Category Archives: Ruminations

Carrboro, ChapelHill, Government, Media, Ruminations

June 6th’s Closed Council Session

Leave a comment

As we wind down the planning for this fiscal year, Council’s deliberations take on a bit more gravitas, thus demand even more attention by the public.

As one might observe listening to last year’s Lot #5 closed negotiations ( “Downtown Development Initiative: Listen and Learn How Negotiations Went Awry”), going too long or waiting until to an eve of a decision without public participation or oversight does not serve the public interest.

Looking back through my recent notes, I didn’t find a reference to the purpose of this Wednesdays closed door Council session.

With the Lot #5 deal still a bit wobbly (now up 17 fold from $500K to $8.4M), disclosure that our just hired economic development officer was charged with embezzlement in 2003 (charges subsequently dropped), a probable $0.02 hike in town taxes and a raft of other issues before them, I would hope the Council takes more counsel and welcomes more public oversight as the year closes than try to wrestle with their problems out-of-sight.

With that in mind, I’ve asked for a clarification on the purpose of this Wednesday’s meeting.

Catherine, Roger,

Excuse me for asking both of you the same question, but I wasn’t quite sure whom to address
this question to.

What statutory reason is Council using to hold a closed session June 6th?

Our town’s website suggests it must be one of the following:

# Confidential information
# Consultations with an attorney
# Business location or expansion
# Real property acquisition
# Employment contracts
# Certain personnel matters
# Investigations

and that the specific reason for going to closed session have been adopted in an open session.

Quoting from our town’s website:

“The statute provides that a closed session may be held only on a motion adopted in open session by a majority of those present and voting. The motion must state the purpose set out in the statute that permits the closed session, such as “to consider matters relating to the location or expansion of industry.” In addition, two of the purposes require a more detailed motion. First, if the purpose is to discuss some matter that is confidential by law, the motion must cite the law that makes the matter confidential. For example, if an area authority meets to consider matters relating to a specific patient, the motion to go into closed session would have to cite G.S. 122C-52, the statute that makes patient information confidential. Second, if the purpose is to discuss pending litigation, the motion must identify the parties to the litigation.”

I couldn’t find a reference in my recent notes to indicate for what purpose this particular
closed session was being held, any information you can provide would be appreciated.

Thank you,

Will

If you’re interested in open meetings and the free flow of information from the governing to the governed, check out NC Open Government, an organization sponsored by some of the top press outlets in our state.

Here’s their two cents on closed meetings.

Ruminations

Technorati’s Sampling of CitizenWill Videos

Leave a comment

A reader dropped me an email (thanks K.A.) alerting me to Technorati’s laggard pace in indexing links to CitizenWill. Technorati is supposed to keep track of how many folks link to your ‘blogs content.

According to their service, I haven’t posted anything new in 298 days! I’m not the only person with Technorati ping problems Topic: does everyone have to post here to get the ping to work?

I’m not much for tracking links and that whole SEO (search engine optimization) bit (there are more than a few cautionary tales of bloggers, consumed with “incoming link counts” and other falderal, losing their way).

That said, I guess I should be a little miffed that the supposedly premier service for tracking interest in ones ‘blog can’t even recognize I’ve posted content a little fresher than a year-old (hmmm, maybe they use some algorithm to evaluate the worth of that content – uh oh!).

In any case, they did collect, serendipitously it appears, related content from youTube and flickr.

I especially like this Technorati collage of some of my videos:


Civil Dance Disobedience
Feb 20 2007 Carrboro BOA Rogers Rd. Trash - Tracy Coleman

Allen Baddour Opening Statement
Experimental Chapel Hill RAM Development Flybys

Videos View all »

Thanks K.A. for the heads-up. Oh, and when I was checking out Technorati I happened to notice CitizenWill.org has been nominated for a Koufax award in the “Best Coverage of State of Local Issues” (??). I was previously nominated for a Koufax in the commenting category (I used to comment prolifically before I had a ‘blog 😉 ).

Other local ‘blogs nominated for your consideration:

A fantastic crew to be associated with… Thank you, whomever you are, for the nomination.

Ruminations

Spring Cleaning 2007

Leave a comment

Thank you folks for sticking with CitizenWill through thick and thin (including a major outage May 15th, 2007).

A little history. January 31st, 2006 I relaunched my 2005 Town Council campaign website (Concerned Citizen) claiming I’d

be posting some articles on last year’s election – including an analysis of campaign finances, my ideas on what to do to bootstrap Chapel Hill’s municipal networking initiative, comments on my new appointment to the Town’s Horace-William’s Citizen’s committee and other issues I’m concerned about…

More than year later, with 412 published posts under the Concerned Citizen/CitizenWill banner, I still haven’t gotten around to a full debrief on election 2005 😉

I have managed to cover a few other issues, Carolina North, RAM Development’s conquest of Downtown, election reform and more than a few odds-n-ends.

I’ve also started, then left as drafts, about 100 other posts. What to do with them?

Like a diary, part of the reason I have a ‘blog is to jog the old memory – to remind myself of how and why our Town, University, local organizations, citizens have arrived at our current destination.

Another part, to make my research available for others – local or remote, now or many years hence – to build-on, deconstruct, dispute, debate, etc. As I’ve posted on before, I’m creating a long tail documenting the issues before my local community in the small hope that others will find a kernel of benefit.

I never expected hundreds of folks to check in daily and, I imagine, my digressive style easily reflects that expectation…

Long windup. Just wanted to provide some context on the tumult I’m about to inflict on you, my readership.

Do I think every word I dribble out is a gem worth preserving? Hell no.

These bits do represent, to some extent, a distributed memory store for me (and possibly others) to lean on. So, rather than discard all those partially constructed pieces, I going to clean house, polish my notes/video/audio off as best as possible and publish the morass – out of order, sometimes out-of-context – labeled [SPRING CLEANING].

I won’t be publishing all the drafts. I won’t be posting many in their entirety. And I will certainly try to do a better job of keeping up from now on ;-)!

So, to use a phrase I’m seeing posted more and more along Franklin St.: “Please excuse the mess….”

ChapelHill, Government, MunicipalNetworking, Ruminations

Municipal Networking: Eyes on the Road

Leave a comment

[SPRING CLEANING]

I asked Town Manager Roger Stancil May 17th how the CCTV (closed-circuit TV) packaged in the Town’s first steps towards municipal networking (Municipal Networking:Could We Have a Little Less Big Brother?).

Roger and Kumar Neppalli, our Town’s traffic (and now streetlight) point person, both clarified the bullet item. The CCTVs will be used strictly for monitoring traffic flows.

Roger apologizes for taking 3 days to respond – which might seem strange if you dealt with Townhall before – but Roger has set a goal of improving the flow of information into the community, a refreshing change.

Thank you Roger and Kumar for a quick turnaround (now, if we can just get a 7 day warning on those Council agendas).

From: Roger Stancil
Sent: Mon 5/21/2007 4:27 PM
Subject: RE: Clarification on CCTV usage

I apologize for the delay in responding to you. The cameras are generally for monitoring intersections for traffic management purposes. I am sure it will be done in accordance with this community’s concern for privacy and policies that ensure privacy is not invaded. Thank you for your questions. By copy of this email, I will ask Kumar if he has additional information.

Roger

Roger L. Stancil
Town Manager
Town Manager’s Office
Town of Chapel Hill
405 Martin Luther King Jr Blvd
Chapel Hill, NC 27514-5705

Phone: (919) 968-2743
Fax: (919) 969-2063

Note: Mail sent to or received from the Town Manager is subject to publication under the provisions of the North Carolina public records law.

—-

Mr. Raymond,

Mr. Stancil is correct and the cameras are used strictly for the purpose of monitoring traffic and provide guidance to motorists using variable message signs. These cameras are similar to the traffic monitoring cameras on I-40. Privacy of the motorists and passengers are protected and the cameras will not be used for enforcement of traffic regulations such as speeding, signal violations.

I will find the State Policy for use of these cameras and will e-mail you. Thanks.

Kumar Neppalli
Engineering Services Manager
Ph: (919)969-5093

—–Original Message—–

Subject: Clarification on CCTV usage

Roger,

I notice that the use of CCTV was mentioned in this resolution: http://townhall.townofchapelhill.org/agendas/2007/05/21/4f/

Could you clarify where and for what use closed-circuit surveillance will be deployed in Chapel Hill?

I’m thrilled we’re making a smart tactical move to improve our information infrastructure. I’m
hoping that deployment and usage of CCTV, for whatever purpose, will be guided by a policy grounded in transparency and informed by a strong commitment to preserve our residents
privacy.

Thank you,

Will

Carrboro, ChapelHill, CitizenWill, Elections, LocalPolitics, NationalPolitics, OrangeCounty, Ruminations, Zorch

Democrats No Longer

2 Comments

I’m a registered Independent.

OK, OK. I know there is no such thing as an Independent designation, just unaffiliated.

Unaffiliated. Indecisive. Indifferent. Uncommitted. Uninvolved. Fence-sitter. Don’t care.

A truly perverse bit of political framing.

I hope my occasional contributions to the local debate (CitizenWill , OrangePolitics, SqueezeThePulp, the Daily Tar Heel, the Chapel Hill News) and my willingness to take principled, though sometimes unpopular, stands on local issues demonstrates a small measure of care and commitment.

For years I’ve worked to elect Democrats. Dropped a few bucks here and there for a few of their more worthwhile national candidates. Sat polls for the local Orange County party. Contributed oodles of time to their and other affiliated organizations’ efforts to Get Out The Vote (GOTV). No plans to stop those efforts anytime soon.

But I am no Democrat (I was once). And I am no Republican (never have, never will be).

Heck, don’t try to graph my position on the one dimensional line passing through the Democrats Right to Republicans…. I, like many other local folks, exist outside these parties calculus.

I don’t know why three folks chose this week, from the many other recent weeks of Democratic disappointment, to ask me how to switch their party affiliation.

Maybe it was the recent reversal on Iraq or just the steady dissipation of last November’s promise.

Why me? I’m certainly not trying to “recruit” Independents. Sure, I haven’t been reserved in expressing my dissatisfaction with our local Democrat US Representative. They each knew of my efforts to open the local political scene to Independents via non-partisan elections and other voting reforms.

And I’ve been quite open about my status.

When, during my 2005 run for Town Council, a few local political operators counseled quiet discretion – suggesting talk of my non-affiliation would lead to a loss of stalwart Dem votes – I countered that to do so would not only be against my own tenets but promulgate the ruinous myth that folks are only capable of selecting representatives that fall along a one-dimensional political axis.

They might’ve been right. I did lose.

There is safety in numbers. Yet change springs from the outliers. And in today’s United States, it isn’t too far from “united we stand, divided we fall” to “deru kugi wa utareru”.

If you would like to lose your affiliation, either Republican or Democrat, or register to vote under any flag, the procedure is easy:

  • Review the instructions here.

    If you wish to change your party affiliation, you must complete either a Voter Registration Application Form (downloaded from address above) or complete the reverse side of a Voter Registration Card that has been mailed to you and return to the Board of Elections. All changes must be either postmarked or received in the Board of Election’s office at least 25 days before the election.

  • Download the registration form here [PDF].
  • Emancipate yourself from either of the two currently recognized parties.

Scared? You don’t have to go totally “cold turkey”. You will still be able to play some of the old game, for instance voting in either party’s primary. Initially, in many ways both large and small, you’ll feel stuck on the sidelines – constrained to vote for choices you wouldn’t have made, for flavors as close as Pepsi to Coke.

At first you might feel a little light-headed drifting above our current political Flatland. Navigating the multi-dimensional political reality we all currently occupy, whether we appreciate it or not, without the constant tether of partisan loyalty is heady stuff. Don’t panic! After a while, the relief of free agency sets in.

Still, though shorn of your party’s old baggage, paralyzed by its intransigence no longer, you leave one burden for another.

Sorry. Independence doesn’t mean “indecisive”. It doesn’t mean “uncommitted” And it certainly doesn’t mean “don’t care”.

CarolinaNorth, ChapelHill, Community, Development, EconomicDevelopment, environment, Ruminations

Carolina North: Two Years of Diminishing Economic Expectations

Leave a comment

Yesterday’s Carolina North outreach, once again, was heavy on promises – the vast possibility of grey goo, the escalating energy efficiencies of blue sky projections – light on details.

As a NC taxpayer, I’ve been waiting for UNC to produce a real, updated business plan reflecting 2007’s economic realities. Hey, we’re plunking down billions at the Carolina North craps table – it would be nice to have a quantitative, verifiable analysis of the project’s risk-reward profile.

Chancellor Moeser, you owe us NC taxpayers a reality-based report on our expected rate of return for our vast collective investment.

And, please, not another self-serving 2004 Market Street Services economic impact analysis report [PDF], which, to be charitable, was a fluffy confection spun from dreams of an enduring legacy, chunks of ad hoc economic observations and community boosterism of the worst calibre.

Your Carolina North quarterback, Jack Evans, reset the economic expectations yesterday (May 29th). Your team, with barely two months left of your self-imposed deadline, will have to drive hard to produce a believable economic impact report.

To give a small bit of perspective on how far we’ve come, here is UNC’s May 25, 2005 PR trumpeting the benefits of Carolina North:

Study shows Carolina North will be catalyst for jobs, tax revenue

CHAPEL HILL – Carolina North, the proposed living and learning campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, will generate 7,500 local jobs and about $48 million in annual tax revenues by 2020, according to an economic impact study released today. It also has the potential to position Carolina as a leading national center of research and public-private partnerships, according to Market Street Services of Atlanta, which conducted the study for the university.

“Carolina North will expand Carolina’s multiple missions, boost innovation and redefine our engagement with the region, state and world,” said University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chancellor James Moeser. “The great news from this study is that Carolina, through Carolina North, can continue to be a catalyst for the economic transformation of our state.”

The Carolina North draft conceptual plan outlines concepts for mixed-use development at a 900-plus-acre tract of UNC-owned property one mile north of the main campus off Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard (formerly Airport Road). The draft plan proposes to develop only about 25 percent of that total site over the next 50 to 70 years. Carolina North would include classrooms, labs, housing, schools, community spaces, offices and limited commercial space in a campus-and-village setting.

Carolina North would attract private companies to Chapel Hill to partner with university faculty to transform faculty research into products and

services to improve quality of life. Public-private partnerships would allow the university mission to grow at a time when state and federal funding are no longer growing at previous rates.

The Market Street study will be presented at Thursday’s (May 26) meeting of the university’s Board of Trustees. The study includes analysis of the projected economic impacts at the end of the project’s second phase (15 years) and at full build-out (50 years).

Other study highlights include:

· In the first two phases alone (15 years), the gains in the local and state economies reflect similar numbers to a medium-sized firm building new headquarters in the area year after year.

· By the end of phase 2 (approximately 2020)

Tax Impact: About $48 million in tax revenue annually
$26 million in state income tax
$14.6 million in state sales tax
$2.8 million in local sales tax
$5 million in property tax

· Employment Impact:

7,500 full-time, ongoing jobs (non construction)
$433 million in annual salary and personal income
8,876 construction-related jobs
$353 million in salary and personal income (construction)

· Business Revenue:

$600 million in annual business revenue (non construction)
$979 million in business revenue (construction)

Plans for Carolina North are still in the conceptual design phase. Before the university can move forward to collaborate with the towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro on the plans, it must resolve issues related to the university-owned Horace Williams Airport, which occupies part of the Carolina North tract.

The university announced in April 2002 that it would close Horace Williams Airport. In September 2002, the N.C. General Assembly passed legislation requiring the university to keep the airport open until January 2005. In July 2004, the legislature adopted language requiring the university to keep the airport open until an accessible replacement facility could be found for Medical Air, which serves the university’s Area Health Education Centers program.

The N.C. Senate recently passed a special provision that would allow the university to close the airport, provided that Medical Air operations have access to, or utilize, the Raleigh-Durham International Airport to serve the needs of patients, physicians and passengers associated with AHEC’s statewide programs.

The university’s Board of Trustees also will hear a report at its Thursday meeting about a consultants’ study to help the university identify an alternative site for an airport.

-30-

For a copy of the full economic impact study report, please go to: http://cn.unc.edu/economic_impact.pdf

Interviews with Market Street consultants can be arranged through News Services. In addition, for comment about the economic impact of Carolina North on the local community, reporters may call Aaron Nelson, executive director of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, at 919-967-7075.

I wonder if the Chamber’s Aaron Nelson, today, would give that report a passing grade?

Hard to believe given that today’s paucity of detail, the changing nature and scope presented yesterday and the rather obvious flaws ($5 million in property taxes? Really?) in Market Street’s Carolina North sales brochure.

Elections, OrangeCounty, Ruminations

Orange County’s White Vote

4 Comments

OK, before folks freak out, I have gotten to know the staff at the Orange County Board of Elections fairly well over the last 5 years. They’re friendly, professional and have always gone the extra mile to clarify issues/fix problems. I’m fairly sure they had no hand in the selection of this, ummmm, very white image to welcome all of Orange County’s voters to their site.

Orange County has recently spiffed up their website, making it more difficult to navigate by some folks estimation (besides making it more difficult to find contact info, having used the old site extensively for general research, I concur).

I’m sure the pictured family are fine upstanding citizens raring to vote. I’m also pretty sure I could find local analogues (maybe even doppelgangers) living right around the corner. Still, for a department interested in encouraging the greatest participation, the drama implicit in the image is rather interesting.

ChapelHill, LocalPolitics, Ruminations

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

Leave a comment

From the May 7th Chapel Hill Town Council agenda:

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

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

TOTAL: $460,000

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

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

Still no response.

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

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

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

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

Here are the details:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 Comments

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

The new law :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ChapelHill, Development, EconomicDevelopment, Ruminations

Two years later, Town hires Economic Development Officer

Leave a comment

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

From today’s N&O:

The town has hired its first economic development officer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to the Town’s news release Basset say:

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

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

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

This while we continue to work on solidifying existing initiatives.

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

ChapelHill, Community, OrangeCounty, Ruminations

No Comment: The Mayor Turns Away the Public

Leave a comment

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

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

Continuity, it appears, be damned.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ChapelHill, Ruminations

My Wish: Star Light, Star Bright

5 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sky Tonight, Apr. 20th, 2007

Elections, Endorsements, LocalPolitics, Ruminations

Election 2007: Councilmember Laurin Easthom’s Thoughts…

4 Comments

Laurin, you beat me to the punch!

About a year ago, with some encouragement from RobertP (CountryCrats), I started a few posts on my experience running for Chapel Hill Town Council in 2005.

I wanted

  • to cover the mechanics – signs, fund-raising, forums, endorsements, election day management – of running for local office
  • to touch upon my considerations and justifications for running
  • to give, from my outside perspective, a sense of the hours and effort within Council I thought it would take to do justice to by our citizenry
  • to suggest strategies for dealing with the awesome power of incumbency
  • to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of various “endorsing” organizations
  • to pass on what I learned about interacting with the media and getting wider exposure via neighborhood/organizational meetings
  • to highlight my campaign failures (I did lose!)
  • and modest successes.

All with an eye towards encouraging a new generation of Council leadership.

What happened to that series? Well, besides being a bit premature, I got bogged down with a few other projects.

Today, Councilmember Laurin Easthom (Easthom Page) has posted (“Tis’ the Season”) some excellent advice on getting started on the campaign trail:

There hasn’t been much talk around town yet, but election season is coming, or is in fact here. I am talking about my area of course, Chapel Hill Town Council. For those of you that would be interested in running, I have some advice and perspective.

Thanks Laurin for the kick-in-the-pants.

You’re absolutely right. For a non-incumbent with little current political exposure – now is the time to start thinking about running. I’m going to dust-off those old posts and publish my comments in an attempt to help generate some interest, broaden the field and do my bit to increase the participation in what De’Tocqueville thought was the finest aspect of our American participatory democracy – local government.

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

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

2 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

There is wisdom in yond hills.

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

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

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

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

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

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

That bit of radio theatre was a hard listen.

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

All lost in the noise.

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

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

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

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

Carrboro, ChapelHill, Community, OrangeCounty, Ruminations

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

Leave a comment

[UPDATE]

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

[ORIGINAL]

It’s time again for WCHL 1360’s

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

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

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

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

8:00 am Town & Gown Relations: Growing Together

Moderator: Walter Sturdivant

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

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

Moderator: TBD

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

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

Moderator: Walter Sturdivant

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

2:00 pm Education: Think Globally, Teach Locally

Moderator: Ron Stutts

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

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

Moderator: Jon Wilner

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