I wish I could tell you what was discussed at 7:45 a.m. today, when the Charlotte Chamber’s Land Use committee (a committee of real estate, development and related business people) met with Deputy City Manager Ron Kimble. But I was told I wasn’t welcome.
On the agenda, according to an e-mail last week from Natalie English, the Chamber’s senior vice president for business and education advocacy: “Collin Brown [a lawyer] with K&L Gates will present specific examples of the cumulative impacts of the Post Construction Control Ordinance, the Urban Street Design Guidelines policy and the Proposed Amendment to the Tree Ordinance. Please plan to attend to participate in the discussion with Ron Kimble about how we might affect the impact these ordinances have on economic development, affordable housing and development in our community.”
The post-construction controls ordinance is a water-quality protection measure. The urban street design guidelines (policy, but not embedded into ordinances yet) aim to make city streets walkable and would require more streets and more street trees, among other things. The proposed change to the tree ordinance would strengthen tree-save requirements for commercial property developers.
The Chamber, English told me last week — when she was, in a very friendly and polite way telling me I couldn’t come this morning — is concerned that the proposed tree ordinance changes, on top of the post-construction controls ordinance and the street design guidelines, would “drastically impact the ability to grow the economy.”
The Land Use committee chair, Karla Knotts, is also interim executive director of the Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition (REBIC). REBIC and some members of the Land Use committee had asked the Chamber to oppose the proposed tree ordinance changes.
Clearly, putting more requirements on developers will increase the costs of development and construction. That means what gets built would A) Cost more to buyers, OR B) Mean developers wouldn’t offer as much money to buy land to start with. Both results have been known to occur, depending on the location, the market, etc. But regardless, the marginal difference in building cost isn’t the villain in today’s horrific real estate and building slowdown.
Nor would the real estate market here miraculously revive if only developers could offer product a bit more cheaply, with narrow sidewalks and no street trees, its runoff still allowed to pollute local creeks, and just as many trees being cut down as is allowed today.
Here’s the painful reality, painful to everyone in this area, because none of us likes to see businesses hurting: The developers’ potential customers are losing their jobs, health insurance, and even their homes to foreclosure, or they can’t sell their existing homes. Financing agencies, including banks, are struggling to offer credit because the finance system is full of toxic loans. That’s the problem developers are facing. It isn’t the tree ordinance.