Citizen Will

I want to quickly respond to Chapel Hill Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt’s comments this evening.

First, spending $8-12M on the Lot #5 project, building luxury condos and enriching a private developer, is not the same as “protecting our Town’s infrastructure”.

The Lot #5 (West 140) project is discretionary – the push to keep it going is not based on sound economic fundamentals.

Putting Lot #5 on par with filling potholes or expanding the Library is a great political speaking point – but certainly not grounded in reality – suggestions otherwise does the public a disservice.

At the same time, other probable debt-related outlays aren’t included in the analysis. Mark suggesting the lump of general obligation (G.O.) debt covers the whole gamut of obligations minimizes the challenge before us.

Beyond that bit of misdirection, Mark knows (or should know) that our Town’s current reserves are low compared to historical reserves on a percentage basis.

That $1.9M increase Mark bandied about sounds big but isn’t considering the $55M hole we’re in. No matter how hard fought the battle to get that $1.9M last year, weighed against future operational and capital demands – like trying to expand the Library – the percentage improvement in overall reserves was slightly better than negligible and doesn’t position us any better to deal with MAJOR outlays (if you use a more reasonable debt ceiling).

To use the credit card example several Council members relied on this evening, there is a qualitative difference between the following two scenarios:

1) Your credit card limit is $10,000 (set in the heady days when the good times rolled). Expecting blue skies everyday, you run up $9000 in debt. You plan to add another $800 ($9800 overall) and set aside $500 to service that debt “just in case”.

2) Your credit card limit is $10,000. You run up $5000 in debt. You set aside $1000 for future payments and plan to take on another $400 for a total obligation of $5400.

Case number one is what Mark is arguing for when he continues to push for the Library expansion, Lot #5, $3.7M in greenway bond debt, etc. (“the whole enchilada”) using the existing debt load as a baseline.

Case number two, which gives the Town much more flexibility in meeting its core needs and is more akin to where we were before the recent massive debt run-up, is what Council members Jim Ward, Laurin Easthom, Matt Czajkowski and Ed Harrison spoke to (in one way or the other).

Council member Gene Pease was right about the wisdom of creating separate budget “silos” for debt and operations. This was something I lobbied for 5-6 years ago and was happy to see implemented.

Yet, as Matt pointed out, Council didn’t discuss the current debt ceiling (and tax rate associated with paying it off) as a maximal point. As history shows, the current ceiling was expediently set based on all the allocated and accumulated debt at that time rather than a careful forward analysis of our residents ability to pay.

It is this kind of thinking that led to the recent big tax increase (which I had predicted 2 years before – based on the “simple math” Mark said I was using this evening).

Part of separating that part of our budget out was to get the kind of visibility we need to “right size” our tax revenue allocations to various core necessities (thanks to Laurin and others for putting it plainly – balancing “needs against wants”).

So, our debt ceiling – which leapt rapidly to handle 2003 to 2009 debt increases – based on extraordinary expenses like the new Town Operations Center – was not set based on a fiscally prudent assessment of our community’s ability to pay (“living within ALL our citizens means”) but on a hunger for stuff which could only be fed by running up our Town’s credit card.

Clearly, our debt load, twice what it was 6-7 years ago and the current debt ceiling are both not sustainable in this economic environment (or with the currently lopsided commercial/residential tax-base). On top of this, we’re also not even close to the reasonable reserve levels we held 5-7 years ago (let alone what we will need to handle predictable jumps – like Lot #5 – to our capital outlays).

As far as future debt not appearing on tonight’s docket, while Laurin and Matt did a good job outlining some probable impacts in the next 3-4 years of capital budgets (like the possibility of repairing/replacing the Police Department) the “elephant in the room” – Lot #5 – once again didn’t get appropriate attention.

When approved, the expectation was that the Lot #5 debt could be paid from parking revenues. The type of debt and method of repayment – certificate of participation (COP), tax incremental funding (TIF, taxing Peter – our local Downtown business folks – to pay for Paul’s profits), paying from parking revenues – remains a bit fuzzy.

If you run the numbers, make a more realistic assessment (I was on the Downtown Parking Task Force and reviewed those numbers carefully) the debt associated with the West 140/Lot #5 taxpayer giveaway will NOT be paid off by the parking revenues (heck, the negative feedback from raising parking rates which will decrease revenues hasn’t been worked out).

Every penny not coming from the variable parking fees revenue has to come from funds earmarked for other purposes – staff raises and benefits for instance. Besides the predictable shortfalls, that revenue variability, in and of itself, is a major concern.

In any case, even if we can make the debt payments out of parking revenues (quite debatable), adding another $8M-$12M of obligations on top of everything else carries its own significant financial impact – including limiting our Town’s ability to borrow for more core needs.

The question isn’t if we’re in a pickle but what is this current Council going to do about it?

I disagree with the suggestion that the Town couldn’t find qualified volunteers to help analyze the budget with fresh eyes and make some reasonable suggestions over the next 4 months.

Given the unique pool of successful local entrepreneurs and talented business folks, professionals from UNC’s Kenan-Flagler institute and business school, CEO/CFO’s living and working here, UNC and other government administrators, former Council members and other concerned citizens with relevant expertise and interest, claiming that we can’t seat a review board now is just a stalling tactic.

The Council did it before and the resulting budget was stronger for it.

Finally, I’m quite disappointed that Mark led the charge to cut-off this valuable source of public input. As Laurin, Jim and Matt argued to various degrees, the budget is the wellspring for everything our citizens want and, more importantly, need. It’s hard to argue any other area needs as much public attention and review as this year’s budget.

The political downside of a citizen review board, of course, is that an independent analysis might upset some folks established agenda, like trying to juggle the discretionary Lot #5 project, expansion of the Library, increased demands on services and responsibilities for maintaining qualified staff.

Here’s the outline I used for my remarks this evening:
(more…)

Ron Stutts and WCHL 1360 invited me to do a commentary on a Chapel Hill issue.

I chose to speak out on the fiscally imprudent idea that we can “have our cake and eat it too”.

Run this and the following four year’s budget numbers, look at anticipated impacts – funding Town retirees’ health-care, fixing Police Headquarters, meeting our clean water responsibilities under the Lake Jordan compact, the doubling in demand on our social services, etc. – and it becomes clear – we can walk away now from the discretionary Lot #5 project – at little additional cost to the taxpayer – or do the Library expansion next year.

We can’t do both.

Thanks to Ron and crew for somehow squeezing 10 pounds of commentary [MP3] into a 5 pound bag. Amazing!

Jan. 25th the Council considered two projects with major financial impacts – the Library expansion and the problematic Lot #5 private/public development project.

After discussing their options at length, they decided to postpone approval of the Library expansion pending a more thorough review of the Town’s spending priorities during the Town’s normal budget process which, by the way, kicks off Wednesday, Feb. 3rd.

This was a reasonable and prudent course of action given the serious fiscal condition of the Town, the weakened economy, continued expectations of poor revenues and Council’s touted commitment to public participation.

Unfortunately, the Lot #5 project didn’t get the same level of concern.

The Town’s debt has doubled to $55M over the last 5 years. It’s been used to fund necessary and discretionary capital improvements like the construction of the new Aquatics Center – which at about $7M was almost on budget – and the Town Operations Center – which at $52M went roughly $10M over-budget.

Supporters claim the typical household will ONLY pay $40 more a year but that $40 only covers the increased cost of operating the Library and not the cost of discharging the $16M bond debt.

The Town Manager says that as we payoff existing obligations we can issue new bonds without increasing taxes. This might be true through 2011, but as the Town’s finance director pointed out, from 2012 on the construction debt pushes our overall debt very close – maybe even exceeding – the level necessary to keep our Town’s AAA bond rating.

At that point a tax increase is certain.

The Town Manager’s analysis is also rather one dimensional – challenges like the Town’s rapidly growing unfunded retirement obligations – projected to be as much as $56M or replacing Police headquarters – $10M if Council had purchased Dawson Hall – were not considered.

So what about Lot #5? Lot #5 requires 8 to 12M taxpayer dollars and represents the Town’s greatest, riskiest discretionary fiscal liability.

Part of the sales pitch for Lot #5 was the supposed need to stimulate development Downtown.

With Greenbridge nearly built and other Downtown projects on the way it’s clear that we didn’t need a stimulus. In fact, directly across Franklin St. the University at University Square is already putting forward a much more interesting, integrative proposal which better fulfills the goals of the Lot #5 project – and at little cost or risk to our taxpayers.

Given that the cost reductions that allowed RAM Development to lower their gold-plated condo prices haven’t been passed on to the taxpayer, that the number of pre-sold units hasn’t grown in-line with those price reductions, and that the Town still doesn’t know how it plans to borrow that $8 to 12M – now is the time to drop Lot #5.

Three years out – three contract extensions granted – no significant improvement in proposal.

What does this have to do with the Library?

We can have a Library expansion – hopefully starting next year – or we can have Lot #5 – we can’t handle both.

Contact Council – ask them to pull the plug on the Lot #5 project now so that we can take on projects that are more central to Council’s charter.

More information on my website, CitizenWill.org.

Here is what I meant to say at this evening’s Council meeting.

Like a lot of my remarks, I find myself editing on the fly, so what I managed to get out in less than 3 minutes wasn’t quite what follows but I believe I made the points I needed.

The simple summary?

We can’t do the Lot #5 (140 West) project and the Library expansion together. Lot #5 hasn’t met its goals, the cost/benefit ratio is decidedly out-of-whack, the necessity quite clearly not there anymore.

Further, the Library expansion project needs to be delayed until taxpayers can bear the total cost. Beyond that, we need to request an extension from the North Carolina Local Government Commission to allow issuing bonds beyond the current deadline so when it is fiscally prudent we can move expeditiously.

Finally, public participation, once again, is barely considered.

Tonight’s remarks:

In 2010 you will be making several key budgetary decisions whose impacts will span the next decade – the Lot #5 (West 140) and Library expansion – two examples.

Lot #5 represents the greatest and riskiest fiscal liability going forward that can be safely dispensed with.

Part of the sales pitch made by some on this Council is we needed this project to kick-start development Downtown.

With Greenbridge nearly built, University Square poised for redevelopment, approval of Grove Park – which will displace the affordable Townhouse Apts. on Hillsborough St. with luxury condos – and other Downtown projects on the way it’s clear that we don’t need that supposed stimulus Lot #5 brings anymore.

It’s time to reconsider this troubled project especially given that:

1) the cost reductions that allowed RAM to lower prices haven’t been significantly passed on to the taxpayer,

2) the number of units pre-sold hasn’t grown in-line with price reductions (33 units pre-sold so far, down from the reported 2008 commitment of 35).

3) the open-ended nature of the cost of the environmental cleanup is still being underplayed,

4) the University at University Square has already put forward a much more sound, interesting and integrative proposal (123 West Franklin) for that stretch of Franklin St. than the expensive – at least to the Chapel Hill taxpayer – Lot #5,

5) still up in the air how we will borrow the money – COPs, TIFs, etc. In any case, however we borrow the $9-10M or more it will limit the Town’s ability to prudently respond in funding core needs,

6) and from what I can see in RAM’s recent missive ( RAM Dec. 22nd, 2009 letter [PDF]) no effort has been made to involve the nearby business and residential community in discussing mitigation of the type of construction-related problems that have plagued Greenbridge or even apprise their future neighbors of current developments (let alone present a coherent and consistent story to the local press).

Three years out and no significant improvement in the proposal. Three extensions to the contract granted by Council. Lot #5 should be shelved now so that the Town can take projects that are more central to its charter.

What does this have to do with the Library?

I want to see the Library expanded but now is not the time.

The memos before you [here] paint a fairly rosy picture of the borrowing in terms of adopting new debt but they don’t do a very good job in putting that increased debt in context of our already astonishing – at least by historical Chapel Hill standards – debt load.

Memo #A, in fact, disingenuously characterizes the increase to homeowners using examples of property valuations well below ($200K) the Chapel Hill baseline.

Look at the chart in Memo #A. The rate of increase in the debt load – that rapidly increasing impact on the Town’s flexibility in borrowing – running our debt right up to the debt ceiling for our AAA bond rating – starts in late 2012 and zooms steeply from there.

Of course, besides adding new debt that and anticipated G.O. additions will account for roughly several cents on the current tax rate while the real kicker is the growth in cost of Library operations – which appears to be even more significant.

Worse, the continued structural instability and weakness of our economy gets short shrift.

Now is not the time to take on a large forward liability.

Making a decision based on these figures tonight will be guaranteeing a tax increase or steep cuts or just ignoring basic obligations two years hence.

Here are my suggestions:

1) Shelve Lot #5. We can have a Library expansion – hopefully starting next year – or we can have Lot #5 – we can’t handle both.

2) The Library borrowing should be delayed until prevailing economic conditions show signs of improvement – strengthened sales tax revenues, stable fund markets which will lend money at a more favorable rate – say less than %100 of the 20 year Treasury bond ratio.

3) Have staff prepare a request to NC Local Government Commission to extend Chapel Hill’s time limit for issuing these bonds so the Council and community have adequate time to plan.

4) Use the established public budget process which kicks off next week [2/3/2010 7:00 PM Council Chambers Townhall) to discuss the Library in light of all our Town's needs – competitive staff wages, affordable housing reserve funds, the growing retirement fund deficit (Unfunded Liabilities: Pay As You Go Not Sustainable) among many others.

Last Fall many of many on Council obligingly participated in a special “emergency” meeting to acquire Dawson Hall for police and other key Town services. That urgent need hasn't gone away – the police department's facility still needs attention - why isn't that part of the rosy projections?

Our citizens deserve a diligent evaluation of the cost of the Library expansion and operations within the context of our total budget and foreseeable needs - not wants.

They also deserve to participate - not just get an agenda item 3 days before a decision is scheduled.

5) Finally, postponing tonight will give you the opportunity to carefully consider this proposal in light of all your priorities, give you time to evaluate the rosy picture drawn by these memos against your own understanding of the economy and think about how to engage the community during this weekend's Council retreat.

In addition, it buys needed time for the public to review the current proposal, attend the budget sessions, ask their questions, get their answers and finally weigh in in a thoughtful manner.

Thank you.

[UPDATE: Council Postpones Consideration]

From tonight’s Council flash report:

Consideration of Proceeding with the Library Expansion Project: The Council considered the project schedule and associated costs for expansion of the Chapel Hill Public Library. The Council delayed action and indicated its desire to discuss the expansion costs in greater detail and in the context of the entire Town budget. The Council stated it wants to know what level of funding Orange County will provide toward Library services.

Orange County provides no capital support toward the Town’s Library expenses; this includes all past and present Library construction costs, debt service for same, equipment or special project costs. County support toward Library operating expenses has remained at $250,000 since 1995 and represents 11 percent of this year’s Library operating budget. About 12,000 of the Library’s patrons live in Orange County outside Chapel Hill limits. The number of materials borrowed by these patrons was 386,000 items last year. This represents approximately 40 percent of the Library’s annual circulation.

[X-POSTED from my campaign website]

Tonight was the final Council meeting before the election.

I’ve attended every Council meeting this Fall except the special Friday morning one. I go to quite a few Council meetings in general, so attending this Fall’s during my run for office was not much of a stretch. Penny Rich and Augustus Cho usually show up to catch what’s going on directly (Augustus was there this evening, Penny was participating in UNC Healthcare’s Tickled Pink event to benefit cancer research). Watching the meeting on TV or via the Web is just not quite the same.

Over the last eight years it has been interesting to see which candidates do show up – it seems like you would want to make sure you really want the job given the time commitment, to get up to speed on the relevant issues so you can hit the ground running, to learn a bit more of the nuts-n-bolts of how the Council operates so you can fit into the process fairly quickly – yet cycle after cycle it’s only a few that show.

While the media will probably focus on the Kidzu presentation, the approval moving Glen Lennox’s neighborhood conservation district (NCD) forward, Jim – on election eve – asking the Town to enforce Northside’s NCD (which I talk about in my recent brochure) or Council letting their next incarnation decide on Strom’s replacement, probably the most consequential issue on tonight’s agenda will not get word one.

Ken Pennoyer, the Town’s director of business management, was proposing a change in the structure of staff benefits. All new employees hired after June 30th, 2010 would get a defined benefit plan covering retirement health coverage. Existing employees would retain their Town guaranteed benefit, the payout based on term of service and retirement age.

What’s the big deal?

The existing plan, which is a “pay as you go” approach paid out of general revenues, has increased from $400K to $891k in 5 years – more than doubling our current obligation. To fully fund our commitment to our retired workforce would take $32M to $56M, roughly $3+ M or more per year, for a couple decades!

While the Town has set aside $400K in designated funds over the last two years, the forward obligation makes those contributions pale in comparison. $3-4M per year is equivalent to $0.05 to $0.07 of Chapel Hill’s tax rate – an additional $150 to $210 per year on a $300K home tax bill. This unfunded liability is just one of a number of other obligations – like the $3M affordable housing maintenance fund – which has been allowed to grow and grow over the last 6 years.

Tonight is the first attempt to truly grapple with that overhanging debt to our valued retirees. There are risks inherent in moving new employees to a defined benefit plan but the alternative, scrambling to find funds each fiscal cycle to adequately maintain that obligation, is not sustainable.
(more…)

Yonni Chapman, local historian, stalwart civil rights activist, documenter of Chapel Hill’s struggles for peace, justice and equality, after a long struggle with cancer, has passed on.

I last saw Yonni Aug. 28th at the commemoration of Chapel Hill’s new Peace and Justice Plaza. We talked awhile about the possible Board of Commissioner’s decision to site the new trash transfer facility in the Millhouse/Rogers Road community.

Yonni Chapman, KeithEdwards, Al McSurely
Yonni’s Picassa, Aug. 28th, 2009, Peace and Justice Commemoration

Fighting for consideration of social justice in the decision-making process of siting the transfer facility was just one of many local issues that Yonni helped our community address. He reminded us of the historical context, stressed that we cannot move forward if we forget where we’ve been.

From Yonni’s on-line profile

Privileged white child of the sixties. Became a revolutionary in 1969 at Harvard. Moved to Atlanta to do social justice organizing. Attended Atlanta Area Tech and became a Certified Laboratory Technician. Moved to Chapel Hill area. Worked in Hematology at UNC Memorial Hospital. Chair of Employees Forum. Did grassroots organizing in Chapel Hill with Welfare Rights Organization, CH Tenants Organization, hospital and university workers, Rainbow Coalition of Conscience, Jesse Jackson Campaign, Fred Battle Campaign for School Board, African Liberation Support Committee, Medical Aid for Southern Africa, Central America solidarity campaigns, anti-Apartheid movement, etc. Attended graduate school at UNC in history. Thesis, 1995, Second Generation: Black Youth and the Origins of the Chapel Hill Civil Rights Movement, 1937-1963. Dissertation, 2006, Black Freedom and the University of North Carolina, 1793-1960. Expert Witness for UNC Housekeepers Movement lawsuit; organized campaign to abolish Cornelia Phillips Spencer Bell Award at UNC; UNC Campaign for Historical Accuracy and Truth (CHAT); NAACP/Community Church movement to establish a state highway marker to commemorate the 1947 Journey of Reconciliation in Chapel Hill; Town of Chapel Hill/NAACP commemoration of nine local leaders at Peace and Justice Plaza. Member of Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF). Second Vice Chair, Chapel Hill-Carrboro NAACP and Chair of History Committee. Cancer survivor. Proud father of Sandra and Joyce. Eagerly expectant grandpa.

I have read over 100 emails detailing concerns around moving the IFC’s Men’s Shelter to Homestead Rd. Not all emails have been positive, many have very good questions that need to be laid to rest. I’m working on another post that condenses and highlights those specific neighborhood concerns.

Here’s a letter in support of the facility from Peggy Yonuschot:

Dear Mayor Foy and Members of the Town Council:

I write in support of the Inter-Faith Council for Social Service (IFC) with respect to the proposed location of the men’s residential facility at 1315 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. I also write in response to some of the fear and hateful rhetoric about people who are homeless that has been expressed by some of my neighbors to the Town Council as well as posted around my neighborhood at mailbox locations and the Tot Lot.

My home is in the Vineyard Square neighborhood, adjacent to Homestead Park. I live within walking distance to Project Homestart (the IFC facility for women and children who are homeless), Freedom House Recovery Center and the Seymour Senior Center as well as Homestead Park playground, playing fields and aquatic center. I have a young son and we walk to swim lessons, soccer practice and the swingset several times a week. I have experienced no adverse or negative impact as a result of living in close vicinity to any of the human services providers operating nearby. I do not view the proposed location of the men’s residential facility as a threat to my family’s safety.

The shelter has to go somewhere. It is my understanding that the proposed location was chosen after an extensive search by Town of Chapel Hill staff and in consult with myriad community partners. If IFC, their community partners and other entities with the expertise and experience needed to work effectively with people who are homeless believe that this is the best possible location for this facility in our town, then we should support them.

I have every confidence that the IFC will continue to work with community partners and surrounding neighborhoods to mitigate any potential negative impact. I have every confidence that the Chapel Hill Police Department will continue to enforce existing town ordinances and other regulations that address some of the real concerns that have been expressed about locating the shelter near a park. It is my hope that you will not allow misunderstanding and fear to derail the presence of a well-managed shelter in Chapel Hill, which is a benefit to the entire community as well as individuals who are homeless.

The individuals who are contacting you to express fear and hateful rhetoric do not speak for me or my family or all of our neighbors. I invite my neighbors who are gathering to speak against the IFC and the proposed site of the men’s residential facility to consider how they might feel if it were their son, brother or father who was without resource and in need of shelter. I believe that it is by grace that it is not me or my loved one currently in need. I am grateful to the IFC for providing an absolutely critical array of services in offer of assistance to those families and individuals who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness.

Sincerely,

Peggy Yonuschot

Big thanks to the Anderson-Thorpe Breakfast Club for endorsing my candidacy for Town Council. More on my campaign website.

There are a lot of questions about the IFC’s plans to site the new men’s homeless shelter on Homestead Road. As a candidate for Town Council, I have been reading concerned citizens emails and letters – almost 100 or so – on this project.

Executive Chris Moran has prepared the following Q & A based on a number of questions the nearby neighborhoods raised. I’ve converted the first section of the document to HTML and will work to finish that conversion soon. Until then, here is the complete response as a PDF.

AUGUST 14, 2009 RESIDENT QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES ABOUT COMMUNITY HOUSE

1. It is our understanding that the Town is involved with the development of the IFC Community House project. We know that the community Design Commission met about this issue on June 17, 2009 and that the Town council is scheduled to meet about this matter on September 21, 2009. We also know that there is a file about this project at the Town’s Planning Department. The full extent of the Town’s involvement, however, remains unclear.

   • What has been the formal planning and development process for the IFC Community House project relocation?

   • The Inter-Faith Council for Social Service (IFC) developed a formal partnership with the Town of Chapel Hill in 1985 when the Town Council offered the IFC a no-cost lease in the Old Municipal Building (OMB) to house homeless persons. The program began in congregations, then moved into the basement of the OMB and eventually expanded to the entire OMB after Council members approved a task force recommendation that the OMB be used as a homeless facility.

     The IFC formed another partnership with the Orange County Board of Commissioners in 1994 to plan and develop a new facility for homeless women and children initially called Project Homestart. The Board of Commissioners provided a no-cost 25-year three acre parcel on Homestead Road to the IFC at the Southern Human Services Center. Since HomeStart’s opening there has been no adverse or negative impact on neighboring areas. In fact, new neighborhoods have developed near and around our HomeStart campus. The Church of the Advocate will soon be building a new church in our vicinity.

     Here is some additional information about IFC’s history with shelter facilities:

     • In 1990, after a year-long renovation of the OMB, the IFC co-located the Community Kitchen and Community Shelter at the OMB officially known as Community House;
     • The IFC opened its HomeStart facility, originally known as Project Homestart, on Homestead Road in 1998 for homeless families;
     • After HUD funding ended for HomeStart in 2003, the IFC Board of Directors reorganized the HomeStart program for homeless women and children;
     • The new Homestart—whose model is based on the vision of the Planning Committee—has the mission of “providing a safe, structured home for homeless women and children, helping them to access community resources and offering everyone on-going support to break the cycle of poverty and homelessness” ;
     • And the IFC relocated single women guests from the downtown Community House facility to HomeStart during the same year.

   • There have been myriad community meetings and task forces appointed by Chapel Hill mayors since the year 2000 to find a permanent location for Community House. A formal agreement and special task force was created by Mayor Kevin Foy and IFC’s Board President in 2004 “to address homelessness and new facilities”. The Board of Directors came to three major conclusions based on task force recommendations during this process.

     • The Old Municipal Building was no longer adequate for IFC needs
     • The Town of Chapel Hill decided that the OMB was needed for other town offices
     • New facilities would consist of a men’s shelter and a separate building/location for combining IFC food programs (Community Kitchen and Food Pantry)

   • In May of 2008, after a long search for a permanent location for Community House, the UNC Chancellor, Chapel Hill Mayor and IFC Executive Director announced a new partnership and property location near the United Church of Chapel Hill on Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. The Chancellor announced that the University would lease 1.66 acres to the Town on a long-term basis. “The Town would then make the site available to the Inter-Faith Council for Social Service (IFC) for the construction and operation of a new men’s residential facility.”

   • When will a final determination (i.e., approval or disapproval) be made on this project?

   • The IFC will be applying for a special use permit (SUP) for the Community House project sometime this fall. Final Town approval is expected in the spring or summer of 2010. Timing is dependent on the Town’s planning process.

Thanks to Loren Hintz. Matt Scheer, Jason Baker (2005 candidate for Town Council), May Becker, Judith Ferster and the rest of the membership of the Orange-Chatham Sierra Club for both sponsoring the recent candidate forum and making the following video available to the wider community.

Also thanks to my fellow colleague on the Sustainability Task Force Matthew Scheer for moderating the event and James Carnahan for keeping time.

Quick technical note: the current video doesn’t support “quick search” but will start streaming right away.

Thanks to Madeline Jefferson, Bob Henshaw, Julie McClintock, Janet Smith, Alan Snavely, Mickey Jo Sorrel and the rest of the membership of Neighborhoods For Responsible Growth (NRG) for both sponsoring the recent candidate forum and making the following video available to the wider community.

Also thanks to my neighbor (and former Chapel Hill Mayor) Jonathon Howes for moderating the event.

Quick technical note: the current video doesn’t support “quick search” but will start streaming right away.

Last night I got an invite from Ruby Sinreich to engage other candidates on her local ‘blog OrangePolitics. Though I was an avid contributor to her ‘blog for several years, contributing a significant portion of the content, I have declined to participate in building her readership or commercial “brand” during this year’s election cycle.

My reasons for not participating are varied, many of which persist as covered in this “swan song” post from December, 2007.

• an escalating and stifling intolerance of valid though different viewpoints,
• the site’s authors acting as surrogates for political allies who didn’t have the courage to engage the community directly in an honest, fact-based and open manner
• and an unwillingness on my part to work hard in “building the brand” of a site that advertised one thing – engaging the wider community in an informative discussion of local “progressive” issues – and delivering another.

I haven’t read much of OP since then, mainly looking in when someone sends me a link of interest (like my “winning” a very unscientific straw poll for whom should be appointed to Bill Thorpe’s vacant seat). From what I’ve seen, Ruby has taken to heart some of my critique, including opening up authorship to folks she used to vehemently chastise. Good for her.

It is clear, though, that Ruby regularly continues breaking her own editorial rules when my name arises. I prefer to engage directly with other candidates rather than their surrogates. It is a more honest, open and transparent process – a process I cherish and that Chapel Hill voters deserve.

I wish that there was another local alternative to OP for political wonks, like myself, to engage in broad, open, inclusive discussion of the many serious issues facing our community. Unfortunately, the closest we have come is the Chapel Hill News’ OrangeChat, a ‘blog whose posts sometimes spur a genuine discussion of issues.

As a candidate who has engaged a broad spectrum of constituencies, has never turned down an opportunity to solicit our community for their ideas or discuss the realities of living in Chapel Hill, I regret that I might miss out on a great conversation.

That said, I will continue to maintain my “web presence” here on CitizenWill, post all my responses to the varied community election questionnaires, feature (hopefully) video of election forums, etc. I will seek out every opportunity to meet our citizens (send invites to campaign@willraymond.org)to listen and respond to their concerns.

And, if there’s a ‘blog you think I should be posting on, please post the link in the comments section.

See you on the campaign trail!

A couple meetings tonight that folks may want to check out.

First, a meeting on Northside and the corrosive effect burgeoning development, taxes and shrinking opportunities is having on that traditional community.

From today’s Herald-Sun:

Local activists united to address what they view as “historic discrimination, rising property taxes, and development that threaten communities of color in Chapel Hill” will share alternate visions for collaborative sustainability and social change at 6 tonight.

United with the Northside Community Now (UNC-NOW), St. Joseph C.M.E., NAACP, and EmPOWERment Inc. will host a community meeting at St. Joseph C.M.E. Church, 510 W. Rosemary St., to discuss the impact of local development on historically African American neighborhoods.

“It is important that we come together as a community to be the voice of righteousness and justice in the face of the injustice and racist environmentalism that is threatening our neighborhoods,” the Rev. Troy F. Harrison of St. Joseph C.M.E. said in a news release.

Second, at 7pm, the second Town-sponsored community outreach on the Carolina North development agreement.

A Public Input/Information Session on Carolina North will be held at 7 p.m. Thursday, Feb. 19, in the Chapel Hill Town Council Chambers of Town Hall, 405 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard.

Carolina North is a proposed satellite campus of UNC-Chapel Hill. It is expected to be contained within about 250 acres of the Horace Williams Tract’s 1,000 acres and be built in phases over the next 50 years, as proposed. The property lies just to the north of Estes Drive adjacent to Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard.

The Thursday session will provide an update on the status of UNC-Chapel Hill’s
Carolina North plans and a description of issues being addressed by policy-makers and Town/University staffs. These issues include the following: design standards and public art; police/fire/EMS facilities and services; school site; recreation facilities; greenways, connections; historic, cultural features; stormwater management on site; water use and reclamation; energy conservation, carbon credits; Solid waste management; remediation of landfill; stream buffers; trees, landscaping; sedimentation; neighboring lands, compatibility, buffers; noise, lighting. A public comment period is scheduled.

This meeting will be aired live on Chapel Hill Government TV 18. Additional informational sessions on Carolina North have been scheduled for 1 to 5 p.m. March 4 and 7 to 9 p.m. April 1.

For more information, contact the Town of Chapel Hill Planning Department at (919) 968-2728 or carolinanorth@townofchapelhill.org.

Additional material is posted online at www.townofchapelhill.org/carolinanorth.

Tonight presents an excellent opportunity to not only get information but to help steer the discussion on what should be part of the development agreement which will codify the community’s expectations.

Laurin, a sitting member of the current Council ruminates this evening on what makes a good Mayor and Councilmember.

Public service is not a right, but a privilege. Holding public office can be one of the most rewarding experiences in life. Being a good mayor or a good council member certainly comes by trial and error and by experience itself. The bottom line is to never lose sight of what drew you to the position in the first place.

Laurin, a one-termer (so far), is up for re-election with Mark Kleinschmidt, Ed Harrison and recent appointee James Merritt.

With elections almost 8 months off it appears that the jockeying for position has begun.

More from Laurin here.

Orange County Voice, another Orange County organization working on the trash transfer site issue along side Preserve Rural Orange, has picked up on the Plan B options I have posted on as recently as last Fall (Trash Talk:Commissioner Gordon “No Plan B”).

Bonnie Hauser, Tony Blake, Susan Walser (recent editorial) and other members have done their homework, presented their cases both for cost effectively using existing local transfer services (one of the options I proposed to the Orange County Commissioners starting several years ago) to partnering with UNC on Waste To Energy facilities [OCV research].

Feb. 11th they renewed their call as reported by Mark Schultz in the Chapel Hill News.

The report says vendors charge $40 to $50 per ton to dispose of waste using existing facilities. Two vendors run waste transfer facilities in Durham and are willing to take Orange County’s waste on a monthly or yearly basis, the report says.

By contrast, the report says Orange County estimates it would cost $47 to $62 per ton to dispose of waste using a new county transfer station. The difference comes in the county’s spending too much to buy property, spending too much to build the facility and locating it in a rural area that lacks water and sewer services, according to Orange County Voice.

The Commissioner’s have opted to research (Herald Sun, Jan. 27th, 2009) alternatives to siting and building a new facility in the particularly troublesome proposed Hwy 54 locale. The race is on to see if common sense and a keen eye towards the future will win out over the current course of events.

I was saddened to hear that Roland has died. More here (H-S). Roland’s online presence as the “old codger blogger” here.

Roland, a journalist, an activist, a leader, a “ne’er do well” and old codger was recently commissioned a Chapel Hill treasure, part of what made Chapel Hill cool.