The Chatham Shagbark

Wilkie Attacks

2004-10-25T20:28:00.000-04:00

I'm always a bit surprised when a local politician plays the nasty game of divide and conquer, but I suppose that's due to my sheltered, North Carolina upbringing. Anyway, read all about how they are out to get you. And please, no booing, no hissing. It's rude.

And since Wilkie's folks have broached the topic, I thought the Commissioners had been more concerned with rude clapping and cheering, not boos and hisses.

(Note: Sorry for the long pause between posts. I've been busy preparing my presentation for the Briar Chapel public hearings and taking care of some issues at work. Now, my presentation is done, and work pressures are easing up; so, I hope to be a more reliable blogger in the near future.)

Wilkied!

2004-10-10T18:00:00.000-04:00

On Friday, my wife found a red and white campaign sign for Andy Wilkie in our yard. Boy, was she surprised. Both of us plan to vote for Mike Cross.

Our house sits a bit back from the road, and the sign was placed where it might not have been clear as to who owned that particular plot of land. Hmmm.

As I've driven about the county this weekend, I've noticed more Wilkie signs similarly positioned, by lots with no house or in places where one cannot tell to which home the Wilkie sign belongs.

I suppose papering the county with signs is common to most local elections, but I've seen a lot of Wilkie signs in Chatham. I'm wondering if those signs reflect genuine support for the candidate or if other Chathamites have simply been Wilkied?

(If you've got a few dollars to spare, how about sending them to Mike Cross? I've heard that many of Mary Wallace's supporters have thrown their support behind Mr. Wilkie. This Commissioner's race is going to be very close, and a little extra cash would help Mr. Cross.)

Booth Mountain Hearing

2004-10-05T15:26:00.000-04:00

Read Rocha on last night's Booth Mountain public hearing. I wasn't able to attend, but it sounds like our Chatham citizens presented a compelling case for not approving Booth Mountain.

(Update: also, check out Uhde's coverage in today's Herald Sun, and this piece from News 14.)

Down to Brass Tacks : the Daggerbox edition

2004-10-05T14:08:00.000-04:00

At the request of reader daggerbox, below is a table listing the cumulative fiscal impact of Briar Chapel on Chatham County. For an average of 3.5 bedrooms per home, Chatham County will see its first dollar in year 41 past buildout; for an average of 4.0 bedrooms per home, that first dollar will show up in year 78.

*Chatham County Cumulative Revenue (x $1000) from Briar Chapel: full market value tax rate*
Years beyond buildout	3.5 BRs: annual revenue	3.5 BRs: cumulative revenue	4 BRs: annual revenue	4 BRs: cumulative revenue
0	-$2333	-$2333	-$4032	-$4032
1	-2214	-4547	-3885	-7917
2	-2095	-6641	-3737	-11654
3	-1975	-8616	-3589	-15243
4	-1856	-10473	-3441	-18684
5	-1679	-12151	-3221	-21905
6	-1501	-13652	-3001	-24906
7	-1323	-14976	-2781	-27687
8	-1146	-16121	-2561	-30247
9	-968	-17090	-2340	-32588
10	-791	-17880	-2120	-34708
11	-613	-18493	-1900	-36608
12	-478	-18971	-1733	-38341
13	-386	-19357	-1618	-39959
14	-293	-19650	-1503	-41462
15	-201	-19851	-1389	-42851
16	-108	-19959	-1274	-44125
17	-16	-19974	-1160	-45285
18	77	-19898	-1045	-46330
19	169	-19729	-930	-47260
20	262	-19467	-816	-48076
21	354	-19113	-701	-48777
22	425	-18688	-613	-49390
23	475	-18213	-552	-49942
24	524	-17689	-490	-50432
25	574	-17115	-429	-50861
26	623	-16492	-368	-51229
27	673	-15820	-306	-51535
28	722	-15098	-245	-51780
29	772	-14326	-183	-51963
30	821	-13505	-122	-52085
31	871	-12634	-61	-52146
32	950	-11684	38	-52108
33	1059	-10624	173	-51935
34	1169	-9456	309	-51626
35	1278	-8177	445	-51181
36	1388	-6790	580	-50601
37	1497	-5293	716	-49885
38	1606	-3686	851	-49034
39	1716	-1971	987	-48047
40	1825	-146	1123	-46924
41	1934	1789	1258	-45666
42	2007	3796	1349	-44318
43	2044	5840	1394	-42924
44	2081	7921	1439	-41484
45	2117	10038	1485	-39999
46	2154	12192	1530	-38469
47	2191	14383	1576	-36894
48	2227	16610	1621	-35272
49	2264	18874	1666	-33606
50	2300	21174	1712	-31894
51	2337	23511	1757	-30137
52	2293	25804	1703	-28434
53	2169	27974	1549	-26885
54	2045	30019	1395	-25489
55	1921	31940	1241	-24248
56	1797	33736	1087	-23160
57	1797	35533	1087	-22073
58	1797	37330	1087	-20986
59	1797	39127	1087	-19898
60	1797	40923	1087	-18811
61	1797	42720	1087	-17723
62	1797	44517	1087	-16636
63	1797	46314	1087	-15548
64	1797	48111	1087	-14461
65	1797	49907	1087	-13373
66	1797	51704	1087	-12286
67	1797	53501	1087	-11198
68	1797	55298	1087	-10111
69	1797	57094	1087	-9023
70	1797	58891	1087	-7936
71	1797	60688	1087	-6848
72	1797	62485	1087	-5761
73	1797	64282	1087	-4674
74	1797	66078	1087	-3586
75	1797	67875	1087	-2499
76	1797	69672	1087	-1411
77	1797	71469	1087	-324
78	1797	73265	1087	764
79	1797	75062	1087	1851
80	1797	76859	1087	2939
81	1797	78656	1087	4026
82	1797	80453	1087	5114
83	1797	82249	1087	6201
84	1797	84046	1087	7289
85	1797	85843	1087	8376
86	1797	87640	1087	9464
87	1797	89436	1087	10551
88	1797	91233	1087	11638
89	1797	93030	1087	12726
90	1797	94827	1087	13813
91	1797	96624	1087	14901
92	1797	98420	1087	15988
93	1797	100217	1087	17076
94	1797	102014	1087	18163
95	1797	103811	1087	19251
96	1797	105607	1087	20338
97	1797	107404	1087	21426
98	1797	109201	1087	22513

(I assumed full market value assessment rates for all years; using the Chatham County's actual, effective tax rates makes the break even years 47 and 100+, for 3.5 and 4.0 bedroom homes, respectively. Also, I assumed an average age 4 years per home at Briar Chapel's buildout.)

Down to Brass Tacks

2004-10-03T19:58:00.000-04:00

How will a more sound student generation rate (SGR) change the fiscal impact of Briar Chapel on Chatham County?

To answer that question, I used Newland's own numbers to create the following table, modifying only two of their assumptions: (1) I used the SGR values I mentioned in my previous post, and (2) I used an effective tax rate of 0.6111, which is the average effective tax rate for Chatham County for the last four years (Newland incorrectly used a full market value rate of 0.6464). I've also made one assumption of my own, that the average number of bedrooms per Briar Chapel home will be between 3.5 and 4.0.

Annual Fiscal Impact of Briar Chapel on Chatham County
Average Age of Briar Chapel Home
3.5 BR
3.6 BR 3.7 BR 3.8 BR 3.9 BR 4 BR
0-2 yrs -$4,030,138 -$4,438,873 -$4,847,608 -$5,256,344 -$5,665,079 -$6,073,814
3-5 yrs -2,595,130 -2,935,057 -3,274,983 -3,614,910 -3,954,837 -4,294,763
5-10 yrs -2,118,333 -2,435,398 -2,752,462 -3,069,526 -3,386,590 -3,703,655
10-20 yrs -786,242 -1,039,432 -1,292,622 -1,545,813 -1,799,003 -2,052,194
20-30 yrs 138,441 -70,411 -279,263 -488,115 -696,967 -905,819
30-40 yrs 633,654 448,547 263,441 78,334 -106,772 -291,879
40-50 yrs 1,7274,36 1,594,777 1,462,117 1,329,457 1,196,798 1,064,138
50-60 yrs 2,093,793 1,978,700 1,863,608 1,748,515 1,633,422 1,518,329

Annual Fiscal Impact of Briar Chapel on Chatham County
Average Age of Briar Chapel Home	3.5 BR	3.6 BR	3.7 BR	3.8 BR	3.9 BR	4 BR
0-2 yrs	-$4,030,138	-$4,438,873	-$4,847,608	-$5,256,344	-$5,665,079	-$6,073,814
3-5 yrs	-2,595,130	-2,935,057	-3,274,983	-3,614,910	-3,954,837	-4,294,763
5-10 yrs	-2,118,333	-2,435,398	-2,752,462	-3,069,526	-3,386,590	-3,703,655
10-20 yrs	-786,242	-1,039,432	-1,292,622	-1,545,813	-1,799,003	-2,052,194
20-30 yrs	138,441	-70,411	-279,263	-488,115	-696,967	-905,819
30-40 yrs	633,654	448,547	263,441	78,334	-106,772	-291,879
40-50 yrs	1,7274,36	1,594,777	1,462,117	1,329,457	1,196,798	1,064,138
50-60 yrs	2,093,793	1,978,700	1,863,608	1,748,515	1,633,422	1,518,329

My conclusion is that the proposed Briar Chapel development will not begin to "pay for itself" until the age of its average home is between 30 and 35 years.

(Note: I've written some short computer programs to perform the calculations I've used on this website. If you'd like to see the source code for them, send me an email.)

Tell the Commissioners!

2004-10-03T13:23:00.000-04:00

We need a better, projected student generation rate (SGR) for Briar Chapel. Why? The 0.4 SGR proposed by Newland is too low, and results in a gross underestimation of the money Chatham County will spend educating Briar Chapel students.

As I've previously written, Newland's SGR study is flawed for the following reasons:

It minimized Chatham County demographics, and focused primarily on Wake County.
It used data from homes built within the last 50 years, ignoring the fact that newer homes produce more students.
It failed to account for the above average number of bedrooms in Briar Chapel, whose homes will average 2556 square feet each (weighted average derived from Table A2 of Appendix B of The Fiscal Impact Analysis for The Briar Chapel Development).

So, Newland's SGR projection is too low. What is a more appropriate SGR? Using 2000 Census data for Chatham County, I've created the following table, which clearly demonstrates that newer homes produce more students, as do larger homes with more bedrooms.

Public School SGRs by Age of Home and Number of Bedrooms

derived from 2000 Census data for Chatham County
Age of Home
0 BRs 1 BR 2 BRs 3 BRs 4 BRs 5+ BRs All BRs
0-2 years 0.48 0.33
0.38
0.67
1.10
1.42
0.62
3-5 years 0.40 0.27 0.32 0.56 0.91 1.18 0.51
6-10 years 0.37 0.26 0.30 0.52 0.85 1.10 0.48
11-20 years 0.30 0.20 0.24 0.42 0.68 0.88 0.38
21-30 years 0.24 0.17 0.20 0.34 0.56 0.73 0.31
31-40 years 0.22 0.15 0.17 0.30 0.50 0.64 0.28
41-50 years 0.16 0.11 0.12 0.22 0.36 0.46 0.20
51 - 60 years 0.13 0.09 0.11 0.19 0.31 0.40 0.17
61+ years 0.17 0.11 0.13 0.23 0.38 0.49 0.21
All Years 0.28 0.19 0.22 0.39 0.64 0.83 0.36

derived from 2000 Census data for Chatham County
Age of Home	0 BRs	1 BR	2 BRs	3 BRs	4 BRs	5+ BRs	All BRs
0-2 years	0.48	0.33	0.38	0.67	1.10	1.42	0.62
3-5 years	0.40	0.27	0.32	0.56	0.91	1.18	0.51
6-10 years	0.37	0.26	0.30	0.52	0.85	1.10	0.48
11-20 years	0.30	0.20	0.24	0.42	0.68	0.88	0.38
21-30 years	0.24	0.17	0.20	0.34	0.56	0.73	0.31
31-40 years	0.22	0.15	0.17	0.30	0.50	0.64	0.28
41-50 years	0.16	0.11	0.12	0.22	0.36	0.46	0.20
51 - 60 years	0.13	0.09	0.11	0.19	0.31	0.40	0.17
61+ years	0.17	0.11	0.13	0.23	0.38	0.49	0.21
All Years	0.28	0.19	0.22	0.39	0.64	0.83	0.36

If we assume Briar Chapel's 2556 square foot homes will have, on average, 3.5 to 4.0 bedrooms each, they won't reach Newland's projected SGR of 0.4 for at least 40 years. Yikes! Do our Commissioners know about this?

Don't Forget

2004-10-02T09:14:00.000-04:00

Mike Cross fundraiser, today from 4-7 pm. Also, check out his website.

Booth Mountain public hearing, Monday, October 4. The hearing will be at 6pm in the Superior Courtroom in Pittsboro.

Briar Chapel public hearing, Thursday, October 7.

Last day to register to vote, Friday, October 8.

Dr. Miley Cautions Against Newland's Projected SGR

2004-10-01T21:02:00.000-04:00

Newland's projected student generation rate (SGR) for Briar Chapel is dominated by homes outside of Chatham County, and that's a problem. In fact, most of the homes used in Briar Chapel's fiscal analysis were from Wake County, where market values and demographic trends may lead to dramatically different SGRs than in Chatham Country.

Even Dr. Miley, Newland's consultant and author of their fiscal impact analysis, warns against using data from neighboring counties when deterinimg SGR values. What's strange though, is that he issues that warning in that same Briar Chapel fiscal impact study, just prior to making his own SGR projections from nine different counties.

When criticizing Tischler's 1996 study of Chatham County's SGRs, Miley warns that Tischler's study is comprised of homes in two counties, Chatham and Orange:

Although Chatham and Orange counties are contiguous, there are many differences in the two counties, and caution should be used when relying on SGRs generated from these combined counties to estimate impacts for specific counties.
(pg 2, Appendix A of Fiscal Impact Analysis of The Briar Chapel Development)

Caution, indeed, Dr. Miley, for you made a much graver mistake in your own study. If you warn us not to use data from two counties, what shall we make of your own nine county study?

In Appendix A of the Fiscal Impact Study, wherein Miley describes his methodology for determining an SGR for Briar Chapel, we find five different tables of data. Each table determines an SGR based upon different Census Block Groups in a nine county area, and each table uses Census block groups with different ranges of median housing values. The following table details the number of Census block groups from each county for each table of Miley's data.

County	Table 2 ($250K - $340K)	Table 3 ($200K - $249K)	Table 4 ($250K - 299K)	Table 5 ($300K - $350K)	Table 6 ($350K - $770K)
Alamance	1	1	1	0	0
Chatham	0	1	0	0	1
Durham	1	5	1	0	1
Harnett	0	0	0	0	0
Lee	0	0	0	0	0
Moore	2	2	2	0	0
Orange	8	8	5	3	0
Randolph	0	0	0	0	0
Wake	15	27	10	9	11
Total	27	44	19	12	11

Note that Chatham County accounts for a measly two census tracts (2.3%) out of the 86 used in the study, while 55 tracts (64%) are located in Wake County. So, I suggest we best heed Dr. Miley's advice and use caution when relying on Newland's projected SGR for Briar Chapel.

Commissioners Get No Respect

2004-09-28T14:27:00.000-04:00

Chathamites were angry the last time their property taxes increased. During the April 16, 2001 Commissioner's meeting, one gentleman said "that he is getting tired of making payments; that there is only one County Commissioner who is trying to help the citizens of the County; that the rest have their heads in their rears and that their brains go numb when making decisions."

Property Tax Revenues Overstated

2004-09-27T22:43:00.000-04:00

Both Newland and MacGregor have overstated the property tax revenues that Chatham County will collect from their proposed developments. In their fiscal analyses for Briar Chapel and Booth Mountain, both companies neglect the fact that Chatham County only assesses property every four years, and that the assessment to market value ratio declines each year following the formal assessment. For example, last year Chatham collected property taxes from a base of only 89.76% of market value. That's a fact. (To see last year's numbers, you'll have to select the 2004-05 (Excel) link, which points to an Excel file download.)

Chapel Hill Concerned about Traffic from Chatham

2004-09-26T20:56:00.000-04:00

In yesterday's Chapel Hill News, Matt Dees wrote about the influx of traffic into Chapel Hill and Carrboro from the new, north Chatham housing developments.

Its really kind of depressing that we go to a great deal of effort to keep our own house in order, to control growth and be sensible about it, and now something we have no control over is about to overwhelm our roads, said Councilman Cam Hill.

Of course, the pain felt by Chapel Hillians pales in comparison to the frustration of folks forced to live amongst these new, town-sized communities.

(We tip our topmost branches -- we're a Shagbark Hickory, after all -- to the kind reader who brought this story to our attention.)

Bigger Than Briar Chapel

2004-09-26T13:07:00.000-04:00

Michigan's Pulte Homes and Wake County's Amberly LLC plan to bring 4628 new homes to our area. This massive housing development would straddle the Wake and Chatham county line, just north of Highway 64, between Highways 751 and 55.

Read their rezoning petition, and then look at their land use plan.

This monstrosity will be twice the size of Newland's Briar Chapel, which itself is the largest housing development ever proposed in Chatham County. How many times must we say, "No, Mr. Developer, your project is too damned big for us. No, you're risking our environment, and putting our drinking water at risk. No, you're clogging our roads by placing your money-maker away from our existing urban centers. No, we do not want to pay higher taxes so that you can maximize your profits." And finally, "No. Owning this property gives you no right to abuse those of us who actually live in this county."

More on Overcrowded Schools

2004-09-23T09:01:00.000-04:00

Read Rocha's story from this morning's News and Observer. Learn more about the bonds Chatham County must issue to relieve its overcrowded schools. (The Operations Research/Education Lab study referenced in the story is here. Other Integrated Planning for Schools and Community (IPSAC) reports are here.)

Going Mobile

2004-09-22T20:38:00.000-04:00

Bennett Elementary? Overcrowded. Bonlee Elementary? Overcrowded, too. Jordan Mathews High, North Chatham Elementary, Northwood High, Siler City Elementary, and Silk Hope Elementary? Overcrowded, as well. Seven of the fourteen schools in the Chatham County System are populated beyond their capacities today. And an eighth, Chatham Middle School, is at more than 98% capacity. Those are eight very good reasons to look closely at the impact new housing developments will have on our county. (For school capacities, look here; for current student populations, look here.)

While those who've planned our school system have performed admirably, I wonder how well they've accounted for the influx of children from Chapel Ridge, Briar Chapel, Booth Mountain, Powell Place, The Homestead, Chatham Downs, Howard Property, and Pittsboro Station South. And what of the not-yet-proposed developments that will follow these? Oy.

So, when Newland states that Briar Chapel will produce 0.4 students per household, we need to pay attention. You can bet your last dollar that other developers are taking notes. MacGregor specifically referenced Newland's 0.4 figure in their proposal for Booth Mountain.

We must require those who wish to build large developments in Chatham County to provide reasonable estimates of the impacts those new homes will have on our county. Otherwise, let's pay our increased taxes with a smile and send our children here.

Guest Posting on Orange Politics

2004-09-22T09:31:00.000-04:00

I'll post something later today about overcrowding in Chatham County Schools. Meanwhile, you might venture over to orangepolitics.org, an excellent site for Orange County politics, and read the comments to my guest posting, Increased Traffic from Chatham County.

Public Hearing for "Magical" Booth Mountain

2004-09-19T10:27:00.000-04:00

Attend tomorrow night's Commissioners meeting! Witness MacGregor Development Company's astounding feats of fiscal magic!

For weeks, we've heard that Newland's Briar Chapel will be a fiscal boon to Chatham County. A key factor in that projected surplus is a $3500 per home impact fee -- $1500 mandated by Chatham County, and $2000 voluntary. But tomorrow night, MacGregor will demonstrate how their Booth Mountain development, without that additional $2000 voluntary donation, can still add to the coffers of Chatham County. In other words, there's something magical about Booth Mountain.

MacGregor used many of the same assumptions as Newland (e.g. existing levels of service, student generation rates, etc.). Yet, MacGregor claims their Booth Mountain project will more than pay for any necessary, new infrastructure without the additional $2000 per home offered by Newland. Pure magic that I want to see!

Read MacGregor's application, which includes their magical fiscal analysis here. The public hearing will be held at 6pm tomorrow evening at the District Courthouse in Pittsboro.

(Note: I do not believe that Briar Chapel will pay its own way, either. But it will be $2000 per home closer than Booth Mountain.)

On Wednesday's Public Forum, the Open Space Edition

2004-09-18T23:16:00.000-04:00

I attended Wednesday's public forum about Newland's Briar Chapel proposal. Lacking time to piece together a coherent post about that evening, I've decided to write something quick and rambling.

Newland's Gray Styers opened their presentation by requesting a moment of silence for those imperiled by hurricane Ivan. I suppose that was Newland's secular take on the beginning of our own Commissioners meetings, which is the Pledge of Allegiance, followed by a prayer. (Is anyone else bugged by that pledge and a prayer prelude?)

Following the moment of silence, we learned that Newland's design was "based on the principal of honoring the land" and that "respect for the natural features" was "the most driving force" of their design. Later in the proceedings, Allison Weakly of CCEC asked them exactly how they defined "preservation." You've never seen such fumbling for what should have been an easy answer; the best they could offer was something about "saving trees."

Newland's representatives also spoke frequently about "open space," and how "open space irrigation ... promotes the reuse of water." It is true that 50% of Briar Chapel will be open space, but half of that will be used for spraying treated waste water from their sewage plant. They'll have underground pipes running throughout the development, with sprayheads at the ready for "irrigation."

That's it for tonight. Time for sleep.

Get Crossed Up!

2004-09-17T21:11:00.000-04:00

On Saturday, October 2nd, the Chatham Coalition is hosting a fundraiser for Mike Cross. This will be a good chance to meet Mr. Cross, as well as some other local candidates (Bob Etheridge, David Price, Patrick Barnes, and Bob Atwater). Although Mike Cross won the Democratic primary handily, he's by no means assured of victory in November. He'll be opposed by the Republican Andrew Wilkie, who took 48.3% of the vote in 2000, narrowly losing to Margaret Pollard.

This race will be a close one, folks, and all of us are needed. Let's stop that Morgan machine. Now.

Getting warmer...

2004-09-16T22:52:00.000-04:00

We're closer to calculating our own student generation rates (SGRs). And we're using 2000 Chatham County Census data. But, we need to further partition our data, by either type of dwelling (single family, multi-family, etc.) or by number of bedrooms, to best project the number of students per proposed Briar Chapel residence. SGRs from such partitioned data should be significantly higher. Anyway, here's some numbers I cobbled together for Chatham County from the School District Demographics website:

from 2000 Census data
Year Built	Number Homes	All School Age Children	SGR	Children in Public Schools	SGR
1999 - March 2000	925	530	.573	520	.562
1995 - 1998	3005	1685	.561	1490	.496
1990 - 1994	2615	1400	.535	1180	.451
1980 - 1990	4375	1780	.407	1600	.366
1970 - 1979	3430	1045	.305	990	.289
1960 - 1969	2150	630	.293	570	.265
1950 - 1959	1900	470	.247	380	.200
1940 - 1949	1095	210	.192	180	.164
1939 - earlier	1870	445	.238	390	.209
total	23160	8200	.354	7290	.315

Even with all dwelling types lumped together, our SGRs for newer homes are 13-40% higher than Newland's 0.4.

(Note: thanks to the wonderful research librarian at UNC's Davis Library for pointing me to the School District Demographics website. To try it for yourself, go here and click data download on the left.)

Tonight: Briar Chapel Forums

2004-09-15T09:17:00.000-04:00

At 6pm this evening, in the courthouse in Pittsboro, we'll have the first of two off-the-record public forums on Newland's Briar Chapel proposal. The second forum will be tomorrow night at Jordan-Matthews High School in Siler City. The consultants hired by Chatham County, as well as the Newland folks, will be there. Commissioners? Probably not.

Although these off-the-record forums aren't ideal, they may prove to be a nice warmup for the October 7 public hearings. I'll attend tonight's meeting, and I hope to see a full house.

Back to School: more on SGRs

2004-09-12T19:23:00.000-04:00

I visited the F. Stuart Chapin, Jr. Planning Library this afternoon, and I highly recommend making the trip. I wanted to look over Dr. Robert W. Burchell's Development Impact Assessment Handbook (1993), which has Student Generation Rates (SGR) figures from the 1990 U.S. Census data. Since that book was checked out, I looked at his 1985 book, The New Practitioner's Guide to Fiscal Impact Analysis, which has some interesting things to say about SGRs in 1980.

Burchell stressed the importance of partitioning SGRs by the number of bedrooms in a dwelling, which Miley & Associates' independent review of Briar Chapel did not. Also, Burchell said this:

The sample of housing included here is drawn from recently constructed units (build from 1975 to 1980) monitored in 1980. This is done to approximate local impact conditions after new development takes place. (pg. 62)

And we all know that Miley's review based its SGR calculations on dwellings built in the last fifty years. Anyway, Burchell's 1980 numbers for the American south looked like this:

pg. 65, Exhibit 13
Single Family Dwellings
Geographic Area 2BR 3BR 4BR 5BR All
Entire South
.276 .741 1.371 1.903 .813
South Atlantic .232 .718 1.324 1.885 .782
East South Central .321 .755 1.407 1.810 .845
West South Central .329 .749 1.416 2.044 .835
National .256 .737 1.371 2.007 .839

pg. 65, Exhibit 13
Single Family Dwellings
Geographic Area	2BR	3BR	4BR	5BR	All
Entire South	.276	.741	1.371	1.903	.813
South Atlantic	.232	.718	1.324	1.885	.782
East South Central	.321	.755	1.407	1.810	.845
West South Central	.329	.749	1.416	2.044	.835
National	.256	.737	1.371	2.007	.839

While I'm certain that we don't have as many children per household as folks did 24 years ago, don't you think Miley's and Newland's 0.4 figure is a bit low?

Updated note: if you do visit the planning library, I suggest going during the week when the regular staff is available to answer questions. Also, if you want to make photocopies, you'll need either a UNC One card or a University Guest Card (copy card) -- the copier doesn't accept coins.

What Would James Baker Do?

2004-09-09T06:04:00.000-04:00

I suppose you've read the news today, oh boy. (Actually, this Graybeal and this Rocha story are from yesterday.) No commissioners at the off-the-record forums and no on-the-record forums at all. Although I'm not surprised by those decisions, my heart still aches for the lack of transparency and democracy in these Briar Chapel proceedings. We get one public hearing -- Newland's off-the record forums don't count -- for the largest development ever proposed in Chatham County?

So, which officials advocated for us, the citizens of this beautiful county? Certainly, not Bob Gunn. Forgive my arm chair lawyering, but I'm betting that a creative attorney, working hard for his client (us), would find a way to hold those additional on-the-record, commissioner-attended, public forums. Can we afford to hire James Baker? After all, we're raising Bob Gunn's retainer by 74% next year, to $65,000.

Although Gunn's advice provides some cover for the commissioners, they have another option. If they truly want more light to shine on Newland's Briar Chapel, why don't they invoke the infamous CCO waiver?

With the approval of the Board of Commissioners, the requirements of this ordinance may be adjusted, modified, reduced or waived based upon the absence of any reasonable relationship or nexus between the impact of compact community development and the inclusionary or other requirements set forth.

I think additional public input on the largest development ever is a reasonable request that the County Commissioners should honor.

0.4 Virus

2004-09-08T23:07:00.000-04:00

Coming soon to your own backyard! The 0.4 Virus. MacGregor Development has latched onto the 0.4 Student Generation Rate (SGR) for its Booth Mountain proposal.

(Note: I'm swamped at work this week so posts will be fewer & shorter. Also, see my earlier posts for what's wrong with 0.4.)

Democracy Thwarted?

2004-09-06T15:43:00.000-04:00

Looks like tomorrow's County Commissioners meeting will be at 9:00am. That's unfortunate for those of us who'll be working (and paying our taxes), because at this meeting, the commissioners will do the following:

Set Public Hearing for Briar Chapel: Consideration of a request to set a date on which to hold a public hearing for the Briar Chapel proposal (thirty days following peer review of impact assessments)

Has the Commission already decided against the two additional, on-the-record public forums requested by CCEC? If so, will they discuss their reasons at tomorrow's meeting? Rats, if democracy's to be thwarted again, I wanted to watch the thwarting.

If any readers attend the meeting, please post a comment describing the proceedings. Or, if you'd prefer, send me an email, and I'll post it on your behalf.

Where will you shop, Briar Chapel?

2004-09-05T22:56:00.000-04:00

Everyone who's read the The Economic Impacts of the Briar Chapel Development should take a couple of aspirins and a long nap because you must have a pounding headache. You've been smacking your forehead, asking yourself just how that darned IMPLAN input-output model works. I wish I could help, but our county's independent review fails to describe how that model can accurately predict where a Briar Chapel resident will spend his or her money.

It's fairly clear that the IMPLAN model claims to measure the effects of the money Briar Chapel folks will spend in Chatham County. Sure, our future neighbors will have plenty of cash (annual household incomes of $138, 000) to spread around. But despite assurances from Miley & Associates that "the impacts analyzed in this study are evaluated only on the Chatham County area," after reading the document, I didn't feel assured.

According to the study, the direct impact (money spent by Briar Chapel residents) on Chatham County will be 328.9 million dollars per year (Table 3). Wow, that's a lot. But from where does that high dollar figure originate? Why, it's the estimated total annual income of all the Briar Chapel households (Table 2). Those same 328.9 million dollars apparently are used as input to the IMPLAN magic box, and what pops out are projections for employment and labor impacts on Chatham County.

But how much of our new friends' shopping will be in Chapel Hill or at Southpoint Mall? How often will they visit Wrightsville Beach or Asheville? And when they do make the drive to Siler City's Walmart (at least twenty minutes further than Chapel Hill), how do we account for the dollars wired home to Walmart's headquarters in Arkansas? The answers to those questions are not clear from the text of the independent review.

Granted, that 328.9 million figure may be just for show, and projections for employment and labor impacts may be based upon an appropriate portion of that money being spent Chatham. But if that's the case, I want that methodology explained, in detail, in our independent review. Otherwise, I must ask if the study's fundamental assumptions about economic impact on Chatham County are as flawed as their projected 0.4 Student Generation Rate.

(Note: This post refers only to the independent review's post-construction phase projections.)

Chatham Marketplace

2004-09-03T15:18:00.000-04:00

How about some good news for your Friday afternoon? Go read about the upcoming, local food co-op, Chatham Marketplace. And after you've finished reading, how about purchasing an ownership share? They need only 25 more owners to meet their startup goal of 500. And for those of you with heftier wallets, how about investing? They're halfway to their investment goal already.

Hurry up. I'm hungry for some good, local eats!

(Updated with more correct info. Thanks, Melissa.)

Caveat Emptor

2004-09-01T20:25:00.000-04:00

There's something fishy about a Student Generation Rate (SGR) of 0.4 for Briar Chapel. Read this from Chapel Hill, just 10 minutes north of Briar Chapel (emphasis mine):

We note that Orange County has commissioned a study on student generation rates (ratios comparing number of housing units with number of school-age children living in those units). Community-wide for the Chapel Hill-Carrboro district, the student generation rate for single-family houses is .57. That is, for every 100 houses in the community, there are likely to be 57 school-age children. However, a recent Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools study showed that for new development, the ratio is considerably higher. The student generation rate for new single family homes in a development currently being built is .98. That is, for every 100 new homes built in this new development, there are 98 new school-age children.

Note the difference between the SGR for all homes versus the SGR for recently built homes.

And last year, Tischler & Associates similarly advised Jefferson County (again, emphasis mine):

Paul Tischler and Associates recommended that it was appropriate to look at the average number of students per house during the first 20 years after houses are built, in order to estimate the amount of school space that would need to be built to serve new houses in the future. This suggestion was made by Tischler because the purpose of the committee is to project the number of pupils per house for new construction in the next few years. Houses built in the next few years are going to be more like houses built in the last 20 years than houses built in the more distant past.

Jefferson County settled on a .644 SGR for single family dwellings, a conservative estimate by their own accounts because their study "projected .93 children per house for the three year period of 2000-2003."

So, it makes sense, when calculating SGR numbers, to compare apples to apples, not new homes to 30 year old homes. Wouldn't you hope Newland's Briar Chapel figures did just that? And wouldn't you trust that our own independent, fiscal review of Newland's projections would do the same? Well, if you're buying their SGR number of 0.4, maybe you like to buy this, too.

Miley and Cowen, authors of the SGR analysis portion of our county's fiscal review, said that their calculations are "based on housing units that have been built in the last 50 years or more" (Appendix A of the A Fiscal Impact Analysis of the Briar Chapel Development). (Oh yeah, emphasis mine again.)

Someone's trying to sell us this.

Prolific West Virginians

2004-08-31T22:08:00.000-04:00

Last year, Jefferson County, WV, hired Tischler & Associates as a consultant for a study which produced the following Student Generation Rates (SGRs):

Dwelling Type SGR
Single family .644
Townhouse .382
Single story duplex .067
Apartments .223
Mobile homes .629

What types of dwellings will Newland build in Briar Chapel, where the SGR is 0.4?

Dwelling Type Number of homes
Single family 1927
Townhouse 382
Apartments 140

Of course, there're many ways to skin that SGR cat. I'll be writing about several of those methodologies in the next day or so. (For those impatient souls, read Jefferson County's Impact Fee report here -- you'll have to click on the Impact Fee Report link from that page, which will lead you to a Word document.)

Per home in Sweet Home

2004-08-29T22:46:00.000-04:00

The Corvallis Gazettte-Time says the following about a new development in Sweet Home, Washington:

It is estimated that 4,000 residents will live in the new development, including 0.6 children per household.

What does Sweet Home have that Briar Chapel, just 0.4 children per household, doesn't?

Done deal?

2004-08-29T21:36:00.000-04:00

How could I have missed Rocha's story on the Briar Chapel approval process in yesterday's N&O? That article focuses on Newland's off-the-record forums, and states that the commissioners will decide on September 7 as to whether or not they will attend Newland's off-the-record forums.

Rocha makes no mention of the CCEC's requested on-the-record forums. Have they already been laid to rest? Perhaps not. Today, Graybeal wrote that Emerson "wasn't sure if the county would also hold public meetings of its own before a formal public hearing." On the other hand, CCEC's Jeffrey Starkweather's quotes in Rocha's piece sound as though he's focused solely on the off-the-record forums, and he's keenly interested in the commissioners' attendance. If on-the-record forums were still a possibility, would Starkweather care as much about the off-the-record forums? Someone knows, but not me.

(Note: I've opted to call Newland's forums "off-the-record" instead of my earlier choice, "advertisement." "Off-the-record" is, I hope, a more accurate description.)

"Public forums or what you want to call them"

2004-08-29T16:42:00.000-04:00

So said Commissioner Tommy Emerson, who sounded just as confused as I felt after reading Graybeal's most recent story on the Briar Chapel public forums. Admittedly, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I'm betting that Mr. Emerson and I are not alone in our confusion. After my first reading of the piece, I wondered whether the fuzziness lurked in Graybeal's writing or in my own head. But after a second and then a third reading, I realized that neither Graybeal's words nor my own mental deficiencies were at fault. Nope, it's the darned double meanings of public forum that's making us all do double takes.

Both the series of four meetings to be sponsored by Newland, and the two meetings requested by the CCEC, are called public forums. Certainly, both sets of meetings are open to the public, but their differences warrant distinctive qualifiers. So for the sake of clarity, I'll refer to Newland's meetings as advertisement public forums, as in "Hi, we're from Newland, we're running this meeting, and Briar Chapel is just do die for!" And I'll dub CCEC's proposed meetings as on the record public forums, as in "Yes, there are recorded minutes," or "Of course, the commissioners are interested in their constituents' input."

Commissioner Emerson believes that "The main thing is that the public be informed." And he'd be correct if the public were actually voting on the Newland's proposal. However, there's only five people, the commissioners, who will pass judgment on Briar Chapel. So, I argue that the most important thing is for the BOC to have all of the public's questions, praises, concerns, songs, and caterwauls on the record. That way, we'll know that our commissioners have listened, and they'll know that they are accountable for what they've heard. Isn't that type of exchange the foundation for a representative democracy?

As far as the advertisement public forums are concerned, Emerson says he'd like to attend, but has been informed by the County's attorney, Bob Gunn, that his presence at such meetings might not be permitted. Why's that? Are commissioners not allowed to attend the advertisements of companies on whose proposals they'll be voting? If you ask me (and I know you didn't), the only reason we might have advertisement instead of on the record public forums is if the BOC wants to stick its collective fingers in its ears and pretend that no one is talking. With just a touch of plausible deniability, they could get a lot more work done.

One curious note is that at the last commissioners meeting, I'd have sworn that the Newland representative, Mitch Barron, was on the cusp of agreeing to CCEC's requested on the record public forums. In fact, the only objections came from Bob Gunn and Commissioner Bunkey Morgan; if Emerson had waited another five minutes, we might've had an agreement for those two additional, on the record, public forums. Barron seemed unwilling to state publicly, on the record, that Newland was opposed to CCEC's request. (See, speaking on the record does make a difference.)

On September 7, the BOC will likely decide which type of public forums we'll have . That's a Tuesday. Please let the commissioners know what you think, first with a letter or email, and then with your presence at the BOC meeting.

Also, regardless of the BOC's decision, I encourage you to attend the Newland advertisement of your choice. The first is scheduled for September 15, 6-9pm, at the county courthouse, and the following evening, again from 6-9pm, there'll be one at Jordan-Matthews High School.

Top ten permanent jobs generated by Briar Chapel

2004-08-27T20:59:00.000-04:00

I'm slogging my way through the economic impact assessment of the Briar Chapel proposal. It's quite long, so I thought I'd make a quick post before continuing to read. The employment impact data is divided into two parts, one for employment during the seven year construction phase, and one for permanent jobs, thereafter. The table below lists the top ten categories of permanent jobs which, according to the assessment, will total 2400.

From the Economic Impact Review
Job Description	Number	Percent of Total
Food services and drinking places	263.3	11.0%
Nursing and residential care facilities	158.2	6.6%
Real estate	134.3	5.6%
Social assistance-except child day care	108.6	4.5%
Automotive repair and maintenance	88.8	3.7%
Nonstore retailers	87.5	3.6%
General merchandise stores	81.3	3.4%
Offices of physicians-dentists-and other	80.0	3.3%
Elementary and secondary schools	78.2	3.3%
Private households	71.4	3.0%

More on public forums for Briar Chapel

2004-08-26T21:38:00.000-04:00

Last week, Jessica Rocha of the News and Observer wrote a nice piece about CCEC's request for two additional public forums on Briar Chapel. In it, she quoted Newland's representative Mitch Barron as saying "We are glad to do this. It's in the benefit of the county." However, at the end of her article, she also noted that "the commissioners did not formally agree to them [the forums]," and that "it is still unclear whether the forums will be recorded government meetings." As I wondered in an earlier post, what were Commissioner Emerson's intentions when he handed over the "to forum or not to forum" decision to the CCEC and Newland?

Yesterday, Rocha covered the first two independent reviews of Newland's proposal, and again, at the end of her story, she pointed to the uncertainty surrounding public forums requested by the CCEC:

Chatham Citizens requested the forums be recorded, formal meetings sponsored by the county, however it is unclear whether that will happen. Instead they could be informal meetings sponsored by Newland Communities and/or the citizen's group.

I wished she had attributed that piece of information to a particular person. (I have emailed her, asking her if she's relaying information from someone, and if so, from whom.)

I hope the Board of commissioners throws its full support behind the public forums. If not, I hope they have a better reason than that the county cannot afford to hold those meetings. I'd offer that the county can't afford not to. (Anyone know how much it'd cost the county to hold these meetings?)

Independent review does not question Newland's assumptions

2004-08-25T12:14:00.000-04:00

According to Geoffrey Graybeal's article in yesterday's Herald-Sun, our county's independent review of Briar Chapel's fiscal impact does not challenge some of Newland Communities' fundamental assumptions. Read all about it.

Tischler and Associates were hired by Chatham County to perform an independent review of Newland's proposal. Unfortunately, they chose to let stand Newland's assumptions about average home price and number of students per household. From what I recall, the number of students per household has been a major point of contention in every proposal that Newland has offered for Briar Chapel. Why would an independent review not challenge such a critical figure, a figure on which much of the subsequent calculations are based?

(By the way, I really like Geoffrey Graybeal's coverage of Chatham County issues. He offers fair perspectives from both the established powers and those in opposition. Keep up the good work, Mr. Graybeal.)

Public forums for Briar Chapel

2004-08-24T21:25:00.000-04:00

At last week's commissioners meeting, I watched as the Chatham Citizens for Effective Communities [CCEC] proposed two additional public forums for the latest Briar Chapel proposal. (You can read Jeffrey Starkweather's speech here and read his subsequent letter to the commissioners here.) These two meetings would precede the quasi-judicial public forum required by the Compact Community Ordinance (CCO).

At that meeting, Bob Gunn, the county's attorney, raised some rather weak legal objections; I think he wanted to quash the proposed meetings. Likewise, commissioner Morgan tossed out an objection, jokingly asking if the CCEC wanted him to invoke the CCO's waiver clause in order to sidestep Gunn's legal hurdle. Still, the proposed public forums seemed on the verge of making the schedule. Unfortunately, Commissioner Emerson punted, instructing the CCEC folks and the Newland representatives to work out a plan after the council meeting ended.

So, I'm wondering why Emerson left the decision hanging. I'm not well-versed in the procedures of our commission, so I really don't know. Was he washing the commission's hands of the proposal? In effect saying that the meetings would not have the sanction of the commissioners? Or was he simply pressed for time, and will give the meetings the full support of the council? If anyone knows, please post a comment.

(Note: I'm not criticizing Commissioner Emerson. I'm just curious as to what his non-decision means.)

First Post

2004-08-24T21:23:00.000-04:00

I'm a native North Carolinian, have lived in the triangle for more than twenty years, the last seven in Chatham County with my wife. I think we've got a wonderful, beautiful place to live.

Much of this blog will probably focus upon local politics since that's where my mind seems to be spending a lot of its energy. Watching the political struggles in our county has driven me bonkers at times, as my own political views are somewhere on the left of the dial. Still, I'm very happy with the primary victories of Barnes, Cross, Clark, and Duncan, and I'm looking forward to having Barnes and Cross as commissioners in December. (Yes, I'm assuming they'll win the general election -- but I won't forget to vote!)

Anyway, that'll do for my brief introduction. If you've got any news you'd like for me to share on your behalf, drop me a line. Now, on with the blogging.

Update: Norman Clark, not Blake. Thanks to Allen for the correction.

Dwelling Type	SGR
Single family	.644
Townhouse	.382
Single story duplex	.067
Apartments	.223
Mobile homes	.629

Dwelling Type	Number of homes
Single family	1927
Townhouse	382
Apartments	140