Basically, it comes down to a lack of fairness and skewed spending priorities.

For some odd technical reason, my commentary isn’t posted on WCHL’s website. I have a copy here (MP3) for readers who have requested one.

This Nov. 8th, I will be voting NO on Orange County’s ¼ cent sales tax.

Promoters promise us increased jobs, better schools and possibly even a deferred property tax increase.

But we know that any positive impact on jobs or revenues from improved County economic zones will take time – it is a real stretch to claim near term benefits in this down economy.

Suggesting the quality of local education is at risk and linking the tax benefits to our popular schools is certainly a clever sales tactic. But lets be honest, the $600,000 going to the schools is a raindrop in a sea of spending.

On the other hand, if 2/3rds had been dedicated to restoring prenatal and dental care services – to back-filling State cuts in mental health, housing and hospice care – the impact of that $1.6M would have been tremendous. Not a drop but a bucket of help.

As a parent, I understand that the example you set is more important than the words you use – that do as I say and not as I do – is a sure path to undercutting trust.

It’s a lesson so many candidates and local officials seem to have forgotten.

Holding this costly single issue vote during an off-year election was a calculated divisive tactic to minimize the impact of our rural neighbors who have already demonstrated a distaste for further taxes.

As the Chapel Hill News noted, the County’s effort to get the message out appears to have gone over the line from legally allowed education into outright advocacy.

Both undercut our democratic principles.

This is why even if all the revenue raised from this sales tax went to human services, I would still vote NO this year.

Because, as we teach our kids, the ends do not justify the means.

To summarize:

Targeting revenues to human services should have been priority. If defeated, I will ask the Board of Commissioners to consider changing the mix of funds to 1/3 economic development and 2/3 critical human services.

The campaign to “sell” increase wasn’t conducted properly.

Scheduling referendum vote in off-year election instead of county-wide election amounts to “gaming” the democratic system. The County Commissioners were clearly “vote shopping”, recognizing that if they got the same level of support in the municipalities as 2010 and if rural voter turnout was 25% less than May’s primary – which is what the local Board of Elections predicted – they would get their way.

I’ve consistently supported access to the vote – super-precincts, same-day registration, early voting – and defended voter rights – fighting Voter ID Act, etc.

I’m not going tacitly support an attempt to disenfranchise our rural voters this year.

The “education” campaign has clearly over-stepped legal bounds and strayed into clear advocacy.

• Improper school district endorsements: fliers sent home with students essentially endorsing referendum, website promotion.
• Video ad which over-emphasized benefits of tax and downplayed negative impact of tax was certainly not even-handed.
• Assistant County Manager suggesting only choice was either pass sales tax or suffer a $.02 bump in the property tax rate to fund plans (there are other options to finding funds).
• BOCC members, who have every right to support the referendum personally, not distinguishing “official” from “personal” support – including comments during public meetings.

I spoke before the Commissioners this year about the advocacy vs. education issue when they were discussing a plan to try the referendum once again. They acknowledged the problems with last year’s “education” campaign – stumbling into advocacy (which is not allowed under NC law) and said they would do better this round. I suggested they invite a wide spectrum of folks who had both promoted and opposed the previous referendum to review County “education” materials and evaluate their balance. Unfortunately, the County not only didn’t try to do an initial “sniff” test of those materials but went way beyond the trespasses of last cycle.

In the end, each voter will have to decide if they are willing to support the “ends” despite the clearly inappropriate “means” to get there.

I’m not, which is why I will vote NO this year for the referendum.

This is the second year I helped organize the event as a member of the Town’s Festifall planning committee. Starting Spring, the committee’s duties revolve around brainstorming activities and entertainments, providing logistical support to Parks and Recreation and working on the big day.

Last year, I arrived at 5:30am and left at 8:00pm. This year I only made it to 5:30pm. While quite fun, it can be a long day of lugging equipment, setting up venues, marking booth locations (my specialty), cycling around booths to help folks, and, essentially, being an adjunct gofer for regular staff.

My duties the last two years have been fairly broad but my main portfolio has been soliciting and managing the community group area – Willville as last year’s committee dubbed it.

Why Willville?

When I joined the committee in 2010, there was a serious discussion of removing the community element entirely from the event. Some art vendors had apparently complained about sharing a wall with peace protestors, environmentalist, mental health advocates and other “pedestrian” community groups. A few attendees complained that they didn’t come to Festifall to have broader community-oriented issues thrust upon them.

This was an art event, by god, and whatever might detract from sales should be eliminated!

Festifall, with the cancellation of Apple Chill, is the sole remaining Town-sponsored multipurpose event. Carrboro, who we often look to for community participation inspiration, routinely makes room for community organizations – often putting them front and center – at their events.

This is a community-sponsored event – an excellent opportunity to showcase Chapel Hill’s diverse community interests and creativity – why wouldn’t we want to be more like Carrboro in our emphasis?

In 2010, in a bit of a Pyrrhic victory, we maintained the community program at the cost of segregating the majority from the main thoroughfare. Like the displaced of Hoover’s 1920s, pushed back along the fence line, not quite out-of-sight, these groups access to Festifall’s visitors is greatly diminished.

I was a bit of a bear of the subject in 2010, to the point that the committee started to joke that the ghettoization was akin to creating a new Hooverville which they dubbed “Willville”.

That joke carried over this year as I continued to vigorously lobby on behalf of expanding the presence of our local community groups.

For all the good-natured joshing, I’m happy to be associated with “Willville”.

With that in mind, I have a few after-the-event suggestions for next year’s committee:

• Mix community groups in with the rest of the crowd. We found room for sponsors, the local fire and police departments, a few Town programs – let’s make these groups first class citizens of the event.
• If it’s deemed too much of a hurdle to integrate the groups into the broad milieu, at least let them setup on the curb instead of being pushed to the rear.
• Reduce the fee for these groups. $100, $85 or even $65 can be a real obstacle to some organizations. $50, at the most, seems reasonable. Yes, that means revenue will be down as prime spaces which could rent for $100 (or more, given the nasty budget mess Chapel Hill has) but the event has been cash positive the last few years. A few lost bucks to support our community is a good trade-off
• Remove logistical impediments which make setup and teardown more difficult for these groups than everyone else.

I have really enjoyed working with local residents, Town staff and community groups on this event. The committee, working with a very receptive events planning staff, has down an excellent job diversifying the event – showcasing Chapel Hill’s interest in dance, music and the culinary arts.

In a couple weeks, we’ll have a debrief of the day and work to build on our successes. If you attended the event and have suggestions, please leave a comment.

Kudos to all the great volunteers, the staff and committee of Festifall.

[UPDATE:] Comments on candidate responses are mostly paraphrases. Comments in quotes are verbatim from candidates. Comments in parentheses or brackets are mine. I didn’t capture all comments or questions. The People’s Channel video taped the forum and should have it posted sometime soon.

Someone recently remarked to me “What strange bedfellows!” when we were talking about tonight’s forum sponsors. Ten years ago that might’ve been true but not today.

The Sierra Club leadership, as distinct from its membership, has been AWOL on many of the most pressing environmental issues of the last decade. Most troubling for an organization founded on justice, the element of social justice has been missing as they have fully endorsed projects like Greenbridge and West140 irrespective of those projects broader consequences.

The Chamber’s Director Aaron Nelson has worked hard to position the Chamber as the gatekeeper on sustainability. The “triple bottom line” that Aaron lauds continues to be heavily weighted towards development and developers irrespective of broader considerations. Teaming up with the Sierra Club helps create an additional appearance of green even if the facts belie it.

All the candidates sans mayoral Wolff in attendance. About 32 folks in the seats though only a hand full are not involved in the sponsoring organizations, the press or candidate groups.

Mark Shultz, Chapel Hill News editor, is running the show.

Opening 1 minute statements, a good chance to see if candidates can hit their marks. Jim Ward, who gave me hell a couple years ago about going 19 seconds long, dragged 28 seconds over. OK by me, I well understand how hard it is to compress a dozen years of service into 60 seconds.

A few themes so far – transparency raised by DeHart, experience and fiscal responsibility by Matt Cz., continuing the Town’s sustainability initiatives by Storrow and Schuler, Baker on balancing economic development and environmental progress.

Some “usual suspects” – Fred Black, Nancy Oates, Mark Peters, Lynne Kane, Bernadette Pelissier.

How do you balance economic development and the environment? What is the priority?

Tim Sookram, Mayoral candidate – focus on environment, not concentrate on LEEDs certification.

Moses Carey, former OC BOCC member just came in.

Jason Baker – Council candidate and committed “smart growth” supporter. Doesn’t think that environmental and economic issues are at odd – both values are important.

Donna Bell – Council candidate and incumbent (appointed) – thinks that posing the question misses the point – shouldn’t be in conflict.

Augustus Cho – Council candidate (CC) – also agrees that the two aren’t in conflict – he believes if “we cut a tree down, we can plant one somewhere else…”

Matt Czajkowski – CC – observes that over the last 4 years there’s been an evolution from either supporting the environment or supporting economic development to one which they are seen by the candidates as complementary…

Laney Dale – CC – “doesn’t want to see any trees cut down” though he does understand development must occur

Jon DeHart – CC – also doesn’t see the two as mutually exclusive – realized that when he was labeled “pro-business” last round and he had done a poor job of responding to that critique – that he has a more nuanced approach – thinks that rehabilitating the Planning process is key to making the two work well together…

Lee Storrow – CC – brings up the urban boundary – gives a quick definition – wants to build dense in Chapel Hill – transit key – thinks C.H. is headed towards Atlanta style density and we need to have transit to support that…

Jim Ward – CC and incumbent – “the question is so last century” , “it isn’t an either or” proposition – 10 years ago the team sponsoring this forum would’ve been shocking

Mark Kleinschmidt – Mayoral candidate and incumbent – thinks that every project needs to take both in consideration – need to measure results of development decisions [Why has he drug his feet and resisted every attempt to make measurabilty part of the process? Will he support making metrics a key aspect on the Comprehensive Plan rework?]

How to increase jobs?

Jon DeHart – supports 1/4 cent sales tax – will help bring in more business via economic development – attitude – be more welcoming – make C. H. more hospitable to business…

Lee Storrow – Carolina North as a driver of innovation

Jim Ward – also points out that the part of the 1/4 cent sales tax dedicated to economic development will directly benefit Chapel Hill/Carrboro [Not accurate - if you look at OC BOCC spending priority list very little money flows South and what does won't come to late in the process].

Jason Baker – thinks we should adopt a revolving loan fund like Carrboro [No mention of political cronyism problem]

Matt C. – thinks we should recruit companies into CH that have existing work forces living in CH – we need to push the qualities of CH which are attractive to a work force [I worked Downtown over 8 years and when my company threatened to move there was a peasant insurrection - we all wanted to stay Downtown because of all the great amenities].

Donna Bell – economic development office under her tenure has done a great job targeting green companies for CH [can't think of any that actually have moved here...maybe she will list them?]

What can you do as a Council member to reduce environmental foot print? Greenhouse gases?

Laney Dale – better transit options – if you are a little late to pickup your kid then you’re out of luck…

Matt C. – biggest local contributor to greenhouse problem is lack of transit opportunities – need to get folks out of their cars…believes in the “greenhouse effect”…

Augustus Cho – also believes in greenhouse warming – only candidate not using yard signs – working to make his campaign the smallest environmental foot print

Donna Bell – doesn’t think there’s a direct role for Council rather we need to support larger initiatives [CRED - carbon reduction - is a key priority of Council - not sure what her answer means...]

Jason Baker – supports 3/4 cent transit sales tax – calls on BOCC member/chair Bernadette P. to get that on the ballot right away….

Jon DeHart – need to support electrical recharge stations – need to continue to encourage UNC – which is the largest local producer of greenhouse gases – to meet their goals – include of moving the Cameron Ave. power station off of coal to a more amenable source of fuel…

Lee Storrow – as an under-grad was part of moving UNC forward – would work with Chancellor Thorp to make good on that pledge – enthusiastically supports 3/4 cent transit tax next year.

What would you do on Council to make small business more effective in CH?

Jason Baker (JB) – more local purchasing especially by Town – endorses Chambers “think local” efforts – make business permitting easier including consolidating depts. that manage that work

Donna Baker (DB) – already discussed with Town Manager Stancill how to stream line permitting process for small business – need to work with UNC to continue to spawn off innovative companies that stay in CH

Augustus Cho (AC) – work with UNC, reduce regulation

Fred Black notes that crowd has grown – roughly 50/50 citizens and supporters/staff – another dozen or so including Gregg Gerdau, WCHL’s Barry Leffler

Matt C. – two biggest problems – access and access – transit and affordable business space – when we look at new developments need to encourage more affordable office space and ask developers to provide free parking

Show of hands – who supports 1/4 cent sales tax? All Council candidates, Kleinschmidt

With expected expansion of Carrboro/Chapel Hill over next 20 years what can you do to ensure the water supply is clean and adequate? What changes do you support to the Lake Jordan allocation? What alternatives exist?

Lee Storrow – challenging issue to talk about – need to tap Lake Jordan – thinks the Council’s vote jeopardized allocation [Not true].

Jim Ward – supports emergency allocation and looks to regional solution – voted against modification because we started tapping Lake Jordan for less than emergency reasons…

Mark K. – two reasons we use less water now than a decade ago – incredible conservation efforts by citizens/Town/businesses – and water reuse by UNC – need to expand reuse and conservation – gets 3 bell notice…

Jon D. – pauses – says he was having a flashback to two years ago – remembering how Mark goes on and on…but “we love ya…” Believes we should maintain access to emergency Lake Jordan use [WHICH WE ALREADY HAVE without a change]

Carl S. – agrees we need it for emergency use…

Donna B. – “emergency backup” only – needs to make sure OWASA keeps the Council informed of limits to growth as constrained by water supplies – need to make that part of the development discussion…

Matt C. – incorrectly says the OWASA agreement has to change to retain emergency access – not true – says that it sounds like all the incumbents supported that though he was the only one not to vote for it…

Jason B. – “wants true emergencies” before tapping into Lake Jordan – need to keep eyes on water use – improve conservation – not penalize conservation…

August C. – echoes Jason….

What needs to change with urban services boundary [rural buffer]?

Jon D. – “short and sweet” – not change a thing…

Lee S. – “NO” – no changes to rural buffer agreement

Jim W. – key aspect of reducing sprawl to date – would entertain modifications – like at Star Point – that would allow it be built [this is south of Southern Village on the edge of Chatham County].

Mark K. – no agreement with Chatham County to manage sprawl – want to influence the “awful sprawl” in northern Chatham – going to suck a lot of economic development into Chatham that should be here…

Mark Schultz interjects – not everyone knows what rural buffer is …Rural buffer dictates where water/sewer goes…Chamber report says high housing because of the rural buffer that’s why he asked the question…

Matt C. – high housing costs directly related to rural buffer constraint…

Jason B. – does think Chatham County is part of the problem – might need to modify rural buffer to reduce impact of Chatham County development on southern edge of Town…rejects assertion that rural buffer is responsible for higher housing prices…

First time SAPFO (school adequate facilities ordinance) will be invoked in next couple years and a CAPs will not be issued for development – in other words – there will not be enough space for students if we build more housing – what to do?

Jason B. – talk to OC about speeding up money for Elementary #11 (Northside) – it’s up to them

Donna B. – we need to live within SAPFO and use it as intended – to constrain growth until the schools catch up

Augustus C. – agrees that OWASA and Schools need to be consulted on limits to development but does not agree that growth should be stymied by outside boards like the school board

Matt C. – “this is a wake up call” – will help us focus on commercial development over residential housing

Laney D. – why are we building more homes? there is 11-12% homes already on market – why do we need more – thinks developers – like Meadowmont – should build new schools [Meadowmont did assist in building Rashkis].

Mark K. – doesn’t think we should undermine SAFPO – doesn’t make sense to crowd in more students and diminish quality – points out Southern Village and Meadowmont did contribute schools – doesn’t support modification but thinks we need to work around it to continue to develop…

Lee S. – thinks we need to have honest discussion with developers – when a developer builds apartments and says no family will live there need to challenge them – to measure additional impact on schools…

Jon D. – moved here because of schools – needs to make sure we keep quality up…

Should lawn fertilizers be regulated? Show of hands – Carl S. Lee S. Jim W. Mark K. (maybe more – too quick to follow)…

How to improve regional and local transit?

Transit tax and transit improvements via 3/4 sales tax seem to be the focus – not specifics so far…

Mark K. – endorses 3/4 cent transit tax – will increase 40,000 hours of bus service – will strongly advocate for it…

Jim W. – chairs local transit group endorsing the transit tax… need to improve transit…

Lee S. – says transit tax will increase number of routes on major thoroughfares covered by bus [not quite accurate] but will strongly support transit tax…

Carl S. – supports the concept but wants to make sure the discussion is transparent and open – that options are reviewed but definitely need to move forward

Jon D. – is on Transit Board for CH – congratulates sitting incumbents on their efforts – supports new revenues for services…

August C. – chair Transit Board – points out that there are route improvements we can make – first not to rely on sales tax as overall answer – brings up some practical improvements not requiring new revenues…

Jason B. – “important that people making decisions on system and the people using the system”…has worked hard to make system improvements…points out the Matt C. and other incumbents have reduced his service by eliminating a stop – went from 1/4 mile walk to 1 mile to nearest stop

What could be done to improve development approval process so that a yes or no can be arrived at quicker? That maintains environmental quality? Mark Sch. – “the Ed Harrison crap shoot question”…

LD – doesn’t know much about approval process but has heard that the process is broken and slow

MC – quotes Ed again – the SUP process arrives at a better result – disagrees totally – “look at recent projects” – indicates with shrug that they were less than quality – believes we should zone areas more appropriately – if a project doesn’t meet a zones spec. then we should reject sooner than later…

DB – of course supports as the Council has already instructed Town Manager and staff to streamline/improve process

JB – doesn’t want to remove rigor in process – points out practical improvements like having a joint design review meeting with all interested advisory boards which greatly reduced the review time while not reducing the quality of the review [my understanding is that this joint meeting was sparsely attended so....]

LS – points out that not many people showed up for that joint meeting – open to improvements but wants to maintain quality end product…

CS – should be like educational degree process – when you do your dissertation you know the expectations – development process should be similar

JD – process is broken – should look to Asheville which has similar values as Chapel Hill but is able to process applications much more effectively…

JW – “clarifying words” to process to make sure developers understand expectations – reduce surprises in the process

MK – shouldn’t cobble process together – should have a process for areas like Downtown which expedites development in these areas with specific expectations and streamlined approvals…

Public questions…

JW – Parking downtown – how will you facilitate discussion of providing 400 to 800 additional spaces? Would challenge that number – the current report from Town says that there is adequate parking…

Open – Support community dev. block grants to build a standalone mens emergency homeless shelter?

CS – Working with IFC on good neighbor plan for Homestead Rd. site…

LD – Would support using those funds to support housing – his father was homeless starting when he was 10 (?) – came back into his life late – worked to get him stabilized – very personal perspective…

Open – What do you expect from the Chapel Hill 2020 Comprehensive Plan rework process?

MC – goes back to comment by MK who said MC did not say he wanted throw out SUP process – thanks for clarification…

MK – 2020 process is most exciting done in decade – wants 10,000 people to turn out…the broadest community support [If that's the case why did he handpick leadership and why is Town handpicking leadership for sub-groups? Why have various folks been already excluded from process?]

Is Chapel Hill addressing affordable housing needs?

JW – “NO NO NO” – “we can pat ourselves on the back” for the 200 units we already have but we haven’t met the price points for necessary for need – CH shouldn’t be a new Disneyland where folks come to visit and leave – where we import our labor who leaves each night because they can’t live here…

JD – Knows something about this – taxes make it difficult for older folks to stay here – that as one long term resident leaves 2 high wage earners move in – tough problem – need to work on it…

Who defines “emergency” for Lake Jordan allocation?

DB – OWASA defines it and Council approves that definition.

JW – Says he doesn’t think we can get emergency supplies under current language [WRONG - we already can get emergency allocation using inter-local agreements]

What 3 issues will mandate tax increases over the next 3 years?

LS – Maintaining staff – fireman and police – realistically need given current economic conditions that we need to raise taxes – a broad response…

Will you protect public employees and ask for comparable benefits for out-sourced jobs?

CS – As a State employee understands question – would be willing to explore options…

DB – Would be willing to look at encouraging vendor support for benefits…

Should trees be trimmed and lights added in town for safety?

LD – as an over 6 foot male not afraid of the homeless but thinks Downtown needs more lighting so his 14 year old daughter has a greater sense of safety…

Other attendees – Elizabeth Friend WCHL has been here all night…

Would you support a ban on further social services being sited along Homestead?

AC – Serves on IFC good neighbor initiative – need to make sure there’s equitable distribution – needs to work with OC to address issue…

JB – “obligation to help” – lives in area – there is a huge concentration of services there – need to make sure we continue to provide services but also address the concentration issue…

Event over…

Chamber’s Aaron Nelson thanks folks – says been a real joy to work with Sierra Club leadership…

Final wrap – other folks Ed Harrison Council member and Katelyn Ferral Chapel Hill News…

And in the role of “Fairy Good Sales Tax” Council member Penny Rich handing out pro-tax propaganda to the assembled folks (who knows that I don’t think the ends justify the means no matter how good the cause…).

Strengthening our local choice is critical to our community’s long term success. Please take a moment to review the program, their grant with an eye towards lending your support.

Letters of support needed by noon tomorrow! The Piedmont Food and Ag Processing Center is collaborating with Piedmont Grown on a USDA/NCDA specialty crops grant . We could use a few more letters of support. The goal of the project is to increase knowledge and consumption of specialty crops by children and adults.

The project has four deliverables:

1) Monthly educational programs at PFAP,

2) Monthly outreach events across the 37-counties served by Piedmont Grown,

3) a public awareness campaign using mass media, and

4) a children’s activity and coloring book featuring easy to prepare recipes that use specialty crops.

Kindly send them to nranells@co.orange.nc.us by 2 pm on Friday May 20th to ensure they are included in the grant packet.

The concerns raised by those committee members (Sustainability Task Force: The Whole or The Sum of the Parts? ) are unlikely to be addressed by the currently constituted group.

Without those dissenting voices, the Comprehensive Plan Initiating Committee will most likely craft a process that is targeted towards a particular outcome rather than one that will illuminate and resolve the discrepancies and omissions in our current Comprehensive Plan discovered by that task force.

Those gaps have led to development outcomes which our community has found troubling.

December, 2008 the Neighborhoods for Responsible Growth held a forum on development density which highlighted some of the issues which have to be addressed in the new plan to meet the future needs of this community. It’s a long forum but worth reviewing to get a sense of the rising tide of negative community reaction to the current “rah rah growth at any cost” approach which has failed to yield the advertised results.

Carrboro Commons’ Megan Gassaway published this article which reviews the history of the Northside community through long time resident Ms. Keith Edwards eyes.

Too often local media focuses narrowly on the business of carving up the community rather than providing a broader context – injecting the human dimension into the story – which better informs the wider community on why folks living in Northside mourn its passing.

Reese News,UNC School of Journalism & Mass Communication’s Digital Newsroom, leverages the power of the multimedia ‘net to give voice to 10 community members’ concerns in their story The struggle for a neighborhood.

It’s no secret that Northside isn’t the neighborhood it used to be.

The change is visible in the increased diversity of its residents and the ten-story high-end condominiums that tower across from the traditionally working class neighborhood, where massive duplexes are replacing single-family homes. Change is also evident in  the growing tension and frustration of residents in a neighborhood plagued by the effects of gentrification.

The pressure for development is taking its toll on the historically black neighborhood, and the town is struggling to balance the need to grow with the needs of neighborhoods like Northside.

Since 2010, the town has been working with the Raleigh-based consultant KlingStubbins to develop a Downtown Framework and Action Plan, which could revise and redevelop parts of downtown Chapel Hill and the surrounding areas.

The downtown proposal could have significant effects on Northside. In its current draft, the framework suggests building new road connections and parking decks in areas where homes currently stand. It also underscores certain areas of Northside as prime for redevelopment.

Well done folks!

Want a bit of additional perspective on the development pressures facing Northside?

IndyWeek reporter (and former Daily Tar Heel editor) Joe Schwartz put together another excellent overview last June (2010): Greenbridge: A new chapter in a tense history .

Greenbridge, as reported by the Chapel Hill News, faces its first foreclosure hearing next Tuesday. This Sunday they promise a further exploration of not only Greenbridge’s problems but other Downtown developments putting pressure on Northside, Cameron Ave. and Pine Knolls neighborhoods.

Change is going to happen. The question is how the whole of our community can benefit from that change. Articles like these help create a broader perspective, one that has been missing so far, in the discussions over development policy Downtown.

It is critical that the nearby neighborhoods play a vital role in determining their own fates. Until their voices are heard and their neighborhoods are treated like living, breathing communities rather than convenient parcels of land for future development, our development policy is as broken as Greenbridge’s financing.

Unlike snobaristas, in my experience Carrboro’s current Town Manager Steve Stewart has consistently provided professional service with a friendly and personalized touch.

Tuesday Steve announced he was moving on. Hired in 2003, he helped add resiliency and flexibility to Carrboro’s management structure – the qualities the fast growing Paris of the Piedmont needed to survive and position it to thrive in today’s economic environment.

While Steve and I haven’t always agreed on Carrboro policy, he showed me abundant courtesy (even when he realized I was a Chapel Hill interloper), was quick to respond to my queries and was always willing to talk a bit of shop when I ran into around town (most recently before Carrboro’s 100th Anniversary kick-off party).

Steve plans to hang around after the transition – so I hope he’ll pipe up occasionally and continue to provide a bit of practical wisdom for both our communities.

Thanks Steve, best of luck in your new endeavors.

Coverage from the Chapel Hill News, Carrboro Citizen and WCHL1360 with more on Steve’s recent announcement.

I haven’t been a big coffee drinker since my days on the engineering mezzanine at Northern Telecom (I never met a bunch of folks that could guzzle joe like Northern’s engineers).

The last decade, though, I easily go a month without drinking some form of coffee; a double bang cappuccino with extra foamy milk being my current favorite.

Chapel Hill/Carrboro/Hillsborough are blessed with an abundance of decent cafes serving the best in fair-trade brews. When it comes to choosing a place to get my occasional cupped lightning, the three key differentiators, at least for me, are price, quality and service.

Price, with the exception of 3-Cups , is roughly the same between the locally-owned and operated places I’m willing to go.

Quality varies but having grown up on road warrior jitter juice I’m willing to tolerate a broad spectrum of results. As long as the raw bean comes from socially just source, is not priced out-of-line with its ingestability, is reasonably hot and is prepared somewhat hygienically, down it goes.

Which leaves level of service.

Coffee, though I know some folks feel differently, is a discretionary purchase. While I sometimes need, like many of us, an energy boost, I’m not so dependent a draught of “rocket fuel” that I’m willing to forgo courtesy at the cash register.

When I belly up to the bar, I’m happy to get the most minimal of attention and courtesy – a short grunt of acknowledgement and a reasonably fast turn around is all I’m looking for.

I’m not willing to settle for near contempt.

As the local market for good coffee has grown, so, it appears has the spread of boorish baristas.

Look guys, I’m not going to apologize for not seeming hip enough, not slangily ordering the trendiest drink or not paying slavish attention to your choice of clothes/music/politics – I’m here for a simple drink delivered as professionally as possible.

Which is why I most often go to Timberlyne’s Cup o’Joe, Carrboro’s Looking Glass, Estes/Franklin’s Carribou Cafe and University Mall’s Southern Season’s Weathervane.

From all of these (plus Lex’s 3-Cups), I have reliably received top tier courteous service from clean and well-kept breweries at a price point that my family is comfortable paying.

There is a reason I don’t go to Driade, Open Eye or a handful of other highly touted caffeine distribution centers anymore.

When I’m shelling out 2+ bucks for cooked bean shards soaked in hot water, I don’t relish the risk of having even one brutish encounter.

When it happens, again and again, I always wonder why owner/operators are willing to put up with such behavior. Are they so disconnected from their business they don’t realize that its harder to acquire a new customer than cultivate and retain a loyal customer?

To be clear, in my experience even the worst of the bunch have employees that care, that deliver the level of quality and service I’m looking for.

But why play the odds, sometimes quite long, that a you will stumble on one of the happy few?

Maybe there is a natural evolution to coffee joints: care and attention slowly giving way to complacency and antagonism followed by a fall only buffered by new customers ignorance, cushioned only by previous credibility before a slide into inevitable failure.

Or maybe there is a cycle of birth and rebirth – even the worst returning from the ashes to the heights they once enjoyed.

Whatever the trajectory, I have no doubt that the rise and tolerance of the snobarista signals the end of the ride.

Several weeks ago Chapel Hill approved an amendment to language of the 2001 Water and Sewer Management, Planning and Agreement (WSMPBA) which gave OWASA much more leeway in tapping OWASA’s 5 million gallon per day (5Mg/d) allocation from Lake Jordan. At that time there wasn’t much sustained discussion of the long-term impacts or broader dimensions before adopting the amendment.

After midnight last Monday the Council decided to revisit the issue which creates an opportunity for more nuanced analysis and broader community input. That opportunity hasn’t been scheduled as of yet.

Council, after a bit of prodding and plans spinning awry, wisely recognized there are some structural problems with our current affordable housing approach. Beyond acknowledging the need to rebalance our selection of affordable housing options, Council, on the heels of Greenbridge’s financial difficulties, has finally started to understand some of the inherent risks with their current policy (issues they were made aware of prior to their approval of Greenbridge, East54 and West140 luxury condo projects).

BACKGROUND The Town Council has directed staff to develop an Affordable Housing Strategy. In order to develop a strategy that is inclusive and reflective of the community’s concerns, staff has been conducting focus group sessions with affordable housing stakeholders as well as groups who may not be traditionally associated with the topic.

PURPOSE The purpose of this meeting is to obtain feedback from the community about affordable housing in Chapel Hill. This focus group session is being held for anyone in the community who would like to offer their input about the topic of affordable housing. For more information about this effort, please visit to the following website: http://www.townofchapelhill.org/index.aspx?page=1657

I’ll be attending today’s meeting in order to get a sense of what lessons the Affordable Housing Technical Advisory committee has learned from our community over the last month.

This is a terrible year to raise any tax yet the Orange County Board of Commissioners (BOCC) decided 4/5/2011 (VIDEO [my comments at 48 minutes and 103 minutes]) to hold another referendum, at a cost of $105K to $125K ($85K election +$20-40K “education”), trying to succeed where they failed just 6 months ago.

I and others appeared before the BOCC arguing that 1) scheduling the vote this year amounted to “vote shopping” and didn’t serve their professed commitment to “small-d” democracy:

“I do understand that there’s a need for the revenues sooner rather than later,” said Chapel Hill resident Will Raymond. “The turnout is not representative of what the impact is for this tax. You’re looking at dis[en]franchising the rural voters. In terms of integrity of the process and confidence in the process, it feels a little bit like you’re doc[k ]shopping, you’re vote shopping. The reality is that the referendum did very well down in the municipal areas.”

Not only did the referendum pass overwhelmingly in the cities last time, but turnout in the rural districts will likely be low, Raymond said. And, according to Orange County Board of Elections Director Tracy Reams, off-year general elections typically boast a lower turnout than presidential primaries—something to the tune of 25 percent compared to 40 percent, respectively.

“Doing it in November just doesn’t feel very democratic,” said James Barrett, Chapel Hill resident and member of Orange County Justice United, adding he supports the increase. “I think, as we see changes around the world, it’s important to make sure that everyone’s engaged in voting. We have a much greater opportunity to do that in May than we do in November.”

News of Orange, April 19, 2011

“Putting this on the municipal elections is a bad idea … the reality is [that] this did very well in municipal areas,” said Will Raymond, a Chapel Hill resident. “You’re vote shopping.”

N&O, 4/6/2011

and

2) that the County would be better served by altering the proposed allocation from 50% economic development/50% to education to 33% economic development/66% human services:

Will Raymond said that two-thirds of the tax should go for human services, where the real need is since Orange County is creeping toward an 18 percent poverty rate and the county has cut back on some of the services it provides to citizens who need the most help.

“The only way I’m going to support this is if I see a significant portion going to the human services deficit,” Raymond said.

Burlington Time News, April 19, 2011

By the way, that was doc, as in doctor, shopping and not “dock shopping” as reported.

If the County used 2/3rds of the anticipated revenue, $1.6+ million, for human services the impact on existing programs would be significant. Further, the County would finally have funding to address the emergency housing problem they long offloaded to the Interfaith Council (IFC).

Allocating $1.2+ million to bolster the multi-million dollar school budgets ,though, will not go as far. When you review last year’s proposed educational expenditures the contrast between priorities is stark – repaving running tracks versus bolstering our burdened community health service.

As of tonight (Tues. 4/19/2011), not only will the sales tax appear on the ballot (with a non-binding commitment to the proposed 50/50 split) but the BOCC has floated the idea of adding an additional 1/2 cent sales tax bump to fund regional transit initiatives (including light rail).

That’s an 3/4 cent increase from the current 7.75% to 8.50%.

That could drop to 8.25% if the requested extension of a “temporary” State sales tax hike, currently 1 cent, passes the Republican controlled legislature at Gov. Perdue’s suggest 3/4 cent rate . If that extension fails and both referendums succeed, the new Orange County rate would be lower than today – 7.5% – a possibility the BOCC might leverage to sell the bump to voters.

Last year the BOCC responded positively to a critique of the vagueness of their proposed economic development spending priorities by providing specific projects with fairly well established cost structures. One example – extending sewer and water service into 2 of the economic development zones. I expect them to develop a similar list of very targeted expenditures to fix creaking critical physical infrastructure at the schools.

That said, I don’t plan to support the tax because it further burdens folks during a worsening economic downturn, because scheduling it during an off-year election appears to be “gaming” the electoral process and because the allocation doesn’t address escalating demand for critical core services.

Of course, I remain open to the possibility that my mind could be changed by the BOCC’s new advocacy program.

Below is my revised resolution merged with the original:

IN SUPPORT OF ¼ OF 1 CENT SALES TAX TO SUPPORT A LOCALLY OWNED ECONOMY TO HELP RESOLVE SOME OF OUR MOST PRESSING ISSUES

Whereas county commissioners are considering a ¼ cent sales tax to be put to referendum on November 8, 2011.

Whereas it is projected the one-quarter cent county sales and use tax would generate approximately $2,500,000 for Orange County on an annual basis.

Whereas in the previous referendum seeking this sales tax, 42.5% of funding generated was to be allocated for economic development purposes.

Whereas economic development of the kind that is based in locally owned businesses produce significantly more positive effects then economic development that is focused on recruitment of businesses in economic zones that are far from where people live. For example:

1. Significantly more money re-circulates in your community when you buy from locally owned, rather than nationally owned, business: More money stays in the community because locally owned businesses purchase from other local businesses, service providers, and farms. Purchasing locally helps grow other businesses as well as your community’s tax base.

2. Small local businesses are the largest employer nationally, and in most communities provide the most new jobs to residents.

3. One-of-a-kind businesses are an integral part of a community’s distinctive character: The unique character of any town or region is what people love about it, and what tourists come to visit. Richard Moe, president of the National Historic Preservation Trust, says, “When people go on vacation they generally seek out destinations that offer them the sense of being someplace, not just anyplace.”

4. People who own local businesses often live in the community, are less likely to leave, and are more invested in the community‟s future.

5. Local businesses often hire people with more specific product expertise for better customer service.

6. A marketplace of tens of thousands of small businesses is the best way to ensure innovation and low prices over the long term. A multitude of small businesses, each selecting products based not on a national sales plan but on their own interests and the needs of their local customers, guarantees a much broader range of product choices.

7. Locally owned businesses can make more local purchases, requiring less transportation, and generally set up shop in town or city centers as opposed to developing on the fringe. This generally means contributing less to sprawl, congestion, habitat loss, and pollution.

8. A growing body of economic research shows that in an increasingly homogenized world, entrepreneurs and skilled workers are more likely to invest in and settle in communities that preserve their one-of-a-kind businesses and distinctive character.

9. Nonprofit organizations receive an average 350 percent greater support from local business owners than they do from non-locally owned businesses.

10. Businesses in town centers or within municipalities require comparatively little infrastructure investment and make more efficient use of public services as compared to stores locating in peripheries.

Whereas the county is pursuing an economic development that focuses resources around highway corridors, specifically I-85 and HWY 70;

Whereas the county in May 2010 estimated a need to invest roughly 11 million over six years, with about 80% supporting water/wastewater build-out, approximately 20% supporting economic development tool kit, and less than 5% for data acquisition and analysis.

Whereas a portion 2/3rds of the anticipated revenue of the ¼ of 1 cent sales tax will be put towards education human services;

Whereas the state of North Carolina has a budget shortfall and education is human services is a likely place where cuts will occur;

Therefore be it resolved that the NC Orange County Democratic Party supports an increase of ¼ cent sales tax and an allocation of a part of that increase towards education human services;

Be it further resolved that the OCDP supports allocation of money 1/3rd of the anticipated revenue towards economic development that is based on support for locally owned businesses.

Be it further resolved that development of retail, commercial and industrial infrastructure should be located near town centers where access to services is most readily and affordably available to these businesses and where these businesses will be most sustainably accessible to where most people live.

Be it further resolved that along with retail, commercial and industrial, further establishing a locally based food economy should also be a goal of county economic development and the use of these funds.

Be it further resolved that a county-wide process for engaging the community to assess community needs should be implemented to identify types of businesses that are most needed by our community. Thereafter, economic development money can be prioritized towards the development and support for businesses that may provide or best address these identified needs.

Several weeks ago Chapel Hill approved an amendment to language of the 2001 Water and Sewer Management, Planning and Agreement (WSMPBA) which gave OWASA much more leeway in tapping OWASA’s 5 million gallon per day (5Mg/d) allocation from Lake Jordan. At that time there wasn’t much sustained discussion of the long-term impacts or broader dimensions before adopting the amendment.

I attended the Jan. 27th OWASA Board meeting where the proposed loosening of the reins was first discussed and then approved [MINUTES].

In selling the need for the modification to his fellow board members, Gordon Merklein, the Chair of OWASA’s Board and UNC’s Executive Director Real Estate Development related a conversation he had with his colleague Carolyn Elfland, UNC’s Associate Vice Chancellor for Campus Services. He said that Carolyn expressed concern that UNC wouldn’t have access to that 5Mg/d allocation and desired an agreement that solidified UNC’s future ability, through OWASA, to get at Lake Jordan’s supplies.

That was a bit disconcerting as local policymakers had fairly consistently rejected tapping Lake Jordan for anything other than the most extreme of needs.

Not only have elected folks the last two decades worked hard to secure and protect the watersheds OWASA claimed were sufficient to supply our needs for the next 100 years but adopted land-use and building ordinances that conserve the resources we already have.

Of course, as I said at the time (Water,Water,Everywhere…), at the base of this discussion is a decision, which the community has supported, to live within our local footprint. Time after time the community has been in the forefront of protecting that valuable asset – most recently challenging the County’s siting of a trash transfer station in a critical watershed area and questioning OWASA’s proposed timbering operations.

The loose language of the adopted amendment puts that community-supported principle at risk.

Luckily Carrboro, a party to the agreement, stepped in and rejected the current proposal (Water, Water, Everywhere? Carrboro Holds The Line).

In light of their rejection and the continued concerns of local environmentalist, I applaud Laurin’s effort to put this decision back before her colleagues for closer inspection.

Council Member Laurin Easthom petitions the Council to place the Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement resolution (2011-02-28/R-5) recently passed by the Council back on the agenda for further Council discussion.

Tomorrow night Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt will petition his colleagues to appoint a representative to participate in discussions with the County’s Solid Waste Advisory Board (SWAB) on the future of the Interlocal Agreement on Solid Waste Management.

That agreement, coordinating waste management between each municipality and the County, needs to either evolve to meet the changes in our collective waste management plans or face dissolution.

For the good of our wider community, evolution is the better alternative.

Folks might recall that I asked Council several times over the last 6 years to fill the seat set aside on the SWAB for an elected representative from Chapel Hill – even offering to fill that position myself if appointed or elected to Council. Mayor Pro Tem Jim Ward took up that task, finally, less than a year ago.

Last year the Board of Commissioners (BOCC) agreed to ship our waste to Durham’s trash transfer station (which will subsequently ship it elsewhere). Even though this decision laid the groundwork for what I hope is a temporary solution to our garbage disposal needs, the time that decision bought hasn’t been used effectively by the SWAB to plan for the longer term.

There has been no real effort, to date, to find a local or regional solution that aligns more closely to our community’s fiscal and environmental policy objectives. Instead, the County contracted a new waste management consultancy that “discovered” three increased capacity options. Last week the County proposed extending the landfills life, again, irrespective of the commitments made to the Rogers Road community.

Commissioner Valerie Foushee, reviewing her inaction in tasking County staff to work the issue over the last 6 years, said she was “appalled” by the lack of progress – a sentiment echoed by all her colleagues.

Resisting expediency, taking that deceptively easy path of delaying the inevitable yet again, the BOCC finally took the bull by the horns and agreed to forge a solution themselves (Trash Talk: The Neverending Story…Ends?).

As the BOCC and County Manager noted, their partners in the Interlocal agreement have been MIA during the last few years, and though the County preferred a collaborative accommodation, they could no longer delay.

Tomorrow night, Mark moves Chapel Hill one-step closer to being part of the solution rather than the source of the problem:

This petition responds to a request from the Orange County Board of Commissioners for Towns to consider establishing a working group to address and resolve solid waste management issues. The Solid Waste Advisory Board (SWAB) recommends that this working group be comprised of elected officials and senior staff, and that the process should begin as soon as possible.

I wholeheartedly agree and expect the Council to expeditiously move the process forward.

My first suggested action – take advantage of the provision built into the 1997 landfill extension agreement, as County Manager Frank Clifton highlighted last Tuesday, and start setting aside part of the tipping fees for eventual mitigation of landfill related problems.

This Monday (Apr. 11th,2011), the Council will have the first of two hearings on the Charterwood development. This proposed development supposedly aligns with the goals set forth in both the Town’s aged Comprehensive Plan and the problematic Northern Area Plan.

I’ve read well over a hundred of planning proposals the last decade and have seen a steady trend of “cut-n-pasting” language from other successfully approved proposals to justify a new project – usually generic snippets from the Comprehensive Plan characterizing some community benefit (“well being”) which is hard to objectively pin down.

Certain catch-phrases become de riguer as time goes on: “transit-oriented”, “green”,”sustainable”, etc. Each used to suggest qualities the project might or might not have but each having been successful in pushing other projects through the pipeline.

Because of that applications usually have a strange quirk, some strangled logic, used to justify a quality the project doesn’t innately possess. For instance, the developers of Charterwood are seeking a “mix use village” (MUV) zone and claim their project, which calls for clearing acres of 100-year growth forest to make way for 282 parking spots, is “transit-oriented”.

As Del Snow, a tireless advocate for northern Chapel Hill (who I’ve served with on several advisory boards), points out in today’s Chapel Hill News, the price of this project should be carefully weighed against all the costs it incurs.

As proposed, Charterwood barely meets the criteria laid out in the Northern Area plan. This is not a compact, dense development which seeks to maximize a tracts potential while minimizing its impact on local neighborhoods, current infrastructure and environment.

One example: the “transit-oriented” layout calls for carving an acre of impervious surface parking lot out of the existing tract of 100-year growth trees – a tract which sits at the headwaters of several local creeks. Another: the potential environmental risk posed by shifting the responsibility for maintaining the current on-site catch-basins in this sensitive area from NC-DOT to a private commercial entity.

As Del said in her guest editorial:

Land available for development is dwindling in Chapel Hill. As a result, we will be seeing more and more applications from developers that stretch the limits of our ordinances and ask us to re-assess our priorities.

Council will have to decide if the public good is best served by foregoing the principles laid in our current planning framework or by sticking with those community priorities which balance the public price against private reward.

More on Charterwood’s zoning application, design goals and anticipated footprint.