Category Archives: LocalPolitics

Local politics as it might or might not pertain to the 2005 campaign.

Campaign, CarolinaNorth, ChapelHill, Government, LocalPolitics, Ruminations, Zorch

Robin Cutson Drops a Feather

1 Comment

Robin Cutson, a fellow 2005 candidate for Chapel Hill Town Council and, more recently, a candidate for Orange County Board of Commissioners, has decided to spur local change outside of the “established system”.

She say’s she’s frustrated with the inability of our local elected folk to solve problems in a common sensical fashion:

…it appears that citizens are being asked to provide services and functions that once were provided by local governments—in essence, citizens are acting as their own ad hoc unfunded local government—-while at the same time existing local governments are expanding and becoming bloated bureaucracies—adding more government positions and seemingly semi-permanent consultants.

SqueezeThePulp, Aug. 7th, 2006

She doesn’t think the current political process is too effective:

Is there anything that can be done? Well we could vote in responsible elected officials. . .but from the consistently low voter turnout and the continual re-election of incumbents it appears that the majority of people either don’t care, or that the majority of people like the way things are going—or that the majority have simply given up. Or maybe people are too busy trying to lead their private lives and fulfill their duties as an ad hoc citizen government to get organized and effect change.

STP

and has suggested a “fun” alternative:

So maybe its time for a new approach. Not just more guest columns and letters and blogging trying to push change or the election of a common sense political candidate—this obviously didn’t help in the last election cycle. And not just another citizen group or task force—there are so many of these now that no one pays attention anymore.

Maybe it’s time for something more fun. . .something designed to get the notice of busy average citizens who are disenfranchised and disillusioned with politics as usual. Maybe we should start a media campaign to elect a Mayor and council for an ad hoc unofficial citizen government and let them represent our interests and needs to the dysfunctional existing government bodies. It could be fun. . .

STP

Robin and I share some common concerns; preserving our local environment, shepherding local resources wisely, the troubling direction UNC’s Carolina North development is taking, the course our stormwater management utility is charting, the lack of progress in forging ahead on real budget reforms.

We also disagree on causitive factors and suggested solutions.

And that’s OK.

For me, running for Council was an enjoyable and exhilarating experience. I delighted in every opportunity I had to meet with citizens and discuss my vision of Chapel Hill’s future.

Robin, your style of running, of getting your message out, was distinctive – fairly full on – and, I’m guessing, a bit rocky at times. I believe I understand why you “only half” jest in suggesting an ersatz governmental body to “sensibly” rule the local roost.

But you have folks that share your point of view. You have been a strong advocate on their behalf.

Why disengage from the current political process?

…I have personally sworn off ever running again for any office real or imagined and feel my casting a vote in existing local elections and hoping for change is like dropping a feather down the Grand Canyon and waiting for an echo…

Engagement, Robin.

Hands-on engagement. Discovering, discussing, debating the issues – fighting for Chapel Hill’s better future.

Isn’t that why we ran?

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.

ChapelHill, environment, Government, LocalPolitics, Ruminations

What Price Downtown

Leave a comment

The following is from my first column for the Chapel Hill News. In a strange inversion of most ‘bloggers trajectories, I’m moving, slightly, from electronic to paper media.

First, a quick correction. In trying to trim my column to 750 words I made a mistake joining two sentences concerning the citizen’s financial outlays to-date. The Mayor says we’ve spent about $600K on the project plans. Matt Dee’s, in a Feb. 28th, 2006 News & Observer article, said:

Town leaders have spent about four years and more than $1 million taking plans from vague brainstorms to the detailed drawings shown Monday night.

I bet if you added in all the staff, Council and consultancy time, the real expenditures over the last 4-5 years, the figure would be above $1 million. If you pull in the legal and staff costs associated with the first run at leveraging the Wallace deck for downtown redevelopment, the Rosemary Square project, I’m sure the figure would go much higher.

In any case, it is not $4 million.

What are the true expenditures to-date? I will be doing some additional research to find out.

What about potential cost to the citizen? If we use the Mayor’s figures, we’ve spent $600K to-date, have a commitment to spend $500K more digging a futile hole in lot #5 and will be “kicking back” the $7.9 million earned on the 99 year lease agreement with RAM development. And, already, the $500K for the “hole” is in dispute.

With that in mind, here’s my column:

Over the nearly six years I’ve worked downtown, I’ve watched the nearby parking lot’s tree-lined sidewalks magnificently bloom in spring, shade our citizens in summer and explode with dazzling reds and yellows each fall. One of the few remaining unencumbered downtown public parcels, this human-scale open area visually connects and integrates Franklin Street into the surrounding neighborhoods.

A few months ago, two stately trees across the street were cut down, replaced by the mammoth metal posts of our town’s fancy new-style traffic signals. “How many folks thought about those trees?” I wondered. “Will anyone else miss them? How long will they furnish my memories?”

In 1979, the noxious gridlock of N.C. 54 years away, my first pleasant drive from Raleigh to town’s edge was interrupted only by the route’s sole traffic signal. Through rolling verdant pastures, past the quaint University Inn.

A right at the quiet Old Chapel Hill Cemetery. Under the arched trees of Raleigh Street. A left turn onto historic Franklin Street. An easy park at UNC’s publicly accessible lot in Porthole Alley.

Downtown, though replete with historic ambiance, exuded a youthful confidence. Locally owned record, grocery, hardware, clothes and stereo stores competed for my hard-earned lucre. Three cheap movie theaters within two blocks provided a welcome retreat into air-conditioned bliss. Restaurants ran the gamut of tastes and expense.

Enamored, I regularly spent a few bucks on the six-hour jaunt to Chapel Hill. Smelling of diesel fumes, I’d arrive at the bus terminal thirsty and travel wearied. Exiting onto the delightfully shaded lawn, I’d hop across the street to retrieve an ice-cold brew from Fowler’s Big Bertha (that grocery’s storied walk-in freezer).

I fondly remember that downtown.

Over the ensuing decades the evolving character of our “village on the rise” shifted. Fowler’s grocery closed with no replacement. Huggin’s Hardware, hammered by the pricing pressure of Lowe’s, became a casualty of our town’s first experiment with “big box” retailers. Competing against university and national chains, the Intimate Bookshop burned financially. Both Laundromats washed out. The Carolina Blue & White closed, then opened, now darkened again.

Meadowmont’s broken promise despoiled those welcoming pastures. The Wallace Deck vanquished the starry skies above my friends’ North Street back yard. UNC’s parking policies hampered free access. The Cobb chiller plant disturbed the quiet of the grave. A luxury hotel erased the terminal’s pleasant lawn.

During the same era, well-intentioned leadership, bolstered by developers’ promises, worked to constrain sprawl within our rural buffer, approved developments ringing town and created today’s donut-like topology that draws economic activity to the periphery.

Speculating that increased residency will revive downtown’s economic fortunes, the Town Council entered a private-public partnership with RAM Development to convert citizen-owned properties into mixed-use residential-commercial developments with 230 housing units.

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.

Where is the public utility, the community orientation? Why a hard concrete concourse, a “hands-off” fountain in lieu of a grassy sward and a kid-friendly splash park? Where’s the commitment to decent public bathrooms and drinking fountains? Why boutique shops instead of a natural community magnet like a grocery store? With competing private projects proposing hundreds of additional downtown dwellings and current cost projections more than $100 million, why develop the tracts at all?

Over the last 18 months, my disappointment increased, my support eroded. I began to wonder if town was following the failed trajectory of 1984’s $30 million Rosemary Square project as a council once again attempted to reform downtown.

The fires of my opposition ignited the night council discussed the project’s window treatments with more passion than the escalating public cost. Increased outlays to our consultant added tinder. When RAM Development disclosed plans to build 335 luxury condos near downtown, the largest such project in town’s history, and the mayor shrugged off the potential conflict of interest adjudging their development partner’s plans, the flickers swelled.

Finally, with the recent call for citizens to shoulder the developer’s private debt via tax incremental funding (TIFs), those nascent flickers firmed into the flame of resistance.

Council member Cam Hill, a key member of the negotiating team, recently said, “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.”

Cam, it’s time to dig out your running shoes and run, don’t walk, to the nearest exit.

Campaign, ChapelHill, Government, LocalPolitics, Ruminations

You can’t squeeze orange juice from a turnip….

Leave a comment

Citizens aren’t geese and, for most, the golden eggs they pay in taxes don’t come easy.

While I’ve been critical of both the county’s and town’s 2006-2007 budgets, it’s Chapel Hill’s efforts that have disappointed me the most.

Why? The advertised “balance” was based on reductions in fiscal responsibility, a “lucky” sales tax windfall and some other sleight-of-hand. Beyond that, last years political promises to directly include our saavy citizenry in improving the cost-effectiveness of services were not followed through on. Additional campaign-promised expenditures made it into the budget but not the concomitantly discussed reductions.

I believe that a realistic appraisal of our community’s financial future should start with our elected officials weening themselves off the idea that real-estate values in our community will constantly accelerate. Both Orange county’s and Chapel Hill’s 2006-2007 budgets forecast a continued growth in real-estate values – a projection that belies macro-economic events.

To wit. Gross (as in vulgar) national debt. Accelerating energy costs. Potential war-related chaos. Stagflation. And the very real possibility of the real-estate boom busting.

Today’s rant on locally short-sighted taxation trends comes via UNC Prof. Eric Muller (isThatLegal.org) who tipped me last week to another excellent local pool of talent – a group of UNC Law School folks ‘blogging on credit, debt and bankruptcy ( Credit Slips ).

From today’s post Deregulation Drags Down Economy

The NYT ran a story that connects two dots—the housing bust and a slowing economy. Because housing has been a big employer, as new home construction comes a standstill, the effects will reverberate through the economy. Thus comes the answer to a question I’ve heard many times: So long as I’m not strung out on some crazy mortgage, why should I care if the housing market implodes? Because it affects the whole economy.

Not just the whole economy but the whole financial infrastructure of our country. This, of course, includes our local ability to fund required programs, let alone “nice to haves” (intern programs, swimming centers, etc.).

A prudent step would be to evaluate local tax revenue against longer time frames and a broader, maybe a bit more negative, perspective.

CarolinaNorth, Government, LocalPolitics

Town Manager Stegall?

Leave a comment

I’m impressed with what I’ve read by and about Sean Stegall.

With Sean we have a candidate for town manager that celebrates openness, wants to make community a cornerstone of his efforts and recognizes Chapel Hill’s need for some “conflict resolution”.

He has a flexible management-style – a trust in the folk working at all levels in our government and within the community.

But, as the town manager, the work of leadership is more about tapping into and leveraging the collective energies of those who work for the community, are served by the community and who are elected to govern.

The manager must create a sense of purpose that connects people together and drives the organization to a higher level of performance. This is best accomplished by assimilation of the collective “visions” held within the organization and community.

HS

As a person that can pinch the meanest of pennies – I heartily welcome a candidate thoroughly experienced in budgetary matters.

Sean is responsible for the preparation, execution and monitoring of a budget of $277,000,000. In addition, Sean is charged with development of the five (5) year financial plans for the City’s major operating funds.

c.v.

We could definitely use more than a spritz of entreprenurial spirit

If an organization is not constantly looking to improve its processes and procedures, it is falling behind.

– and the background and desire to use technology to drive operational efficiencies.

Stegall also is developing a wireless Internet program for Elgin residents, something that interests many Chapel Hill leaders as well.

Already, Elgin employees are using a Motorola system to communicate with each other, filing reports from the field, etc.

Wireless transmitters are on all city water towers.

“Being familiar with technology that may be one of the benefits of being 33,” Stegall said. “Technology is not an end in and of itself. It should be used for other ends.”

N&O

And he understands that the relationship between manager and Council is nuanced

The old saying goes, “Council makes policy, staff implements policy.” But policy making and policy implementation are not separate and distinct functions. In reality, policy making/implementation is a continuum of thought and relationships that transform ideas, policies, goals and plans into observable outcomes or ends such as a new street project, homeless shelter or park improvement. Because of this fact, council and staff share this continuum and are partners ensuring each other’s success. Because of this partnership, there must be open and on-going dialogue among the town council and department heads. Finally, this dialogue must include all community partners whether it is media outlets or neighborhood associations.

The Chapel Hill town manager must create a sense of purpose through a shared vision and open dialogue by and between the council, staff and community.

HS

Yes, he’s young. So what? We need a candidate with vitality and a fresh perspective to help our community make the next step in its evolution. Sean’s capabilities and diversity of experience are more than comparable to our current manager’s when he was selected.

Though I’m not a big fan of his take on TIFs (tax increment financing)  or the joy of gambling profits, I liked his current perspective on town and hope his responses are more than “window dressing”.

Good luck Sean on your interview. Remember, Chapel Hill, for all its age, is still a youthful community – expect a fair hearing.

ChapelHill, Government, LocalPolitics

Session closed under North Carolina General Statute 143-318.11(a)(6)

2 Comments

OrangePolitics (OP) is covering Council’s (injudicious?) final sprint to hire a new manager.

OP’s Ruby Sinreich commented June 2nd on the quick narrowing of the field to a handful of white males.

Robert Peterson, June 5th, put on his tin foil hat and, I believe with some accuracy, laid out a scenario where one of the three putative candidates is a “ringer” . As he observed “What we have here, on paper at least, is a superstar. What better way to insure his getting the position than to pit him against someone mired in controversy and someone with 20 years less experience.“

This week, Council will spend 38 hours reviewing and then selecting, with minimal opportunities for direct public interaction, a new Town Manager. Unless, as Council member Mark Kleinschmidt avers “with all confidence that if there’s any doubt at the end of the week that we’re not hiring the best person for this job, we will hire no one.”

What role will Chapel Hill’s citizenry play in the evaluation of “what’s best”?

With the limited information before us; the Herald Sun’s Q&A’s of Ragan, Stancil and Sean Stegall – their bio’s ( Stegall,Ragan, Stancil) posted on the town’s manager search site – an article from the News and Observer – some Googled references – one wonders how the greater citizenry is supposed to evaluate these candidates.

They won’t have much of an opportunity this final week as 36 of the 38 hours set aside for candidate consideration are closed, closed, closed.

“The Council will move that this session be closed under North Carolina General Statute 143-318.11(a)(6).”

The Council’s actions to fill this key position with much less public discussion and involvement than other recent issues, for instance the renaming of Airport Rd. to Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd., seems counter to our town’s stated desire for maximum governmental transparency. To cap the current process off by cloaking a majority of the discussion behind 143-318.11(a)(6), well, it puts the fine point to folks concerns.

The remaining two hours for public input? The Mayor will be juggling Council and public participation.

I don’t quite understand Mark K’s response to Ruby S’s rushed feeling by saying “I don’t know why you insist on calling it a runaway train” when so many of the search committee’s meetings were ill-scheduled (for reasonable public participation) or closed under 143-318.11(a)(6).

  • 10am, Weds. Mar. 15th, Mar. 22nd, Mar. 29th
  • 10am, Tues. Apr. 4th [CANCELLED], Apr. 11th
  • 8am, Tues. Apr. 18th; Sat. Apr. 22nd (the 1st possible one for me to attend)
  • CLOSED Mon. May 8th 10am ; Fri. May 19th, 2pm ;Tues. May 30th, 9am

Missing an opportunity for greater openness, the minutes of the open meetings were only available at Townhall and not published on the town’s website.

As someone that closely followed the process (as well as one can without easily accessible minutes of the search committee’s meetings), I disagree with Mark’s comment that

“The decisions regarding the development of the selection process were all held in open public meetings–I think there were at least two of those–and there was a public meeting to assist on development of a profile.”

Feb. 27th, Council discussed some exciting options like “a website with questionnaire for public comment” and a process structured so the “Community to meet with all finalists“. But, sadly, these proposed mechanisms for community outreach were subsequently discarded (the public commentary) and watered down (this week’s two-hour, Mayorally-filtered, candidate meet-n-greet).

Direct citizen commentary was limited to the regular 3 minute slot.

By the Mar. 6th meeting, OP poster and local personnel expert Anita Badrock (VP, Smithers and Associates) suggested two possible “processes” for selecting candidates. As she observed:

I recognize that we have a culture of openness in our community that the Council wants to respect, but I believe the citizens would understand and be better served by a process that would allow the best qualified candidates to confidentially explore this career opportunity to the maximum extent possible. Many of the most highly qualified applicants are probably the kind of professionals that aren’t unhappy with where they are currently, but are excited and intrigued about the possibilities and opportunities that exist in Chapel Hill. That’s the type of person that probably would not want his/her current employer to know (s)he’s looking.

As someone that’s hired their share of sensitive workers, I also recognize the need for some discretion.

Unfortunately, the concern for candidates confidentiality out-weighed public necessity and the more citizen-interactive options, factored into Process #2, were soon to be dispensed with.

As per Process #1, 30 or so folks – Council members, staff, the local political “usual suspects” (former Council members, business folk, the Chamber, etc.) – were “interviewed” to develop a candidate profile. These interviews constituted, I guess, a surrogate for the public feedback via website or a general solicitation for written/oral comments.

In another blow to timely transparency, it was only recently that the candidate profile was published.

Ruby is on to something when she remarks that the Council

has set-up this entire process without actively engaging or even encouraging the public’s input in a meaningful way (ie: before we were down to a choice between 3 straight, white, males). I’m not saying we should be sitting in on confidential meetings or anything, but it really shouldn’t surprise the Council if most Chapel Hill residents don’t even know this is going on, and rest of us are annoyed about how it’s going.

I’m concerned this is becoming a trend rather than an anomaly…

The Council was elected to make decisions. NC statute and local ordinances require minimal public participation in one of the hardest decisions a Council will make.

Only a growing Chapel Hill custom of transparency – part of what folks seriously or sarcastically call “Chapel Hill values” – obliges the Council to widen participation – to cast sunlight into the deepest shadows of the decision-making process – to reach beyond conservatively expedient approaches – in selecting a person, if recent history serves, that will have more influence on our community as any ephemeral elected Council member.

This week, to echo Ruby, the citizens of Chapel Hill will have a chance to see if Council continues a growing trend away from greater transparency and participation or if their behavior is an anomoly in their pell-mell rush to fill this key position.

CarolinaNorth, ChapelHill, environment, Government, LocalPolitics, UNC

How low can Moeser go? Transit, transportation and parking lots.

1 Comment

[UPDATE:] Please excuse the draft of this post, with broken links, that was earlier erroneously posted.

During my 2005 Council run, I was advised by “folks in the political know” that my optimistic call to UNC to put their 2003 Carolina North development plans aside and start anew would fall on deaf ears. “Don’t waste your time. You set the bar too high. Too ambitious a challenge.”

That plan, with its many deficiencies – 17,000 parking spaces, unimaginative design, lack of transit opportunities – was neither worthy of our world-class University or of the charming Town it occupies.

UNC needed to rethink the initial parameters of this mega-project,to craft a new collaborative development process, to tap their incredible on-campus talent and to assure the local community that our local values would be honored – our zoning authority respected.

Six months later, UNC has set aside their initial RTP-lite development plans, created a new community outreach group (the Carolina North Leadership Advisory Comm.), committed to following the town’s zoning authority and participated diligently (with a few continuing missteps) in the recasting of Carolina North’s design and development principles.

Maybe my optimism wasn’t so misplaced.

Buried in today’s June 9th, 2006 letter to Mayor Foy from UNC’s Chancellor Moeser are some new positive commitments from UNC.

Continue reading How low can Moeser go? Transit, transportation and parking lots. →

CivilLiberties, Government, LocalPolitics, Media, Ruminations, Technology

One nation controlled by the medium…

Leave a comment

Those who control the present control the past. Those who control the past control the future.

– Orwell, author 1984

Those who control our modern means of communication are free to manipulate the past, recast the present and shape the future. Powerful, greedy, immoral – the masters of our converging media/medium empires already trample heavily upon the newly emerging Town Commons.

Unfortunately, with today’s House vote destroying Internet neutrality, a vote generally along party lines, the monopolists now have untrammeled freedom to despoil the Commons.

What is Internet neutrality?

Continue reading One nation controlled by the medium… →

CarolinaNorth, environment, Government, LocalPolitics, Ruminations, UNC

Chafing: Prevention and Treatment

Leave a comment

From today’s Rob Shapard Herald-Sun article covering a Carolina North “October surprise” :

The Board of Trustees voted unanimously Thursday for a resolution that set the October ’07 date a day after trustees chafed at the pace of the latest Carolina North committee and said they were keen to “get off the dime” and get the project going.

Even though the BOT’s May 24th agenda listed Carolina North as an “information only” item, the BOT took action and passed a confusing resolution directing

the Chancellor to submit zoning and land development applications for Carolina North to the applicable local governmental jurisdictions no later than October 1, 2007.

The resolution has several meandering bits I’ll try to deconstruct.

The putative need for Carolina North has shifted with the years; yesterday the BOT proferred the following justifications:

there is now an urgent need to develop Carolina North. Conditions have evolved from 17 years ago, when the University first identified the importance of developing this tract of land and commenced the planning process for the property. Federal funding for research is declining and facilities for public-private partnerships are needed. In addition, there are very few new building sites still available on campus. And, many of our existing buildings do not lend themselves to the kinds of faculty interaction, interdisciplinary collaboration, and government and business engagement that are needed if the University is to use its resources most effectively and efficiently to address society’s pressing needs and attract jobs and economic activity to the entire state.

Wow! We surely wouldn’t want our local elected officials to stand in the way of UNC’s urgent desire to use its educational might to “effectively and efficiently … address society’s pressing needs and attract jobs and economic activity to the entire state.”

Whoa! Isn’t that the same kind of rhetoric we heard about other big ticket (read: expensive tax-payer supported boondoggles) projects like the Kinston’s Global Transpark, NCSU’s failing Centennial campus and the (currently contentious) Kannapolis North Carolina Research Campus (NCRC).

The NCRC got approval for $9. 4 MILLION from the NC Senate (and an additional annual promise of $8.4M) because Gov. Easley:

Hartsell said the proposed funding for the research campus was a suggestion from Gov. Mike Easley’s office.

He noted that the research campus is not only important for Kannapolis and Cabarrus County, but for the whole state.

Why? Well there’s an expectation that the new campus

should generate about 2,200 jobs in just its first 2 1/2 years of operation, according to an official with the firm that’s developing the biotech hub.

Hmmm, aren’t the developers aware they’re making the UNC BOT’s claim that “facilities for public-private partnerships are needed” look a bit askew?

And what of UNC’s need for new facilities?

The current $1.5 BILLION Main Campus buildout (not to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars of UNC Hospitals growth)

do not lend themselves to the kinds of faculty interaction, interdisciplinary collaboration, and government and business engagement that are needed

Are they kidding? What are NC taxpayers to think of the BOT?

It’s interesting that the BOT cooled their recent touting of biotech as the primary focus for Carolina North’s research mission. Maybe between recent NCRC recruiting efforts

With its ‘dream team’ of partners, the North Carolina Research Campus is helping to keep the Tar Heel state a step ahead of the national and global rush to grab a piece of the $63.1 billion biotechnology industry. At the Biotech 2006 conference today (May 22) in Winston-Salem, the campus’ project manager, Lynne Scott Safrit, will discuss the resources coalescing at the campus and the power and appeal of the bona fide biotech corridor developing in North Carolina.

their own observation that “Federal funding for research is declining” and UNC’s vice chancellor for research and economic development, Tony Waldrop, pointing out:

UNC Chapel Hill landed about $579 million for research in the last fiscal year. But he said about 52 percent of that federal money came through the National Institutes of Health, and that funding from NIH has flattened out and begun to decline in recent years.

HS

they realized that biotech, as a justification for the $1+ billion Carolina North project, was a non-starter.

Waldrop’s claim that “our faculty will continue to compete very well, but there’s going to be a smaller pool of money,” is dead-on – it’s competition from the new NCRC – but his further assertion that “we need Carolina North to continue to be a great research university” doesn’t logically follow.

Another interesting bit of the resolution involves citizen participation.

the Chancellor has established the Carolina North Leadership Advisory Committee to provide the University with a wide cross section of community thought on the principles that should guide the University in preparing for the development of Carolina North

Last LAC meeting, one of our town’s representatives, Council member Strom, told the Carolina North Leadership Advisory Council (LAC) that “Chapel Hill did not agree to hear outside groups’ ideas when it joined the advisory body” in response to a citizen’s group’s Carolina North presentation (the Village Project’s presentation).

At the same meeting, Ken Broun, the leader of the LAC said the committee will use information from other groups to inform its views but will not put those proposals in its report to UNC.

And, of course, there’s both the LAC’s two minute public comment rule (which I’ll be trying out soon) and UNC’s Broun’s comments about UNC not wanting to entertain 10 minutes of public Q&A (after their recent presentation).

All this seems to undermine the BOT’s desire for a wide cross section of community thought. Maybe the BOT’s resolution reaffirming a

commitment to seek out and listen to community input regarding the principles that should guide the development of Carolina North

will cause a general rethinking in the LAC on citizen participation.

Citizens need some venue as participation through Chapel Hill was certainly severely curtailed when Council abruptly dissolved the Horace-Williams Citizen’s Committee. This advisory board not only developed a number of principles underpinning the LAC’s current discussions on Carolina North but had also started working to flesh-out and fill-in-the-gaps in those guiding principles (the HWCC had presented Council a fairly extensive list of tasks they were taking on, on behalf of the town’s citizenry, to complete its mission).

In the end, what are we to make of this new timeline?

A case can certainly be made for Carolina North – but not the current case.

North Carolina’s taxpayers deserve a measured and reasonable evaluation of their return on this investment.

The underlying reasons for developing the Horace Williams tract change over time – as we can see from the BOT’s latest resolution.

Biotech is out. Vague assertions of promoting state-wide economic growth are back in.

The State appears to be a bit confused – both funding the new NCRC and making similar claims as to Carolina North’s state-wide efficacy.

The process needs time to unfold – and the BOT, for all its irritation, needs to be patient.

CarolinaNorth, Government, LocalPolitics, Ruminations, UNC

Carolina North and the Education of Mayor Foy

Leave a comment

As I noted in Chafing: Prevention and Treatment, the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Board of Trustees has always been a wildcard in the potentially disastrous development of Carolina North.

Yesterday’s meeting unsettled Mayor Foy, at least enough for him to defend the initial delay in Carolina North’s Leadership Advisory Committee’s getting to substantive discussions.

Foy observed:

You can’t put together a couple dozen people, tell them to set their own work process, and then complain when it takes time to set that up

Hey, that sounds familiar!

In fact, it echoes my statement to Council on April 11th – a concern the Mayor breezily dismissed.

That night, except for Council member Easthom, the Council quickly dispensed with our Town’s “couple of dozen” of citizens who were dedicated to fleshing out the principles [pdf] underpinning the Leadership Advisory Council’s current discussions – principles they developed.

Easthom, who deftly defended citizen input, wisely foresaw the long term necessity of keeping a citizen-owned institution around to help Council respond to the next 12 months of UNC’s Carolina North discussions.

In the last Horace-Williams Citizens Committee meeting, I suggested, once again,

We remind the Council of the scope of work proposed by the HWCC in January and suggest that the Council recognize the necessary lead time required to reconstitute a citizen’s group to explore the issues in that proposal.

With the accelerated schedule demanded yesterday by the UNC BOT, the Mayor’s claim “mission accomplished” seems not only quite premature but also quite precipitous.

The good news is it’s not too late to reconstitute a citizen’s group, like the Horace Williams Citizen’s Committee, to help respond to BOT’s challenge.

CarolinaNorth, environment, Government, LocalPolitics, Ruminations, UNC

The Last Horace Williams Citizen’s Committee. Hurrah?

Leave a comment

The HWCC chair presented our few, final (?), thoughts for Council on the Carolina North project and a response UNC’s Chancellor Moeser letter of Jan. 25th.

The most important recommendation, I believe, was that of the HWCC’s environmental sub-group (of which I was a member).

I lobbied hard for the elements that appear in the final document:

  • A baseline study of current on and off property environmental conditions.
  • The baseline to exceed EPA and other statute requirements.
  • The development of metrics to understand and measure Carolina North’s impacts year-in and year-out.

Unfortunately, we had the rug pulled out from underneath us before we could finish with a more detailed proposal.

I envisioned, and fought for, a strong proposal for UNC, chiefly, and the town, in a support role, to not only scientifically study, assess and document current environmental conditions both on the Horace-Williams tract and down-wind/down-stream of the development, but to pledge to regularly monitor conditions and apply “best class” metrics to determine environmental impacts.

UNC has an unique opportunity (and responsibility) to use the development of Carolina North as a large-scale laboratory for experimenting with “best practice”, sustainable, world-class “green” designs.

This 50 year project could yield invaluable inventive insights into “green” practices that will create new business opportunities for North Carolinians while promoting sound environmental stewardship – in Chapel Hill, in North Carolina and throughout the world.

I drafted the original HWCC response to Chancellor Moeser. Joe Capowski helped tighten it up. The final version captured, fairly well, my original intent (though, my original draft was much more detailed in its criticism).

There are a number of issues, concerns and omissions the HWCC suggested be addressed before “calling it a day” on UNC’s side of the Carolina North planning process.

Final thoughts are on agenda item [9a].

CarolinaNorth, Government, LocalPolitics, Ruminations, UNC

HWCC:Response to Chancellor Moeser’s January 25th Letter on Carolina North

Leave a comment

Here’s the HWCC’s (Horace Williams Citizen’s Committee) response to Chancellor Moeser’s January 25th Letter on Carolina North development.

I drafted the original response, which was further refined by myself and Joe Capowski and finally tightened up and approved by the whole of the HWCC.

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Comments on UNC January 25, 2006 letter and attachment from Chancellor Moeser to Mayor Foy concerning the HWCC Principles Goals and Strategies Report

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

The HWCC provides these general observations to the Council about the UNC response

1. The HWCC sincerely thanks Chancellor Moeser for his statement in his February 7, 2006 letter that outlined a process and charge for the Leadership Advisory Committee. “The University enters this process in good faith and with the recognition and understanding that the Town of Chapel Hill has zoning authority over the Carolina North property within its boundaries.”

2. We appreciate UNC’s response to the principles in the HWCC report. The HWCC is delighted that there is substantial agreement between HWCC principles and the UNC response.

3. The HWCC is concerned that UNC will participate in an ad-hoc building process at Carolina North, constructing buildings one at a time as funds become available, but before necessary planning, infrastructure, transit, and environmental needs have been addressed and completed. Every premature building itself imposes constraints on the Horace Williams tract and limits the Carolina North project’s ability to be a world-class center of research, education, housing and service to our university, towns, and state. An example of this ad hoc approach is the proposal for a model school site.

4. The UNC response did not comment on any of the specifics underlying the HWCC principles. We suggest that sometime during the Carolina North planning process, that the Carolina North plans be measured against the specific goals and strategies of the HWCC report.

5. The UNC response is silent on any specifics pertaining to the process of continuing engagement and cooperation for our mutual benefit. We are happy however that UNC has formed its Leadership Advisory Committee (LAC) that will further the process.

6. The HWCC report was crafted with several key assumptions. While UNC has responded to the principles developed under these assumptions, its response is silent on whether the assumptions are sound. We hope that the LAC will adopt these principles.

SPECIFIC OBSERVATIONS

Continue reading HWCC:Response to Chancellor Moeser’s January 25th Letter on Carolina North →

CivilLiberties, Government, LocalPolitics, Ruminations, Technology

Bellsouth’s Billion Dollar Mistake

1 Comment

[ UPDATE: ] Bellsouth denies USA Today charge, claims no sharing of records.

According to CNN and other news sources, Bellsouth denies USA Today’s claim that it participated in the massive NSA privacy breach.

In several reports, Bellsouth spokesman Jeff Battcher claims

Battcher said BellSouth’s customer service department had received only 26 complaints about reports that private phone records may have been relayed to the government.

26 sounds quite low, especially since I know 5 folk, including myself, that called when the story broke.

Verizon and ATT are still on the hook.
Continue reading Bellsouth’s Billion Dollar Mistake →