Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
/`i <br />fixnds "leaking" into our county to purchase these services. This fallacious argument, <br />which ignores the benefits of the division of labor, is superficially appealing to those, who <br />do not think hard about it. That is why it is used so much in defense of protective tariffs <br />and other impediments to trade. It suggests that, carried to the extreme, the ideal <br />condition would be where everyone lived in a condition of autarky on their independent <br />homesteads, and there was no "leakage" into trade with anyone. Adam Smith wrote the <br />Wealth of Nations in 1776 to counteract what he called these fallacious "mercantilist <br />arguments." Just think of where this argument leads us in this case. Typically retail <br />wages and benefits are lower than the average in most economies, certainly including <br />Orange County; therefore, it is suggested that in the present circumstances of near full <br />employment we should encourage more retail trade which would then reduce the Orange <br />County average. It is a shame that after all this time we have to pay for nonsense like this. <br />Against this background let me raise some specific questions about some points made. <br />that I found unusually strange. <br />p. 3. There will be 200 new residential units in this development. Of what kind? It is <br />well-known that some types of new residential housing bring a net loss to the county; i.e. <br />those where induced expenditures exceed tax revenues. We are told this will be "minor". <br />Why not say how much? <br />p. 4. This project is said to reduce "out-commuting" and clogged roads. Has this <br />projection been thought through at all? What commuters to Raleigh, Durham or RTP will (, <br />give up their jobs to work in retail at BV? And how many of these commuters do their <br />shopping on the way home and can be expected to change these habits by driving to <br />Buckhorn? .And the success of this project will depend supposedly on "destination <br />shopping" which with several thousand cars a day will surely add to, rather than reduce, <br />clogged roads and air pollution (note we have had code orange days already this year). <br />This is also presented as a "shop locally" project. But how many residents of <br />Hillsborough, Carrboro, and Chapel Hill can reasonably be expected to drive to Mebane <br />for products that are abundantly available now in shops close by. Many of the <br />generalizations on this page I found are either wrong or unsupported. The relationship <br />between residential and commercial and industrial development cannot be so simply <br />described as it is here. Some parts of the former development (think of a $2m home with <br />two elderly people - no schools, no crime, no pollution) have very positive fiscal impact, <br />while some of the latter have a very negative'one (think of an asphalt plant). You simply <br />cannot generalize. , <br />p. 5. The sloppy presentation of material in this report makes any reader suspect that it <br />was not taken seriously by the anonymous author. Let me offer just two examples on this <br />page "once fully development" "within the probably annexation area". The NC State <br />study was prepared "for Background Information." What does this mean? Whose <br />background? Who paid for it? <br />pp. 9-19. To cut things short, here are three areas where I find this report especially ,( <br />deficient. <br />2 <br />