Category Archives: environment

ChapelHill, environment, LocalPolitics, Ruminations, Transportation

Jim Ward Knee Jerk

Leave a comment

No, Jim hasn’t been co-opted by another AstroTurf organization, he was responding to Mayor Kevin Foy’s remarks on the St. Thomas More Catholic Church expansion plans:

Councilman Jim Ward, in a point seconded by Mayor Kevin Foy, argued the issue went beyond Carmichael Street and driveways, to the overall impact of increased traffic on roads in the area. He said he’d like to see St. Thomas More challenge its parishioners to be “part of the solution” and look for ways to reduce vehicle traffic to the church property, which includes a school.

“My knee-jerk reaction to this is, how in the world can you expect to put more facilities and attract more people to this site?” Ward said.

The 15-501 intersection, as Council member Cam Hill says is “quite galling”. More evaporating coverage at the web unfriendly HeraldSun.


The Fordham/15-501 corridor is going to get developed. We have an opportunity to use the St. Thomas More expansion as a kick-start to rethinking transit/transportation access patterns along one of our most highly traveled routes. The NC-DOT needs to jump in and do a bit more creative thinking (maybe even some circular thinking) instead of their usual add-and-expand schtick.

My guess is it’ll take the town’s leadership to get a decent result.

ChapelHill, CitizenWill, environment, Ruminations, Technology

Shearon-Harris Offline: Who tripped over the wire?

Leave a comment

Local Progress Energy nuke plant Shearon-Harris went unexpectedly offline (or in nuke industry jargon “had an unplanned outage”) this morning:

Progress Energy’s Shearon Harris nuclear plant shut down today at about 10 a.m., in the first unplanned outage this year.

The nuclear plant, about 25 miles southwest of Raleigh, turned itself off automatically when the plant’s generator stopped working. Plant personnel are trying to determine the cause of the malfunction.

N&O

Progress Energy continues to have legal, technical and regulatory problems with Shearon-Harris and other operations, including whistle-blowing by security guards, issues with their plan to build additional on-site capacity (reactors) and, of course, the wondrous new over-charging meter fiasco.

Incredible timing as tomorrow (Sept. 20th), NCWarn, our local safe-nuke activists, are holding a meeting on Shearon-Harris’ fire violations.

Community Briefing
Emergency Action on Fire
Violations at Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant   

Wednesday. Sept 20, 7 pm
Central Carolina Community College,
Multi-purpose Room, Hwy 64 West, Pittsboro


Click here for more information [PDF]
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.

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.

Community, environment, Ruminations

Aug. 31st, 2006: From Ernesto to Fran

Leave a comment

Friday, September 6, 1996 – Fran!
Friday, September 1, 2006 – Ernesto?

Fran snuck up on the Triangle 10 years ago. Ernesto is days away.

I stayed up until 1am nearly a decade ago waiting to see what track Fran would take. WRAL’s ever reliable Greg Fishel predicted a hit between Rocky Mount and Raleigh. Even though the wind on Barclay Rd. was whipping up – the rain starting to “fall” horizontally, I went to bed unworried.

Next morning we awoke with trees down, little knowing we’d go days without roads, weeks without power.

Ten years on I don’t have to depend on Greg (though I’ll be checking in with him). The web offers an incredible smorgasboard of realtime sources for hurricane data.

One of the neatest is a “mash-up” of GoogleEarth and “glootons” hurricane tracker.

Continue reading Aug. 31st, 2006: From Ernesto to Fran →

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

Carolina North: Evans Conducting an Intellectual Exercise?

Leave a comment

“the book says, we might be through with the past, but the past ain’t through with us.”

Dr. Bergen Evans, The Natural History of Nonsense as bowdlerdized in the fantastic movie Magnolia

UNC’s current Moeser administration likes to announce major modifications to their developmental plans and strategies either in the deep doldrums of summer or the chilly recesses of winter. True to form, the administration and Board of Trustees modified their stance on the current collaborative process, embodied by the UNC Leadership Advisory Committee, while our community took their summer break

Starting out at May 26th’s board meeting, a couple UNC-CH Trustees unleashed a few impolitic bon mots:

“I think what the town should interpret out of that is there is a very strong sense of urgency about Carolina North and it is time to deal with Carolina North..The time for talking about it and trying to build consensus is coming to an end.”

Trustee and local developer Roger Perry, N&O, May 26th, 2006

This precipitous expression of irritation from local land baron Perry came after just a handful of LAC meetings. Trying to avoid the same kind of historical missteps UNC has made with previous community outreach efforts, the LAC spent those meetings establishing groundrules, process and goals. Luckily the talk continued. As of today (Aug. 20th), the LAC, after relevant discussions, has accepted a number of key principles created by Chapel Hill’s recently disbanded Horace-Williams Citizens Committee (of which I was a member – of which I believe had much more work to perform).

“I believe the voices that choose to be the greatest obstacles to this at the moment will be the voices that have the least impact, in the end, I believe it will be taken from our hands at some point by the leadership of this state.”

Trustee Rusty Carter, Herald Sun, May 26th, 2006

Carter’s remark echoes Senator Tony Rand’s 2001 threat to remove Chapel Hill’s zoning authority over the University. Beyond zoning, the town has very limited means to corral University developmental malfeasance. Even with it, the town could barely mitigate travesties like UNC’s encroachments upon the Mason Farm Road neighborhoods.

“It is our intention to move forward with the momentum of Carolina North…We would like to see this committee be a very active part of it, but if they choose to spend the next year not arriving at any definitive parameters, we are going to continue our momentum. That’s not out of any sense of animosity; it’s out of a sense of practicality and obligation.”

Trustee Rusty Carter, June 1st, 2006 Daily Tar Heel

What’s missing, for Carter and some of his fellow trustees, it appears is BIG MO! Wasn’t BIG MO coined to describe the momentum football teams need to build up to crush their opponents?

Chancellor Moeser recently appointed Dean Jack Evans, husband of 10-year veteran council member Pat Evans, to a two-year, $208,210 per year, position as “quarterback” to drive the Carolina North project forward:

“What we need, and what we have in Jack Evans is a quarterback, someone who will be calling the signals, actually planning and coordinating the planning of all of our team — leading that team to make sure that this project continues to move forward,” Moeser said today.

Chancellor Moeser, N&O July 27, 2006

With the selection of his new quarterback Moeser signalled a change of strategy.

Two teams now: offense – heavyweight UNC and defense – the local, as Moeser says, “wary” community.
Evans, former Dean of UNC’s Kenan-Flagler business-plex – current representative to the NCAA/ACC, will earn his pay pushing for completion of a project whose underpinnings and goals are suspect.

And he’ll be hellbent to do it.

“Whether or not it’s Jack Evans in this role or somebody else, there is a role for someone to state the urgency and importance of this…”

I understand the importance, the Mayor and Council understand the importance, the folks “wary” of the direction of this project, all of us, understand the importance of this project.

Many of us will be living with and, as NC taxpayers, paying for, the consequences of Evans’ two years of quarterbacking for decades to come. Our concern is not born of ignorance of the project’s greater importance to the wider fortunes of our State but of a healthy respect for the adage that “Haste makes waste” and the waste it will make is of our cherished town.

Time to put away the plaintive wail that the citizens of our communities DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE of the Carolina North project. This continued claim, quite frankly, is pure-T, grade-A horse shit.

What does Evans think of the current process? Last May he suggested the strong possibility that the effort will end up accomplishing nada:

Evans said he saw two possible scenarios from what Strom was saying. In the first, the committee reviews the list of principles to find those principles on which there is disagreement. After discussion of those disagreements, the committee will find those areas that may not be able to be reconciled, if there are any. Under the second scenario, the committee would merely identify those areas of disagreement without attempting to remedy them. “I hope that is not what we are doing,” Evans said. If that is the case, he said, the committee would merely be conducting an “intellectual exercise” without any real promise of accomplishing anything.

Dean Jack Evans, UNC Gazette, May 06, 2006

The town’s representatives and the Mayor has always made it clear that their participation was not a negotiation but a dialogue (more like multi-logue considering the 4 sets of representatives). Unfortunately, it looks like the LAC’s efforts are being superseded by the new “offense”.

Is it going to be “50 yards to the goal line – hard-charging Jack, his band of trusty trustees, pressing forward – crushing the weak defense”? Hard to say.

Beyond what happened over the summer, there’s Evans’ recent letters and this week’s LAC meeting (August 24, 2006, at 4 p.m. in the Redbud Room of the Friday Center) to help deconstruct Moeser’s tenor.

I’m also trying to wrap my head around Evans’ claim that “the space crunch on the main campus means Carolina North will have to accommodate academic needs.” (Whoa there Trigger! Moeser has always emphasized research and living only, discounting academic usage – which made some sense considering the nearly incredible [and expensive] increase in space on Main Campus since he became Chancellor).

Over the next week, I’ll be ‘blogging a series on CarolinaNorth: Evans’ New Principles, Specifications, Outcomes in an effort to understand and predict UNC’s future directions.

If you can’t wait or wish to do your own analysis, here’s some primary source material:

[UPDATE:]

Evans’ “counter-offer” is a reflection of the proposals on the table – proposals based on the guidelines developed by the Horace-William’s Citizens group (of which I was member). The principles and a schematic chronology of their development is here. (Thanks for the tip Barnes).

environment, Ruminations

This grass is not greener…

Leave a comment

From New Scientist

A nondescript grass discovered in the Oregon countryside is hardly an alien invasion. Yet the plant – a genetically modified form of a grass commonly grown on golf courses – is worrying the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) enough that it is running its first full environmental impact assessment of a GM plant.

It is the first time a GM plant has escaped into the wild in the US, and it has managed it before securing USDA approval. The plant, creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera, carries a bacterial gene that makes it immune to the potent herbicide glyphosate, better known as Roundup.

Immune to Roundup? Essentially, this grass is bio-engineered so you can dump ungodly amounts of herbicide on it without destroying your beautiful fairways. Small problem. Promoting indiscriminate use of Roundup ends up polluting the local environment.

ChapelHill, environment, Government, LocalPolitics, Ruminations

What Price Downtown? Possibly more than you might think…

Leave a comment

To be clear, the $500K direct payment + $7.9 million lease “kickback” ($8.4 million) I ‘blogged on earlier, in spite of what the Mayor affirmed today, is not necessarily fixed in stone.

As reported in July 15th, 2006’s Chapel Hill News article “Project Price Rising”

Council members said they’re open to paying more, though doing so would contradict the “memorandum of understanding” that Chapel Hill and Ram Development Co., the town’s private partner, signed in October.

Whom specifically?

Mayor Pro Tem Bill Strom said he’s willing to discuss increasing the town’s cash contribution to the project.

“Personally, I’m willing to go further depending on what the risks of the project are,” he said last week. “From other town projects that are being bid or built, we know in the last 15 to 16 months that construction costs increased 30 to 35 percent. That’s not speculative; we’re satisfied that’s a fact. So it shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that some elements of the project are going to have to be revisited.”

Councilman Cam Hill said he, too, was open to restructuring the financing.

How might the financing be restructured? Use of often abused TIFs (tax incremental funding) has been suggested.

Some council members, particularly Mark Kleinschmidt, are wary of using this method.

Tax money generated by new development typically goes to pay for services demanded by the project — fire and police protection, for example.

If that money is diverted to pay off debt for a private project, taxpayers will wind up bearing the costs of increased service demands, Kleinschmidt said.

“The truth is, though, as a council member, I’m not absolute on this,” he said. “It’s not a dead letter on my desk. But I think the taxpayers need to be aware of what the truth is about this kind of financial arrangement. I would have to see evidence of significant public support for this.”

So, the financial burden might expand and then shift further onto the citizen’s shoulders.

I respect Bill’s, Mark’s and Cam’s desire to improve downtown. I’ve supported them and their initiatives over many years. I have sided with them on many issues. In this case, though, I think they’ve gotten too close to the project to see that it has “slipped of the rails”.

One example? The predictable request by the developer to rework the financing.

The good news is that all three have rejected an immediate modification of the Memorandum of Understanding for Downtown Economic Development Initiative as originally outlined here.

And, as Cam said here

But the reality is the deal we were attracted to is the deal we want,” he said Friday. “The deal we had was a good deal. I do know I’m not afraid to walk away from it. I’m not wed to building something on Lot 5 to the point of making a deal I don’t like.”

I expect that sentiment is shared by most of the Council. I think the deal, as presently constituted, doesn’t make sense for the community.

Now, what constitutes a deal they don’t like?

ChapelHill, environment, Government, LocalPolitics, Ruminations

What Price Downtown? The Mayor Responds.

Leave a comment

Last week, the Chapel Hill News published a column I wrote (What Price Downtown) on the Chapel Hill’s downtown development project.

Today, Mayor Foy responds in a column titled Town prodeeds cautiously on downtown redevelopment.

Prodeeds, interesting typo ;-).

Before commenting on his response, I’d like to highlight an error in my column that the Mayor pointed out:

Will Raymond implied that the town had spent $4 million on the project. That figure is incorrect; the total cost to the town so far is $600,000.

Absolutely correct. Here’s what I said in my column:

Investing $4 million to date in the effort, the project is nearing the public hearing phase. Clear cut and excavated, my beautiful public space will vanish under the private heel of a looming “soft modernistic” behemoth. Rising nine stories, this disproportionate edifice will distort Franklin Street’s current village-like scale.

In an effort to excise a few words (if you’ve read anything I’ve written you know I can go on a bit) to get below the 750 word CHN limit (a limit I maybe should consider on this ‘blog), I completely torqued the sentence.

What I originally meant was, we’ve spent about $500K (the Mayor says $600K) on the process and we’ll have to belly up another “real” $500K. That, with the “kickback” of the $7.9M 99-year lease value on the properties, adds to $8.4 million in future commitments, $9M total. The $500K for digging a hole in lot #5 is already under dispute.

This is based on the recent town 2005-2006 2nd Quarter Report.

In the proposed Memorandum of Understanding, the developer will pay the Town $7.9 million ($4.75 million for Lot 5 site and $3.15 million for the Wallace Deck site) to lease Town-owned property for 99 years. The Town will pay the developer a fixed amount of $7.9 million for the construction of the Lot 5 parking garage and other Town-owned improvements. The Town also will pay $500,000 to support parking for affordable housing units.

Quite embarrassing. I will, if allowed, make a correction in my next column.

Now, on to the Mayor’s response.

This newspaper recently published letters and a column in which citizens expressed concerns about what has been called the Ram project, a proposal to build multi-story
residential/commercial developments at two town-owned sites in downtown Chapel Hill. I would like to address those concerns, give a general overview of the project, and clear up some inaccuracies.

The Town Council has focused on downtown as a priority because, although it’s good now, we know it can be better. We therefore engaged in a deliberate and thorough planning process for the downtown initiative (located at two sites: Parking Lot 5 and the Wallace Deck).

Plans for private downtown development are already moving quickly, with proposed Greenbridge’s ( 180K/sq. ft., 109 condos, $300K-$400K), Shortbread Lofts ( 165 units, 50 reserved as affordable) and the just completed Rosemary Village (38 condos, $350K-$700K). Do we need to convert citizen-owned assets into privately-held condos before we see the effect these planned buildouts will have on the housing market?

This planning began about five years ago and included citizen workshops, design work sessions, and public meetings. Last year, the council began working with a private developer, Ram Development Company, to bring the plans to fruition. In a July 30 column (“What price downtown?”), Will Raymond implied that the town had spent $4 million on the project. That figure is incorrect; the total cost to the town so far is $600,000.

Aside from cost, however, is the issue of whether the development project should be pursued at all. The Town Council is working on this project because we believe it will enhance downtown as the center of our community. We know that downtowns that have a mix of uses and people who live there are more vibrant than those that don’t. And we also know that a dynamic downtown — with people living, working, and relaxing — leads to a safe downtown.

Unfortunately, the plans for boutique shopping and luxury condos don’t really add to the “mix of uses” we need downtown. The privately-sponsored developments will provide housing and we already have plenty of empty commercial space downtown. Worse, the current proposal doesn’t incorporate an “anchoring” tenant, like a grocery store, that the surrounding community can “center” on. Without a kid-friendly plaza, a strong commitment to retain maximum public use, lot #5 lacks a strong focusing element.

But back to the finances. The council has entered into a memorandum of understanding with Ram, which outlines the basic terms and conditions of the proposed development agreement. Under the memorandum, the town’s cash contribution to the development would be $500,000, which would support the cost of parking for the affordable housing within the development. This amount is the limit of the town’s exposure, in a development that is expected to cost more than $80 million.

However, recent news reports are correct in stating that construction costs have risen so quickly that Ram is not now confident that it can develop the project as first envisioned. That means that the financing issue might have to be revisited and revised. But contrary to the assertions raised in a July 23 letter to the editor (“Town has bad record for paying off builders”), the Town Council has not authorized or encumbered any local property tax revenue for the construction of the development.

Additionally, the letter writer, Ole R. Holsti, criticized the town for its management of school construction and a bridge replacement. The town is not involved in any way with school construction, and the town properly managed the bridge replacement. In fact, the town has an excellent record in its stewardship of public funds.

Mr. Holsti picked some poor targets for criticism but he was on to something when he said “The first step in shaking this reputation is to let Ram Development understand that not an additional penny of tax funds will be forthcoming.” The Mayor did not respond to my concern the TIF (tax incremental funding) has come back into play. Debt issued under TIFs is, in the end, secured by the citizenry. We are exposed to significant liabilities.

The council continues to work on the downtown development. We look forward to hearing citizens’ thoughts as we proceed with the discussions this fall. We are fortunate in Chapel Hill to have citizens who are interested and involved in the business of the town, and who hold us to the highest standards. I hope and expect that people will pay attention to the council’s efforts for downtown, and will work with us toward what is best for the community.

I’m glad the Mayor looks forward to input from the tax-paying public. I wish he had addressed the issues of scale – a 9 story beast , the eroding reasons – filling the gap in downtown residential and commercial development, lack of public utility, etc. I raised in my column.