenue, then it should be considered. The main risk is that they build it and the tenants do not come and the value is not created.
I agree that the public $ could be used at Dix, as long as what is developed there increases the value of the propert…increasing the tax income for the City and County.