Cary spends $6.5M to buy historic 45 acre tract in Carpenter

[dhyatt]

...that comes out to over $140K / acre... Wow... land has gotten expensive. Still, probably not a bad thing since it could mean another 160 town homes in a heavily loaded area otherwise. Looks like Jennifer gets another win!
<hr>

TOWN OF CARY SIGNS $6.5 MILLION LAND AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE FARMLAND, PROTECTS 45 ACRES
Agreement ensures that vast farmland and historic structures are protected

CARY, NC – To further its commitment to preserving and protecting the environment and enhancing the quality of life of citizens, the Town of Cary has entered into an agreement to pay $6.5 million to protect more than 45 acres of farmland and historical structures that date back to the early 1910’s – known as the A.M. Howard Farm – located at 1580 Morrisville-Carpenter Road in Cary. While the farm was included in the May 2000 listing of the Carpenter Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places, such a listing does not prohibit owners from altering or razing the property. By purchasing the land, the Town will ensure that the property can be protected from demolishment or commercial development.

A one-story, frame dwelling with German siding and a central front gable stands at the center of the 45-acre farm that is bisected by Morrisville-Carpenter Road. The site also hosts 12 outbuildings, including two tobacco curing barns, a tobacco strip room, and a pack house.

“This is a significant step in implementing the Council’s preservation vision,” said Doug McRainey, Principal Planner with the Town’s Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources Department. “The historical, aesthetic, and cultural value of this land will prove to be a priceless investment in the place we call home for generations to come.”

Preliminary plans call for the 29 acres north of Morrisville-Carpenter – which includes the farmhouse and structures – to be preserved in a way that focuses attention on the area’s agricultural history and farming practices, while the 16 acres south of Morrisville-Carpenter road will likely be used as a neighborhood park.

The purchase was prompted, in part, by the PRCR Master Plan in 2002, which addresses implementation of a system to meet recreational and transportation needs until 2010. Then in 2004, the Carpenter Community plan reaffirmed the Master Plan. The Town adopted the Carpenter Community Plan in 2005 with the goal of making the Carpenter area a unique regional destination and a highly attractive place to live, work, and recreate.

###

PRIMARY CONTACTS: Doug McRainey, Principal Planner, (919) 460-4973
Anna Readling, Senior Planner, (919) 469-4084
April R. Little, Deputy Public Information Officer, (919) 481-5091
Susan Moran, Public Information Officer, (919) 460-4951

[DarylB]

“This is a significant step in implementing the Council’s preservation vision,” said Doug McRainey, Principal Planner with the Town’s Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources Department. “The historical, aesthetic, and cultural value of this land will prove to be a priceless investment in the place we call home for generations to come.”

PRIMARY CONTACTS: Doug McRainey, Principal Planner, (919) 460-4973
Anna Readling, Senior Planner, (919) 469-4084
April R. Little, Deputy Public Information Officer, (919) 481-5091
Susan Moran, Public Information Officer, (919) 460-4951

Can we simply translate that to say that, for the "Town" citizens, who are being packed together like rats on a plague ship, they'll be needng some place to visit where they aren't crushing each other by the simple act of breathing... and we can only guess how long ANY "natural" preservation can last with a horde coming to visit what everyone used to enjoy. Sort of like a Cary of Yesteryear Theme park?

[Wuptdo]

Thank you Don. And ouch, $140K per acre!

Makes me wonder though. Given the size of the parcel, I can't help but wonder if the WCPSS will want it as a future school site. I can almost see the gleam in Patti Heads and Eleanor Goette eyes as they use Eminent Domain to take the land away from Cary. :roll:

Wuptdo B-)

[DarylB]

Thank you Don. And ouch, $140K per acre!

Makes me wonder though. Given the size of the parcel, I can't help but wonder if the WCPSS will want it as a future school site. I can almost see the gleam in Patti Heads and Eleanor Goette eyes as they use Eminent Domain to take the land away from Cary. :roll:

Wuptdo B-)

The grand vision is to put a dome over Wake county, and to declare it WCPSSville.... . with Emperor for Life Idi Amin DelBurns Dada..... just in case you didn't get the memo...

[Rich]

Sort of like a Cary of Yesteryear Theme park?
The grand vision is to put a dome over Wake county, and to declare it WCPSSville.... . with Emperor for Life Idi Amin DelBurns Dada..... just in case you didn't get the memo...Thanks for the laughs on a Friday. Although, I must correct you on the dome. The WCPSS won't do it, they will say that the parents and PTA must pay for it out of their own pockets, much like they are with the shade structures now.

[MattD]

Thank you Don. And ouch, $140K per acre!

Makes me wonder though. Given the size of the parcel, I can't help but wonder if the WCPSS will want it as a future school site. I can almost see the gleam in Patti Heads and Eleanor Goette eyes as they use Eminent Domain to take the land away from Cary. :roll:

Wuptdo B-)

$140k per acre is in the ballpark for land in the area.

[Brent]

This is an important historic property that is a contributing property to the Carpenter Historic District, listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

It is also rural farmland that contributes to what is supposed to be the rural character and viewscape of the Carpenter Historic District.

Although public purchase is not generally my favorite way to preserve historic properties (and to an extent, open space), this property was imminently threatened by development.

I'm glad it was preserved. For a long-term solution, we need additional ways to preserve historic properties, both in terms of funding and in terms of ordinance.

Why is this a win for Jennifer? I know it's in her district, but was she the one leading the effort to preserve this site? (hint: no).

[Brent]

Oh, and Susan put out a correction...it was $6.5M, not $6.9M (still over $140K/acre). Susan seems to be in the habit of sending out updates/corrections lately.

[Rich]

Although public purchase is not generally my favorite way to preserve historic properties (and to an extent, open space), this property was imminently threatened by development.Would not the same body that made the purchase also have to give permission for development? While I agree that the preservation of the land for differing purposes is a good idea, the claim that is was threatened by development is perplexing to me. Seems to me that the same group responsible for the purchase, were they to follow similar motivations, would stop that threat dead in its tracks. What am I missing here?

[Brent]

Although public purchase is not generally my favorite way to preserve historic properties (and to an extent, open space), this property was imminently threatened by development.Would not the same body that made the purchase also have to give permission for development? While I agree that the preservation of the land for differing purposes is a good idea, the claim that is was threatened by development is perplexing to me. Seems to me that the same group responsible for the purchase, were they to follow similar motivations, would stop that threat dead in its tracks. What am I missing here?

I'm not sure I fully understand the question.

The land was privately owned and slated to be developed.

The town offered to buy the land, and the landowner agreed to sell the land to the town rather than develop it. He could have developed it but agreed to its purchase instead (he could have preserved it himself, too, but was not planning to do so).

[Edited to add: I'm sure he could have made more money developing the land. But this way he got some return on his investment in the undeveloped land, and now it stays undeveloped]

I do not expect the town to plan to develop it. In fact, I would like to see the town pursue a preservation easement on the "farm" portion of the land.

[dhyatt]

[snip]

Why is this a win for Jennifer? I know it's in her district, but was she the one leading the effort to preserve this site? (hint: no).

I think you answered your own question :-)

[Rich]

Although public purchase is not generally my favorite way to preserve historic properties (and to an extent, open space), this property was imminently threatened by development.Would not the same body that made the purchase also have to give permission for development? While I agree that the preservation of the land for differing purposes is a good idea, the claim that is was threatened by development is perplexing to me. Seems to me that the same group responsible for the purchase, were they to follow similar motivations, would stop that threat dead in its tracks. What am I missing here?

I'm not sure I fully understand the question.

The land was privately owned and slated to be developed.

The town offered to buy the land, and the landowner agreed to sell the land to the town rather than develop it. He could have developed it but agreed to its purchase instead (he could have preserved it himself, too, but was not planning to do so).

I do not expect the town to plan to develop it. In fact, I would like to see the town pursue a preservation easement on the "farm" portion of the land.Wouldn't the town have to authorize that development?

I am not advocating stalling approval over buying, just wondering on the actuality of the "danger" you speak of.

[Brent]

Rich,

I'll try again.

The land belonged to a private landowner until the town just now bought it. The landowner had plans to develop the property. Therefore, the property was in imminent danger of being bulldozed for development.

Had the town not offered to purchase the land, it would have been developed. The town offered to buy the land. The landowner accepted.

It's no longer in any real danger of being developed.

[Brent]

Oh, OK, Now I think I get what you mean.

Yes, the town would have to grant a rezoning/land use change/whatever so that the property could be developed.

And I know of nothing that would have prevented the town from granting such a rezoning.

The town has no ordinances preventing demolition of historic structures. If the property owner wanted to develop this property, I would expect that the development proposals would proceed just like any others that come before the town, nearly all of which are approved.

Example: property very close to this property that is now Carpenter Village Legacy development also once was a contributing historic structure (the Barbee-Williams farm). It was bulldozed to build Carpenter Village Legacy.

You win some, you lose some.

[Rich]

Yes, the town would have to grant a rezoning/land use change/whatever so that the property could be developed.

And I know of nothing that would have prevented the town from granting such a rezoning. How about the same motivation that lead them to buy the land? Seems to me that zoning and permits could be used in a more targeted, purposeful fashion in order to meet similar goals.

[Brent]

Yes, the town would have to grant a rezoning/land use change/whatever so that the property could be developed.

And I know of nothing that would have prevented the town from granting such a rezoning. How about the same motivation that lead them to buy the land? Seems to me that zoning and permits could be used in a more targeted, purposeful fashion in order to meet similar goals.

Please describe what zonings, permits or other mechanism you think could be used to achieve this purpose. I don't know of anything in the LDO that would address this. The Town of Cary recently -- and I mean just his week -- received legislative authority to enact ordinances to protect historic properties from demolition, but the town has not enacted any such ordinance.

As previously stated, I know of nothing that could/would have prevented the denial of a proposal to develop this land [edited to add: indeed, if the property could have been protected by ordinance, I don't expect we would have offered to purchase it. I am confident that all avenues were explored before the purchase offer was made]. Just because some people would "rather not" wouldn't have prevented it. If denied with no justification, the developer probably would sue the town.

Your reasoning is right, but in practice, I don't know how you would actually accomplish this.

[DarylB]

Too bad the "Town" didn't buy the Carpenter Farm Supply sign, and preserve it as an historic structure too! 8O

[Wuptdo]

Brent & Rich - though as citizens we tend to be well mannered and such, but their is a fine line when it comes to property. For instance, though gibberish to ordinary folks, Land planners and Urbanist look at ordinances from Boulder, Colorado, Montgomery County, Maryland and pretty much the whole Left Coast, and to be blunt, have organisms. To them, those ordinances are like porn (10 X) to them. That is why these people need to be identified early in their careers and make sure they NEVER get jobs working for towns & cities or elected to public office.

If the property owner mentioned above was offered $180K per acre to sell to a private developer and took the town's offer of $140K instead, then IMHO, he did the right thing and should be commended. Now, if the town told the land owner to sell to them or else they would re-zone the property to "very, very, low density residential" (one home per 5 acres), the value of the land would go down (maybe - unless local millionaires want "estate" type homes). This would be wrong in my opinion, but it is now common practice in the NorthEast as a way of maintaining "green/open space." On the flip side, it is in my best interest to see that Jordon Lake is maintained pristine and a good source of drinking water. Thus, if the Army Corp of Engineers wanted to expand the "buffer" around Jordon Lake another mile, to maintain the clean water, and use eminent domain in the process, I'm all for it.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. A fine line, indeed.

Question: Can the P&Z board, without input from staff, submit their own recommendation to zoning changes (with final approval from our "Overlords?") Or does someone from the "outside" have make a recommendation to the P&Z board for a change?

Wuptdo B-)

[dhyatt]

[snip]

Question: Can the P&Z board, without input from staff, submit their own recommendation to zoning changes (with final approval from our "Overlords?") Or does someone from the "outside" have make a recommendation to the P&Z board for a change?

Wuptdo B-)

P&Z has the authority under charter to create and submit land use plans and to recommend zoning changes. To the best of my knowledge, they have never exercised this authority nor even given it much thought. I brought it up to a couple of others while I was on the board and it was met with basically "it's never been done before and it would ruffle too many feathers". In the case of "down zonings", or zonings that make a land less valuable, Cary could would almost certainly be faced with a lawsuit. Most of the time, courts side with landowners in that type of dispute.

All of aforementioned doesn't really get to the heart of the problem though; re-zonings by landowners and developers have for quite some time be treated as a "right" instead of a "privilege". The recent Al-Hashemi property was a perfect example of this. He operated under the assumption that he had the "right" to rezone his property because that's the way Cary has operated for the last 20 years.

Unfortunately, the attraction of the area coupled with the rights of a property owner to develop their land, and the basic reticence of CTC to "just say no", leads to a situation where land will be developed unless it is bought be the town of someone who is willing to just own it and leave it alone.

[Wuptdo]

AdminH - many thanks for the above. I can remember many years ago in a past life, where P&Z boards in Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Howard County & Anne Arundel County, where very "pro-active" as far as their community went. However, the developer/realtor/builder relationships were almost as strong, but for the most part, the various Boards did seem to really have the best interest of the community when making decisions.

Today's Question: Where do you want Cary to be 25 years from now?

http://www.spaceshots.com/images/aerial1.jpg
Cary, 2035, U.S. 1 in the middle

or this --

http://www.csmonitor.com/slideshows/durableSlideshows/suburbanSprawl/slide1.jpg
Cary, 2035, typical neighbor

or a mixture of the above?

Special Note: Had dinner last night at "aN" over at the Arboretum. Two Thumbs up. When leaving at 7:30 pm, we were approach by a young women who asked us, where did we park and could she have our parking space?
:roll: :roll:

Wuptdo B-)

[MattD]

Today's Question: Where do you want Cary to be 25 years from now?

Wuptdo B-)

Wupt - To ask "Where to you want Cary to be in 25 years" is the wrong question. Even if Cary were to halt all growth today - the growth will still come. It will come to Apex, Morrisville, Raleigh, Garner, Durham, Chapel Hill and even Clayton and Sanford... just as it did during Glen Lang's administration.

Growth is a regional issue. So the question really should be "Where do you want the Triangle to be 25 years from now".

I want it to be a place where my kids got a GREAT education, high paying jobs are available and my property value keeps going up. You know - the American Dream type stuff.

[DarylB]

Today's Question: Where do you want Cary to be 25 years from now?

Wuptdo B-)

Wupt - To ask "Where to you want Cary to be in 25 years" is the wrong question. Even if Cary were to halt all growth today - the growth will still come. It will come to Apex, Morrisville, Raleigh, Garner, Durham, Chapel Hill and even Clayton and Sanford... just as it did during Glen Lang's administration.

Growth is a regional issue. So the question really should be "Where do you want the Triangle to be 25 years from now".

I want it to be a place where my kids got a GREAT education, high paying jobs are available and my property value keeps going up. You know - the American Dream type stuff..

Ya'know MattD, I was just thinking, you'd probably be extremely happy in one of those honeycombed people contraptions, living in Japan - or Sydney. They accrue value VERY fast, as there are thousands per square mile pushing and shoving for high paying jobs, and they hardly ever go home anyway. NIRVANA!

THIS is what MattD sees for BOTH Cary AND the Triangle, not in 25 years, but by NEXT WEEK, if he can manage it!
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/01/29/trains_wideweb__470x311,0.jpg


Jonathan Pearlman
January 30, 2007

ANGRY passengers say they have been treated 'like livestock' and subjected to dangerous overcrowding on Sydney's trains since the new timetables were introduced.

Complaints about overcrowding have doubled since services were cut when the timetables were introduced in 2005, according to RailCorp documents.

Obtained by the Herald under a freedom of information request, they show much of the dissatisfaction is due to overcrowding and insufficient carriages during peak periods.

One passenger complained: "It was standing room only to Thirroul today. And it is likely to get worse, as Mondays and Fridays are usually the quieter commuting days. How dare you treat us like livestock.

"It doesn't take a maths genius to figure out that if you cancel a train the commuters don't just disappear."

Another said: "Why does the 18.05 Bankstown train from Central only have six carriages when all other trains seem to have eight? For several weeks this train has been very crowded - we feel like animals."

The new CityRail timetable was designed to improve reliability by slowing travel times, cutting the number of services and changing the definition of "on time" to within five minutes of the scheduled time.

The documents reveal:

- Complaints about services went from 144 a month in 2004-05 to 291 a month in 2005-06. Overcrowding jumped from 2 per cent of all complaints to 18 per cent.

- More than a quarter of overcrowding problems stem from "short consists", where trains leave with fewer carriages than they should have according to the timetable.

- Most complaints are about the Central Coast/Newcastle, the Blue Mountains and the main western lines.

- Complaints have risen for all areas of service, including journey times, frequency of trains and changes to services.

An analysis of the complaints since the new timetable came in found the worst services on the network are the 3.15pm six-carriage train from Sydney to Newcastle and the 4.23pm four-carriage train from Central to Mount Victoria. Most complaints are about inter-city lines which use four or six carriages - rather than the maximum of eight - and suburban services without air-conditioning.

The analysis is based on complaints up to January 2006. The Herald requested an update of overcrowding figures for the past 12 months, but RailCorp said it was not available.

The Transport Minister, John Watkins, tried yesterday to hose down the overcrowding problem. He said the Government had reduced crowding by improving on-time running and encouraging people to spread out across the carriages.

But the RailCorp analysis found overcrowding has doubled and has been the biggest cause of concern among commuters. It says there were 591 overcrowding complaints from September 2005 to January 2006, which were caused by "some sets [being] timetabled to run fewer carriages" and "day-to-day operational requirements, such as carriages unfit for service due to graffiti and urgent maintenance requirements".

The commuter discontent is likely to affect Labor's vote in a range of seats along the worst-affected lines.

[Rich]

Prefaced again by saying that as someone who researches and reports on the transportation sector, while I won't be as dramatic in my post as Daryl, I will say that mass transit entails a set of issues all its own; issues that its proponents seem to pay little attention to. Having spent some of my youth in a county with a much more significant mass transit system than we have here, and then moved to around NYC where the mass transit usage rate is repeatedly among the highest in the nation, I have some personal experience to draw on as well.

The best analogy I can give is the mass transit puts all your eggs in one basket to get them to the car. While it is certainly much easier than having each egg make the trip on its own, any problems or failures will have a massive consequence far beyond the one-by-one method. Now, to counter that, there is no guarantee that a system not based on mass transit will not exhibit the same weakness. Witness the multi-hour congestion on I40 in the winter of 2006 and it is quite clear that we are currently faced with no mass transit and the same potential for calamitous transportation failure. Really, there is no easy solution and those that are pointing to mass transit as a perfect solution are either ignorant or going to make money on the deal.

[MattD]

Ya'know MattD, I was just thinking, you'd probably be extremely happy in one of those honeycombed people contraptions, living in Japan - or Sydney. They accrue value VERY fast, as there are thousands per square mile pushing and shoving for high paying jobs, and they hardly ever go home anyway. NIRVANA!

:sleepy2: Wha? Did DB say something relevant to the discussion? Oh. Never mind. :sleepy1:

[francejamie]

Prefaced again by saying that as someone who researches and reports on the transportation sector, while I won't be as dramatic in my post as Daryl, I will say that mass transit entails a set of issues all its own; issues that its proponents seem to pay little attention to. Having spent some of my youth in a county with a much more significant mass transit system than we have here, and then moved to around NYC where the mass transit usage rate is repeatedly among the highest in the nation, I have some personal experience to draw on as well.

The best analogy I can give is the mass transit puts all your eggs in one basket to get them to the car. While it is certainly much easier than having each egg make the trip on its own, any problems or failures will have a massive consequence far beyond the one-by-one method. Now, to counter that, there is no guarantee that a system not based on mass transit will not exhibit the same weakness. Witness the multi-hour congestion on I40 in the winter of 2006 and it is quite clear that we are currently faced with no mass transit and the same potential for calamitous transportation failure. Really, there is no easy solution and those that are pointing to mass transit as a perfect solution are either ignorant or going to make money on the deal.

It's not perfect, but the benefits way outweigh the negatives with mass transit, in the long run.

[DarylB]

Prefaced again by saying that as someone who researches and reports on the transportation sector, while I won't be as dramatic in my post as Daryl, I will say that mass transit entails a set of issues all its own; issues that its proponents seem to pay little attention to. Having spent some of my youth in a county with a much more significant mass transit system than we have here, and then moved to around NYC where the mass transit usage rate is repeatedly among the highest in the nation, I have some personal experience to draw on as well.

The best analogy I can give is the mass transit puts all your eggs in one basket to get them to the car. While it is certainly much easier than having each egg make the trip on its own, any problems or failures will have a massive consequence far beyond the one-by-one method. Now, to counter that, there is no guarantee that a system not based on mass transit will not exhibit the same weakness. Witness the multi-hour congestion on I40 in the winter of 2006 and it is quite clear that we are currently faced with no mass transit and the same potential for calamitous transportation failure. Really, there is no easy solution and those that are pointing to mass transit as a perfect solution are either ignorant or going to make money on the deal.

It's not perfect, but the benefits way outweigh the negatives with mass transit, in the long run.

Yep, if what you're seeking is to live your life like a frikkin' zombie! Not for me, please, not on my watch. I spent a lot of years trying to protect my freedoms to watch it all pass away with such a frivilous flourish. We are not schools of fish, nor flocks of birds. People want to have freedom to act independently, and to chart their own course. We tend not to do very well when pressed into corners, as any big city in America will attest. Crime rises, depression and suicides skyrocket, drug addiction, dependence on social welfare programs rises, self-reliance plummets - quite simply put, it brings out all the worst qualities in the human species. The very character of people as a species defies this as an answer, and my earlier post concerning the problems of congested living should serve to throw a scare into anyone who loves nature, and cherishes freedom. We've already seen the results of the experiment we all know as socialism, and it not only failed, but failed miserably. Not just once, but everywhere it's been tried. Eastern Europe, Cuba, Africa, Southeast Asia, Russia, South America..... and now it's failing in Western Europe as well, as the economic systems of Europe either collapse or change. Germany had an election that sent its leadership in a more conservative direction....Even that most apocolyptically liberal of socialist constructs has had a change of heart, France. I don't think we really want to try that whole problem child all over again!!!!