This blog post is closed for comments.

Oldest First
  • TVs_Deceit Dec 3, 2012

    dwntwnboy: ""Who in Raleigh or the State is going to travel to that part of Raleigh to sit on the ground under a tree?" - who is going to go to the other parks around the state?"

    You know who. The people who live in the neighborhood unless it's a State park with camping and/or fishing facilities.

    Do you drive across the city to walk around Shelly Lake? No. You walk to the Dix property because it's in YOUR neighborhood.

    Nobody from Wilmington is going to drive 3 hours to sit in a park. Nobody from North Raleigh's going to drive across town to sit in a park.

    The people in THAT neighborhood are - by far - the only ones that would ever set foot in that park.

    And you expected the Dems to keep control of Government and slide you a taxpayer-funded neighborhood park for years.

    And now 10 years later you're panicking and starting a "fund" after the people of the State of NC voted out your cronies in Government.

    Shame on you for stealing a needed special space for healing the mentally-ill

  • TVs_Deceit Dec 3, 2012

    dwntwnboy - "It will revitalize that corner of downtown and make the homes and businesses around there even more valuable in the tax base."

    No it won't. Not until you run the poor people out too like you did the mentally-ill.

    It's been basically an open park for years already and it hasn't revitalized anything except Boylan Heights where people have been buying up old houses because they expected the Democrats to give them a huge private park at taxpayer expense.

    A income-generating green-focused development with homes and businesses is what's needed to revitalize that area.

    After you finish kicking out the rest of the people you don't want sullying your new liberal enclave.

  • dwntwnboy Dec 3, 2012

    " the main reason we have parks in the mountains and at the coast is because it is IN THE MOUNTAIN AND AT THE COAST"- by some of the comments posted, then the people of the MOUNTAINS and the COAST should pay for those parks then- everyone wants Raleigh citizens to pay. IF Raleigh citizens can't have a park, why should any other part of the state? And yes, a "bunch of oak trees"- we ARE the City of Oaks and the grand old trees at Dix are some of the few left in this city. You can't just go out to Lowes and buy some new 100+yr old trees.

  • gkgreene Dec 3, 2012

    Let me add to comment below about appropriate rental rate. I understand that the State is now seeking proposals from private developors to lease office space to house the staff of this agency. So now the State of NC is not only going to subsidize a city park, the citizens of the state will also have to pay a developer for office space to house the staff (which I imagine will be greater than $500k per year

  • dwntwnboy Dec 3, 2012

    "Who in Raleigh or the State is going to travel to that part of Raleigh to sit on the ground under a tree?"- who is going to go to the other parks around the state? Let's not forget that this property is also a historical site relevant to the Civil War, it is where the Union troops camped when they took the city. Not to mention the fact that a good deal of space can't be built on because it was a dump and the ground isn't stable. Park seems the ideal fit for this particular parcel of land. It will revitalize that corner of downtown and make the homes and businesses around there even more valuable in the tax base.

  • JustAName Dec 3, 2012

    "Why? Why must we sell EVERYTHING? Do you want to sell ALL the parks in the state or just the one in Raleigh? Why can we have big parks in the mountains and at the coast but not in the middle of the state?" - dwntwnboy

    Yes. The government should NOT be landowners. But, the main reason we have parks in the mountains and at the coast is because it is IN THE MOUNTAIN AND AT THE COAST. A bunch of oak trees and a field in the middle of the city is not needed when you already have 200+ parks in that city.

  • dwntwnboy Dec 3, 2012

    "Someone has to reign in this spiteful insane clown lady. She's mad at US because SHE'S incompetent"- this is a deal that was LONG in the works before Bev came into office. To try and blame HER for this is just a sign that people are scared of a woman in power. She didn't start this process but she happens to be the one in the position to get it done. The people of NC subsidize parks all over the state. Why is Raleigh any different? With THAT thinking, we should just sell off all the parks all over the state. Why should residents of the beach or mountains get parks paid for by people in Raleigh? See how silly that whole thought process sounds? It's like being agains a national park at the Grand Canyon because you live in Vermont. It's just an excuse to be "against" something rather than FOR something that is for the good of us all.

  • TVs_Deceit Dec 3, 2012

    NOW they start to come up with a "plan" for "private" funds?

    After nearly 10 years of work to kick the mentally-ill out of their hospital - so that they could have essentially a massive private park for themselves - that the taxpayers all over the State would pay for?

    Apparently the Democrat political elite never expected the citizens of N.C. to vote for fiscal responsibility.

    Who in Raleigh or the State is going to travel to that part of Raleigh to sit on the ground under a tree? Raleigh and North Carolina isn't like New York where no one has a yard.

    You can see now that they've planned all along to have all of North Carolina subsidize their private playground.

    And you can see that they worked to get the State to get rid of the mentally-ill "undesirables" in order to have their private park.

  • gkgreene Dec 3, 2012

    I have no problem with the State renting the property to the City but it should be at an appropriate value so the rest of the citizens of the State are not subsidizing the rent.

    But apparently that is not the case.

    Understand that the appraised value of the property is between $60 million and $85 million.

    Typical rental rates are 10% of the property value; therefore, the rental rate should be more in the neighborhood of at least $6 million per year in lieu of $500k per year.

    So it appears that Perdue is caving to her political buddies in Raleigh and screwing the rest of the state population.

    As a Raleigh resident, this seems to be another case of focusing on downtown and make others in the City pay for it.

  • tgentry1005 Dec 3, 2012

    With the State of North Carolina needing money, why should citizens from the whole State of North Carolina be forced to chip in so the City of Raleigh can have another park? The State should sell the property to the highest bidder and let private industary do whatever they want to with the land and the State smile all the way to the bank and use the money to benefit all citizens of the State.

  • Wiser_now Dec 3, 2012

    This needs more review. It's not a life-or-death or time-limited situation. I think they (whoever "they' is) need to look more closely at the options. First of all, can Raleigh really afford $500,000 a year in rent. And who is going to maintain the park: ie cutting the grass; picking up the trash left behind by all of those visitors? This may be a nice idea - but is it necessary when moaney is tight?

  • YippiYiyoKiYay Dec 3, 2012

    Mr. McCrory and the legislature can just announce that they will undo any deal done before Ms. PerHag TrooperLover leaves office. Even if it means condemning the property. Someone has to reign in this spiteful insane clown lady. She's mad at US because SHE'S incompetent.

  • dwntwnboy Dec 3, 2012

    For those who keep up the "sell it at market value" mantra. Why? Why must we sell EVERYTHING? Do you want to sell ALL the parks in the state or just the one in Raleigh? Why can we have big parks in the mountains and at the coast but not in the middle of the state? What is the aversion to a large, much needed green space in the capital of our great state? A park is much more in line with original use proposals than selling to developers. I'm not one in favor of Perdue's name anywhere near it, it should remain under the name of Dorothea Dix and should be kept a tranquil, green space for generations to come and enjoy.

  • pappybigtuna1 Dec 3, 2012

    force perdue to sign a paper, with witnesses, registered in the court that her name will not appear on, in or around this piece of land, get a restraining order that she has to stay 500 feet away from the property

    If she needs to put her name on something, there is a port-a-let at Hilton Head under the boardwalk.

  • cupofcoffee Dec 3, 2012

    Selling the land is akin to selling Yosemite or the Grand Canyon (albeit on a smaller scale). It is the only large piece of relatively undeveloped property near downtown. Once it is gone, we can't ever get it back. It should be turned into a park and protected for our children and grandchildren.

  • whatelseisnew Dec 3, 2012

    "Oh, oh, oh...I just had an idea......lets put a chicken/turkey/hog processing plant there...it will attract hords of people looking for jobs, down town will be revitalized, spending would skyrocket in the ares, it has easy access to interstates, and it would generate $MILLIONS$ in tax revenues.....!!!!! "

    It will pay for the nonsense that Government insists on doing. A park will simply be another unneeded expense put on the taxpayers back. I could care less what is built there. The property should be sold at market value. The greedy politicians will have no problem taking money from whatever is built on that property.

  • whatelseisnew Dec 3, 2012

    "The land should NEVER be sold to greedy developers."

    So then the politicians should stop issuing building permits. Oh, but they will not, they are greedy. What is greedy and selfish is the TAXPAYER being forced to pay for this stuff. This property should be sold at market value to anyone that wants to make a PROPER offer. The money should be used to pay off State debt and give the taxpayers should relief from being tax serfs for a park that is not needed.

  • dwntwnboy Dec 3, 2012

    The land should NEVER be sold to greedy developers. They want and want ut then they don't build on it and sell it some slum lord who builds low income or a vacant strip mall. This gem of Raleigh only has one chance to be saved for future generations- we won't be sorry if we save it, we will be if we let it get away and bulldozed into something we don't need and will regret later.

  • ntheweeds Dec 3, 2012

    The Governor is doing the right thing. We should not sell this property to developers. We need another park and this is the best site for it. NC State has a Parks and Recreation curriculum and should be involved in any management of Dix Park

  • JennyB Dec 3, 2012

    ...Isn't Pullen Park like a destination park? I mean...unless they plan on putting a zoo or something in this new "Dix Development"...I think it'll just be a new place for the homeless to hang out. I think there is soooo much more that can be done with those...132(?) acres.

  • Weaker Pelosi Dec 3, 2012

    thomasl, I remember those cinder block houses and old catholic orphanage too. I hate that they blocked off the back dirt road to the DD campus when they widened the road. I loved to take that shortcut when I worked @ DD back in the day. I wish they would have left well enough alone and the patients in Raleigh.

  • ThomasL Dec 3, 2012

    As a native of this state and one that lived in those cinder block houses while my parents worked for dix it should have never been closed to mental patients in the first place but valuable land is more important than someone's mental well being.Just like the orphanage that now has centennial campus built on it those people and the large cemetery that was beside it is now under those buildings I assume.Built em right over the cemetery,didn't ever hear about the graves being moved did you...Well they will probably put a park there to better conquest traffic below on 40 to back it up further and then all those wonderful people living in the subsidised housing downtown can wander over and trash it like they have there homes...Enough said.

  • offthegrid7165 Dec 3, 2012

    Oh, oh, oh...I just had an idea......lets put a chicken/turkey/hog processing plant there...it will attract hords of people looking for jobs, down town will be revitalized, spending would skyrocket in the ares, it has easy access to interstates, and it would generate $MILLIONS$ in tax revenues.....!!!!! SmokeWagon

    Now you're talking!!! Hahahahha

  • offthegrid7165 Dec 3, 2012

    So, what happened to all the poor patients that called DD home..

    Sure, raise the money and buy it at the current market value.

    Then you can do what you like with it. Just don't ask for public money when you can't keep it up anymore. JustAName

    Sorry justname... you know better than that...

  • JustAName Dec 3, 2012

    With "destination parks", who actually goes to any of those cities for the sole purpose of seeing the parks? I've been to NY City, but I walked through Central Park on my way to another destination, it was never my destination. I've never thought about going to the park when I am in Chicago, maybe to the Navy Pier, but never the park. In Atlanta, forget about it, never ventured to the park, maybe to Buckhead for a drink.

    Why would someone come to Raleigh to go see park when there are so many better outdoor attractions in NC?

  • SmokeWagon Dec 3, 2012

    Oh, oh, oh...I just had an idea......lets put a chicken/turkey/hog processing plant there...it will attract hords of people looking for jobs, down town will be revitalized, spending would skyrocket in the ares, it has easy access to interstates, and it would generate $MILLIONS$ in tax revenues.....!!!!!

  • SmokeWagon Dec 3, 2012

    ..."A destination park would never work if left in private hands...."

    That is because PRIVATE co's have no access to stolen tax cash to keep a dead project afloat....!!!!!!

  • SmokeWagon Dec 3, 2012

    People...this is NOT NY city or some other northern town that has no access to parks or rural areas....Sell it and let it be developed by a PRIVATE...TAX GENERATING Co.....!!!!! State government lifers should NOT be in the business of using STOLEN TAX CASH for some "feel good" project that will drain tax dollars rather than create them........!!!!!!

  • JustAName Dec 3, 2012

    Sure, raise the money and buy it at the current market value. Then you can do what you like with it. Just don't ask for public money when you can't keep it up anymore.

  • moppie Dec 3, 2012

    I agree with mep. We don't need yet another drain on our tax dollars. I'm sure there are plenty of developers who would be willing to purchase the property even with the restriction of having a park. It's going to be an in-demand property no matter who buys it. Low-density development (with proper zoning in place)would ensure it maintains a park-like feel.

  • aspenstreet1717 Dec 3, 2012

    Let the boosters buy the park and give it to Raleigh. Destination park sounds like a great idea.

  • floydthebarber Dec 3, 2012

    Sounds like the boosters are doing the right thing, protecting this land for the public interest. A destination park would never work if left in private hands.

  • mep Dec 3, 2012

    The Dix property should be sold, with park-like restrictions for the developers. A win-win for taxpayers.

Oldest First