Category: REBIC

Buggy whips still gone, but protest petitions survive

Bill that would limit N.C. cities’ power to ban projecting garages passed the N.C. House but not the N.C. Senate. This street in Corpus Christi, Texas, features so-called “snout houses.” Photo: Brett VA, Creative Commons

 It turns out protest petitions did NOT go the way of buggy whips, at least not in the just-ended session of the N.C. General Assembly.

Here’s what I wrote last month: “Protest petitions going the way of buggy whips.” But elected officials are nothing if not predictably unpredictable. As The Charlotte Observer’s Jim Morrill wrote (while I was vacationing at the beach) : “Right to protest zoning changes survives N.C. Legislature.“

The bill that contained the end of protest petitions also contained a variety of other regulatory changes. This one will be of particular concern to environmentalists: As the blog for the Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition put it, “For the next year, local governments are prohibited from adopting any new environmental regulations that exceed state or federal law, unless they do by unanimous vote.”  Here’s a link to that REBIC blog item.

The not-loved-by-planners provision that would limit local government’s ability to regulate the placement of doors, windows and other architectural elements for single-family housing and some multifamily – House Bill 150 – passed the N.C. House but didn’t make it out of the Senate. REBIC notes this bill was its top priority.

Planners had deep concerns that it would ban them from regulating so-called snout houses, in which garages projecting from the front of houses can, in subdivisions of look-alike houses, create the visual image of a street of garages, rather than a street of houses. In addition, a growing number of communities have adopted form-based zoning codes (here’s a link to the Form-Based Codes Institute) which worry less about density or the uses of buildings, giving developers far more flexibility, but which instead concentrate on how well buildings fit in with their surroundings. Architectural design elements play a larger role in a form-based code than in a conventional zoning ordinance.

For a pro-con package on House Bill 150, check out PlanCharlotte.org‘s articles from March: Bill to limit local zoning powers: two views.

N.C. court to counties: ‘Raise taxes, already’

In August,the N.C. Supreme Court threw out Cabarrus County’s adequate public facility ordinance. Here’s the Charlotte Observer article on the ruling: “Ruling favors developers.” You can download a copy of the ruling here, courtesy of Joe Padilla at the Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition (REBIC). 

The ruling is of interest, of course, but as a practical matter APFOs, as they are known, were already virtually dead in North Carolina, as Mae Israel wrote in June for the UNC Charlotte website I run, PlanCharlotte.org. (See “With ordinances dead or in limbo, planners ponder next steps.“)

Under APFOs,  the local government sometimes assessed a fee on development if, for instance, local schools were already overcrowded and the county did not have the money to build new ones, or the planned new schools weren’t yet built. Or the developers would delay building until new schools opened.

Since the ordinances were invented as a way to help counties (and a few municipalities) find some money to pay for the schools, parks, etc., the question arises: How does a fast-growing county like Cabarrus pay for the services its thousands of new residents require? A number of studies have shown that typical suburban-style large-lot subdivisions don’t generally bring in enough property tax revenue to pay for the services they use. (More expensive houses, obviously, produce more property tax revenue, and at some price point the housing will start to pay for itself.)

 It’s unusual to live in a state where developers essentially pay no impact fees. Whether that’s fair or not depends, of course, on what “fair” is. Typically the cost of building, which would include impact fees, is mostly passed on to buyers, although sometimes it can work backwards and affect what developers are willing to pay for the land they buy instead of raising the price point of the houses.

But in opposing both impact fees and the adequate facility ordinances, the state’s Home Builders Association and related lobby groups say it’s more fair to spread the costs around the community rather than imposing them directly on developers and buyers of new houses. The Charlotte Observer article quotes Gary Embler, past president of the Cabarrus County Building Industry Association, who “praised the ruling, saying: ‘Public education is the responsibility of the community at large, not just those building new homes.’ “

The community at large? That would be the general county taxpayers.

The question of which is more fair – impact fees for some or higher taxes for all – a meaty tax policy question. But no one should be surprised if this ruling means property taxes will rise to pay to build more schools, maintain more streets and provide more police and fire services. Did the high court just tell counties to raise taxes and stop whining?

REBIC’s long list of ‘No’s’

Several months back I had coffee with the affable Andy Munn, policy director for the Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition, aka REBIC, the most influential local real estate and development lobbying group. I got the idea that the group, which in the past has had (my words here, not his) a “Just Say No” reputation among local government staffers and environmental and planning activists, might be trying to change its image a bit.

Fast forward to Monday night’s City Council meeting (“Foxx: Be flexible with developers”), where REBIC members were out in force. Mayor Anthony Foxx had put onto the agenda a staff presentation about a cluster of new measures that REBIC doesn’t like:
– the proposed (not yet adopted) stronger tree ordinance.
– the Urban Street Design Guidelines policy (not yet adopted into ordinances and thus, not required of developers, either)
– the post-construction controls ordinance (the only one developers currently must actually follow). Many big guns were in attendance: Bill Daleure of Crosland Inc., Ned Curran of the Bissell Companies, as well as Charlotte Chamber honcho Bob Morgan.

As the Observer editorial board opined this morning (“Don’t let ‘flexible’ morph into ‘gutting’ “) just building cheap isn’t always smart. When you add in the future costs to taxpayers to retrofit and expand your street network/restore polluted streams/mitigate flooding — i.e. millions of dollars — it makes the estimated increment of $1,900 to $2,900 to the cost of new housing (spread over a 30-year mortgage) seem a bit less of a problem.

That said, a city that didn’t look seriously at the combined effects of its regulations on the costs of building would be irresponsible. The point is to look at the big picture and make intelligent choices, as best you can. Further, I hear developers of all types, not just the REBIC types, complain about bureaucratic nightmares dealing with multiple government agencies on complicated plans and technical issues. So complaints about lack of flexibility and/or inconsistencies resonate with me.

But here’s a problem: Even when REBIC has legitimate points it’s virtually impossible to sort them out from the cloud of anti-everything rhetoric it’s been floating for something like 30 years.

I recall a famous scene when then-REBIC executive director Mark Cramer spoke at a City Council debate in 1998 over whether to require developers to build more sidewalks in new subdivisions. Of course REBIC opposed it, because it would force developers to spend more money on subdivisions. (Though I must say I doubt they had to shrink their profit margins.) Cramer, after listening to pleas for good sidewalks on behalf of children, the elderly and people in wheelchairs, noted that sidewalks are good things. But, he added: “You can have too much of a good thing.”

I think REBIC and its close relative, the Chamber’s land use committee, would have more credibility in many of its complaints if it hadn’t, over the years, fought virtually every environmental and growth-management measure proposed by local governments, dating to before the term Smart Growth was even invented.

It’s a long list. It includes: the city bicycle plan, the floodplain ordinance, the stream buffer ordinance, watershed ordinances, the aforementioned sidewalk requirements, a county farmland preservation measure, a pilot project in Huntersville to preserve rural land and efforts a few decades ago to channel the overdevelopment in South Charlotte into other areas by limiting where new sewer lines are built. (That last is a classic planning technique being used all over the country – but not in Charlotte-Mecklenburg. Developer John Crosland Jr. simply got state government to give him permits for private sewer plants and kept on building subdivisions.)

Quite an impressive list of opposition, I’d say. And to be fair I will note that anyone is free to lobby any elected official on anything. When environmental regulations and planning initiatives are gutted or stalled for years, and when city staff is ordered to “compromise with developers” over already-compromised proposals – a tradition staffers hired from other metro areas have told me privately they’re shocked to hear here – it’s elected officials who do that, not REBIC.

Where developer money flows (updated)

At last week’s East Charlotte candidate forum, one question the neighborhood group asked of all City Council candidates was whether they had received a campaign donation from REBIC, the Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition, a powerful lobby of developers and real estate executives. (Technically the campaign donation is from its PAC known by SPAACE.)

Libertarian Travis Wheat, Democrat Darrin Rankin’s wife (who was representing him) and Republicans Matthew Ridenhour and Jaye Rao reported no REBIC donations as of last week. Democrats Patrick Cannon and David Howard and Republicans Edwin Peacock III and Tariq Scott Bokhari all reported receiving a total of $1,000.

Despite the lack of REBIC money, Rankin’s campaign spending reports show campaign contributions from uber-developer John Crosland ($1,000), uber-lobbyist Bailey Patrick Jr. ($100), developer Howard Bissell III (son of Howard “Smokey” Bissell).

Incumbent Democrat Susan Burgess bragged last week at the forum that she had never gotten a REBIC donation, which she attributed to her positions on environmental and other issues. But a close look at her campaign reports shows generous developer money flowing her way. Here’s a sampling (all are developers unless otherwise noted): Clay Grubb $1,000, David Miller $1,000, Stoney Sellars $1,000, construction magnate Luther Cochrane $750, Smokey Bissell $500, real estate lawyer Collin Brown $500, John Crosland $500, Afshin Ghazi $500, David Haggard $500, Fred Klein $500, Al Levine $500, Daniel Levine $500, Todd Mansfield of Crosland $500, Pat Rodgers of Rodgers Builders $500, real estate lawyer Jeff Brown $400, lawyer Bailey Patrick $200, John Collett $250, Jim Dulin $250, David Furman $250, Peter Pappas $250, “unknown” with Childress Klein gave $250, Ned Curran $150.

Update, 3:55 p.m. Tuesday 10/20: Burgess has added a reply in the comments below. Also, be aware other City Council candidates also get developer money. This is NOT a complete list of any candidate’s donors, but just for starters:

– Edwin Peacock III: $1,000 from John Crosland, $450 from Ghazi, and $1,000 each from Al and Daniel Levine.

– Patrick Cannon $1,000 from Crosland, $500 from Clay Grubb, $400 from Stoney Sellars.

– Tariq Bokhari reports $500 from Crosland, and $150 from lawyer Bailey Patrick.

– David Howard: $1,000 from Crosland.

– Andy Dulin (District 6): $500 from Crosland, plus $1,000 each from the Levines.

– Warren Cooksey (District 7): $250 from Crosland, $500 from Joel Randolph (in Sept. 2008).

Read all the donation reports for yourself: Here’s a link. Be aware that the final reports aren’t due until after the election. And it’s sometimes instructive to see who chips in with donations after it’s clear who’ll be in office. Next campaign finance report due Oct. 26. Then nothing more is due until Jan. 29. It’s remarkably handy for keeping the voting public from learning who might have tossed in a big bundle right before election day.

Is landlord “compromise” in jeopardy?

Based on comments at Monday’s City Council meeting and at the Tuesday City Council candidate forum in East Charlotte, I count at least five council members who have indicated they support a landlord registry program as originally proposed by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department: All residential rental property owners would have to register and pay a small fee.

But the Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition lobbied against that proposal, so the City Council committee studying the matter (Democrats Warren Turner and Patsy Kinsey, and Republicans Edwin Peacock and Andy Dulin) ordered a “compromise.” The compromise would register only the worst of the landlords – worst being the ones at the top of the list for criminal activity, etc.

However, council members Turner, James Mitchell, Michael Barnes and Nancy Carter all said they support full registry, not partial. Anthony Foxx did not stake himself out Monday but asked a question in order to elicit the answer that full registration would noticeably reduce the registration fee, as it would be spread over a much larger number of landlords.

Kinsey, who is on the committee that coughed out the compromise, pointed out that the compromise was the only way to get the proposal out of committee, as they were stalemated.
Susan Burgess said at the forum Tuesday she supports full registration.

If Kinsey OR Foxx were to vote for full registration rather than partial, that measure would pass.

But, as Burgess said when I asked her Tuesday about it, 6-5 isn’t a veto-proof vote. Would the mayor veto it? She said she didn’t know.

For those who haven’t checked in on this issue, the police want a way to get problem landlords to the table to talk with police about measures to reduce crime on their properties. Police also want a way to be able to find out who the property owners are. They say it can be difficult to find telephone numbers or responsive people with some out-of-town property owners. Neighborhood activists over the years say the same thing – some property owners really don’t want to be found.

The question is whether it’s worth the hassle of citywide registration to get to the comparatively few landlords causing problems. REBIC and the apartment association don’t think it is. The police originally said it was. (The staff needed for the program would be funded with the fees.) When told to “compromise,” of course, they dutifully complied.

Key fact: The matter comes before the council in November – after the election. So anything can happen.

Job losses at REBIC

I ran into Andy Munn from the Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition at Monday’s City Council meeting, and he confirmed that due to the recession, which has hit real estate and development particularly hard, the REBIC lobbying organization has laid off staff, including Mary Thomsen, the former executive director, and staffer Tim Morgan. Developer and consultant Karla Knotts is acting executive director.

REBIC is funded by dues and donations from member companies and groups, such as the Charlotte Regional Realtor Association, Home Builders Association of Charlotte.

The REBIC home page also notes that City Council on Feb. 9 will make appointments to the Airport Advisory Committee (for a west Charlotte resident), the Keep Charlotte Beautiful committee and the Tree Advisory Commission. The link posted didn’t work. Sorry. Check charmeck.org. (I’m at Mecklenburg County commissioners’ retreat and they’re going through the dismal projections for next year’s budget and need to pay attention.)