Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 64

Thread: The Upstate

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    GVL
    Posts
    4,363

    Default

    Now alot of people can harness technology and work from home especially in the tech sector..I wonder how many people are moving here because it really doesn't matter where they live if they can work from home? $500K doesn't buy jack shit in California anymore, but it will buy you a good bit of house in SC, GA, or NC. I mean are these people moving here for jobs?
    At least I'm housebroken.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Wateree, South Carolina
    Posts
    48,812

    Default

    Greenville becoming Charlotte.
    Cheap living for retirees.
    Everyone wants what we had. Now we don't have much of IT anymore...

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    GVL
    Posts
    4,363

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JABIII View Post
    Greenville becoming Charlotte.
    Cheap living for retirees.
    Everyone wants what we had. Now we don't have much of IT anymore...
    yup
    At least I'm housebroken.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Spartanburg
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    Yankees coming for everywhere.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    'Down in the Holler', SC
    Posts
    14,556

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Duck Nitz View Post
    Now alot of people can harness technology and work from home especially in the tech sector..I wonder how many people are moving here because it really doesn't matter where they live if they can work from home? $500K doesn't buy jack shit in California anymore, but it will buy you a good bit of house in SC, GA, or NC. I mean are these people moving here for jobs?
    The people I've talked to indicate it's a combination of jobs (here or remote) and retirement. One nice thing is that a number from the NE have said they were trying to escape the 'crazy D's' up there and are happy to see the more Conservative opinions, etc, down here, and hope to keep it that way. Time will tell.

    At least Anderson County is trying to put together a more restrictive development standard so that large tracts of land don't just get wiped clean and houses plopped on every square foot. They last rendition I reviewed included something like 35% green space, and allowed smaller lots to compensate. Hopefully it goes through and gets implemented.
    .
    Foothills Golden Retriever Rescue
    .
    "Keep your powder dry, Boys!"
    ~ George Washington

    "If I understood everything I said I'd be a genius." ~ 'Unknown'

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WoodieSC View Post
    The people I've talked to indicate it's a combination of jobs (here or remote) and retirement. One nice thing is that a number from the NE have said they were trying to escape the 'crazy D's' up there and are happy to see the more Conservative opinions, etc, down here, and hope to keep it that way. Time will tell.

    At least Anderson County is trying to put together a more restrictive development standard so that large tracts of land don't just get wiped clean and houses plopped on every square foot. They last rendition I reviewed included something like 35% green space, and allowed smaller lots to compensate. Hopefully it goes through and gets implemented.
    Anderson does not have a handle on development. The city annexes at will. What good does 35% green space do if you still pack in 5+ houses per acre. Schools will still be overcrowded, traffic will still get worse on roads without right of way for improvement, EMS still cannot handle the growth. Infrastructure is a second thought to growth and a bigger tax base.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    13,499

    Default

    These developers slam these houses any place they can and the city is left holding the bag to bring schools, roads, infrastructure etc to where they can sustain pretty much destroying what tax revenue was brought in. So they will simply tax their residents more
    "They are who we thought they were"

    You can dress a fat chick up, but you cant fix stupid

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    49,827

    Default

    So you’re in favor of the “infrastructure fees” the school districts are putting in place. Got it.

    $28,000 for a building permit…..

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Columbia
    Posts
    9,142

    Default

    What is the rationale for ME having to pay for a building permit to allow ME to pay to build a house on land that I own?
    Them that don't know him won't like him, and them that do sometimes won't know how to take him

    He ain't wrong, he's just different, and his pride won't let him do things to make you think he's right

    They don't put Championship rings on smooth hands

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    'Down in the Holler', SC
    Posts
    14,556

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tailwalkin79 View Post
    Anderson does not have a handle on development. The city annexes at will. What good does 35% green space do if you still pack in 5+ houses per acre. Schools will still be overcrowded, traffic will still get worse on roads without right of way for improvement, EMS still cannot handle the growth. Infrastructure is a second thought to growth and a bigger tax base.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I never said anyone had a handle on development. The city is the worst, for sure, with nothing in mind other than annexing what they can and shoving houses on the land. And then the rest of us are buried in new taxes, particularly school taxes since that makes up about 70% of the tax bills.

    As for the county, I've said for years that they needed to put a clamp on things, and that developers ought to be charged for the higher infrastructure costs that any increase in the tax base won't cover, but nobody has listened.

    I told a meeting of development, planning, and Chamber of Commerce officials back about 15 years ago that they'd better start figuring out what the maximum optimal carrying capacity of the Upstate Counties was and figure out how to limit growth to stay within those control levels. The room looked at me like I was from some alien planet. It was obvious either none of them cared, or didn't understand how period costs of infrastructure doesn't go away once they get forced into increasing everything.

    The key issue is, and I understand it, that you can't tell a landowner he/she can't sell their property. And you can't legally restrict a devaluation of that property by putting hard restrictions on it. So, basically, we're getting cocked by the landowners who don't give damn after they walk away with the big checks, just like the developers.

    Oh, and, yes, I would rather see 35% green space and 5 smaller houses on an acre, than stripped fields with 2-3 larger houses per acre, etc, etc. IF we're going to have the extra bodies shoved down our throats, at least the area should be pleasant to look at vs bare fields with box houses on them that take 20 years to green up.
    Last edited by WoodieSC; 03-05-2022 at 04:14 PM.
    .
    Foothills Golden Retriever Rescue
    .
    "Keep your powder dry, Boys!"
    ~ George Washington

    "If I understood everything I said I'd be a genius." ~ 'Unknown'

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Spartanburg
    Posts
    49,653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trkykilr View Post
    What is the rationale for ME having to pay for a building permit to allow ME to pay to build a house on land that I own?
    Because we are citizens of a country and state ran by the mafia. The Dons always get their cut.

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    'Down in the Holler', SC
    Posts
    14,556

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trkykilr View Post
    What is the rationale for ME having to pay for a building permit to allow ME to pay to build a house on land that I own?
    Other than what Glenn has posed, you're paying for the Planning and Building & Permits Department personnel, including the 'free' inspectors who come out to make sure you're building things that meet the codes, et al. I'd guess that if you had to pay for private inspectors to come out to verify your construction that the total costs would probably be higher than the permit costs... no? Just guessing since it's been 27 years since I had our place built so I don't recall all of the costs involved.
    .
    Foothills Golden Retriever Rescue
    .
    "Keep your powder dry, Boys!"
    ~ George Washington

    "If I understood everything I said I'd be a genius." ~ 'Unknown'

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WoodieSC View Post
    I never said anyone had a handle on development. The city is the worst, for sure, with nothing in mind other than annexing what they can and shoving houses on the land. And then the rest of us are buried in new taxes, particularly school taxes since that makes up about 70% of the tax bills.

    As for the county, I've said for years that they needed to put a clamp on things, and that developers ought to be charged for the higher infrastructure costs that any increase in the tax base won't cover, but nobody has listened.

    I told a meeting of development, planning, and Chamber of Commerce officials back about 15 years ago that they'd better start figuring out what the maximum optimal carrying capacity of the Upstate Counties was and figure out how to limit growth to stay within those control levels. The room looked at me like I was from some alien planet. It was obvious either none of them cared, or didn't understand how period costs of infrastructure doesn't go away once they get forced into increasing everything.

    The key issue is, and I understand it, that you can't tell a landowner he/she can't sell their property. And you can't legally restrict a devaluation of that property by putting hard restrictions on it. So, basically, we're getting cocked by the landowners who don't give damn after they walk away with the big checks, just like the developers.

    Oh, and, yes, I would rather see 35% green space and 5 smaller houses on an acre, than stripped fields with 2-3 larger houses per acre, etc, etc. IF we're going to have the extra bodies shoved down our throats, at least the area should be pleasant to look at vs bare fields with box houses on them that take 20 years to green up.
    35% green space is a dangling carrot. The council/planners do not have to approve the mass developments at 5+ homes an acre, but we accept it because it’s going to have green space. In the end, a developer develops, that’s what they do, it’s up to the powers that be to develop an area in a manner that will allow traffic flow, proper classroom sizes, EMS reaction times etc..


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    'Down in the Holler', SC
    Posts
    14,556

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tailwalkin79 View Post
    35% green space is a dangling carrot. The council/planners do not have to approve the mass developments at 5+ homes an acre, but we accept it because it’s going to have green space. In the end, a developer develops, that’s what they do, it’s up to the powers that be to develop an area in a manner that will allow traffic flow, proper classroom sizes, EMS reaction times etc..


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I don't disagree, but it seems like you just want to pick on any point to argue about. And I only used the '5 houses per acre' example because that's what you said. I didn't say I prefer it. Personally, I'd like to see a minimum of 2-3 acres or more per house, like our neighborhood, but that's not normally going to happen unless there's no sewer hookups.

    So what are you actually doing to get your arguments across to the cities and counties, other than arguing on the Internet?
    Last edited by WoodieSC; 03-05-2022 at 08:41 PM.
    .
    Foothills Golden Retriever Rescue
    .
    "Keep your powder dry, Boys!"
    ~ George Washington

    "If I understood everything I said I'd be a genius." ~ 'Unknown'

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WoodieSC View Post
    I don't disagree, but it seems like you just want to pick on any point to argue about. And I only used the '5 houses per acre' example because that's what you said. I didn't say I prefer it. Personally, I'd like to see a minimum of 2-3 acres or more per house, like our neighborhood, but that's not normally going to happen unless there's no sewer hookups.

    So what are you actually doing to get your arguments across to the cities and counties, other than arguing on the Internet?
    Yeah I got drawn in on this with you against my better judgement, I should have known better. To answer your question i wrote the planning commission and then stood in front of the city council and emailed them on the recent development on Midway and Crestview.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    13,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tater View Post
    So you’re in favor of the “infrastructure fees” the school districts are putting in place. Got it.

    $28,000 for a building permit…..
    Negative
    "They are who we thought they were"

    You can dress a fat chick up, but you cant fix stupid

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    3,374

    Default

    Developer buy the cheapest land they can get and cram as many houses on it as allowed by code. That is how they make money. Then walk away. They build a 500 home trac and should have to also build an elementary school and provide water and sewer. OR the citizens can provide those things if the tax base on the new tract will support it. But that is only a plan.
    Last edited by centurian; 03-05-2022 at 10:30 PM.

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,500

    Default

    Happening all over the state. Pageland Town Council just voted to annex a piece of property for Ryan Homes to be on town water and sewage. Putting 400 homes on it and commercial building for three different business's on 601.

  19. #39
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    201

    Default

    Woodie, careful on the 35% open space and smaller lots. By allowing the developer to create a cluster development it increases their net density and lowers the infrastructure cost/lot making it easier for them to develop any piece of land. Also, smaller lots bring the small lot demographic, which typically has a mindset which does not jive with most members on here.

    Not picking a fight, or trying to marginalize the increase in open space. Just want to make sure your thinking about the unintended consequences of that increase in open space.

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Fountain Out
    Posts
    28,445

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JABIII View Post
    Damn at the bare dirt and I don't mean farmland...
    I first noticed it a couple years ago on a flight from ATL into GSP. The raw, red dirt is overwhelming on this side of the state line.

    Quote Originally Posted by BCR3 View Post
    Yessir it's awful! Trying to figure out now what the happy medium would be. Woodruff, Fountain Inn, Gray Court, hell maybe Landrum? Crazy what it's come to around here.
    Keep your moondog ass in Mauldin. Fountain Inn is full.
    I don't need my name in the marquee lights....

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •