Raleigh is in the process of converting the recently
passed land use Comprehensive Plan into a Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO).  The consultant?s report is
150 pages and the public is invited to comment on it here

My latest comment (below) deals with the legal
extortion racket that planners use to pay for ?public amenities? that they can supply using extortion making some city council members very happy because they don’t have to use tax money for these amenities.   Sections below explain how this
extortion scheme works.

 


2.2.9
For a bonus density system to be effective, permitted base intensities must be
artificially reduced below market demand in order to ensure there is an
economic incen?tive to acquire additional density and therefore achieve the
desired public amenities.

2.2.10 In order for an incentive system to work effectively, the
quantity and type of public amenities should be carefully considered to ensure
the right balance of trade-offs.

2.2.11  Ongoing management is required to monitor the
city?s needs over time. The city should also be careful that the ?public
amenity? requirements do not overburden the developer. An excessive burden,
real or perceived, could cause developers to build within base entitlements, or
simply build in other areas where requirements are not as stringent.

My comment:

 

Wow! I realized that planners all over the state were
currently running a legal extortion racket, but I never dreamed that they would
be so bold to put ?how to? instructions in writing. Sections 2.2.9, 2.2.10 and
2.2.11 tell planners exactly how to operate this legal extortion racket.
Planners manipulate the land use planning in order to make developers ?offers
they cannot refuse.?  Thus getting
them to pay for ?public amenities,? in this case ?open space, public art,
seating areas and water features.? Many city councils like this extortion
because they don?t have to raise taxes to pay for benefits enjoyed by the
entire community.  Here is how it
works.  First planners set the
density, the number of houses, apartments or condos per acre, below what the
market would dictate.  For example
if the market is four houses per acre, the planners arbitrarily lower the
density to one house per acre. This is to ?ensure there is an economic incentive to acquire additional
density and therefore achieve [extort money to pay for] the desired public
amenities.? Market conditions indicate that the homebuilder cannot make money
at one house per acre thus he must agree to the planner?s extortion.  Planners want him to pay for open space,
public art, etc.  In some cases,
planners allow developers to ?payment in lieu? instead of providing the ?public
amenities? directly. He agrees and the planners give him a ?density bonus? by
raising the density to four houses per acre.  Of course, the homebuilder?s cost for the public amenities increases
home prices above the price he would have set without the extortion.  This creates a ?demand? for another
legal extortion scheme called ?affordable housing.? (See section 3.4.3) Section
2.2.11 cautions planners not to get too greedy because developers have options.
They can use the base density, one house per acre in this example, or they can
just build outside Raleigh creating the ?sprawl? that the planners really
hate.