This blog,originally founded by Blogger, who is listed in Marquis Who's Who and is a recipient of the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. He holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Friday, February 8, 2013

Boone "AFFORDABLE HOUSING" Task Force Would Drive UP Prices

An excellent editorial by ASU  Freshman Tyler Spaugh in the APPALACHIAN ON LINE

Recommended reading for the Boone Town Council!

 Young Mr Spaugh clearly understands what the "Central Planners" on the Task Force do not. Adding additional requirements and restrictions on what can and can't be built for housing in Boone will push prices UP, not down. If the supply of available housing is increased faster than demand, prices of that housing will come down. If the supply is restricted, demand will force prices up!

Why does Boone want to restrict student housing?
Wouldn't MORE student housing result in lower rental prices for everyone?

19 comments:

Wolf's Head said...

Town of Boone doesn't care about affordable housing.

They are concerned with creating a liberal bastion.

Anonymous said...

Take your advice from an ASU freshman.

Anonymous said...

Take your advice from an ASU freshman.

guy faulkes said...

I concur with the Wolf. The abuses of the town that are made public are only the tip of the iceberg.

Johnny Rico said...

Again, we miss the central crux of the issue - Why is government telling private individuals what they can or cannot build? Hero Dan Soucek tried to address this through doing away with zoning laws, but RINOs wouldn't let him. And we are whining about this now? You've already lost the issue since YOU allow the Boone Town Council to tell YOU what to do.

How do you plan to further service your liberal masters? They already have a hand in ALL your business cradle to grave. If you accept zoning laws then what's the problem with the Boone Town Council telling you what you can or cannot build? You miss the forest for the trees kind of thing.

If you accept metal detectors in the Watauga County Courthouse (being treated like a criminal) then there's not a chance in hell that you'll go against the government telling you what you can or cannot build.

If you accept status quo from the lame Watauga County Commissioners then what's to make the Boone Town Council do anything other than suppress your freedom?

You asked for big brother. He's here now and not going anywhere. YOU ASKED FOR IT. Hope it's distasteful.

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't worry about it. The House just put in constitutional amendment bill to no longer allow ETJ. That will end a lot of building of anything because the town will let go of the water project most likely.

Worried said...

"The House just put in constitutional amendment bill to no longer allow ETJ." Anonymous, where did you hear this?

Anonymous said...

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2013/Bills/House/HTML/H79v0.html

Read the last sentence of the underlined part.

guy faulkes said...

This is excellent news. The people get to decide for themselves. If involuntary annexation is struck down by this amendment, then those that want control of their property by the town could always ask for voluntary annexation. Everyone would be happy except those that wish to control their neighbor against his wishes.

Unfortunately, that is pretty much the point of zoning, is it not?

Anonymous said...

I believe involuntary annexation has already been struck. This says if people want to voluntarily annex, they must have a 2/3 vote in favor (why not a majority). There is one problem with this. If ETJ is struck, this means that Bethel (for example) will be deciding whether the people in Roby Green, for example, get to have an ETJ even if they want to. That's sort of like saying the flip side would be what if people in Roby Green would get to decide if Bethel could still use its land for farming. I think if the people in ETJ want ETJ by majority vote they should be able to have it.

guy faulkes said...

I do not think people should be able to disenfranchise their neighbors with a majority vote. If they want to be annexed, they can achieve town control of their property.

Your example does not reveal that the citizens inside the corporate limits of municipalities are deciding what the subjects in the ETJ can do with their property. Why is Roby Green versus Bethel any different than in town versus the ETJ?

Anonymous said...

Guy. But your argument means that an asphalt plant would get to disenfranchise its neighbors with a majority vote.

Anonymous said...

Here's a thought. Why not simply pass a law that let's every neighborhood, community, whatever out of ETJ if it wants out instead of making them opt in to what they already got.

guy faulkes said...

Disenfranchised means you cannot vote. Ans asphalt plant has nothing to do with this.

You are still disenfranchised if you cannot vote, even if the majority of your neighbors are satisfied to be that way. That is why you cannot simply pass auch a law.

Anonymous said...

"I do not think people should be able to disenfranchise their neighbors with a majority vote."

"Disenfranchised means you cannot vote."

Guy. You cannot argue both these two sentences at the same time. Pick one.

Lynn said...

I agree with Anonymous, and I don't see how anyone living in the ETJ is disenfranchised if you allowed to vote on whether you get to stay in the ETJ or not. It's still majority rule, isn't it.

guy faulkes said...

"
Guy. You cannot argue both these two sentences at the same time. Pick one" - Anonymous

Voting is the individual right of a citizen. Your neighbors should not be able to take it away from you. Focus Lynn and Anonymous, focus.

Anonymous said...

Guy. No one is talking about taking away anyone's vote. The question was whether it should be a simple majority or 2/3. You said "I do not think people should be able to disenfranchise their neighbors with a majority vote." The individual does not have his right to vote taken away just because the majority votes the other way. Why should 1/3 get to decide what is right for 2/3?

guy faulkes said...

Anonymous (HM?), it also does away with the ETJ which was the topic of conversation. The residents of an ETJ are disenfranchised from running for office or voting for the positions that make the laws that effect them.

Focus, if you can.

"Why should 1/3 get to decide what is right for 2/3?" To quote a movie, Is it better to have one tyrant 3,000 miles away or 3,000 tyrants one mile away? I can live with a super majority because if that many people do not like a law, it probably does a significant amount of harm. Laws should be difficult to pass and easy to repeal.

What is good for one person harms another.