Category Archives: ChapelHill

ChapelHill, MunicipalNetworking, Technology

Downtown Internet Gets a Little Hotter?

1 Comment

Ran into Bob Avery, the Town’s IT Director, on Franklin St. today. Turns out he’s surveying Downtown with an eye towards deploying a small pilot program of free Internet hot spots in the near future. The pilot would use Clearwire as the high-speed wireless backhaul. The only resources needed are power and location.

I cautioned Bob not to limit his planning to publicly owned infrastructure like the old Townhall. Over the last four years I’ve spoken with more than a few Downtown business and building owners willing to provide a small chunk of space and the minimal juice for access point deployments. BrianR and I have explored using solar-powered, weather-hardened rigs, strategically meshed to cover a wide area. If the Town used this environmentally sound and quite economical approach, the only remaining requirement is a decent position to throw signal.

Speaking of signal, whatever free access is deployed Downtown should stay off the already saturated channels 1, 6 and 11.

Knowing the free access topology of Downtown like the back of my hand, I encouraged him to consider West End, with a current lack of free Wifi access points (beyond UNC’s) and high density of public gathering spots (restaurants, bars,sidewalk cafes, coffee joints, bookstores), for the initial pilot.

That’s a few of my suggestions for equipment, deployment strategy and location, what are yours?

ChapelHill, LocalPolitics, Ruminations

Another $460,000 for Lot $5: Will Rising Costs Mean Raising Taxes?

Leave a comment

From the May 7th Chapel Hill Town Council agenda:

We estimate the following budget is needed to continue carrying out the implementation of the Lot 5 project in accordance with the Town’s responsibilities under the Development Agreement through June 30, 2008:

Environmental Remediation: $240,000
Construction Management Services: $150,000
Professional Services: $65,000
Peer Review Honorarium: $5,000

TOTAL: $460,000

Note how last months quote of $232,000 for environmental remediation has climbed to $240,000. Also, as I expected but not as reported by Council (until now), the anticipated additional cost of construction management ($150,000), legal and geologic services (really part of the remediation) and a reward to Dean Malecha.

I asked Council to publish a breakout of these costs several times this year. I’ve also asked for a concise listing of what we’ve spent on Stainback (the development consultant) and other services getting to this point.

Still no response.

Some on Council are getting better and better at stonewalling and running out the clock to get their way. Clever strategy if you see governance as a game. Terrible policy if you believe in an educated and informed public.

Mayor Pro Tem Strom essentially tabled my recent petition asking for the financial analysis of the remediation effort. Why? I assume to avoid what we both know – this projects costs are going nowhere but up.

Whatever analysis the Town has done on remediation or consultancy costs should be published immediately. The Council owes the citizenry a public airing of that work prior to approving this years budget and possible tax increase.

How enthusiastic would folks be about a boondoggle of a project that’s added significantly to their tax burden? Not much, I imagine. But if that’s going to be the case, Council, no matter the electoral consequences, our citizens deserve an honest appraisal.

Here are the details:

Environmental Remediation: The Town recently commissioned a Phase II Environmental Assessment for the Lot 5 site. Based on the report by Environmental Consulting Services dated April 2, 2007, we estimate the cost to the Town for environmental remediation is about $240,000. Under the terms of the Development Agreement, the Town would pay for the marginal cost of removal of contaminated soil; that is, those costs related to environmental remediation above and beyond Ram Development Company’s normal construction cost of hauling soil off-site.

Construction Management Services: In accordance with the Manager’s recommendation to Council on February 12, 2007, the Town would contract for services related to design review and construction management of the parking deck and public plaza to be constructed on Lot 5. We would potentially hire someone in the fourth quarter of 2006-07 to undertake detailed plan review. Work would continue through initiation of construction, estimated to occur in summer, 2008, and completion of construction, estimated to occur in 2010. We estimate a budget of $150,000 would be needed for these services.

Professional Services: We estimate a budget of $65,000 is needed for additional professional services, including environmental testing and legal services.

Additional environmental testing is related to the Town’s environmental remediation responsibilities in the Development Agreement. In addition to the Phase II environmental assessment, we would expect to engage a geologist during excavation to monitor soils. The requested budget would give flexibility to undertake additional tests or studies. We estimate additional funds will be needed for legal services related to negotiation and implementation of the Development Agreement through June 2007, and for additional limited services in FY 2007-2008.

Peer Review Honorarium: We propose an honorarium of $5,000 for Dean Marvin Malecha’s work related to the peer review of Ram’s proposed designs. The Town’s original letter of agreement with Dean Malecha contemplated such an arrangement (please see Attachment 1). To date, the Dean has led nine peer review sessions with Ram Development Company. Written reports accompany his pro bono work. We anticipate he will conduct one additional session later in the project design process. The honorarium would go into a scholarship fund at the NC State School of Design.

ChapelHill, Community, Development, Downtown, EconomicDevelopment, environment, Ruminations

Carrot or Stick: House Approves Chapel Hill’s Energy Reduction Incentives

2 Comments

Via Council member Mark Kleinschmidt’s ‘blog, it appears we’re well on the way to Chapel Hill getting a carrot to entice developers to adhere to better environmental standards.

The new law :

“Sec. 5.19. Ordinances permitting density bonuses and other land‑use development incentives for development projects agreeing to meet energy conservation carbon reduction standards.

For the purpose of reducing the amount of energy consumption by new development, and thereby promoting the public health, safety, and welfare, the Town of Chapel Hill may grant a density bonus, make adjustments to otherwise applicable development requirements, or provide other incentives to a developer within the Town and its extraterritorial planning jurisdiction if the developer agrees to construct new development or reconstruct existing development in a manner that the Town determines, based on generally recognized standards established for such purposes, makes a significant contribution to the reduction of energy consumption.“

When Council first proposed this quid pro quo type approach I was excited.

Sure, smart developers would already be pursuing state-of-the-art strategies to lessen energy consumption. Savvy business folks recognize that reducing the energy footprint of a building is now a key market differentiator – that many environmentally-sound design practices actually are inexpensive. Nothing like building a premium into ones property with no negligible impact on the bottom line.

For those developers not quite as sold on the economic and ecological benefits, Chapel Hill would have this new carrot.

My excitement, though, has been tempered by recent history. With poor Council leadership, this law could allow for greater abuses in land management. Look how Strom and company forced through a new planning zone – TC-3 – allowing more than double the density and %33 more height in the Downtown area. They used Greenbridge, a development adhering to the highest environmental standards, as cover for their sleight-of-hand approval of a new policy that, I believe, many in Chapel Hill would not agree with.

In the hands of the “rah rah” growth crowd,this energy miser ordinance could be used as a bludgeon to hammer our Town into rough conformity with their “density at any cost” vision.

To protect against abuse, it is key that a mechanism be created to adopt the highest objective standards for measuring energy reductions and to design in future flexibility for adopting other “best in class” metrics to keep our local ordinance “evergreen”.

Further, there should be NO in lieu provision (something which has been greatly abused in the affordable housing arena). A developer either adheres to these objective standards to get their “carrot” of increased density or not get a variance.

Without these additional provisions, we’re facing the great possibility of more poor public policy “greenwashed” and cloaked in the rhetoric of environmental remediation.

ChapelHill, Development, EconomicDevelopment, Ruminations

Two years later, Town hires Economic Development Officer

Leave a comment

Two years ago I made hiring an economic development officer a central theme of my 2005 campaign. I thought we needed a professional to help create and then steer Chapel Hill’s economic policy.

From today’s N&O:

The town has hired its first economic development officer.

Dwight Bassett will relocate from Parkers Lake, Ky., to begin his new job on June 4. His annual salary will be $78,000.

Bassett has worked in economic development for the cities of Rock Hill and McCormick, S.C., Concord and Statesville, N.C., and Hinesville, Ga. “Dwight has worked to transform … underutilized properties into profit centers,” Town Manager Roger Stancil said in a news release. “[He has the] ability to find creative ways to make good things happen.”

I don’t recall the public being invited to review the candidates for this quite important position.

I hope that this was an oversight and was not because the Town Manager or Council thinks that an economic development officer is a second-tier position within our Town’s management team.

Dwight is on the ‘net. From his site Bear Oil Trading Company

Dwight Bassett is a former local government employee who worked in Economic and Downtown Development for over 18 years. He spent 15 years in the Charlotte, NC region working for three local governments and consulting to numerous others. He decided in 2005, after selling his home, to move to Parkers Lake and build a shop and become a woodsmith. He has spent much free time in his life restoring old homes and wood working.

One of those projects was managing the revitalization of Rock Hill’s “Old Town” “the original Rock Hill Town limits and includes the area within a 1.5 mile circle around Downtown.”

According to the Town’s news release Basset say:

“Chapel Hill is unique. There is a finite amount of land to grow on, which requires wise development of vacant parcels and redevelopment of existing sites like old shopping areas. I am excited to learn more about approaches that are best for Chapel Hill to improve the tax base, create job opportunities and enliven the community.”

Chapel Hill is unique, and not just because we have less area to develop commercial opportunities on. Sure, I’ve been on the forefront of those asking Council to consider revisiting/revising our Town’s vision for the Eastgate/Ramsgate/University Mall area with an eye towards greater density and better utilization, but I don’t want that to consume the new economic officer’s agenda.

We need to do more to build a solid economic base: jobs growth, increasing “cottage industry”, incubation of homegrown business, making our Town’s infrastructure – especially its technology infrastructure (municipal networking) – world-class to attract high economic/low environmental impact companies, etc.

This while we continue to work on solidifying existing initiatives.

Welcome to Chapel Hill Dwight, I look forward to meeting you and discussing innovative strategies for increasing Chapel Hill’s economic activity that don’t require paving over more of our Town.

ChapelHill, Community, OrangeCounty, Ruminations

No Comment: The Mayor Turns Away the Public

Leave a comment

For going on two years I’ve worked with the stalwart defenders of the Lincoln Arts Center.

The long-time, self-supporting hands-on Chapel Hill ceramics arts program is poised to die. Decades spent by staff and students alike building a strong community. Fostering creativity in the young, old, rich, poor, infirm and not. Gone because more than two years is too short for our leadership to act.

Continuity, it appears, be damned.

Incredible irony for a Town bent on satisfying a lust for arts consumption (upping developer contributions to purchasing art to %2).

This isn’t about the lone program that has kept the flame of recreational arts production alive. This is about furthering a commitment to assist the growth of our residents – body and mind. This year’s budget has $2.7+ million allocated for body, none, as of two weeks ago, for preserving this program squarely aimed at expanding the artistic mind.

An incredible shame given how long, years and years in this case, the Town has known about that tickling clock. The sands have nearly run out for this venerable, popular program. The school system has asked it to vacate Lincoln Center.

The roads must roll – the program must move or perish.

Earlier last week (Tuesday), the group met to draft a response to an April 23rd agenda item covering staff’s response to our previous petition to save the program.

These citizens pulled together their critique of the two small and unsuitable spaces. Firmed up, once again, the costs ($25-40K) of making the Community Park’s Plant Road garage a great space for ceramics. Spoke of how saving this program should serve as a catalyst for more investment in hands-on arts programs. Gathered speakers to respond – in detail – to the rather insubstantial effort the current interim head of Parks and Recreations’ so far has proffered.

Then, sometime after, the online agenda changed. Staff would now respond May 7th.

Considering the very, very, very short time left to budget and plan for the programs continuity (roughly 60 days), these supporters decided to appear before Council anyway on April 23rd to share their research and concerns.

I contacted the Town Manager’s office to make sure they knew these folks were on the way – no problem.

Our five speakers gathered this evening to find out the Mayor would not allow them to speak on this issue.

No comment allowed, even during the 3 minutes every one – citizen and not – has traditionally had to air any issues whether they’re on the agenda or not.

In all the years I’ve participated in Town politics, I don’t recall anyone, even some North Raleigh visitors upset with the way our Town won’t discriminate against folks, not being allowed to use their 3 minutes before Council.

The Town had notice these Lincoln Center activists would appear. the Mayor knows a timely resolution is necessary – that we’ve come to those last critical weeks before the budget is finalized – that circumstances are threatening to overwhelm any desire they may have to save the program. It was “Sorry, no comment.”

The group took their dismissal in stride – in good spirits prepared to return May 7th.

They’ll be back then present their research and concerns to the Mayor and Council. To me, it’s another two weeks gone in a process dragging on more than two years. Another two weeks staff fails to tap into the creativity of our citizenry. Another two weeks for a poor result to be set in the bureaucratic concrete.

Sorry guys, to me, the dismissal is an uncalled usurpation of the citizen’s right to redress – an uncharacteristic and unfortunate turn of events for a Council that’s so far held to the great Chapel Hill tradition of letting folks say their piece.

ChapelHill, Ruminations

My Wish: Star Light, Star Bright

5 Comments

How I miss seeing the Milky Way from within Chapel Hill!

It’s kind of appropriate during National Dark Sky Week, a call to folks “in the United States are encouraged to turn out their unnecessary outdoor lights in order to temporarily reduce light pollution” that a recent comment by Craig O. on my post “Raleigh LEDs the Way” reminded me that this weekend – especially April 22nd between 1am and dawn – we’re going to experience the Lyrid Meteor showers.

How did a post on Raleigh’s deployment of LED-based lighting systems remind me of a meteor shower?

Well, if you read my first campaign letter in 2005 or saw one of my first appearances before Council (February, 2002) you might recall that I got more directly involved in Chapel Hill politics because of light pollution.

Starting just prior to the turn of the millennium, I tried numerous times to get the street light flooding the front yard and upper stories of our house with light pollution “fixed”. After years of foot dragging by a particular town manager, and well after my offer to purchase and pay for the installation of a proper fixture, I finally approached the “highest law in the land” – the Council – for redress.

Seven years later, more than five after that first meeting with the Council, not only is that light still shining brightly into our night time world, the Town has added more.

I learned a lot from that experience. How much a Town staff can set public policy and mangle the Council’s agenda. How dysfunctional the balance of responsibility and authority between a Council and a Town Manager can be. How the temperament of our leadership can create a “mountain out of the mole hill” when it comes to fixing even smallest of issues – like a streetlight disrupting a citizen’s night time viewing pleasure.

On the plus side, I also learned one hell of a lot about proper municipal lighting, “green” strategies for safe illumination, the fabulous International Dark Skies initiative (whose recommendations on municipal lighting ordinances I tried at one point to get Council to adopt) and, incidentally, how to fight Town Hall on behalf of far more important issues (our 4th and 5th Constitutional rights, for instance).

As I was prepping our Celestron for this weekend’s light show, I thought about how I it’s been a few years since I made a run at getting that darn light fixed.

Maybe it’s time to throw it back on the stack?

Why stop there, though, maybe I should take a run at Town sponsorship of an annual celebration of the night time sky?

One city that recently celebrated darkness was Sydney, Australia. Government officials and environmental groups there spearheaded a citywide “Earth Hour” on the evening of March 31st, during which some 50,000 households and 2,000 businesses voluntarily dimmed their lights. “It’s an hour of active, thoughtful darkness,” noted Australian actor Cate Blanchett, who was on hand for the dramatic demonstration. Organizers hope that Earth Hour will be observed throughout Australia next year.

Sky Tonight, Apr. 20th, 2007

Carrboro, ChapelHill, CitizenWill, Community, LocalPolitics, Media, Ruminations

The Power of Sorry: A Local Apology to Get the Ball Rolling

2 Comments

Over the last six years, I’ve learned more than a tad about how our local political sausage is ground. The manufacturing of poor public policy for political gain adds a distinctively bitter taste to that meaty melange.

Yes, at times, pettiness, spite, gamesmanship and ego overwhelm good sense and reasonable public policy. For a few of these “powerful” folks, public disagreement at any level, is a line-crossed forever – a sin never to be forgotten.

Fortunately, at least as I’ve discovered, most of the local “movers-n-shakers” operate using a different calculus – follow their own internal compass – center their arguments more on solving problems – than working to belittle those philosophically opposed. Sure, sometimes the waves of disagreement toss the boat of local discourse about. Maybe a few intemperate barbs about “tone” are thrown around. Debate can and sometimes does devolve into vileness.

In the end, though, whether at OrangePolitics (OP) or SqueezeThePulp (STP) or the Chapel Hill New’s OrangeChat or BlueNC or even on a WCOM radio show, valuable signal seems to punch through the noise of mean-spirited divisiveness.

I don’t buy all the hype about “the wisdom of crowds” but I do know that the folks participating on these forums – whether I agree with them or not – have provided me a new perspective and an invaluable education on local, state and national issues.

There is wisdom in yond hills.

It’s a shame, then, when a healthy dose of disagreement descends into the provinces of puerile, petty vindictiveness (or worse).

Heck, I don’t want to see a group hug or a chorus of Kumbaya but maybe, in these, our country’s current troubled days, just a small crumb of Rodney Kings “can’t we all just get along”.

That’s why I’m happy to see this Geoff Gilson post over on STP:

People, we are lucky that we live in a community that cares enough to be as active as it is. And we are all of us intelligent enough that we should be able to engage in that activity without needless vitriole.

Now, I’m as guilty as anyone of getting a few cheap laughs out of a local politico’s discomfort. But the events of yesterday have got me thinking.

So. Let me start the ball rolling. Dan Coleman, I apologize. I know you are a good and decent man. What happened on ESP was cheap. I’m sorry. On my new show, I will ask you tough questions. But the histrionics will be…well, history.

That bit of radio theatre was a hard listen.

I know Dan. I had listened to and read Gilson’s work. My (quite extensive) stomach sank as the show unrolled. I knew these two had significant disagreements on policy. They had an opportunity to publicly sharpen their cases for and against. Maybe even a better than good chance to shed a little light on the local scene.

All lost in the noise.

Sure, Geoff is working on a new show for WCHL 1360.

Cynically one might presume that this fence-mending is more about dissipating potential guest’s concerns than an honest attempt at rapprochement.

I’m taking Geoff’s bridge building on face value. I think he wants to restart a conversation and not a shouting match.

Good for us. We all win when our local “movers and shakers” expound and sharpen their arguments over local policy in the arena of public debate.

Carrboro, ChapelHill, Community, OrangeCounty, Ruminations

WCHL’s 2007 Babble-thon: Growing, Learning, and Living Together

Leave a comment

[UPDATE]

I just called in to challenge the Chamber’s Aaron Nelson’s “triple bottom line” bull (the idea that the Town has greatly ignored economic development in deference to social and environmental justice) and to ask how we keep Chapel Hill affordable for existing residents. I’m afraid they’re not quite setup to take questions. I spoke with Christy Dixon who is working the problem. This is a great opportunity to get direct responses from some of our key local leaders – I hope folks are willing to slog through and call to comment.

[ORIGINAL]

It’s time again for WCHL 1360’s

2007 Chapel Hill- Carrboro-Orange County Forum: Growing, Learning, and Living Together. The forum will be held on Wednesday, April 18th and broadcast LIVE on WCHL from 8:00 am – 6:00 pm.

What an interesting group of local talent WCHL has assembled – elected folks, University leaders, the distinguished and even some old-school rabble rousers.

If you have an issue you’re particularly interested in, I suggest you call [ 919.929.WCHL (9245) ] during the forum. It’s also a great opportunity to solicit “clarifications” on local public policy from both our elected leaders and the University..

The all-day forum features five panels and ten hours of discussion. Panelists include Town and University officials, local business owners, representatives from civic organizations, as well as local residents.

8:00 am Town & Gown Relations: Growing Together

Moderator: Walter Sturdivant

  • Dick Baddour, Director of Athletics, UNC-CH
  • Ken Broun, Chair, Leadership Advisory Committee on Carolina North/Former Mayor, Town of Chapel Hill
  • James Carnahan, Chair, Carrboro Planning Board
  • Mark Chilton, Mayor, Town of Carrboro
  • Dan Coleman, member, Carrboro Board of Aldermen
  • Mike Collins, Co-Chair, Neighbors for Responsible Growth
  • Laurin Easthom, member, Chapel Hill Town Council
  • Kevin Foy, Mayor, Chapel Hill
  • Jonathan Howes, Vice Chancellor of University Advancement, UNC-CH
  • Richard Mann, Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration, UNC-CH
  • Gene Pease, Gimghoul Neighborhood Resident
  • Roger Perry, member, UNC-CH Board of Trustees
  • Roger Stancil, Town Manager, Town of Chapel Hill
  • Bill Strom, Mayor Pro Tem, Chapel Hill Town Council
  • TBD

10:00 am Keeping it in Orange: The Price of an Unsustainable Economy

Moderator: TBD

  • Delores Bailey, Executive Director, EmPOWERment, Inc.
  • Creighton Blackwell, Chapel Hill Market Executice, RBC Centura
  • Robert Dowling, Executive Director, Orange Community Housing and Land Trust
  • Barbara Jessie-Black, Executive Director, PTA Thrift Stores
  • Scott Maitland, Owner, Top of the Hill Restaurant and Brewery
  • Chris Moran, Executive Director, Inter-faith Council
  • Aaron Nelson, Executive Director, Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce
  • Greg Overbeck, Owner, Chapel Hill Restaurant Group
  • Ruffin Slater, Owner, Weaver Street Market
  • Steve Stewart, Town Manager, Town of Carrboro
  • Tim Toben, Vice Chairman, Board of Visitors at the UNC-CH Environmental Program
  • TBD

12:00 pm Crime & Safety: Its Not Mayberry Anymore

Moderator: Walter Sturdivant

  • Allen Baddour, Orange/Chatham Superior Court Judge
  • Margaret Barrett, Executive Director, Orange County Rape Crisis Center
  • Charles Blackwood, Captain, Orange County Sheriff Department
  • Joel Booker, Captain, Carrboro Police Department
  • Joe Buckner, District Court Judge 15B
  • Brian Currin, Interim Chief, Chapel Hill Police Department
  • Carl Fox, Orange/Chatham Superior Court Judge
  • Kevin Gunter, Lieutenant, Chapel Hill Police Department Community Services
  • Carolyn Hutchinson, Chief, Carrboro Police Department
  • Dan Jones, Chief, Fire Department of Chapel Hill
  • Joyce Kuhn, Executive Director, Orange Chatham Alternative Sentencing, Inc.
  • Steven Moore, Chapel Hill resident
  • Lindy Pendergrass, Sheriff, Orange County Sheriff Department
  • Donna Kay Smith, Executive Director, Family Violence Prevention Center
  • Tom Tucker, Chairman, Chapel Hill Downtown Partnership
  • TBD

2:00 pm Education: Think Globally, Teach Locally

Moderator: Ron Stutts

  • Mosey Carey, Orange County Commissioner
  • Mike Hanas, Principal, Carolina Friends School
  • Kim Hoke, Director, Public Schools Foundation
  • Graig Meyer, Coordinator, Blue Ribbon Mentor-Advocate
  • Denise Morton, Associate Superintendent of Curriculum Instruction, Orange County Schools
  • Neil Pedersen, Superintendent, Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
  • Sharon Ritchie, Co-Director (First School), Frank Porter Graham Development Institute
  • Lisa Stuckey, Chair, Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Board
  • Jeff Thomas, Principal, Carrboro High School
  • Steven Weber, Director of Secondary Education, Orange County Schools
  • TBD

4:00 pm The Arts: Too Important to Leave to Professionals

Moderator: Jon Wilner

  • Steve Balcom, The Splinter Group
  • Glenn Booth, owner, Local 506
  • Joseph Haj, Producing Artistic Director, Playmakers Repertory Company
  • Randee Haven-ODonnell, member, Carrboro Board of Aldermen
  • Emil Kang, Executive Director of the Arts, Carolina Performing Arts
  • Michael Maher, owner, Wootini
  • Tess Mangum-Ocana, Concerts and Facility Director, The ArtsCenter
  • Mac McCaughan, Co-Founder, Merge Records
  • John Plymale, Producer, Sixty-Five Roses
  • Derek Powers, Manager, Cats Cradle
  • Mike Roig, artist
  • Kirk Ross, local musician
  • Alex Zaffron, member, Carrboro Board of Aldermen
ChapelHill, CitizenWill, Community, Downtown, EconomicDevelopment, Ruminations

Hazardous Consequences: Mystery of the Vault Contest

11 Comments

[CLARIFICATION]

Everyone gets two (2) guesses – their “real” guess and an outlandish assessment (please, keep it clean. Yes, skeletons are welcomed).

[UPDATE:]

Over on SqueezeThePulp former (and soon to be?) Carrboro Board of Alderman candidate, Orange County Democrat Women President, local businessperson and activist Katrina Ryan has offered a delicious La Rez meal for the grand prize winner and guest.

Thanks Katrina for stirring the pot!

[ORIGINAL:]

I’ve covered the devolving fortunes of our Town’s Downtown Development Initiative (DDI) since last Fall.

Throughout, I’ve referred to the Lot #5 development as an expensive boondoggle, a miserable mistake, poor public policy, a looming Behometh, a monument to the triumph of political ego over the public good.

I’ve also called it a potentially vast money pit.

Our elected folks might argue with most of my characterizations but not, it appears, my claim that Lot #5 is a money pit.

According to the recent environmental assay, Lot #5 contains

An unknown feature located at position A was identified as a potential metal vault approximately 8ft by 10 in area.

Former Councilmember, NC legislative bill drafter and longtime Chapel Hill observer Gerry Cohen speculates on the vaults contents:

I’m going to assume that Ross Norwood abandoned the vault when his lease was terminated around 1970 and he was kicked off the site. I will offer advance speculation that it is filled with cash. I’m being serious about this. I think I posted earlier about the swindle with his dollar bill machines, and there was a post in another thread on OP from a former employee at Ross Norwood Esso about “questionable ethics”.

Like Geraldo Rivera’s Al Capone’s mystery vault stunt, the over-hyped Lot #5 project is already fated to disappoint.

Whether the vault exists, has cash in it or not, I thought the mystery was worth some speculative fun and a community reward.

To that end, I’m sponsoring a contest to reward two local community organizations with cash donations.

Post a comment on this thread detailing your ideas about:

  • the most outlandish, Chapel Hill related, treasure this vault might contain (Dean Smith’s bronzed baby shoes?) and
  • the most accurate description you can summon on the vaults contents (a $100,000 in singles as per Gerry) or what “the vault” might actually be (Jerry Garcia’s missing VW Bus?)

Rules:

  • Please keep entries clean and “family friendly”.
  • Winners will be selected based on accuracy and creativity.
  • I will contribute $150 to each winning person’s local charity/organization of choice.
  • Though the awards will stay within our local community, local residency is not required.
  • Sorry, no one working for the construction or excavation firms can participate.
  • Contest closes one hour before the vault is revealed.
  • Finally, while I’ll be the sole judge on both criteria, please feel free to influence the outcome by voting for what you think is the most outlandish, creative idea.

So, some good – and a bit of socially redeeming revenue – will come from building on Lot #5.

I invite other organizations more PR savvy (Liz, maybe the Downtown Partnership?) to build an “event” around this vaults unveiling – it might be the most “rewarding” aspect of this project for years to come.

AffordableHousing, ChapelHill, Community, Development, Downtown, EconomicDevelopment, environment, Government, LocalPolitics, Ruminations

Hazardous Consequences: A Report, a Rushed Decision, a Regrettable Day for Chapel Hill

2 Comments

The Chapel Hill News’ ‘blog OrangeChat first alerted me to the Town’s completion of the Lot #5 negotiations with RAM Development (more to come in the N&O).

The Town’s April 3rd news release celebrates what I believe will eventually be seen to be a rushed decision foisting a counter-productive, fiscally irresponsible obligation to construct expensive rental properties for out-of-town landlords on our citizen’s dime:

04/03/07 — The $75 million residential and retail complex to be constructed on Town-owned Parking Lot 5 in downtown Chapel Hill moves a step closer to reality. Town Manager Roger L. Stancil today concluded final negotiations and executed the development agreement with Ram Development Co.

April 3rd, 2007, a regrettable day in our Town’s history.

Why? According to our Town’s legal counsel, the only way now to back out of this troubled deal is to default. Default means difficult to defend lawsuits against our Town. Default means probable expensive judgments against our community. Default, after today, puts all our residents firmly on the hook for millions of dollars of expenditures.

The Council last month authorized the Manager to finalize negotiations and execute the agreement. The project will now follow the Town’s normal regulatory process for a Special Use Permit, including review by the Town’s advisory boards and commissions and a public hearing before the Council.

While they did authorize the Town Manager to proceed with negotiations, the Council also directed Roger Stancil to achieve certain goals – like a firm commitment to improve energy efficiency as per ASHRAE 90.1 20% efficiency standards and an increase on-site affordable housing parking.

Without the final modified agreement (not available this evening), it is not clear our Town Manager achieved these goals. Further, for the partial success reported – 5 additional on-site parking – the trade-offs required by RAM to get those spaces remains unknown.

Final negotiations centered on energy efficiency construction. Recognizing the importance of reducing the energy demand of buildings and dependence on energy from fossil fuels, the Council directed that the agreement require the design and construction of the project to meet a minimum 20 percent improvement in energy efficiency (as measured against standards established by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers – ASHRAE).

Again, the language of the announcement leaves it somewhat unclear, at least to me, if the commitment to the ASHRAE 90.1 %20 energy efficiency standard is measurably firm.

[UPDATE] From today’s N&O

As part of the final contract, Ram agreed to achieve an energy efficiency level 20 percent better than standards established by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers.

It appears the LEEDs trade-off discussed here was the key to ASHRAE acceptance. Of course, without the final contract before us it’s difficult to ascertain how compliance with ASHRAE or LEEDs will be measured.

The project will incorporate sustainable, “green” features that will result in at least 26 points under Leadership in Environment and Energy Design (LEED) standards, the equivalent minimum number of points for basic certification under the LEED system. The Council has established a Town-wide goal to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 60 percent by 2050 through the Carbon Reduction Program.

Councilmember Sally Greene suggested trading the potentially expensive formal LEEDs review for simple compliance with the LEEDs basic certification goals. Councilmember Jim Ward countered that RAM Development’s assertion of compliance was insufficient – that the review process was a necessary element to achieving those goals. I lean more towards Sally on this with the proviso that a specific, standards-based methodology for measuring compliance outside of the LEEDs process be agreed upon prior to a final commitment (would’ve been nice to also pursue some of the AIA’s 2030 sustainability goals). Again, sans the modified agreement, it’s unclear whether any process for measuring LEEDs compliance is in place.

To the Town’s credit, the environmental reports I asked for in my Mar. 27 petition were provided as part of the announcement.

The completed environmental assessment report will be on the Town’s website.  The assessment detected no underground gasoline tanks, only limited sections of petroleum-impacted soil that will require remediation.

Timed too late for our talented citizens with expertise in geology and environmental remediation to influence Stancil’s decision, this coincident release demonstrates, once again, the ascendancy of clever political gamesmanship over good public policy.

This bit of Town PR vastly downplays the caveats and disclaimers the authors used:

The report’s findings are based on conditions that existed on the dates of ECS’s site visits and should not be relied upon to precisely represent conditions at any other time. ECS did not assess areas other than those discussed in the report.

The conclusions included in this report are based on: ECS’s observation of existing site conditions; our interpretation of site history and site usage information; and the results of a limited program of subsurface assessment, sample screening, and chemical testing. The concentration of contaminants ECS measured may not be representative of conditions between locations sampled. Be aware that conditions may change at any sampled or unsampled location as a function of time in response to natural conditions, chemical reactions, and/or other events.

Conclusions about site conditions under no circumstances comprise a warranty that conditions in all areas within the site and beneath structures are of the same quality as those sampled. Recognize, too, that contamination might exist in forms not indicated by the assessment ECS conducted.

April 2nd’s letter from ECS Carolinas, LLP concerning the “Phase II ESA and Limited Soil Delineation Report”, p. 2

Based on approximate measurements of the property boundary and sample locations, ECS estimates that approximately 8,600 cubic yards (~13,000 tons assuming 1.5 tons per cubic yard) of petroleum-impacted soil may be present at the site. This is a preliminary estimate only; the actual quantity of potentially impacted soils may vary based on conditions observed during soil excavation. [CW: EMPHASIS by ECS]

April 2nd’s letter from ECS Carolinas, LLP concerning the “Phase II ESA and Limited Soil Delineation Report”, p. 6

The concerns of the report’s authors are clear. What is left unsupported is the Town’s cost estimate.

The estimated cost of the clean-up will be $232,000. The Town will assume the costs for remediation, and the developer will fund the excavation.

So, RAM Development will pick up the tab for excavating 13,000 tons/8600 cubic yards of hazardous material and the Town will pay, I assume, to haul it safely off-site and dispose of it in an acceptable manner. Given the author’s caveats and the lack of discussion of hazardous material intrusions into the underlying bedrock, I’d like to see the analysis behind the $232,000 cost estimate.

Is it as solid as RAM Development’s Spring 2006 claim of a total $500,000 in public outlays? I hope not since a 15-fold increase in the environmental costs, similar to the 10 month increase from $500,000 to $7,425,000 for those 161 buried parking spaces, would be in the neighborhood of $3.5 million!

One notable improvement in our Town’s communications is a savvy ability to propagandize, making a gold-filled silk purse out of the hazardous waste sows ear by now trumpeting development on “brownfields”.

“Developing a project in downtown reflects Chapel Hill’s commitment to build on brownfields rather than greenfields in order to preserve our environment,” said Manager Roger L. Stancil. “Brownfields are properties where redevelopment or reuse can be complicated by the presence or potential presence of pollutants or contaminants from past use. Developing on greenfields is to build on undeveloped properties on the urban fringe, often farmland. Chapel Hill intends to keep the greenfields green.”

A month ago we weren’t supposed to worry about hazardous waste on Lot #5. Today it’s an asset.

There’s a lot of fertile “brown” in the “fields” lay bare by this announcement. Once again, the liabilities are down-played, the potential fiscal “surprises” ignored, the value of the project over-stated while the obligations continue to be heaped upon our citizens.

April 3rd, 2007, a regrettable day in Chapel Hill’s history.

ChapelHill, Community, Development, Downtown, environment, Ruminations

Hazardous Consequences: No Official Word, Yet, On Lot #5’s Hazardous Waste Issue

Leave a comment

[UPDATE] As of April 3rd, the Town has provided part of what I asked for in the following petition, the environmental report [PDF]. In the Town’s announcement of a conclusion to negotiations, the figure of $232,000 for a remediation was thrown out. This figure, of which I haven’t found a full justification, would supposedly include removal of 13,000 tons of material to either a hazardous waste landfill or some other remediation facility.

More to come.

[ORIGINAL POST]

A quick follow up on my previous post Lot #5 Development: “…up through the ground come a bubbling crude…”.

I’ve sent Chapel Hill’s Town Council a petition (Mar. 29th) asking for a postponement of any further approvals for Special Use Permits, extending or adding new consultancies, preparing the lot for construction, etc. until the financial liabilities attendant to environmental remediation are fully and timely disclosed.

Further, to avoid the recent mess involving the Rogers Road community, siting a trash transfer station on Eubanks and the Orange County Board of Commissioner’s apparent lack of any discernible specific, detailed and publicly revealed process for making their analysis and decision, that the methodology, data and assumptions are published by Council fully seven (7) business days prior to any approval.

A call from the Daily Tar Heel spurred me to take this action. I was hoping the environmental report, which, from my experience, should’ve taken a short time to prepare, would be published for public review by now. According to the DTH’s reporter, it hasn’t.

My concern is that the “clock” would be “run out” on the hazardous waste remediation issue – that Council would move ahead amassing further public (taxpayer) obligations without adequate background.

To help encourage a full, timely, open and responsible discussion of the hazardous waste issue, I’ve submitted the following petition:

Mayor and Town Council,

I’m petitioning Council to postpone ANY further approvals for the Lot #5 Downtown Development Initiative:

1) until the environmental assay of Lot #5 is 100% completed. This would include any recommended
follow up tests, such as monitoring wells, further core sampling, ground-radar location of
tanks or other structures, etc.

2) until the results of the environmental assay have been independently reviewed.

3) until the results, the independent review, the methodology, data, assumptions, geologic maps
and any other factors used to derive the results have been published 7 days prior to the
approval meeting.

4) until an initial estimate and plan for the environmental remediation, if necessary, has been
developed.

5) until the estimate, the methodology, data and assumptions going into that cost estimate have
been published 7 business days prior to the approval meeting.

6) until a financial impact statement, including additional costs, borrowings and wider effects
on the Town’s financial well-being has been developed.

7) until the estimated financial impact and methodology, data and assumptions going into that
evaluation have been published 7 business days prior to the approval meeting.

It also appears that the underlying geology of Lot #5 might be rockier than expected. If this is so,
Council should also postpone further approvals pending an evaluation of increased costs to the
developer and taxpayers of Chapel Hill.

Considering that an expensive environmental remediation might significantly and adversely impact our
Town’s finances, and, in combination with Lot #5’s current taxpayer obligations, possibly necessitate
either a substantial tax increase or reduction in services or both, the fiscally prudent course of
action is to wait until the facts are reported and the conclusions reviewed by the wider public.

Finally, I would like to highlight the importance of giving the public at least 7 business days of
notice. Our citizens are already concerned about the trajectory this project has so far taken.
Some of the greatest concern has come from financial, urban planning, environmental, energy and
commercial real-estate experts.

Let’s give our talented citizenry the opportunity for a careful, measured evaluation of the
Town’s reports and extend the courtesy of providing a reasonable amount of time to draft a
response.

Rushing the project forward without disclosing further anticipated financial obligations does
our citizenry a disservice.

Thank you,

Will Raymond

I’ll post the response as it comes in.

CarolinaNorth, ChapelHill, Development, Downtown, EconomicDevelopment, Government, LocalPolitics, Ruminations

A Matter of Process: Greenbridge and Council’s Devolving Standard of Public Review

9 Comments

I haven’t been reticent in my criticism of the process Council used recently to manage the approvals for Greenbridge, the environmental uber-project and possible end of the traditional Northside neighborhood. Adopting a new zone, TC-3, developed and refined during the months bridging Thanksgiving to Christmas, within the context of Greenbridge’s approval ill-served our citizens.

Claims, most notably by Bill Strom, that Greenbridge’s TC-3 is somehow unique (video coming soon) and folks won’t have to worry about another use will be tested all too soon.

Most of the Council members are aware of the public discussion and scrutiny of the 90′ limit and 1.97 density ratio. Unfortunately, the minimal opportunity citizens had to respond within the public hearing process didn’t reflect those hard learned lessons. Only two citizens spent any of their 3 minutes of public comment suggesting the impropriety of making a major change to Downtown’s future geography within the narrow context of Greenbridge. Doubling the density, raising the height limits by %30, with the SUP establishing a height precedent fully %50 above the previous 90′ will carry serious consequences for “human scale” Chapel Hill. Now that door has been opened, does anyone truly believe developers on our doorstep will not press for even more consequential change?

I recall Sally Greene, prior to being elected to Council, making numerous appearances before Council on OI-4 (the most probable zone for Carolina North) counseling not only greater public outreach but public education. She argued process, process, process and was obviously aware that a significant change in public policy demands a significant effort to build understanding.

Yes, the effort to build understanding can also build opposition. One might argue that the best “political” strategy “playing the approval game” is to keep your head down, limit public understanding and bull on through. Good strategy for a “player”, maybe, but terrible public policy.

Tonight, the Chapel Hill News’ breaks the story, on their ‘blog OrangeChat, that the son of one of our Council members sought to represent the developer of Greenbridge.

Sometime last fall, the son of Town Council member Bill Thorpe approached the developers of the Greenbridge condominium towers and offered to work as their public relations consultant.

Thorpe said his son, William Thorpe Jr., is a grown man and did not consult him before making the pitch.

UPDATE:
From today’s followup in the N&O

Thorpe said his son, William Thorpe Jr., is a grown man and did not consult him before approaching the developers. Thorpe said he only heard rumors that his son had asked for a $40,000 consulting fee.

“He was trying to get a contract with them, but I haven’t done anything with them,” Thorpe Sr. said this week. “It had nothing to do with me.”

Yes, we’ve seen our share of national problems with relatives representing interests before their elective relations but certainly this doesn’t rise to that level. Bill spoke of his son during the 2005 election, I don’t recall his saying he did PR. In any case, Bill made it clear his involvement was nothing to be troubled by: “I ain’t got nothing to hide,” Thorpe said this week. “I can tell you right now, I have not asked anybody for no money.”

[UPDATE] GeorgeC over on OPsays the Mayor and Attorney reviewed this, not the Council, yet the article and post both say “Foy said the council did not pursue the matter further…” Now, was that the Mayor using the royal “We” or did the Council know? I’ll ask either the reporter or a Council member next time I see them. If this was the Mayor acting as the lone “decider”, well, that’s a bit troubling in itself.

[ORIGINAL]
The Mayor and Council, it appears, reviewed the issue on discovering it:

Mayor Kevin Foy learned of the situation before a public hearing on the downtown condo project Jan. 17 and asked Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos for advice.

Foy said the council did not pursue the matter further because Thorpe Sr. was not personally involved. Foy said he believed that his colleague’s hands were clean in the matter.

That January 17th meeting was a key public hearing for Greenbridge.

This is most troubling. I can accept Bill Thorpe’s assertions about his son’s involvement. I can appreciate Council and (?) the Mayor responding immediately with a legal consultation and review.

What I can’t understand, and will not accept, is the absence of public disclosure.

Yes, the appearance of impropriety can sting. Trying to mitigate the possible embarrassment and pain of a friend and colleague is laudable. But these are public servants. Many of these Council members, one time or another, during elections or otherwise, have pledged to increase openness and transparency within our local governance. They (?) The mayor had an obligation to reveal, for Bill’s sake, in as tactful a fashion as possible, this story and not leave it to the 4th estate (Chapel Hill News)

The process of openness and transparency must be consistent to be reliable. The public trust demands and deserves disclosure.

And yet another lapse in judgment related to a development deal.

ChapelHill, Community, environment, Orthogonal, Ruminations

Raleigh LEDs the Way

6 Comments

Comparison in life, I guess, is inevitable.

Hey, even if there’s a tiny bit of vanity bragging about Chapel Hill – “look how smart I am to live in the Southern slice of Heaven” – I probably indulge in it as much as anyone else. Folks brag about how progressive, sensitive to civil liberties, environmentally conscious our Town is in spite of examples to the contrary.

For instance, not too long ago Council member Kleinschmidt suggested Wilson and Rocky Mount were not quite up to Chapel Hill standards yet those communities underwrite more than a hundred hands-on arts programs and have built facilities to support the arts in general. On the other hand, progressive Chapel Hill’s one hands-on arts program teeters on the brink of extinction.

Civil liberties? Chapel Hill leads the way much of the time with the occasional incredible lapse.

Environmentally conscious? Many times with, again, some unfortunate glaring exceptions.

Besides noting Council’s leadership faux pas, Jim Ward recently pointed that even the simplest of energy saving efforts – using efficient light fixtures at Town Hall – never get very far.

Raleigh, though, is making a bold commitment to reduce energy and save some bucks in the process

Last week, the City of Raleigh announced a plan to possibly use light emitting diodes (LED’s) to light city streets throughout Raleigh.

Although more expensive initially, compared with regular lights, LED’s last much longer and use much less electricity. According to city, some LED’s may last as much as 20 times longer than regular incandescent lights.

At a city hall news conference on Friday, Mayor Meeker and the CEO of Triangle-based LED maker Cree, Inc. announced a partnership to perform a cost-benefit analysis to possibly replace as many city lights as possible with LED’s.

The city says that the mayor hopes that the “LED City” initiative will serve as a model for other cities that are considering implementing energy-efficient measures.

“The City of Raleigh is willing to set the pace and invite other municipalities to join in developing energy-efficient civic centers,” Cree CEO Swoboda said. “This leading edge effort is undoubtedly an important driver in LED adoption within the United States.”

Raleigh Chronicle, February 19, 2007

I own shares in Cree. That said, they have a great product that, at least I think, will shake up the world one day.

Raleigh Mayor Meeker said that it is “sound fiscal and environmental stewardship” to investigate the application of LED’s “as broadly as possible.”

The analysis on how LED’s can be used will be performed over the next 18 months, says the city.

In his comments, Mayor Meeker said that there may be “substantial potential savings from converting the City’s more than 33,000 streetlights to LEDs.”

According to the city, Raleigh spends more than $4.2 million annually for electricity to power the streetlights and estimates that 30 percent of its energy costs are for lighting.

According to the city, Raleigh electric provider Progress Energy says the floor equipped with LED lights will use over 40 percent less energy than the standard lighting system and will actually provide better lighting.

Raleigh Chronicle, February 19, 2007

Fixing Chapel Hill’s policy of using inefficient, poorly sited, streetlight fixtures kick started my life as a local concerned citizen. Six years ago, and occasionally since, I’ve asked Council to revise our current lighting policies, direct Duke Power to install more efficient fixtures and adopt the standards developed by light pollution experts for the International Dark-Sky Association.

Better, longer lasting lighting that operates much more efficiently at a cheaper cost when amortized over its extended lifetime.

Seems like an easy decision to me. We should take Raleigh’s invitation to participate.

AffordableHousing, ChapelHill, Development, Downtown, EconomicDevelopment, LocalPolitics, Ruminations

Raleigh’s Carlton Place: A Downtown Affordable Housing Commitment Worth Emulating

Leave a comment

I’ve followed the ins-and-outs of Raleigh’s Carlton Place before the Wallace Deck/Lot #5 developments took flight.

64 of the 80 units – ranging in size from 800 to 1200 sq./ft. – are priced so those making %60 of Wake County’s median income can afford one.

Market rates aren’t too shabby either (market/affordable): 1 BR/1 BA $700/$550 or less, 1 BR/1 BA (with Den) $750/$570, 2 BR/2 BA $875/$600, 3 BR/2 BA $1,100/$670.

Located at the intersection of E. Davie Street and S. Bloodworth Street, less than two blocks from Moore Square, City Market, and the Exploris and Moore Square Museums Magnet middle schools. Its central location provides residents with easy access to all of downtown’s employment, shopping, professional services, public transit, and cultural and recreational opportunities.

Amenities found at Carlton Place include on-site management and maintenance; a variety of one-, two- and three-bedroom floor plans ranging from about 800 to 1200 square feet; a fitness room, business center and laundry room; walk-in closets; washer and dryer hook-ups; cable television and Internet connections; a picnic area and tot lot; and private, off-street parking.

In addition to the on-site amenities, the project was built to include green design elements that help make it an environmentally friendly and cost-effective place to live. Among the green features of the project are: Energy Star appliances; high efficiency heat pumps; low-VOC carpet and paint; carpet padding made from recycled materials; pervious concrete; and native, drought-resistant plants for landscaping.

Off street parking? Are they nuts?

By contrast, the Lot 5 development offers compact affordable units: “21 one-bedroom units be provided in the project, with a square footage averaging 643 square feet.” Qualification starts at %80 of the regional salary (little less than $50K), with the purchase price set accordingly (to what someone earning $50K/year could “afford”). Condo fees capped at %1.5 of that sales price of the affordable units plus utilities.

Of course, folks will “own” their apartment on Lot #5 while those at Carlton Place will only rent. Chapel Hill’s condo owners, then, will experience a modest growth in equity and see a return on their investment (minus the %1.5 yearly fees) while those in Raleigh don’t.

Ownership is supposed to also reduce unit churn – a favored attribute over apartments – an attribute that appears to be unique to Lot #5 as our local affordable housing advocate Robert Dowling noted when commenting on “Mr. Meadowmont” Roger Perry’s new East 54 (University Inn) project:

Meadowmont developer Roger Perry is planning a major project that challenges the town’s inclusionary affordable housing model.

In exchange for the town’s approving high density — half a million square feet on 11 acres — Perry is offering to double the town’s requirement: 30 percent affordable housing, or 60 out of 200 condos.

Robert Dowling, executive director of the nonprofit Orange Community Housing and Land Trust, praised the idea. But he urged the Town Council to reject it. Dowling said the flood of condos would be harder to manage because condos are smaller starter homes that few people would live in for very long.

Lower-cost condos criticized The News & Observer February 17, 2007

Perry’s East 54 units “one- and two-bedroom units would range in size from 700 to 1,000 square feet and would be priced somewhere in the low $100,000s”.

Bigger, cheaper but will churn faster than those condos on Lot #5? Doesn’t compute.

Back to Raleigh, the taxpayers’ outlay was at least 5-fold less than our taxpayers, $1.5M to our $7.5M.

A $1.5 million loan from the city and county helped the non-profit housing company, DHIC, develop a $10 million project. Apartments are available to families earning 60 percent of the median income. In Raleigh, that’s $43,000 for a family of four.

WRAL, Feb. 26th, 2007

Larger, cheaper units with on-site parking, no condo fees, many amenities without creating a slew of publicly financed million dollar condos? That computes.

What about that housing cost disparity?

“It’s so important for downtown to give opportunities for multiple classes to help build a life in downtown,” said Kris Larson, deputy director of the Downtown Raleigh Alliance.

It allows people who work in the service industry downtown to live downtown.

“If only people who can live here have to buy a $350,000 condo, what kind of community is that, it’s not very diverse or vibrant,” said Natalie Connell, of DHIC.

WRAL, Feb. 26th, 2007

Vibrancy. That also computes.

What kind of mix of residents will live in our publicly underwritten Lot #5? Well-to-do students, young professionals, retirees that can drop between $300,000 and $1 million plus on housing?

Raleigh designed in diversity and environmental sanity from the start with their Carlton Place project, as the ‘blog Raleighing reports (Carlton Place Opens With Fanfare):

Eight of the units are set aside for, and affordable to, persons with disabilities. Additionally, 4 units are fully accessible to people with mobility impairments, including curbless showers. One resident benefiting from this is Raleigh native and reigning Ms. Wheelchair North Carolina, Ms. Kelly Woodall.

Carlton Place also received a grant from the Home Depot Foundation to incorporate “Green” elements in the design of the development. Carlton Place features Energy Star appliances, low VOC paint and carpet, pervious concrete, low flow plumbing, and solar reflective roof membranes.

According to Gregg Warren, Executive Director of DHIC, the first residents are employees of The City of Raleigh, Wake County Public Schools, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Capital Area Transit, retail businesses, state government, and Wake Med. Many are now able to walk to work. DHIC is also the developer of Murphy School Apartments and the Prairie Building in downtown Raleigh.

End of the day? If increasing Downtown’s population, diversity and vibrancy in a sustainable, environmentally sound fashion is your goal, Raleigh’s Carlton Place suggests some solutions.