WeaveGuy,

You've missed the major point here.

But first I would like to mention that I had nothing to do with the changing of STP to the new format–I was merely called and offered this spot. I was never “in charge” of the old STP and I had nothing to do with the new format or design and have no control over the archives. Heck, I'm still tying to figure out how the new format works.

But back to the discussion. The analysis on costs is not flawed.

You state: “This attempt to get people to live on top of stores is not at all the 'current pattern of development' and will require far fewer resources to support than, say, houses out in the sprawl area. The roads are already there, as is the public transportation, fire department, etc., for example.

First: Commercial development generates more tax dollars than residential without requiring as much in services and resources no matter what form the residential development takes.

When you increase residential development you increase population. And a denser population always costs more in services–not just roads and fire protection (which all development requires)– but in mental health services, schools, community centers, recreational facilities and so on.

When you increase commercial development you don't necessarily increase population because workers can be drawn from the existing population (hey remember when everyone was saying it would be nice if Chapel Hill had more jobs available for young people and students without them driving into Durham?). And ideally business owners could also be drawn from the existing population.

And even if all the workers and business owners didn't come from the existing poulation but say from Durham, what this would mean is that Chapel Hill would increase its commercial tax base without increasing its population. And there's nothing wrong with this either because as it is, there are already many people who live in Chapel Hill (for the schools) but who work in Durham and other areas.

Second: The bottom line is. . .if you want to increase the tax base. . . and get more people to shop locally. . .and provide more local jobs so people don't have to commute. . . then you need commercial development not more residential–pretty much common sense.

And once again it should be pointed out that it really doesn't make sense for town leaders to throw lots of money at consultants and economic develpment corporations and economic directors and shop locally campaigns and to bemoan the lack of commercial development and local jobs only to then turn around and push for condos instead of increased commercial development at two already established malls that could use some more stores.