Raleigh and Statistical Area Population

The NCGA’s restrictions on involuntary annexation aren’t really the issue. Increasingly Raleigh is “hemmed in” by inter-municipal agreements for ETJ boundaries. Most of the open lands being developed fall on the other side of those boundaries. Going north from 540, the density is held artificially low in order to protect the Falls Lake watershed. No municipality wants to annex that area.

So for Raleigh, significant growth requires increasing density within the existing jurisdiction. While many developers are willing to undertake that, many other developers are happy to build outside Raleigh’s reach.

The July 1, 2018 Census numbers just released show another small decline in the percentage of Wake County residents that live in Raleigh. This has been going on for decades. You’ll know that Raleigh’s campaign to densify has taken hold if the percentage starts going up.

2 Likes

I think this might be the next area of Raleigh to experience explosive growth, particularly if/when six forks is connected to hodges/capital.

1 Like

North of I 540, the development has been restricted by the Falls Lake watershed. In the watershed, a Raleigh drinking water supply, subdivisions were required to have 2 acre lots minimum & utilize septic tank systems. These subdivisions are not viable for annexation because of the extremely sparse development for many square miles surrounding the lake. Some subdivisions may use open space as a way to develop denser lot development, but the open space + lots = the same amount of land. Not a candidate for annexation up there. Raleigh is land locked by Falls & Lake Wheeler watersheds + Cary, Durham, Holly Springs, Fuquay Varina, Wake Forest, Rolesville, Knightdale and Garner ETJ. Southeast and northeast are the only directions Raleigh could expand it’s growth boundaries.

1 Like

I think that the ETJ for Raleigh would allow the city to become ~200 sq miles in total. That means that there’s 50+ square miles on the table that is nearly impossible to annex in total. If we consider that those 50 square miles can easily hold 3000 residents each, that’s a potential 150,000 people that aren’t/won’t be living in housing that pays city property taxes, not to mention all of the other taxes generated by other development.
In fact, the annexation restrictions by the NCGA are a big deal.

5 Likes

It’s a good bit more complicated than that. First, the prevailing density on the fringes of Raleigh is less than 2000 per square mile – and that matters, because of a lot of that ETJ is already built out. But it was built out with private utilities that the City doesn’t want to take responsibility for. Indeed, the City had the opportunity to annex many of these involuntarily before the NCGA took away the power. The City just didn’t want to.

Then you have to look at how much of the ETJ that isn’t already developed could actually be developed. In the northeast, you’ve got land that is constrained by buffers for the Neuse River. Some of it is the I-540 corridor. Some of it is unusable for anything (the emergency landfill that’s still full of debris from Hurricanes Floyd and Fran). Some of it is park land (Horseshoe Farm). In the southeast, some of it is the flood-prone Walnut Creek basin. In the south, some of it is state-owned.

And even some of the doughnut holes have a reason for being, such as the quarry off of Duraleigh Road. It’ll never be used for anything else except possibly storm runoff storage.

So to my calculations you’re looking at a relatively small fraction of the current Raleigh population that is acquirable from a practical point of view.

3 Likes

First of all, it’s actually a bit more complicated than what you layout as well. Densities might be lower in some of these areas now, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t be re-developed into something more dense. Frankly, as land values increase, there’s going to be a price for land and/or development of that land that an owner can’t resist. Maximizing land value will likely depend on being in the city. It might not be current owners of property, but it surely can be their heirs, and all that extra land value will have occurred because of the city and while they weren’t paying city taxes. If Raleigh stays a hot market over many year, it will slowly annex land when someone can make big $$$.
Secondly, the city may not have been ready to annex land for its own sake at the time before the NCGA made the rule change. Why would a city want to annex land before it was ready to manage it with services? A city is accountable for making the best decisions possible for its residents each year. While they certainly are prone to mistakes (they are humans after all), they certainly have to weigh the pros and cons of annexation when they were allowed to annex at will. They were playing by the rules, obviously not being overly aggressive, and then had the rug pulled out from under them. Certainly there were disgruntled owners who didn’t want to be taxed who felt that they were being too aggressive, but let’s be real, it’s not like Raleigh ever pulled a Charlotte, or a Nashville, or a Louisville, etc. when it came to land grabbing.
What the law change did do was allow property owners to enjoy many aspects of a city and not pay taxes for it for as long as they choose not to do so. I think that’s essentially unfair. Certainly there will be services that they don’t get, or have to pay extra to enjoy, but non municipal residents are not prevented from driving on city streets, enjoy city parks, etc. If there’s not a fee associated with a city provided resource or service, and a non municipal resident enjoys them, then they are being subsidized by others.

4 Likes

Most of the built-out Raleigh ETJ is single family homes from 1975 or on. A good portion of them are from 1990 on. Good luck getting those contiguous individual land owners to sell out to a developer. And from a developer’s perspective, they would pay a big premium to acquire those homes for tear-down/rebuild purposes. Much more profit can be made by gentrifying ITB. It will be a long time before ITB is fully gentrified.

The argument that residents of unincorporated Wake County enjoy the benefits of a thriving metropolitan area without paying for all of them has some merit. But bear in mind that the essential services provided by municipalities in Wake County (police, fire, garbage, etc) do, in fact, end at the city limits in most instances.

Less than 10% of the Wake County population lives in the unincorporated areas. Of course, they pay the same sales tax that everyone else does. If you were to raise their property taxes to the same level that municipal residents pay, it’s not going to generate a massive amount of money. Furthermore, every municipality would want a share of that incremental money… it wouldn’t all go to Raleigh. Cary. for example, would make the same argument that you’re making on behalf of Raleigh.

As for whether Cary residents are free-loading off of Raleigh, that’s a dead-on-arrival argument in terms of politics. The solution to that is 100% municipal and county consolidation within the borders of Wake County. Ain’t gonna happen.

2 Likes

There is something fundamentally very different about a Cary resident coming to Raleigh, or vice versa, to enjoy city provided amenities, than someone who is completely surrounded by a city that they must engage daily to go about their lives. It’s a false equivalency.
There are nearly 200,000 people in Wake that are unincorporated. That’s a lot more than 10% of the population.
Yes. We all pay sales taxes. What does that have to do with this debate?

2 Likes

I see it as a discussion not a debate.

I agree that there is merit in eliminating “doughnut holes” to the extent it’s possible. Every doughnut hole has a story. Raleigh was riddled with them when I moved here in 1986, so it’s not a recent phenomenon. There are even several doughnut holes ITB.

As for people living in unincorporated areas, however, I still wouldn’t assume that they rip off Raleigh. They’re just as likely to be working in some other municipality (e.g. Cary) or the airport or RTP. Likewise entertainment. And remember that the principal roads and highways everywhere in the State are maintained by NCDOT, not the counties or municipalities.

The sales tax is relevant. A portion of sales taxes collected by NCDOR does, in fact, flow through to municipalities in Wake County. In the case of the City of Raleigh, this flow-through constitutes 21% of the income in the City’s General Fund or roughly $100 million a year… a non-trivial amount. Note that this flow-through into the Raleigh General Fund originates from sales everywhere in the County, not just at cash registers inside the City limits or the ETJ. There’a s formula by which the State and County dole out the money to each municipality, but Raleigh gets the lion’s share.

3 Likes

You are completely correct in your assessments as I have had these same debates about forced annexations some months ago. Raleigh rarely did forced annexations prior to the law changing. It’s not logical to assume that they would be doing them now even if the law had not changed. It would be very costly to run city services to large lot neighborhoods with low density. It would basically result in a net loss of revenue for Raleigh. And, of course, all those people you forced annexed into the city limits would automatically be voters that would be against the current council members.

1 Like

Here’s an email that I just sent to the mayor and council.

Dear Mayor McFarlane & Members of the Raleigh City Council,

Last week, the Census reported that the city of Raleigh grew by 3,774 in the year prior to July 1, 2018. The year prior, the growth was 6,330. Prior to that year, the growth was 9,767. In fact, every year for the last 5 years, the population growth of the city has slowed to what is now a trickle of its former self. I can’t remember a year when the city grew more slowly than in 2018. Can you?

As the anchor city of Wake County, the Raleigh MSA and the entire Triangle area, it’s alarming to me to watch the city yield growth to the sprawling suburbs at the very time that more people and more business is looking inward to core cities. The city’s growth rate is also now under the growth rate of the state as a whole, and it surely doesn’t hold a candle to the growth happening in our greater Wake and Triangle communities. Even Durham city added more people than Raleigh! When has that ever happened in our collective memories?

As a Raleigh property tax payer, I am becoming increasingly concerned that our city’s sprawling development model of the 1960s-2000 is going to come back to haunt us financially. We watched our infrastructure expand and our residential density decrease decade after decade after decade. As this suburban infrastructure continues to age, it’s going to become more costly to maintain until it ultimately needs to be replaced. With a rapidly slowing growth rate, I’m extremely concerned that the funds won’t be there unless we have a massive escalation of our city property tax rates. Imagine how an action like that will impact growth in the future? Let’s face it, the suburban areas alone cannot possibly afford their ongoing infrastructure costs. This is why I implore you to take our rapidly slowing growth seriously. Just graph the growth rate and actual numbers over this decade and watch it collapse in front of your eyes.

Now, I understand that the NCGA has done its best to handcuff the growth of cities in the state by making it impossible to annex involuntarily, but it’s not the only way for the city to grow. We can grow more densely and vertically in our city growth centers, especially in our Downtown Regional Center as identified in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Now, I’m not talking going crazy here either. I’m just talking about treating these areas as serious revenue generators for the city’s future. This is especially true of downtown where the most opportunity exists for revenue growth, and where your decisions now can enable that to happen. I’ve been reading that there are several UDO variance requests that will be before the council soon. I implore you to work with each one of them to maximize the revenue and experience potential of those sites. As a homeowner in view of two of these variance requests, I am also supportive of those variances, as they will build neighborhoods that have less reliance on cars. Certainly, more density today will not take all cars off the road, but reducing the amount of car trips in our daily lives beyond our commutes does make a difference. After moving to the center of the city, my miles driven per year were halved.

In the last Census estimate, Raleigh was passed in population by Miami: a city of less than 36 square miles. In fact, Miami added more than twice Raleigh’s growth number in an area that’s 1/4th the size of our city. We can do better. We must do better. We must think about our future and how we will respond to the demands for urban living, working, and playing, while managing our aging infrastructure. Please support the UDO variance requests before you.

26 Likes

I know we’re supposed to just use the heart and emoticons to respond to posts if there isn’t something constructive to add to the thread, but I want to say I love this email to the council. I really hope they read it and digest it. I also kind of wish these variances going in front of the council would hold off until after October 8 and then another hope that we can replace even 2 of the current council members to get some younger and more reasonable minds voting. If a variance request is denied, is there some kind of waiting period before re-requesting or is it dead, never again to be considered?

BTW, I think this comment/question is still valid for this thread as density does impact population obviously.

9 Likes

The track some of these variance requests are taking is very concerning to me. It seems like most DT people want more density. It’s certainly in the best interest of other city and county taxpayers to want more density DT for a heavier tax base. @John your letter is excellent. I wish we could get the word out about how our CC is handling these requests so that it might impact the October election. As I have said before, people just don’t pay much attention to local elections especially in an off year. Unfortunately, I think the litter known as campaign signs actually have an impact on local elections.

6 Likes

Got a response from Stef Mendell. It was an answer-not answer if you ask me. She didn’t commit to supporting the rezoning requests and she didn’t commit to being against them. See below…

Thanks for your email.

Variance requests typically are heard by the City’s Board of Adjustment in a quasi-judicial setting, but perhaps you are referring to rezoning requests that do come before Council.

I agree that more density is appropriate in the downtown area. And we must do what we can to encourage affordable density as well; otherwise the sprawl will continue as many workers will not be able to afford to live near their jobs in our schools, hospitals, restaurants, etc.

I believe we need a variety of housing types across our city and am comfortable that our Comprehensive Plan allows for that in the appropriate places. Furthermore many of us on Council are very interested in doing what we can to support and encourage density, including affordable density, along our transit corridors.

Regards,

Stef

Stef Mendell
Raleigh City Council District E

2 Likes

Just like a true politician, talking out of both sides of the mouth…

I’d like to make the point that while I’m in favor of affordable housing too (tho I think on a public transit line a few miles out might be more effective), until there’s a citywide regulation about affordable housing components in new projects, it’s unfair to only go after developers who request a height zoning variance. Furthermore, it will actually hinder density and do nothing for affordable housing if developers end up just avoiding the variance process and build only the height in the UDO.

8 Likes

So true on all accounts. Maybe that’s what goes into your letter to the council???:wink:

Here’s what I wrote back to Stef Mendell.

Dear Ms. Mendell,
Thank you for your reply. Yes, I am referring to the rezoning requests. I apologize that I used the incorrect terminology; thank you for correcting me. I fully support the rezoning requests as a downtown homeowner to enhance the downtown experience, infuse more revenues into the city’s coffers, and to continue building a community with less reliance on automobiles.
I want to share my perspective as a multifamily housing dweller within the downtown element boundary, since I don’t believe that there’s that actual voice on the city council. Maybe I’m wrong about that?
In any case, here are some links to peruse and a PDF as well that are informative.
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2012/06/could-density-actually-reduce-traffic/2219/
Sprawl Costs the Public More Than Twice as Much as Compact Development – Streetsblog USA
The true costs of suburban sprawl - The Globe and Mail
Regards,
John

I also included this attachment: sci-infrastructure-costing-guide-final.pdf (2.5 MB)

9 Likes

Great job John ! I was able to talk to Stef in person yesterday & I believe that she is having second thoughts about being against the rezoning . JMO !

7 Likes

That’s good news! Keep the letters of support coming y’all. The council needs to hear from you! Thanks for sharing the interaction with Stef.

5 Likes