Q&A IFC Community House

There are a lot of questions about the IFC’s plans to site the new men’s homeless shelter on Homestead Road. As a candidate for Town Council, I have been reading concerned citizens emails and letters – almost 100 or so – on this project.

Executive Chris Moran has prepared the following Q & A based on a number of questions the nearby neighborhoods raised. I’ve converted the first section of the document to HTML and will work to finish that conversion soon. Until then, here is the complete response as a PDF.

AUGUST 14, 2009 RESIDENT QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES ABOUT COMMUNITY HOUSE

  1. It is our understanding that the Town is involved with the development of the IFC Community House project. We know that the community Design Commission met about this issue on June 17, 2009 and that the Town council is scheduled to meet about this matter on September 21, 2009. We also know that there is a file about this project at the Town’s Planning Department. The full extent of the Town’s involvement, however, remains unclear.

    • What has been the formal planning and development process for the IFC Community House project relocation?

    • The Inter-Faith Council for Social Service (IFC) developed a formal partnership with the Town of Chapel Hill in 1985 when the Town Council offered the IFC a no-cost lease in the Old Municipal Building (OMB) to house homeless persons. The program began in congregations, then moved into the basement of the OMB and eventually expanded to the entire OMB after Council members approved a task force recommendation that the OMB be used as a homeless facility.

      The IFC formed another partnership with the Orange County Board of Commissioners in 1994 to plan and develop a new facility for homeless women and children initially called Project Homestart. The Board of Commissioners provided a no-cost 25-year three acre parcel on Homestead Road to the IFC at the Southern Human Services Center. Since HomeStart’s opening there has been no adverse or negative impact on neighboring areas. In fact, new neighborhoods have developed near and around our HomeStart campus. The Church of the Advocate will soon be building a new church in our vicinity.

      Here is some additional information about IFC’s history with shelter facilities:

      • In 1990, after a year-long renovation of the OMB, the IFC co-located the Community Kitchen and Community Shelter at the OMB officially known as Community House;
      • The IFC opened its HomeStart facility, originally known as Project Homestart, on Homestead Road in 1998 for homeless families;
      • After HUD funding ended for HomeStart in 2003, the IFC Board of Directors reorganized the HomeStart program for homeless women and children;
      • The new Homestart—whose model is based on the vision of the Planning Committee—has the mission of “providing a safe, structured home for homeless women and children, helping them to access community resources and offering everyone on-going support to break the cycle of poverty and homelessness” ;
      • And the IFC relocated single women guests from the downtown Community House facility to HomeStart during the same year.
    • There have been myriad community meetings and task forces appointed by Chapel Hill mayors since the year 2000 to find a permanent location for Community House. A formal agreement and special task force was created by Mayor Kevin Foy and IFC’s Board President in 2004 “to address homelessness and new facilities”. The Board of Directors came to three major conclusions based on task force recommendations during this process.

      • The Old Municipal Building was no longer adequate for IFC needs
      • The Town of Chapel Hill decided that the OMB was needed for other town offices
      • New facilities would consist of a men’s shelter and a separate building/location for combining IFC food programs (Community Kitchen and Food Pantry)
    • In May of 2008, after a long search for a permanent location for Community House, the UNC Chancellor, Chapel Hill Mayor and IFC Executive Director announced a new partnership and property location near the United Church of Chapel Hill on Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. The Chancellor announced that the University would lease 1.66 acres to the Town on a long-term basis. “The Town would then make the site available to the Inter-Faith Council for Social Service (IFC) for the construction and operation of a new men’s residential facility.”

    • When will a final determination (i.e., approval or disapproval) be made on this project?

    • The IFC will be applying for a special use permit (SUP) for the Community House project sometime this fall. Final Town approval is expected in the spring or summer of 2010. Timing is dependent on the Town’s planning process.

Sara Gregory’s Daily Tar Heel Chapel Hill Crime Map

The Daily Tar Heel’s online editor Sara Gregory has created this excellent tool for visualizing crime in Chapel Hill. This is an example of effectively using low or no cost Internet technologies to serve our community. Some of us on the Town’s now defunct Technology Board wanted to leverage technology like Google Maps to better inform our public.

For all the whizzy appearance of our Town’s new website, we still have a long way to go including tools to track crime, to report on the status of development projects and to allow citizens to log work requests for neighborhood issues (filling potholes, fixing streetlights, etc.) the Town needs to address.



View Chapel Hill Crime in a larger map

I’m contacting both Sara and Chapel Hill Police Chief Brian Curran to see if the Town can expand on what Sara has started. I’ll report back soon….

2009 Sierra Club Chapel Hill Candidate Forum

Thanks to Loren Hintz. Matt Scheer, Jason Baker (2005 candidate for Town Council), May Becker, Judith Ferster and the rest of the membership of the Orange-Chatham Sierra Club for both sponsoring the recent candidate forum and making the following video available to the wider community.

Also thanks to my fellow colleague on the Sustainability Task Force Matthew Scheer for moderating the event and James Carnahan for keeping time.



Quick technical note: the current video doesn’t support “quick search” but will start streaming right away.

2009 NRG Chapel Hill Candidate Forum

Thanks to Madeline Jefferson, Bob Henshaw, Julie McClintock, Janet Smith, Alan Snavely, Mickey Jo Sorrel and the rest of the membership of Neighborhoods For Responsible Growth (NRG) for both sponsoring the recent candidate forum and making the following video available to the wider community.

Also thanks to my neighbor (and former Chapel Hill Mayor) Jonathon Howes for moderating the event.



Quick technical note: the current video doesn’t support “quick search” but will start streaming right away.

Trash Talk: Council Confusion

Council seemed somewhat confused in making the decision to take the Rogers Rd./Millhouse community off the table as far as the new County transfer site. Details on the site selection criteria and an analysis of anticipated municipal fiscal impacts have been available since Spring here.

The community-based, technical and exclusionary criteria were well established prior to Mayor Foy throwing the Town Operations Center site on the table. Both the Mayor and Council have been briefed on the criteria, so the confusion this evening didn’t quite make sense. Further, if the Council was concerned about the objectivity or quality of the criteria, as Councilmember Ed Harrison said he was, they had plenty of opportunities to improve upon the community’s approach. Neither individuals, like Ed, or the Council as a whole took that opportunity.

I chalk up both that lack of participation and tonight’s confusion to institutionalized disengagement on solid waste management issues. Yes, technically the responsibility for managing Chapel Hill’s waste belongs to the County. No, that’s not an excuse for abrogating oversight and participation (if for no other reason than the link between Chapel Hill’s sustainable growth and responsible resource management).

Tonight I tried to get the Council to take both Millhouse sites off the table. The Town’s by having staff apply the community-based criteria. And, subsequently, the County’s site by implication. Along with other concerned citizens we managed to move Council halfway towards that goal.

[UPDATE] WCHL’s Elizabeth Friend’s report.

My remarks to Council:

Tonight Mayor Foy recommends that:

“the Council seek more information…regarding the potential impact each proposed option would have on Town operations….to review the four sites that are currently under consideration and provide the Council with a report detailing the benefit or detriment of each site as it affects Town operations.”

Restricting the evaluation to “effects” and “impacts” on Chapel Hill’s own operations takes a rather narrow view of our community’s responsibility for dealing with our solid waste.

Over two years ago, I and other concerned Chapel Hill and Orange County residents questioned the Solid Waste Advisory Board’s – SWAB – selection of the current landfill for use as a trash transfer site. The SWAB’s criteria for selecting that site seemed arbitrary and capricious – especially given the broken promises and many years of environmental and socioeconomic impacts on the Rogers Road/Millhouse community.

I’m quite familiar with the issue having collaborated with citizens and groups – such as Preserve Rural Orange represented by Laura Streitfeld, Orange County Voice represented by Bonnie Hauser, Orange County Community Awareness represent by Nathan Robinson and our local Rogers-Eubanks Coalition represented by Rev. Campbell ñ to convince the Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt community-based, objective and measurable criteria for siting the trash transfer facility.

Adopting transparent criteria was critical to building community consensus with the final proposal.

The Commissioners agreed and our County consultant, Olver, began to meet with folks from all over the County. Last year, the culmination of that effort lead to the creation of a set of community-based, technical and exclusionary criteria for determining an appropriate location for the transfer site.

These criteria were well-publicized and in-place well before Mayor Foy recommended the Town Operations site. Further, these criteria had been presented to Council several times during Joint Governmental meetings.

A cursory review of those criteria – even from a laypersons viewpoint – would have immediately led one to understand how inappropriate the Town’s Operation Center site suggested is – violating 6 or more key criteria.

To continue to entertain this site not only flies in the face of the criteria our community developed in cooperation with Olver, the technical consultant, and the Orange County Commissioners but continues to undermine the community’s confidence in a transparent and fair approach in addressing this community’s responsibility for our waste.

I ask the Council to instruct staff to not only review the impacts upon Chapel Hill but to also analyze the Millhouse sites in light of the community-based, technical and exclusionary criteria that our citizens help create.

Once they do that, I believe the Rogers Road/Millhouse community sites will be off the table – once and for all – and that the Town can then turn back its attention to addressing the long standing obligations we have to our neighbors in that community.

ChapelHillWatch: Oates, Evans Invite New Perspectives

There’s a new ‘blog in Town!

Local journalists Don Evans and Nancy Oates have started a new ‘blog, Chapel Hill Watch, to serve our local community.

Both Don and Nancy have an extensive institutional memory of local history and a keen eye towards local issues (I, along with many readers of the Chapel Hill News, were sorry to see Don laid-off). I look forward to getting not only their perspective on local issues but to see if their ‘blog attracts additional commentary from our local ‘bloggers who are looking for alternatives amongst the currently limited choices.

To get things started Don has posted on the Library’s future ( Library with a Bright Future) and Nancy has posted on filling the Council vacancy (Take the Voters’ Concerns Seriously).

Here’s a bit more about the founders.

Don Evans has been a newspaper editor for 30 years, most recently with The Chapel Hill News. Nancy Oates is a freelance business and features writer and has voted in every election since she turned 18.

Way to go Nancy, I also have voted every election except a 2nd primary in the late ’80s since I turned 18.

Engaging the Community: Everyone but OP

Last night I got an invite from Ruby Sinreich to engage other candidates on her local ‘blog OrangePolitics. Though I was an avid contributor to her ‘blog for several years, contributing a significant portion of the content, I have declined to participate in building her readership or commercial “brand” during this year’s election cycle.

My reasons for not participating are varied, many of which persist as covered in this “swan song” post from December, 2007.

  • an escalating and stifling intolerance of valid though different viewpoints,
  • the site’s authors acting as surrogates for political allies who didn’t have the courage to engage the community directly in an honest, fact-based and open manner
  • and an unwillingness on my part to work hard in “building the brand” of a site that advertised one thing – engaging the wider community in an informative discussion of local “progressive” issues – and delivering another.

I haven’t read much of OP since then, mainly looking in when someone sends me a link of interest (like my “winning” a very unscientific straw poll for whom should be appointed to Bill Thorpe’s vacant seat). From what I’ve seen, Ruby has taken to heart some of my critique, including opening up authorship to folks she used to vehemently chastise. Good for her.

It is clear, though, that Ruby regularly continues breaking her own editorial rules when my name arises. I prefer to engage directly with other candidates rather than their surrogates. It is a more honest, open and transparent process – a process I cherish and that Chapel Hill voters deserve.

I wish that there was another local alternative to OP for political wonks, like myself, to engage in broad, open, inclusive discussion of the many serious issues facing our community. Unfortunately, the closest we have come is the Chapel Hill News’ OrangeChat, a ‘blog whose posts sometimes spur a genuine discussion of issues.

As a candidate who has engaged a broad spectrum of constituencies, has never turned down an opportunity to solicit our community for their ideas or discuss the realities of living in Chapel Hill, I regret that I might miss out on a great conversation.

That said, I will continue to maintain my “web presence” here on CitizenWill, post all my responses to the varied community election questionnaires, feature (hopefully) video of election forums, etc. I will seek out every opportunity to meet our citizens (send invites to campaign@willraymond.org)to listen and respond to their concerns.

And, if there’s a ‘blog you think I should be posting on, please post the link in the comments section.

See you on the campaign trail!

Trash Talk: Plan B and Option D?

September 1st, the Orange County Board of Commissioners will once again review the progress of siting a new trash transfer site within the county (agenda here [PDF]).

The good news is that the “Plan B” option I pushed for in 2008 (here and here), utilizing Durham’s transfer site until Orange County sorts the site selection mess out, is firmly established on the agenda.

The bad news is that the Millhouse/Rogers Road community is under new assualt from “Option D” (here).

“Option D”, like Mayor Foy’s poorly considered suggestion to use property adjacent to the Town Operation Center on Millhouse, suggests using county land north of the old landfill on Millhouse.

Where and when was this option introduced?

I’ve asked BoCC Mike Nelson to clarify the genesis and integration of this new last minute twist on the troubled trash transfer site debate.

Congratulations Cyclones!

UPDATE: Chapel Hill News finally weighs in here!

The Exchange Pool swim team, the Cyclones, came in first once again in the Chapel Hill Summer Swim League championship. The team also won the League Swim for Smiles Award with the girls taking the dual meet honors.

Ellie and I have been “official” members of the Exchange Pool for over a decade (since she was pregnant with Elijah). I’ve always enjoyed the family friendly atmosphere that is an integral part of this simple facility.

When Elijah swam for the team several years ago there were only a couple dozen kids racing. This year there were about 200!

While the kids, coaches and parents took their swimming seriously, I know there was quite a bit of fun along the way.

Congratulations Cyclones, here’s to next year!

Sustainability Task Force: Ten New Candidates

I was appointed as one of the “at large” members of the Town’s Sustainability Task Force several months ago.

One of the first issues we took up was representation on the task force itself. Essentially, did the task force membership represent the reasonably broadest possible diversity of viewpoints and experience we needed to craft a sustainable game plan covering Chapel Hill’s growth these next 10 years?

Along with most of the task force, I agreed it didn’t so we asked the Council to grant us permission to broaden our membership and renew the call for volunteers. I’ve been calling folks I know, sending emails, talking to various organizations that might otherwise be disinclined from participating to try to get new members who will broaden our task forces’ perspective.

As of July 20th I’m pleased to say we’ve had an increase in interest – amounting to 10 new applicants:

  • Anne Eshleman (24, student, new resident)
  • Stacia Cooper (47, insurance regulator, 7+ years)
  • J. Patterson Calhoun (31, business manager, newly returned resident [in Triangle 8 years prior])
  • Lister Delgado (40, investor, 5 years in-town/5 years just outside )
  • Donna Bell (38, social worker, 7 years – Northside resident)
  • Kevin Hicks (44, product engineer, 4 years)
  • Christopher Senior (53, green builder, new resident)
  • Daniel Outen (22, student at Kenan Flagler, 3 1/2 years)
  • Todd Woerner (53, chemist/teacher/lab manager, 18 years)
  • Brian Paulson (23, city management, 11 years)

The task force will resume its work mid-August by adding 6 of these 10 (or more I hope) applicants to the position.

I will be reviewing these and any other applications with an eye towards choosing folks that have a distinctly different vision of where Chapel Hill should be in 10 years. By maximizing diversity of considered opinion we should not only end up with a stronger set of recommendations but also a message that is widely acceptable.

Look To The Stars and Dream

Even after 40 years the Moon landing remains one of the touchstones of my life.

I am fascinated by science. Growing up I, like many other kids of the ’60’s, dreamed of traveling to space. I wanted to join NASA and help make those dreams reality. It seemed a given that rational investigation and thoughtful scientific debate would lead this country forward to greater horizons.

My enthusiasm led me along a course of science fairs, contests, advanced physics/chemistry/biology/math classes and, eventually, degrees in math and computer science. From that a career in engineering and technology.

That “can do” optimism our country showed, even when mired in the midst of the Vietnam war – on the heels of other national tragedies, is something we should recall today as we face numerous adversities.

“Ad astra per aspera — “to the stars through difficulties” – has never been truer.

On the cusp of the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11’s Moon landing, I remain optimistic that this country, our citizens, can surmount any challenge – from closest to home to furthest in space – with equal fortitude.

Walter Cronkite, a solid and trusted presence in my youth (for example), was as excited about space as I was – and he wasn’t afraid to show it either (he also wasn’t afraid to put his reputation on the line and call it like it is).



Cronkite, 92, died July 18th. In this day of media dominated by shouting heads, gotcha, personality over perspective, his passing marks more than the end of one admired journalist life.

Neil Armstrong Statement on the Death of Walter Cronkite

The following is a statement issued by Apollo 11 Commander Neil Armstrong on the death of Walter Cronkite.

“For a news analyst and reporter of the happenings of the day to be successful, he or she needs three things: accuracy, timeliness, and the trust of the audience. Many are fortunate to have the first two. The trust of the audience must be earned.

“Walter Cronkite seemed to enjoy the highest of ratings. He had a passion for human space exploration, an enthusiasm that was contagious, and the trust of his audience. He will be missed.”

Will Raymond for Town Council 2009

A big thank you to all the folks who contacted and encouraged me to run.

Below is my formal announcement, more posts to follow:

Will Raymond Announces Run for Chapel Hill Town Council 2009

Chapel Hill, NC – July 17th, 2009

I am taking the next step in my eight year continuum of public service to Chapel Hill by announcing my candidacy for Town Council.

After listening to hundreds of my fellow citizens during the Sustainability Task Force’s nine recent public forums, it is clear that Chapel Hill’s residents want to move forward on a different path for the next decade.

Moving Chapel Hill forward will require common sense leadership that is innovative, experienced, tested and prepared to follow our citizens’ mandate to change course.

Successfully working with a variety of community organizations, advisory boards, the Town Council and Orange County Board of Commissioners in the past, I have taken on some of the thorniest, toughest and, occasionally, most controversial issues facing our community.

Listening to the community, gathering the best advice, with conviction and thoughtful fortitude, I have been unwavering in my support of reasonable growth policies, fiscal prudence, environmental protection and transparent government operations.

As my understanding of these challenges deepened, so has my sense of responsibility for making sure our community thrives when meeting them.
Continue reading Will Raymond for Town Council 2009

Trash Talk: Millhouse Off the Agenda, Not Off the Table

Ironic that the unfulfilled assertions of two Chapel Hill mayors decades apart have caused so much concern for the Rogers Road community.

The Town released this notification earlier this afternoon:

Proposed Transfer Station Site on Millhouse Road

Mayor Kevin C. Foy has officially informed the Chair of the BOCC that the proposed transfer station site on Millhouse Road will not be considered at the upcoming Business Meeting on Monday, June 22. Given the Town Council’s agenda process there was insufficient time to add this item on the printed agenda and provide the public with an adequate and reasonable amount of time to consider the proposal.

The County has informed the Mayor that, absent official confirmation from the town during the summer, county staff would not invest additional effort or resources into further investigation of the Millhouse Road possibility. However, the County made clear that it will be important for the Town to consider the County Commissioners’ request as soon as possible in the fall, and the Mayor has agreed to add this item to the Sept. 14 business meeting.

There are many reasons, technical and otherwise, that make Millhouse a poor site for the transfer station. If Mayor Foy had spent a few moments reviewing the county’s criteria for selecting candidate sites he could easily have avoided this latest turn of events.

Carolina North: June 15th’s Missing Documents

Quick note, the Town, this morning, has fixed the links and added the missing Carolina North material.

Obviously well less than 24 hours prior to the “public hearing”. Certainly undercuts claims of transparency and support of public review.

In any case, here is tonight’s agenda with the missing supporting material:

Carolina North: Where is the Development Agreement?

As some of you folks know I’ve been involved – as a citizen – fairly deeply in the attempt to create a successful agreement between UNC and the Town managing growth of the massive Carolina North project.

The Carolina North project could either contribute greatly to or severely diminish the quality of life in Chapel Hill.

To succeed we need a comprehensive agreement that we all can live with. It needs to be fair, not shifting significant costs onto local residents. It needs to manage impacts so that water, air, noise and traffic concerns don’t spill over into the wider community. It needs to meet the needs of the University while honoring the community in which it thrives. It also has to have understandable consequences, demarcated trade-offs and a compliance regimen that UNC will follow.

I’ve attended almost every forum, meeting and public hearing. Suggested improvements in both process and content, more than a few which have been incorporated into the CURRENT draft.

When Council started the final phase of the process, the creation of a binding legal contract between the Town and UNC governing some period and extent of development on the Horace-William’s Airport tract (Carolina North), I took the firm position that their schedule was too aggressive, the amount of work clearly underestimated.

Unlike a traditional development zone, once the agreement is signed the Town – which is us – will be bound not only to the agreement’s stipulations but the supplementary addenda – most notably UNC’s Carolina North Design guidelines [PDF] (which envisaged 8-story buildings lining Martin Luther King Jr./Estes).

There are many moving parts to the agreement – each serving a vital function: protecting the environment, maintaining nearby neighborhoods’ integrity, providing a flexible and transparent process to manage UNC’s growth, etc.

I argued then, as I do today, that the schedule – which has become even more arbitrary (no money to build) – would severely limit the Council’s and wider public’s ability to review and digest the final agreement.

I knew that the bulk of the work would be rushed at the finish line with the public short-changed in the end.

Many of the meetings I would start my comments by pointing out that the public was ill-served by the continuing trend of providing key documents late, incomplete or not at all. As recently as last Thursday’s “public” information event (more like window dressing) the revised development agreement was not available until nearly 6pm (for a 7pm session!).

The information session reviewed a version of the agreement, completely reorganized and extended, with folks who had no opportunity to have read it (I had my laptop and was scrambling to both read the new revision and find out if my prepared questions had any relevance anymore).

Worse, I had to guess on where to find the correct revision (it is here [PDF], not available as a markup or clean version as noted on Monday’s agenda here) [I notified staff later that evening – the problem still exists as of 4:30pm Sunday].

How can Council hold a public hearing on a development agreement that is unavailable to the public 24 hours prior?

They can’t but they will.

Unfortunately, with key underlying studies delivered nearly a year late, with the development agreement still in flux, informal public input not only not fully integrated but cut-off, my prediction of a rush to failure was all to correct.

Council is poised to adopt an agreement incorporating hundreds of pages of supplementary material that they and the Town Manager have not fully read (watch June 8th’s Council meeting) , that is not – as of June 15th – finalized and that continues to have several substantial points of contention – including major traffic issues and costs essentially amounting to a yearly fee of up to several hundreds of dollars per homeowner.

Worse, the current draft agreement is peppered – just like a lousy credit-card deal – with “to be determineds”.

Without a firm contract and the time to adequately review it, the public continues to be ill-served (heck, when you buy a house you get at least 3 business days to back out after signing – and that contract has legal boilerplate that is well-established, one house instead of 3 million square feet of development and an established legal framework to protect your rights).

Why Council is insisting on adopting an agreement that is unfinished and unread? Why not limit the term from 5 to 8 years, the scope to 800,000 to 1,000,000 square feet to protect the public’s interest in maintain our quality of life? Why the rush?

Please contact Council here and ask them to grant the public fully 60 days to review a complete and finalized agreement.