Market researcher tells school board Rutherford County faces lot shortages despite price‑band overbuilds
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Edsel Charles of Market Graphics Research Group told the Rutherford County Board of Education his firm’s hand‑counted data shows the county is overbuilt in some price bands but still will need tens of thousands of new lots to meet demand; he offered the district his data for planning school facilities.
Edsel Charles, president of Market Graphics Research Group Inc., told the Rutherford County Board of Education that long‑running, hand‑counted data the firm maintains shows complex, divergent trends in the county housing market and has direct implications for school planning.
Charles said his firm tracks subdivisions and permits every four months and maintains GPS coordinates for lots across price bands. He told the board the firm’s current estimate is that Rutherford County will see about 17,424 homes built between now and 2030 but argued the county will need to develop roughly 22,459 lots to relieve pressure on land prices and preserve options for first‑time buyers. “I have the GPS coordinates of every lot right now,” Charles said during the presentation, underscoring the level of granular detail his team provides.
Why it matters: school siting and capacity planning depend on where and when new families settle. Board members and staff said they could use more precise, place‑based forecasts to identify likely school attendance shifts and potential high‑school locations.
Charles described his methodology as physically counting subdivisions and permits, then breaking the county into sub‑markets and price ranges. He used Rutherford as an example to show differences across price bands: he said some segments are overbuilt with finished and occupied homes while others lack active construction. He also said his firm separates attached for‑sale product (condos) from rental units and that rental development is harder to track because builders sometimes do not disclose product as rental.
Board members asked whether Charles’s reports separate apartments and rental units; he said routine reports do not, but site‑specific studies can include rentals. Several board members said the data could help link planning‑commission work with district facility planning. One board member suggested staff analyze Charles’s data and, if useful, consider subscribing to his service or inviting him to brief the county commission.
Charles offered to provide district staff with access to the material and to meet with the superintendent and other staff to integrate the data into the five‑year plan. The board agreed to take the information under advisement and to arrange follow‑up meetings with district staff and consultants.
The presentation occurred during a work session; Charles repeatedly emphasized the firm’s long time series and said the data could be used for targeted, site‑specific analysis. The board did not take action at the meeting; members discussed next steps for integrating the new market information into school facility planning and the five‑year plan.