Monthly Archives: September 2006

Carrboro, ChapelHill, Community, LocalPolitics, Ruminations, WeaverStreetMktLawn

Licensed for the Lawn: Path to a Mediated Settlement

Leave a comment

An quick update on next steps in the Weaver Street Market lawn saga…

September 11, 2006

To Weaver Street Market Owners:

We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for the feedback you are giving us about our handling of the lawn issue. We continue to be engaged in working toward a resolution that will maximize community use of the lawn. Here is a short update of what has happened in the last week. Please continue to send us your feedback and suggestions at feedback@weaverstreetmarket.coop.

Thank you

Ruffin Slater, General Manager

Update on Lawn in front of Weaver Street Market:

Weaver Street Market has engaged Andy Sachs of the Dispute Settlement Center to assist in facilitating a resolution to the lawn issues. Over the last week, Mr. Sachs met with several of the parties involved.

In addition, Carr Mill’s principal owner, Paul Greenberg, initiated a meeting, which took place on September 5 and included himself, Mall Manager Nathan Milian, Mayor Mark Chilton and Alderman Dan Coleman. The September 5 meeting included a frank exchange of information and concerns. Mr. Greenberg expressed his desire that Carr Mill continue to serve as a focal point for the Carrboro community. He also agreed with an idea put forth by Alderman Coleman that he meet with Bruce Thomas, who had already agreed to meet with Mr. Greenberg. It is expected that this meeting will take place on or around September 20. The Mayor has offered his office for this meeting and either he or Alderman Coleman will be present to facilitate. Mr. Greenberg agreed to reflect on the ideas discussed prior to his expected return to Carrboro on September 20.

Mayor Chilton and Alderman Coleman appreciated the Mall owner’s initial step toward resolution. Coleman said, “We appreciate Mr. Greenberg taking the initiative to seek to resolve this situation. We are confident that he will find Bruce Thomas to be easy-going, respectful of the mall’s concerns, and amenable to a win-win solution. Beyond that, we look forward to hearing Mr. Greenberg’s articulation of policy concerns that best serve the interests of the mall and our shared goal of its continuing to serve as a vital center for Carrboro.”

WSM General Manager Ruffin Slater added that the lawn and the activities that it supports have been a major asset to the community. “The activities on the lawn have existed in part because the Mall’s owners allow their property to be used by the community,” Slater said. “The challenge for the community and the owners of the property is how to continue the use of the lawn while respecting the legitimate needs of the property owner and of other users of Carr Mill.”

Slater said following a successful meeting between Mr. Greenberg and Mr. Thomas, Andy Sachs will remain available to help take up the challenge of balancing the needs of everyone involved.

CarolinaNorth, Ruminations, UNC

$337,800

Leave a comment

Fresh in from Kirk Ross’ ExileOnJonesStreet.

Today’s UNC Board of Governors meeting yielded significant raises for the Chancellors in the UNC system, including a hefty $32,000 increase for UNC-Chapel Hill’s Chancellor James Moeser.

Fayetteville State University’s T.J. Bryan(t) [sic: they even misspelled her name] must be bumming as her “paltry” %3.8 increase was not enough to surmount the $208+ K we’re paying Moeser’s latest Carolina North quarterback Jack Evans.

More from Exile…

[UPDATE:]

And that $32,000 bump was in addition to the 2005’s %13 $31,500 increase – which at the time drew some deserved ire. The BOG’s taxpayer-financed two-year largesse has landed Moeser $63,500 or just a few thousand dollars shy of the current regional average salary of $69K.

Here’s the list of current UNC Chancellors if you’re interested in their demographics.

CivilLiberties, Community, Ruminations, WeaverStreetMktLawn

“Very Interesting”: the ESP Show on “Bruce-gate”

Leave a comment

Thursday morning, I boogied down to Carrboro’s low-powered radio co-op, WCOM, to join with Carrboro Mayor Mark Chilton for a modified two-step with the boys of the ESP Show. With practiced professionalism, Geoff Gilson and the dangerous “Mad Dog” Aaron assembled a nice overview of the recent Weaver St. Mkt. Lawn public access issue.

Having done a few radio and television interviews over the years, I was generally comfortable with the format, but, as with my frequent appearances before Council, had a small problem compressing the nuance out of a complex issue in order to deliver a brief summary sound bite.

And, it appears, I find many things either “interesting” or “very interesting” – as you can hear for yourself [MP3:24meg] via WCOM’s PODcast.

By the way, “very interesting” is not just a verbal tick. Carr Mill Mall’s restrictions on public access to a de facto community-space reflect a broader troubling trend throughout our world. I find it quite illuminating (“very interesting”) that we have a sterling example of out-of-control controls in our progressive “Paris of the Piedmont”.

Community, LocalArts, Orthogonal, Ruminations

Damn you David Fanning!

Leave a comment

Sure, I’m nearly 225 years behind the times cursing David Fanning’s troop’s drunken pillage of nearby Hillsborough, North Carolina but it is the thought that counts…

In the early morning hours of September 12, 1781, Loyalist David Fanning led 600 Tory militiamen on a daring raid of Hillsborough where Governor Thomas Burke had taken refuge. Taken by surprise, the Hillsborough District militia and handful of Continentals offered little resistance. Fanning’s men quickly captured the Governor, 71 Continentals, and a large number of Whig militia while also freeing 30 loyalist prisoners held in the jail. After their success — in which they suffered only one wounded — the victorious militia began to plunder the town, and after finding liquor, a number of them celebrated by becoming increasingly drunk.

Some interesting fun in-store this weekend as our brave Continentals are surprised (at 11am Saturday, 2pm Sunday Sept. 9th & 10th) by the Loyalist militia.

Schedule & Maps

Events running all weekend, so check it out.

CarolinaNorth, Carrboro, ChapelHill, Community, environment, Ruminations, UNC

Carolina North’s Evans: Don’t pin me down…

Leave a comment

A third of the way through my second “live” LAC meeting – the second with Evans as UNC’s point man – and a nascent theme from the last meeting has emerged full-blown: “Don’t pin me down…”

Last week [PDF], when questioned on specific environmental goals for Carolina North, Evans dismissed specific language.

Dan Coleman: Can we assume that the University does not want Carolina North to have a negative impact on the air quality of Chapel Hill? Given the way the principle is worded, is it the word ‘insure’ that is too strong a word? Is the hang-up in that phrase?

Jack Evans: My interest is not in wordsmithing. Agreed that we want a different wording for that section. The University people are interested in doing something innovative here; but we don’t want to find ourselves trapped by wording that doesn’t have the right intention/target…

Further, when asked about using stiff protections to limit growth to a specific sized footprint at Carolina North, BOT member (and local developer) Roger Perry responded

Ken Broun: Others will have a chance to comment. University comments: University disagrees: preserve in perpetuity the maximum amount of open space, with goal of preserving 75% of Horace Williams property.

Roger Perry: The problem: we are firmly committed to building Carolina North on as small a portion of the property as possible; are committed to environmentally protecting Bolin Creek and sensitive environmental areas to the best possible reasonable practices. That will leave additional land in Carolina North, after you take out the footprint for Carolina North and the environment protection areas and the green spaces and trail system. There’s no way that the Board of Trustees could take the rest of that land and say that it will never be developed. Not responsible, even if we could. Technologies change. Needs change. Missions change. That remaining land that is developable is an asset of the State of North Carolina. To say that it would never be used is not responsible, in keeping with our mission to the State. We would never be able to do that.

More on Perry’s strange, strained intransigence later.

This week, Evans expressed concern that the local Chamber of Commerce’s request that “Carolina North Creates public amenities such as schools, parks, conference facilities, performance space, trails and greenways that are open and welcoming to the general public” would be used as a firm list of deliverables. In other words, this desire would eventually transmute into a promise to provide “a school,a park,a performance space”, etc.

The committee turns to transit.

Wow! Evans: “single occupancy vehicles critical to Carolina North”.

Comments from UNC’s delegation following that interesting revelation seem to indicate a decision, absent the pending transit study and analysis, that the single occupancy vehicle is king at Carolina North.

Their claims have the feeling of a conclusion chasing a justification.

Evans trundles out the red-herring smoke screen that Carolina North’s build out will be very slow…that it will take decades to reach a daily population of 20,000. I say red-herring because the recent massive main campus build out demonstrated that when UNC has the will and the money, they can build like mad.

Finally (at least for this update), Roger Perry comments he’s never seen a development brought before Council where Council has asked for some of the workers to be housed on-site. Of course, he has seen, with his own Meadowmont, a requirement that residents’ kids be schooled on-site.

This seems to be a continuing theme from UNC’s delegation: Carolina North is, short term, a small development – a development essentially no different than a private development – and the “conditions” that elected folk want to moderate its more negative impacts somehow violate “equal protection” , so to speak.

I’ll be digging through this weeks video to try to capture the nuance of UNC’s transit nyets. Hopefully, the video will be up on the Carolina North site fairly quickly. Until then, here’s a link [Video of August 24, 2006 meeting of Leadership Advisory Committee (WMV)] to last weeks.

CarolinaNorth, Carrboro, ChapelHill, environment, Ruminations, UNC

Crawford-Brown: “I’ll take the brickbats from both sides…”

Leave a comment

Dr. Crawford-Brown claimed at today’s LAC meeting that he feels he does more work on behalf of Chapel Hill’s Town Council than for the University even though he’s a member of the University’s delegation – and the director of UNC’s Carolina Environmental Program.

Trying to clarify his role, Crawford-Brown said he’s here as a scientist, an expert and that, though he works for UNC, he’s giving his balanced opinion. Or, as he colorfully put it, “I’ll take brickbats from both sides…”.

Dan Coleman followed up Crawford-Brown’s statement by asking Dean Jack Evans what role, then, was Crawford-Brown playing vis-a-vis UNC’s delegation. Essentially, he was asking Evans if Crawford-Brown’s statements should be construed as representing the University’s position. Evans danced around, avoiding answering the question, because he feels the firm roles of the committee members shouldn’t be pinned down while the substantive content of the recommendations are being formalized.

Sure, Crawford-Brown has a tough balancing act trying to forge a coherent vision of environmental analysis at Carolina North both as a member of the UNC delegation and a concerned scientist.

He is in an unenviable position considering he’s been positioned by UNC’s Jack Evans as their environmental expert. No matter what, to preserve his value as “THE” expert, he must continue to maintain at least the appearance of making unbiased appraisals of the LAC’s environmental strategies wherever his loyalties lie.

Evans could’ve helped Crawford-Brown by clarifying his specific role as “the expert.”

More on Crawford-Brown’s personal environmental philosophy.

4:17pm UNC Leadership Advisory Committee meeting on Carolina North development.

Carrboro, ChapelHill, CitizenWill, Community, Government, Ruminations

NC’s Mental Health Crisis: Penny-wise, Pound-foolish

Leave a comment

A nice thread on NC’s deteriorating public mental health infrastructure is developing on local bulletin board SqueezeThePulp spawned by a discussion of the recent murder and ensuing non-fatal shooting at Orange High School by an arguably deranged individual:

Anita Badrock, says

Another problem here is the state’s attempt to restructure mental health services provided by state funds, and the resulting holes in the safety net. The taxpayers of this state need to educate themselves about how the proposed “privatization” of mental health care has resulted in some of the sickest and most needy of the mentally ill not getting the services they need.

I am generally a private sector champion, but it isn’t working with respect to delivery of mental health services to the poor. Talk to anyone who works at OPCMH and ask them what impact the state’s decisions have made in their abilty to care for their clients.

Fred Black, fresh from this morning’s NC Chamber of Commerce sponsored Legislative breakfast says “both Sen. Kinnaird and Rep. Insko emphatically made this point and said that even with what was done in the recent short session, they believed it just scratches the surface.”

Good to hear that Fred… and to see discussion continuing on this thread.

CarolinaNorth, Community, environment, Ruminations, UNC

Greenwashing?

1 Comment

One curious reader asks “What is greenwashing?”

From the Center for Media & Democracy’s Sourcewatch project, greenwashing is defined thusly:

“Greenwashing is what corporations do when they try to make themselves look more environmentally friendly than they really are.” [1] (here)

“Greenwash” is defined in the 10th edition of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary as the “disinformation disseminated by an organization so as to present an environmentally responsible public image.” Its inclusion in the dictionary indicates the significance and permanence of a growing trend among corporations to take advantage of the many consumers who look for products with negative environmental impact. [2] (here)

“Earthday Resources for Living Green has released this report annually for the last 11 years to call attention to the past year’s worst greenwashers, corporations that have made misleading or false claims abut the environmental benefits of their products and industries. “Don’t Be Fooled” describes companies’ greenwashing attempts as well as the truth behind their misleading claims.” Current and past reports are available [online (here)].

The Washington Post has produced a Special Report titled BIG GREEN (here) which as series of investigative articles exposes the corporate infestation of The Nature Conservancy and “documents on the organization’s transformation from a grassroots group to a corporate juggernaut.”

Frequent PR Watch contributor Bob Burton has prepared a 5 page paper titled “Corporations Will Save the World, won’t they?” which describes how corporations lure their environmentalist adversaries into the illusion of cooperative engagements such as Community Advisory Panels which result in a win-win result for the corporations by reducing the energy of their adversaries, and turning the media attention away from environmental advocacy against the evil corporation into an image of the corporation attempting to benefit the environment. [3] (here [PDF])

“Several recent incidents show that, when faced with environmental crises attributable to business interests cozy with the White House, the administration has developed an alternative response: Suppress, Ignore, Preempt.” [4] (here)

Greenwashing is a form of public relations propaganda which gives something the appearance of being environmentally friendly when it is, in fact, not.

An example of this would be an oil company being forced in a court of law to create a habitat for endangered species in its oil fields. Greenwashing would occur when the company creates a magazine ad campaign that is complete with paintings of a beautiful moonlit oil field and nature coexisting, with the image assisted by text explaining how much that company cares for Nature and endangered species, as well as how nature can beautifully coexist with oil wells, factories, or whatever.

Another example is naming a piece of legislation “Clear Skies” when the legislation will not result in sky clearing.

In December 2005 the New York Times noted that corporations including Ford, Exxon Mobil, BP, General Electric and Alcan “appear to be spending ever-bigger chunks of their advertising budgets to promote” what critics call greenwashing. New ad campaigns from WPP, Omnicom Group, and Interpublic Group tout corporate “environmental do-goodism.” [5] (here)

“Oil companies, under attack for reaping windfall profits from soaring fuel prices, are trying to position themselves as part of the solution to energy problems rather than the cause. Manufacturers of fuel-efficient automobiles, jet engines or other green products are recognizing that they can burnish their image even as they promote their products. And companies in all industries are trying to make socially conscious investors and customers comfortable about buying their products and shares.” [6] (here)

A more extensive overview is available here.

[UPDATE:] And why did they ask? Carolina North: Crawford-Brown’s Counter-principles

CarolinaNorth, Carrboro, ChapelHill, environment, Government, LocalPolitics, Ruminations, UNC

Carolina North: Moeser Tirelessly Seizing Future Territory

Leave a comment

The October 1st, 2007 can’t come soon enough for some of UNC’s Board of Trustees. Yesterday, Chancellor Moeser once again disingenuously affirmed the absolutely critical role Carolina North’s development plays.

Important? Maybe. Critical? How can we assess that before we see a real evaluation of its business, educational and community-oriented impacts?

Leaning on previous assertions of broad economic impacts, Moeser talked of his administrations “tireless” pursuit of Carolina North’s rollout – including the appointment of Dean Jack Evans (Moeser somehow omitted mentioning Evans’ $208,000+ per year salary). At least Evans’ sees this not as territory to seize but more of a potentially futile intellectual exercise.

Our engagement with the state will be greatly enhanced by Carolina North, our 21st Century living-and-learning community. We will pursue this project tirelessly. It is absolutely critical to our future. We want this new campus to be a national model for sustainability, addressing the long-term needs of the University for accelerated transfer of our new knowledge into the economy, housing for faculty and staff, and new collaborations with the private sector.

A Leadership Advisory Committee of community, state, and University representatives is recommending guiding principles for building Carolina North. Last month, I appointed Professor Jack Evans as executive director of Carolina North. Our trustees have directed us to submit our zoning and development plan applications to local governments by October 1st of next year.

We want the Carolina North campus to have an aesthetic quality that will draw people to it and enhance the communities surrounding it, just as the main campus has for two centuries. We believe it can do all of that at the same time that it advances our missions of teaching, research, and public service.

CarolinaNorth, environment, Ruminations, UNC

Chancellor Moeser: It’s good to be good

Leave a comment

Chancellor Moeser’s main thesis from his September 6th State of the University remarks [via WCHL1360]:

…we can aspire for greatness … move from good to great … and be both great and good…

The speech was replete with references of being good, of moving from good to great both as an University and community member.

  • We have also talked about being good – good in the context of maintaining high ethical and moral values – goodness as critical to achieving greatness.

  • Over the past several years, we have talked about what it means to be a great university – to be the leading public university in America – striving for greatness.

    Jim Collins, author of the best-selling book Good to Great, defines greatness not as a function of circumstance. Greatness, he says, “is largely a matter of conscious choice.”

    Collins describes Carolina’s approach. We have made tough decisions and instilled discipline in our budget. Our priorities mark the way. We are driven to be better.

    Like Collins, we have a conviction that greatness is a journey, not a destination. The moment we think of ourselves as great, he says, we will have begun our slide into mediocrity. 2

    We have also talked about being good – good in the context of maintaining high ethical and moral values – goodness as critical to achieving greatness.

    The single most distinguishing feature of this University is its goodness – its core values of commitment to the people of North Carolina and the betterment of humankind. Charles Kuralt nailed it in his 1993 Bicentennial remarks when he said:

    “… Here we found something in the air. A kind of generosity, a certain tolerance, a disposition toward freedom of action and inquiry that has made of Chapel Hill, for thousands of us, a moral center of the world.”

  • Good enough is never good enough – not for an institution that aspires to be America’s leading public university. Going from good to great.

  • Leading with innovation. Going from good to great.

  • A University with a Strong Moral Center: Great and Good

    I turn now to the second part of my thesis, the noble idea that Carolina can be both great and good – in Kuralt’s words “a moral center of the universe,” a great public university committed to access and affordability, to service and engagement, and to the conviction that our mission includes the development of the heart, as well as the mind.

  • Today, we are the stewards of that great venture at the dawn of a new century and a world as new and daunting as the one Davie faced. We are called upon to make this University even greater – to go from good to great. We are also called on to nurture and nourish what it means to be a public university, to be both great and good. And we must adapt this great and noble institution to the 21st Century.

Why enumerate Chancellor Moeser’s calls for greatness?

Oh, a small attempt to remind UNC’s Carolina North Leadership Advisory Committee that they’re supposed to produce a plan that is more than “good enough” – that, instead, is great and worthy of our world-class research University.

CarolinaNorth, CitizenWill, Community, environment, Government, LocalPolitics, Ruminations, UNC

Carolina North: Crawford-Brown’s Counter-principles

Leave a comment

Rather than expanding upon the published principles created by Chapel Hill’s (now defunct) Horace-Williams Citizens’ Committee (HWCC) or integrating their newer environmental recommendations (which I championed), UNC’s green representative to the LAC (UNC’s Leadership Advisory Committee) offers a counter-proposal.

Why? Why follow Chancellor Moeser’s lead and continue butting heads?

To: LAC (9-3-06)
From: Doug Crawford-Brown
Re: Environmental Principles for Carolina North

I’ve taken a stab at a few principles at the end of this memo, related to environmental issues we raised in our last meeting. Before giving the wording on those principles, I want to take a moment and explain how I reasoned towards them.

1. I assumed that these should be principles, not goals or strategies. I take a principle to be a statement about a core value we want Carolina North to reflect; a goal to be a measurable characteristic that will let us know whether we have satisfied a particular principle; and a strategy to be a statement of the way in which we will reach that goal.

2. Then I assumed that we are talking here about environmental issues, and not growth per se. There are legitimate reasons to control growth, but if we want the latter, we should just say it rather than couching it in environmental standards. So I have tried to design these principles based solely on their impact on core environmental concerns.

3.Then I assumed that principles need to be applied to all sectors of our community at some time. Still, Carolina North has some unique features: (i) it will be a large change in the infrastructure of our community, giving us an opportunity to affect that infrastructure significantly in one grand step; (ii) it is being built by a university with immense intellectual resources to solve problems of sustainability – the Chancellor has provided us leadership in that regard; (iii) it will be built in part by the State, which has resources to stimulate the market for sustainable designs; and (iv) it can provide a template for what we need eventually from all sectors of the community.

Here is my wording for a broad environmental principle, followed by more specific ones.

First Environmental Principle: Carolina North presents a unique opportunity to meet the mission of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill while providing a model for environmentally sustainable community design reflecting reasonably anticipated environmental goals over the next 50 years. Carolina North will therefore be an examplar of sustainability in the sense that if the entire community of Chapel Hill and Carrboro adopted the design and operational practices embodied in Carolina North, this community would be environmentally sustainable.

Then we need a principle concerning what we mean by “environmentally sustainable”, which can be a vague term. I assume that “environmentally sustainable” communities produce impacts that preserve specific conditions of the environment and public health above some level we would find acceptable as a long-term condition of life.

Second Environmental Principle: When added onto the baseline (2006) environmental conditions of the community, Carolina North will produce sustainable levels of criteria air pollutants and air toxics; emissions of carbon dioxide; carbon absorption capacity of the land; amount of land available as species habitat; amount of open land for human recreation; protection of water bodies; generation of waste; and quantity of water flowing off surfaces as run-off. “Sustainable” here means that each of these conditions and their implications for public health would be acceptable as a permanent feature of life in the community.

The community already is near natural or legal limits for some of these conditions. Important examples are ozone (related to emissions of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds); carbon dioxide emissions (related to climate change and the town-gown Carbon Reduction pledge); run-off of water during storm events (related to impervious surfaces); and watershed protection (related to flow of sediment and nutrients into local streams and rivers). The challenge here is in (i) bringing about these community-wide improvements without placing the burden solely on Carolina North, (ii) considering the “net” impact of campus activities, with improvements elsewhere by the University in part “offsetting” the effect of Carolina North (much as a cap-and-trade program allows), and (iii) ensuring that Carolina North does not consume all of the “buffer” between existing conditions in the community and the natural or legal limit. Fortunately, meeting the CRed pledge will have the follow-on effect of keeping ozone precursors neutral, and current water practices in campus construction will ensure that the storm-water and loading conditions are met at Carolina North.

Third Environmental Principle: Carolina North and related off-setting measures will produce no net increase in emissions of precursors of ozone, no net increase in vulnerability of the community to storm-water events, no net increase in loading of sediment and nutrients into local streams, and a continued ability to meet the carbon dioxide emissions reduction goals established by the university under CRed. “Related off-setting measures” means improvements to the existing campus and/or university support of community-wide programs targeting these four environmental conditions.

Finally, we have the other environmental conditions specified in the Second Environmental Principle. For these conditions, there is some “buffer” left for development, meaning the community is not yet at any of the relevant natural or legal limits on these conditions (although we are approaching them rapidly). For these conditions, the principle adopted should reflect the desire to avoid having Carolina North consume this “buffer”, which would prevent other forms of growth from occurring in town if the community desired.

Fourth Environmental Principle: With respect to all other environmental conditions, Carolina North will leave a “buffer” to accommodate development elsewhere in the community. “Buffer” means that the incremental effect of Carolina North on all relevant environmental conditions, when added onto existing baseline conditions, will allow for reasonably anticipated future development elsewhere in the community without the community exceeding natural and/or legal limits on these conditions.

Where to start?

I appreciate Crawford-Brown’s acknowledgment “that Carolina North presents a unique opportunity to meet the mission of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill while providing a model for environmentally sustainable community design”.

Diluting UNC’s responsibility by lumping in the whole community (“Carolina North will therefore be an examplar of sustainability in the sense that if the entire community of Chapel Hill and Carrboro adopted the design and operational practices embodied in Carolina North” strikes me as a precursor to a good old-style greenwashing.

For instance, what is reasonable and acceptable, as in his call for “reasonably anticipated environmental goals over the next 50 years” and his tautology that the standards applied to Carolina North simply be “acceptable as a long-term condition of life”?

Of course we don’t want a multi-billion dollar, taxpayer-financed, State project that’s inimical to life, do we?

The continuing tenor – his suggestion of applying “pollution reduction credits” accrued elsewhere to balance environmentally questionable development practices or working within a “buffer” that’s measured not by environmental best-practices but by our State’s rather weak legal requirements – makes we wonder if UNC’s current administration has positioned Crawford-Brown as more an apologist/whitewasher than a champion for world class green development.

CarolinaNorth, ChapelHill, Community, environment, Government, LocalPolitics, Ruminations

Carolina North: My Own Words? A Recap of My Aug. 24th Environmental Request to the LAC

Leave a comment

According to the online minutes [PDF] of August 24th’s Carolina North Leadership Advisory Committee meeting, this is what I asked for…

Will Raymond, citizen of Chapel Hill, former member of HWCC: Speaking on own behalf. Wants to talk about the environmental assay, which was an issue brought up by HWCC. Like what BioHabitats is doing, but it’s not extensive enough/not a true environmental assay that UNC would be capable of doing. Want University to look at this property as a science experiment; are performing a major experiment on it. Look at it the same way you look at 100 acres in the deep jungle: looking for champion species of trees, real counts of flora and fauna, on/off-site evaluations of air pollution. No good hydrological studies/no good on-off site air studies. Want the committee to do that, but put as a core principle continuous monitoring after the fact.

Troubled: Dean Evans referenced the minimum specs of the state; that concerns me; want to shoot for the stars, as George said. Should have world-class goals. University is capable of doing that. No one player should bear the burden? There is no other player that is building a community/development the size of Hillsborough in Chapel Hill. Unique project deserves unique environmental assay to determine the baselines.

Two minutes is not much time to cover a fairly extensive and somewhat nuanced perspective on the incredible environmental potential Carolina North’s development presents our State.

Many other great quotes highlighting Evan’s subtext throughout the minutes….

Next meeting is September 7th at the Friday Center.

CarolinaNorth, ChapelHill, Community, Government, LocalPolitics, Ruminations

UNC’s Moeser Prefers Butting Heads Over Carolina North…

Leave a comment

One would assume UNC’s Chancellor Moeser prefers confrontation over collaboration – at least that’s what I think based on his choice of sports metaphors.

Along those lines, Chapel Hill News’ Mark Schultz chose an apt title, University puts on its game face, for my second CHN My View column.

Forming up across the slippery turf, the ragtag home team awaits the strong-arm tactics of a well-fortified offense. The ball is snapped. Team coverage failing, Broun dances, weaves, slips and fumbles the ball.

Timeout.

Under pressure, Coach Moeser watches the irate boosters, big-money guys, circle overhead. Yelling over the bellicose boosters’ truculent chants of “Take it to the goal,” Moeser leans forward into the huddle.

“Look boys, three points, four minutes, there’s plenty of time to turn this game around.”

As the team spreads onto the field, two heavyweight alums, Carter and Burnett, charge the bench. Sounds like they’re reminding the coach of his duty to build a grand legacy.

Responding to the barbs, the coach turns to his deep bench, looking for a solid, conservative, steady player to replace the current quarterback. “Evans. He’s got the background, the connections and, by gosh, he’s a true believer.”

Football in early August? No. Instead, unfortunately, UNC’s never-ending development games.

With the recent two-year appointment of “quarterback” Jack Evans, 10-year veteran Council-member Pat Evans’ husband and longtime Kenan-Flagler business dean, Chancellor James Moeser has signaled a troubling return to a historically failing strategy.

Moeser’s characterization of Evans’ role sets up a fake reverse. “On offense, he’ll try to help devise a plan for Carolina North that meets both university needs and community demands.”

On the other side of the ball, “Evans should be adept at reading the defense.”

Community demands? Reading the defense? A revealing and polarizing choice of words.

Centrally located, rivaling Hillsborough in scale, Carolina North is a huge project. Few residents will not feel its impact. Done right, the project could be the genesis of incredible academic and economic progress. Done wrong, our community will have a noisome blight, our taxpayer’s a terrible money pit.

Yes, Moeser is under pressure from an impatient UNC Board of Trustees. “Let’s fish or cut bait here,” as trustee Tim Burnett said in May just prior to the BOT setting an arbitrary October 2007 deadline for completing this critical phase of the process. Burnett claims he doesn’t “see how we can have the luxury of talking anymore. We’ve got to come up with a plan.”

What about UNC’s Leadership Advisory Committee? At a luxurious cost of $208,210 per year, what role does the high-stepping, hard-charging “quarterback” play? Made up of distinguished faculty, administrators, trustees, a few local elected officials and their representatives, the advisory committee has already advanced the yardstick. With the adoption of a number of key environmental, transit, financial and sustainability guiding principles as outlined by Chapel Hill’s Horace Williams Citizen’s Committee (of which I was a member), they’ve cleaved to their founding charter and taken “the first and most important step” of developing “the guiding principles for the physical development of Carolina North.”

A shame, then, that some of the trustees are falling back on the “same old, same old” pattern of conduct such as a thinly veiled threat, reminiscent of Sen. Tony Rand’s 2001 reprisal, to legislatively remove Chapel Hill’s zoning authority.

When Moeser officially announced the advisory committee’s formation, deep in December, some longtime UNC observers felt this was yet another attempt to create a false sense of community approval. “We’ve been down this road before” was a common refrain.

Yes, sometimes you need to look back to move forward. UNC’s recent handling of campus development is certainly rife with insensitivity, subterfuge and BOT upsets. Hard-won trust is easily lost. Even so, I asked folks to shed their mistrusts, start anew, and help forge a common vision of Carolina North’s future.

For most every early fumble — Chairman Ken Broun’s desire for secrecy, town’s disinterest in outside presentations, UNC’s unwillingness to field questions — there’s been incremental gains. Carolina North’s 17,000 parking spaces: off the table. Chapel Hill’s sovereign right to manage zoning: reaffirmed. A fairly thorough environmental assay, suitable for establishing a longitudinal baseline of the Horace Williams property: promised.

I’m not Chapel Hill’s defensive linebacker. I want to see a world-class Carolina North centered on “green technology.” For that, UNC’s leadership must break its habitual worldview of “us” and “them.”

Chancellor Moeser let me suggest a change of sports metaphors. Not football. Golf. Specifically, “scramble” golf.

Playing “scramble” rules, everyone is on the same team. Each player takes a stroke. The team moves on to the best shot and plays from there. Essentially, everyone contributes and excellence is reinforced.

A bit more rewarding, I believe, than butting heads.

Carrboro, CivilLiberties, Community, Government, LocalArts, LocalPolitics, Ruminations, WeaverStreetMktLawn

Weaver St. Market Lawn: The Story So Far….

7 Comments

Now that the initial uproar over Carr Mill Mall’s management’s rather strained decision to implement new restrictions on public access to Weaver Street Market Lawn [MAP] has quieted down a bit, I thought I’d put together a quick recap covering the last couple weeks of letters, posts and comments.

The Wiki Roots wiki has a timeline and suggested next steps under the Moving with Footloose Bruce category. Issues of WSM strategy, customer safety, “community spaces” and potential racism are covered. Local activists Michal and Brian also posted a five point open letter in response to Weaver Street Market manager Ruffin Slater’s and Carr Mill Mall’s Nathan Milian’s joint proposal, the “Live on the Lawn” performance program :

First, while we are not interested in accusing individuals like Nathan Milian of racism, to the best of our knowledge, to this day the only people who have been banned, and asked not to dance are African American. Regardless of the intention of individuals involved, this is defacto discrimination.

Second, beyond racial discrimination, we believe that Carr Mill Mall is treading on dangerous ground when they begin to differentially allow people who look and act a certain way to dance….

Third, we support Carr Mill Mall’s efforts to ensure public safety and a convivial atmosphere for its tenants and customers…

Fourth, the fact that the WSM lawn happens to be private property does not negate our constitutional rights….

Finally, while we understand that private property is something Americans hold very dear, we also recognize that it is the community that ensures the right to private property and that sustains whatever economic value such property might hold. We feel it is no small matter that the banning of these individuals is one among a number of steps Carr Mill has taken to rid the lawn of its role as the functional commons of Carrboro. Thus, we want to pose the question about how far we are willing to allow the rights of single and corporate property owners to override the collective good of the community from which they benefit.

The Chapel Hill News asked their readers what they thought and got a range of responses:

  • A call to Get the crazies off the lawn from Lucinda Poole

    I think it’s an eyesore all those hippies and children running around dancing and loitering in Carrboro. I never feel comfortable walking anywhere close to the lawn at Weaver Street. Maybe what the manager at Weaver Street realizes is he possibly could change his clientele. Hooray, the normal people take over Carrboro. Start a commune somewhere out in the country and dance under the stars and moon until your heart’s content. Just don’t make me have to witness it.

  • An observation that Impromptu act is not performing from Lyle Lansdell

    The “dancing man” should not have to apply to perform. He wasn’t performing. He wasn’t playing to an audience. He was simply expressing himself. Children burst into dance. Would you tell them to apply for a slot?

  • A tempered appreciation by Donna Kaye of the role Weaver Street Market has played

    Personally, I would lean towards allowing creative and self-expression on the lawn. However, there are legitimate concerns on the other side as well. I do wish Carr Mill management had engaged the community first with a question like, “How can we maintain the ability for people to express themselves creatively in this space, while at the same time, promoting safety and access to parking for all the businesses in Carr Mill Mall?” This way a policy could have been developed with community buy-in that would have forgone the current public wrath of what appears to be a unilateral decree.

  • Ken Brooks felt we’re giving away our freedoms bit by bit

    This is just another example of something that is terribly wrong with our nation lately. While fighting for freedom abroad, we are losing it by inches at home. And we are doing it to ourselves.

    Every complaint, every accident becomes a cause for action; every action takes away a little more freedom. Nobody has the courage to say to the complainers, “Peace!”

Folks commenting on the local bulletin board SqueezeThePulp [STP] tended to lean towards supporting Carr Mill manager Nathan Milian posting under topics like:

  • Spot the Looney: Private Property and Carrboro Cheerleaders celebrating Art “bought me an election” Pope’s noise machine, the John Locke Foundation’s, commendation of some STP posters’ wit.
  • Paul Newton’s prohibition covering Lunatics on the lawn: No dancing allowed in my front yard which temporarily pushed discussions of burning mulch piles aside and spawned a short voyage to South Park.
  • Followed by a movie-oriented theme of “Footloose ED” or “Dancing with Bricks” which had Carrboro dogfood baron Frank Papa warning

    if people continue to “protest”, and continue to ignore Mr. Slater’s pleas for sanity, then Carr Mill Management will simply forbid any and all use of the “lawn”.

    Noting that

    It’s been threatened before several times with the most recent that I’m aware of is when Mark Chilton was talking about closing that block of Weaver St. to car traffic. That is truly a *terrible* idea, and it would hurt business to such an extent that from what I understood (purely rumor), Nathan told Mark that if Mark proceeded with trying to close down Weaver St. to car traffic even one day a week, that everybody would be forbidden to use the “lawn”, making closing Weaver St. a moot point.

    This thread also yielded a bit of “rope-a-dope” between columnist Brian D. Voyce and OWASA board member TerriB.

  • Rounding out the STP threads “Seize the Lawn” aka “The Party’s Over” had a much higher signal-to-noise ratio (even with Brian Voyce’s and Melanie See’s back-n-forth palaver over drinking on the lawn). Several posters echoed my warning that using the government’s power of eminent domain was a non-starter and would only serve to harden Carr Mill Mall’s heart.

  • 2005 Carrboro Board of Alderman candidate (and 4th place finisher) Katrina Ryan opined

    I just think that it is important to know what we are really discussing. We are not talking about defending the right to free speech. There is no right to free speech on someone else’s private property.

    and further imagined

    that the ” influential visitor” who saw Bruce dancing with bricks was one of the owners, in from Maryland. Let’s imagine that he was also a strict Baptist or a Mormon, who have religious prohibitions from drinking or dancing. Whose first amendment rights do we defend in this case, Bruce’s right to free speech, or the owners freedom of religion? Or, maybe he is just a liability attorney, whose immediate reaction to “dancing with bricks” would be “Get that guy outta here….what if he hits somebody’s kid ?”

    For the most part, the owners of Carr Mill have been the gracious hosts of Carrboro’s social scene for a decade, and the behavior of the dancing dissidents seems a bit ungracious and ungrateful, IMHO.

  • Gracious? Kind of debatable. She did suggest, as others have, a mediated settlement starting with a conversation with Carr Mill Mall’s owner. If that didn’t work, she propsed

    a ballot referendum that provided for a prepared meals tax and a downtown business district tax to fund the purchase of the lawn, provided the owners were amenable. ( I specify these to funding sources since restaurants and downtown businesses benefit disproportionally from the presence of lawn patrons) Let the voters decide.

    Interesting idea, though it introduces another set of potential restrictions, regulations and concomitant demands of public investment.

  • The referendum proposal didn’t seem short term enough for AndrewN who said a ”
    consumer boycott is a more reasonable first step”.

    That left Melanie See with a

    thought rolling around in my head for days…is it possible that the boycotters/protesters are really angry about something ELSE…and taking it out on CMM? The response seems…disproportionate. I mean, there are people starving, dying, and several wars going on…not to mention the erosion of TRUE civil liberties…

    Seriously, what the HECK? I know of NO constitutional right to dance on someone else’s lawn. In fact, if a group of people showed up (uninvited)to dance on AndrewN’s lawn, or Randee Haven-O’donnell’s lawn, ar Jacquie Gist’s lawn…I bet they’d be less than pleased.

Yes, Melanie, there’s more going on here than an “influential visitor” initiating a cascade of poor business decisions by Carr Mill Mall’s management.

A much more heavily traversed local ‘blog, OrangePolitics [OP], served as a clearinghouse for both information and calls-to-action.

I found it odd that among all the posts and comments no one made a connection between RubyJi’s privately-owned de facto ‘net-based Town Commons, the criticism she’s received over the years for her seemingly restrictive policies on OP access and the Weaver Street Market Lawn debacle. There is a kind of resonance I hope to explore further.

Rather than trying to recap OrangePolitic’s seven threads, with their nearly 400 comments made from July 28th to September 4th, I’ve listed the posts titles.

Here’s a few representative comments from just one thread documenting the initial reaction of the OP community.

  • Starting July 27th, Graig Meyer questioned the logic

    Did Milian seem to think that Bruce and the hoopers actually hurt Carr Mill Mall [CMM] business somehow? I can’t believe that would be true. It seems to me that they are a part of the aesthetic that makes WSM and CMM the hub of Carrboro social and economic activity. I’m willing to let the guy see the error of his ways, but I just want to know what his logic was in the first place.

    July 30th 2005 Carrboro BOA candidate Catherine Devine reflects on Milian’s track record citing his opposition “to the open air market slated to benefit WCOM starting in September, fearing that its patrons will sully his pavement every Saturday.”

    Tenant and local businesswoman Casey Schlatter commented August 1st on how the “Bruce issue” blind-sided her:

    As an owner of The Original Ornament in Carr Mill Mall, I can say that what you read in the paper was exactly the first of what we, as merchants, heard about Bruce and his “dancing problem” on the Weaver Street Lawn. There has been mention to some of the mall businesses that there could be a boycott of the shops for this action taken by Nathan. Please know that we do not want people to take that out on us; it would hurt the small group of businesses in a way that would have nothing to do with Nathan. We pay rent to Nathan but, unfortunately, have never had much say in other matters related to the mall.

    elizabeth liptzin, was “appalled by the entire situation with Carr Mill Management’s recent decisions” but agreed

    “that anger & frustration shouldn’t be taken out on the mall tenants. Meanwhile everyone, tenants and all, should be allowed to constructively contribute their opinions to the management–AND BE HEARD..”

    A longtime North Carolinian she

    grew up locally, watched this town evolve, and appreciate the variety of elements that converge to make it what people love so much–yet, we can love something to death. If the management has some true gripes, they should be responded to as such, but the management has to be clear about problems per se instead of singling out individuals (especially on the basis of appearance) that aren’t doing anything wrong.

    Elizabeth became quite a prolific commenter on OP.

Other new media outlets, such as The Carrboro News, have covered the lawn issue from a community-based perspective.

Speaking of media outlets, I’ve been invited to publicly ruminate on events to-date on local community radio WCOM tomorrow:

Our guests will be: Mark Chilton, Will Raymond and Bruce Thomas, himself.

We will be examining the issues and the personalities. Is this a storm in a teacup, or the perfect storm for Carrboro? Is everything what it seems to be? And is everyone whom they seem to be? You know, the usual ESP stuff…

Tune into WCOM 103.5 FM, next Thursday, between 9am and 10am. Listen online at: www.communityradio.coop Call in with a question to: (919) 929-9601. Or leave a question here, or send it to us at: theespteam@yahoo.com

Happy listening and happy blogging!

Geoff Gilson “The ESP Show” Thursdays, 9am-10am WCOM 103.5 FM

Finally PLEASE NOTE that member/owners of the Weaver St. Market Co-op are eligible to run for the WSM board of directors this October. If you want to alter the boards’ stance on the lawn, consider submitting an application NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 19th AT 9PM.

Funny thing, while that application isn’t available online, the ridiculous Licensed for the Lawn application is….