Re: "Amendment would allow the CAFOs closer to some homes"
- From: Ann <nntpmail@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 05:54:39 GMT
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 22:23:39 -0400, Jim wrote:
Ann wrote:<etc>
Look up state-to-state migration. The Census Bureau did a report
covering 1995-2000 and it's now included in their more frequent
American Community Survey. Also, government reports on job prospects
in individual states. NC is high on the list for net in-migration, but
not at the top. Since furniture and textile manufacturing tanked, the
state has been transitioning to a service economy. But, interestingly,
from 1005 to 2005, 64% of the people moving to NC were over age 60. So,
while you probably can blame newcomers for cluster housing, you can't
blame them for over-flowing schools.
this report is in error...
furniture and textile manufacturing did not tank.
It did in NC.
moving to a new location as a result of greedy management
is not the same as "tanked" or going bankrupt as in out of business.
We define "tanked" little differently then. I don't interpret it as
necessarily fatal.
it was moved to china
[NAFT] so double chin weasels could increase their profits. the
textile industry was moved from NJ
What textile business in NJ? It was primarily in the New England
states.
when those guy-0-mites arrived they said they were from NJ. so you
think they were just trying to make NJ look bad?
Again, what company did they work for?
to NC so the double chin weasels could escape the high cost of labor
unions. the over 60 group are locating in resort areas of the state
and not wake county. the need for new schools in wake county is a
direct result of newcomers and their children.
The reports I looked at were, as stated, for NC as a whole. But I've
now located one (Growth 2005) that says "Wake County is becoming more
affluent, more educated, and older." Also, that in 1985-86 15.89% of
the population were students in Wake County schools and in 2004-05
15.85% were. It goes without saying that when the school age population
increases, more schools are needed.
the above has merit.
But the "newcomers" actually include
a slightly lower percentage of school age children than the "native"
population did.
this is bS with a big S.
Those percentages are based on the student/population numbers given in a
WCPSS* report. The quote is from the same report, "Wake County
Demographics - Growth and Diversity"
*Wake County Public School System
<...>
What about the parts of NC where the textile and furniture factories
closed? Did their RE taxes go down as a result of negative growth?
those counties are to the west of my location and I have little
knowledge of their tax rate other than knowing wake county up until
about 2 years ago had the lowest tax rate in the state.
Which could have been mostly because housing in WC has a high FMV.
<...>
You do have a choice. Your government's reduced RE tax on ag use
land enables you to continue farming. The Right-to-Farm law protects
you against nuisance lawsuits.
not so.
You have in the past and are currently benefiting.
not really and the explanation is related to the economics of the small
farm. search up some data on the number of small farms gone bankrupt
bust, "tanked". my choice is to pour the funds into the farm in order
to maintain the ag land use rather than give it to a bunch of double
chin newcomer loving scalawag government officials who would in turn
give it to a bunch of newcomer guy-0-mites in return for their having
selected wake county as the site for a future guy-0-mite facility. some
have said I've managed to maintain a no cost, as in out of pocket
expense for the county, conservation easement.
But ... would you have been able to do that paying RE taxes based on the
FMV of your land? Also, when any category of land owner (you, Dell,
churches, etc.) gets a RE tax break, other tax payers do have to make up
the shortfall.
the county government has already demo'ed their ability to take
this land and put a school on it.
No, they haven't ... unless there is a school on your land that you
haven't mentioned.
Ann, that negotiation was at the point where the county had made it most
clear how they were going to take the land. they were the bat, I was
the ball, they were the windshield, I was the bug, they are the county
government and I'm the tax paying module. I learned my place in the
scope of things.
I was spared only in the 11th hour by a man with more land located close
by who begged the county to buy his land, he even said out loud how
their first offer of 45,000 an acre was most generous and quiet
acceptable.
Had it gotten to the point where you said no, you wouldn't sell
voluntarily at any price and they had filed whatever needs to be filed to
start condemnation proceedings?
right now eastern wake government
weasels have found out they can qualify for federal assistance to
develop an airport. guess who's on the short list... two weeks ago
I got the letter from the county concerning the water and sewage
lines currently in the planning stages. the letter was cute and a
simple translation from city-speak made it clear how the surveyors
could go anywhere they wanted, toss their snacky cake wrappers and
drink cans down where ever, trample over whatever and were and are
protected by state law giving to them these rights. I am not to
impede their work in anyway or manner.
That's standard stuff. At least they notified you ahead of time. As
for the airport, since your land is only about 5% of what they need,
taking it would be incidental to acquisition of the primary site(s).
They narrowed it down to three locations in June:
http://www.newsobserver.com/print/saturday/business/story/606183.html
go back and read again this article and note the statement of how the
government will condemn the lands of all the people effected if so
required.
Reread what I wrote ... "taking it [your property} would be incidental
...." You had written "guess who's on the short list", which I took to
imply that your land is targeted. According to the article, the one
Wendell site that's being considered is an old airport. Unless there is
more than one old airport in Wendell, you should have a pretty good idea
whether you land falls within the 460 acres they need or not.
<...>
And the development has provided potential customers for your
landscape business.
no.
Then you refuse to work for anyone who you identify as a "newcomer" as
a customer? Who does that leave?
are you trying to say there are significantly more newcomers than
locals? <g>
No. Read my next sentence in the paragraph.
(I can't imagine any farmers here
hiring a landscaper to weed/feed/mow their lawns.)
I've never really thought of a landscaper as being one who mows lawns.
but it's just wording so lets not digress.
OK, so I "upscaled" your job title some. <g> Iirc, lawn/grass work is
what you have mentioned about it in posts to m.r.
<...>
yea, run off like a beat puppy and become an immigrant newcomer. NOT!
A smart puppy with some gumption would do just that.
you think that thought train has contributed to the fact of how there
are an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in america? so,
there're not illegal immigrants, there're smart puppies. <g>
What does illegal immigration from outside the U.S. have to do with it?
I didn't suggest sneaking across the border into Canada as an option.
What you can't do is require others to adapt to your preferences.
that's right, however it's prefectly ok for them to require me to
adapt to their preferences.
They can't require you to live in a McMansion any more than you can
require them to live in double-wides.
it's not about what you live in but rather it is about what you are
being forced to accept and live with.
You're NOT being forced to "live with" the newcomers.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- "Amendment would allow the CAFOs closer to some homes"
- From: Ann
- Re: "Amendment would allow the CAFOs closer to some homes"
- From: Jim
- Re: "Amendment would allow the CAFOs closer to some homes"
- From: FarmI
- Re: "Amendment would allow the CAFOs closer to some homes"
- From: Jim
- Re: "Amendment would allow the CAFOs closer to some homes"
- From: Ann
- Re: "Amendment would allow the CAFOs closer to some homes"
- From: Jim
- Re: "Amendment would allow the CAFOs closer to some homes"
- From: Ann
- Re: "Amendment would allow the CAFOs closer to some homes"
- From: Jim
- "Amendment would allow the CAFOs closer to some homes"
- Prev by Date: Re: Disillusionment Of A Tree Grower
- Next by Date: Re: "Right to Dry"
- Previous by thread: Re: "Amendment would allow the CAFOs closer to some homes"
- Next by thread: Re: "Amendment would allow the CAFOs closer to some homes"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|