Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:56:42 -0500
From: Tom Glendinning
Subject: poverty IS a big issue in Chatham County
Jo Anne:
Thank you for your post on poverty. I used to take the view against which
you argue, but now have a more educated one.
The county boasts a poverty level under 5 %. However, Siler City has 14.7 %! Such a disparity is disgracing. It would appear that the new residents in the east abide by the old social and political east-west division in Chatham, forgetting that we have a part of the county, which needs attention and economic development.
The words “affordable” and “housing” should not be used in the same sentence. With bank lending ratios being raised to an embarrassing height, many can “afford” to borrow for a home, yet bankruptcies and foreclosures are at record levels, recalling 1929 for comparison.
The disappearance of the core industries in Siler City is the main factor. Chatham EDC has not produced any replacements for these, nor has it done due diligence to find replacements. Surely, this organization can equal the efforts of one man, Wade Barber, Sr., who, effectively, brought industries to Moncure. Or those of his so-in-law, Ed Holmes, who introduced the 3M mining operation to Chatham. The only remaining assets of the prosperity Chatham enjoyed during the 1950’s and 1960’s are agriculture and a willing workforce. We presently export 60 % of our workforce outside the county as well as a high portion of expendable income for goods purchased.
Since we are replacing taxable industrial/commercial property with residential, the tax revenues appear to be fine, except that costs of services increase with residential development and not with industry, commerce and agriculture. Tax revenues are growing in Chatham nicely in the past few years, roughly fifty percent, as are the jobs in county government.
So, as a policy, a certain level of poverty would seem acceptable on the county balance sheet. Unfortunately, we have no jobs in which to place the unemployed or for which to retrain them within our boundaries. Openings in building are jobs, for sure, but they will last only as long as the building boom. Ideally, these will be replaced with service positions for the new residences. Service sector jobs are lower paying then ones in industry and development. They often do not carry the same benefit packages. The gap between wealthy and poor increases again.
So, again, we have set a course in a decade or so to lower income and force a shift in employment which does not build a sustainable county economy to its previous level of revenue to cost of services ratio. A thorny problem for economic planners. We are, thus, set to increase taxes on property without relief for our tax rate and workforce.
These statements are not meant to malign the fine developments now being built. They are well planned and will be well-executed, fine assets to Chatham, like the first PUD, Fearrington.
What I would ask is a focused, dedicated and enabled effort to promote jobs in industry, of any kind, for reliable, reputable and lasting industries, which are willing to move to Chatham. As far as the designer requirements of one type or the other on these new industries, I would ask that all the environmental, social and political problems that exist be repaired first. Set the bar for new things by example, not by capricious, exclusive standards levied by those who enjoy the fruits of success and wealth without consideration for those who built Chatham in the first place.
The situation is akin to the fate of two pieces of wood on belts in a lumber mill. One is on the line to produce a fine piece if lumber for a cabinet or a table. The other is on the line for the chipper and will be rejected, burned or thrown in the trash heap. In a short time, these sisters from the same tree will be separated permanently.