 |
|
costs must be
considered
Whiteville City Councilman Tim Blackmon’s chiding of fellow city council members for denying two proposed housing developments last week had some merit, but there’s another side as well.
Blackmon is correct in saying that a city can get an anti-development reputation and that tax revenue is lost when projects are turned down.
On the other hand, residents should expect their council members to represent their interests when they feel their neighborhoods are threatened. That’s what zoning is for.
In our opinion, city council must take the long view whenever multi-family or subsidized housing is placed near established, single-family dwelling neighborhoods. Developers can present the rosiest of plans when they seek rezoning or conditional use permits, but the fact remains that these projects are usually sold and resold over their life spans. Over time, many fall into disrepair. When that happens, they become blights and crime spots. Surrounding property is devalued.
Blackmon probably recognizes that Whiteville has a tangible shortage of rental properties available in safe neighborhoods. It is a huge need. These developments would indeed help the city grow.
If city council wants to promote smart growth, one option it hasn’t explored in a number of years is annexation. Wide-open tracts of land now near the city would be choice spots for multi-family housing. By adding water and sewer to these areas, interest from developers would be all but guaranteed. Where water and sewer go, so does growth.
Columbus County municipalities are already seeing interest resulting from explosive coastal expansion, so this isn’t an issue just for Whiteville. Each municipality must consider what the costs of new development are and whether new projects are going to be beneficial in the long run or development simply for development’s sake.