Daren?s op-ed in the N&O had the following quote that got picked up by our friends at Civitas.
If voters want to push government control of property that will promote high-density living and higher home prices, then the bond issue is a good idea. However, if voters want to protect property rights, low-density living and affordable housing, then the bond is a bad idea.
I have nothing against low-density living, but Daren should just focus on the property rights and affordability arguments and leave density decisions to the market. I live in Cary where government power threatens the ability of property owners to create higher density developments. Zoning in Western Wake County is designed to promote low-density, which makes it more expensive to live in desirable parts of Cary or downtown Apex. Residents of Western Wake want their large houses and the farm to stay where it?s been across the road. I?m as against goofy purchases of open space, super-wide buffers, and other attempts to limit property rights as Daren is, but I voted with my dollars to live in higher density with greater convenience. Low density snobs should not deprive me, the original owner of the property, or the developer of the right to do what we think best with our money and property.
On a related note, Harold Weinbrecht has been campaigning to keep low density in Cary through government power ? of course his supporters at the polling place this morning said he would ?stop growth? altogether. He has campaigned to ?make road funding a high priority? but his supporters pointed to the road widening project behind them as an example of excessive growth. Either they?re going to be mad when he gets elected or he?s been trying to pull a fast one on the voters.
