Fri 26 May 2006
Be the First to Comment
The HWCC chair presented our few, final (?), thoughts for Council on the Carolina North project and a response UNC’s Chancellor Moeser letter of Jan. 25th.
The most important recommendation, I believe, was that of the HWCC’s environmental sub-group (of which I was a member).
I lobbied hard for the elements that appear in the final document:
- A baseline study of current on and off property environmental conditions.
- The baseline to exceed EPA and other statute requirements.
- The development of metrics to understand and measure Carolina North’s impacts year-in and year-out.
Unfortunately, we had the rug pulled out from underneath us before we could finish with a more detailed proposal.
I envisioned, and fought for, a strong proposal for UNC, chiefly, and the town, in a support role, to not only scientifically study, assess and document current environmental conditions both on the Horace-Williams tract and down-wind/down-stream of the development, but to pledge to regularly monitor conditions and apply “best class” metrics to determine environmental impacts.
UNC has an unique opportunity (and responsibility) to use the development of Carolina North as a large-scale laboratory for experimenting with “best practice”, sustainable, world-class “green” designs.
This 50 year project could yield invaluable inventive insights into “green” practices that will create new business opportunities for North Carolinians while promoting sound environmental stewardship – in Chapel Hill, in North Carolina and throughout the world.
I drafted the original HWCC response to Chancellor Moeser. Joe Capowski helped tighten it up. The final version captured, fairly well, my original intent (though, my original draft was much more detailed in its criticism).
There are a number of issues, concerns and omissions the HWCC suggested be addressed before “calling it a day” on UNC’s side of the Carolina North planning process.
Final thoughts are on agenda item [9a].