Tag Archives: ChapelHill

ChapelHill, Downtown, EconomicDevelopment, Government, Ruminations

Chapel Hill Downtown Partnership: Nov. 28th State of the Union

Leave a comment

First, kudos to the Downtown Partnership (CHDP) for finally pulling together a decent website (though disabling ‘right clicks’ is cheesy).

There’s a nice calendar widget, some news of the day, list of eats and drinks, services, shops, fun, etc. that are both fairly extensive and accurate.

Way to go Liz and company.

Today the CHDP is presenting their “State of the [Downtown] Union”:

CHAPEL HILL, NC, November 15, 2006: The Chapel Hill Downtown Partnership (CHDP) is hosting an Annual Meeting and Public Forum on November 28, 2006 from 4:30pm to 6:45pm at the historic Varsity Theatre, 123 East Franklin Street.

During the meeting, the Downtown Partnership will share the progress made in downtown and by the nonprofit organization over the past year.

“The Chapel Hill Downtown Partnership began our work last fall with a series of surveys designed to better understand the needs and concerns of the downtown businesses, property owners and consumers. We’ve spent the past year focusing on four of their top concerns: safety, cleanliness, panhandling, and parking,” explained Downtown Partnership Executive Director, Liz Parham. “We’ve incorporated the methodology of the Main Street Program to build partnerships and bring people together to find new solutions to some old problems. We look forward to reporting on our initiatives.”

After CHDP highlights the progress of the past year, facilitators Andy Sachs and Peter Filene with the Dispute Settlement Center will encourage attendees to express their ideas and concerns that they feel should be addressed. The Downtown Partnership will use this information to develop the 2007 Plan of Work at the CHDP Board of Directors Annual Retreat on December 6th.

Ruby, over on OrangePolitics, notes that the CHDP has sponsored several forums with problematic start times and locations.

Other than catering to the Downtown merchants, who else is supposed to attend what amounts to a public forum put on by a taxpayer funded organization? A 4:30pm start time is tough for a Chapel Hill citizen working in RTP, but, I have to admit, great for me.

The last update forum was well attended, so I hope to see a similar turnout today.

ChapelHill, CitizenWill, Community, Government, Ruminations

CHFD: First Class Firefighters

2 Comments

From the Chapel Hill Fire Department website:

The primary mission of the Chapel Hill Fire Department is to protect life, property and the community environment from the destructive effects of fire, disasters or other life hazards by providing public education, incident prevention and emergency response services.

Thank you folks for all the long hours and hard work.

If for some reason you missed the official announcement , our Town graduated its first class of firefighters Aug.11th.

Lucky for us, youTube’s RyanJef recently posted this movie to celebrate



7/28/2006 – The Chapel Hill Fire Department will graduate its first Fire Academy in 13 years at 7 p.m. Friday, Aug. 11, in the Council Chambers at Town Hall, 405 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. The graduation will include a badge pinning ceremony and presentation of awards.

To attract more candidates and improve workforce diversity, the Fire Department has begun to provide training; previously, new hires were already-certified firefighters. Candidates are selected through a multi-step process of testing, including physical exams, agility tests, interviews, background checks, and application reviews. The academy, which began April 18, included 16 weeks of training in areas including basic firefighting, hazardous materials, emergency medical response, basic rescue, child safety seat installation and physical fitness. Graduates will be North Carolina-certified Level II Firefighters.

The graduating class includes 10 Chapel Hill firefighters, one Efland firefighter and one Parkwood firefighter. Four of the new firefighters will replace current vacancies, and six will fill new positions that were authorized by the Town Council in 2005. Three will be assigned to Fire Station 2, and three will be assigned to Station 3.

The Town Council has authorized an additional six new firefighters in the coming year, and the next academy will take place in April 2007. Applications will be accepted beginning in November 2006. To find out more, visit the Town website at www.townofchapelhill.org/fire,or contact the Chapel Hill Fire Department at (919) 968-2781 or fire@townofchapelhill.org.

Thanks RyanJef.

ChapelHill, CitizenWill, Community, EconomicDevelopment, Government, LocalPolitics, Ruminations

Downtown Development Initiative: Stanford on a Sea of Asphalt

Leave a comment

Early in the evening, downtown resident Don Stanford spoke of “magic bullets”, the promises of NCNB Plaza (“remains one of the eyesores of Franklin Street…”) and the progression from it to Rosemary Square to Granville Towers (“…high rises in a sea of asphalt…”) to Wallace Deck.

During his presentation I noticed some eye-rolling but it’s hard to dispute his observation about Lot 5’s character:

This design doesn’t have anything to do with Chapel Hill. It doesn’t have anything to do with North Carolina. It doesn’t have anything to do with the South. I defy you to find anything [about the external design to] determine in any manner anything about it that says Chapel Hill or college town.



[Movie]

AffordableHousing, ChapelHill, Community, EconomicDevelopment, Government, LocalPolitics, Ruminations

Downtown Development Initiative: Culbreth and the Domino Effect

Leave a comment

Chris Culbreth, a second term member of the Town’s Community Design Commission (CDC), stayed late Monday, Nov. 20th, to comment to Council on the proposed revisions for the Process for Revision of the Comprehensive Plan

Interestingly enough, he spent more of his limited time counseling Council on the Downtown Development Initiative (DDI) juggernaut than the process revisions – including this digression on how developers are already factoring in Council’s temperament:

[Lot #5] is going to be a key building because the people who see that are going to come and build things following – and some of those people were here tonight – all the guys who bring us their plans of what their going to develop were sitting in the audience tonight to see what Lot 5 went over – so they can figure out “what we can get approved next”…

He then held up another RAM Development proposal, 425 Hillsborough St., of which I’ve been somewhat critical of for a few reasons, as an example of a kind of urban density at odds with our Town’s stated goals of walkability, livability and sustainability before turning back to the Lot #5 precedent:

…this building, Lot 5, and how it’s going to be built, and how it looks, will be a precedent for these others that will be developed. And I don’t want it to turn out to be like Rosemary Village, for example, it was built and it’s all students and sold in less than a year. No professional is going to want to live there. And the way it was built – it doesn;t even communicate to the neighborhood [Northside] behind it..that’s a transitional neighborhood…we want those neighborhoods to come into Town…

The other developments that come into place, they’re going to use that [Lot #5 density and design] as an example and our concern is the massing of these buildings and how it’s going to function…

[Movie]

As Chris pointed out, the CDC reviews development projects and provides feedback to developers prior to Council. Chris has long familiarity with many of the projects coming before this Council – projects the Council has generally been satisfied with, at least as far as general design goals.

Council should weigh this members counsel in light of that experience.

The Community Design Commission is charged with the following:

To initiate, promote and assist in the implementation of programs of general community beautification in Chapel Hill and its environs;

To seek to coordinate the activities of individuals, agencies, organizations and groups, public and private, whose plans, activities and programs bear upon the appearance of Chapel Hill and its environs;

To provide leadership and guidance in matters of design and appearance to individuals, organizations and groups, public and private;

To make studies of the visual assets and liabilities of the community, including surveys and inventories of an appropriate nature, and to suggest standards and policies of design for the entire community, or any individual project to be undertaken therein;

To prepare both general and specific plans for the improved appearance of the Town of Chapel Hill and its environs…

ChapelHill, CitizenWill, Community, EconomicDevelopment, LocalPolitics, Media, MunicipalNetworking, Ruminations, Technology

Municipal Networking: Nary a Citizen Advocate to be Found

Leave a comment

An update on the muni-networking task force prepared by UNC’s Shannon Howle Schelin, PhD, one of our stronger advocates for 21st century infrastructure.

On November 13, 2006, an exploratory meeting was held at the Town of Chapel Hill to discuss the Town’s interest in pursuing a wireless strategy. The goal of the meeting was to determine a strategy for investigating the broad issues related to a wireless initiative in the Town, as well as to seek the in-kind support and expert guidance of the University of North Carolina (UNC), the UNC School of Government (UNC SOG), and the NC League of Municipalities (NCLM). External participants participating in the meeting included John Streck, UNC, Shannon Schelin, UNC SOG, and Lee Mandell, NCLM. Internal staff members participating in the meeting included Roger Stancil, Flo Miller, Bob Avery and Arek Kempinski.

The preliminary minutes and associated outcomes of the meeting are offered for your review and comment.
The external participants were briefed on the interest of Town Council and citizen advocates in pursuing a wireless strategy for Chapel Hill. The majority of the conversation centered on the “why” question—as in “why is Chapel Hill interested in undertaking such an effort?” The drivers for the wireless strategy were articulated as follows:

  • 1. Addressing the digital divide;
  • 2. Increasing citizen access (in-home service)
  • 3. Increasing mobility (ubiquitous access in public areas—i.e. downtown);
  • 4. Improving governmental operations (public safety and public service); and,
  • 5. Economic development.

Based on the conversation, the following suggestions and commitments were made by UNC, UNC SOG, and NCLM

  • 1. The interest of the Town Council and citizen advocates does not specifically presume a “wireless” solution, but rather, a “connectivity” solution of which wireless is one component.
  • 2. The “why” question is multi-faceted and each component needs to be studied individually in order to create a comprehensive connectivity plan.
    • a. For example, licensed radio frequency (4.9 GHz, etc) is a robust, 802.16 alternative that is specifically designed for public safety and public service but is unavailable for citizen use. However, the lack of interference that is provided by the licensed spectrum creates significant advantages in data speed, accuracy, reliability, and security—all of which are vital to the development of any mobile government applications.
    • b. Another example is the extension of a wireless network into low-wealth communities without the provision of equipment used to access the network will not have the desired impact upon the community.
  • 3. The external participants, UNC, UNC SOG, and NCLM, agreed to work as a team, with the involvement of the Town staff, to examine the components and drivers of the “connectivity” request that has been generated by Town Council and citizen advocates. The outcome of this work will be a comprehensive listing of the drivers and requisite solution alternatives for each issue.
  • 4. The request to identify additional drivers associated with the connectivity request was made at the close of the meeting and will be gathered by Town staff through conversations with Council Members.
  • 5. The team will convene to begin its work after the Thanksgiving break.
  • 6. In addition, upon completion of the plan, the team will advise the Town Council and staff on the technological, financial, and legal issues surrounding the various solutions that will compose the Connectivity Plan.

Additional feedback or comments on this meeting or the steps outlined for proceeding are appreciated.

Originally tonight’s Council agenda seemed to indicate a discussion on forming a broader task force was on the docket. Now the item is “informational”.

A shame, as I was planning to make a few comments about the lack of citizen advocates within the current discussion and trumpet the continuing successes of other locales, like St. Cloud Florida’s comprehensive effort or Minnesota’s St. Louis Park educational outreach.

ChapelHill, CitizenWill, Community, EconomicDevelopment, environment, Government, LocalPolitics, Ruminations

Downtown Initiative: $500,000 here, $7.3 Million there, pretty soon we’re talking real money…

Leave a comment

A quick reminder of this evening’s public forum [Mon., Nov. 20th] on the failing Downtown Initiative.

Tonight’s agenda starts with this gem

The 2000 Comprehensive Plan’s goal for downtown is to “enhance the downtown’s role as the center of the community, with a pedestrian orientation and a human scale.”

I consider the 104′ multi-building development on lot #5 to be a stake through downtown’s heart. I’m not alone. Many residents find the scale of this development anything but “human”.

Former Council member David R. Godschalk, the Stephen Baxter Professor Emeritus in UNC’s City and Regional Planning department, waved the redflag in 2005 claiming

The developer has put too much building on these two small parcels. The nine-story building on lot 5 is out of scale with the existing downtown streetscape and soars above the 90-foot height allowed in the town center 2 district of the Chapel Hill zoning ordinance.

Scale aside, why else is the Downtown Initiative failing?

  • Redevelopment of the blighted Wallace Deck and adjacent lot – off the table
    • “As a result of these material economic changes, the Town Negotiating Committee and the Developer have reevaluated the proposed Lot 5 and Wallace Deck projects.
    • Reevaluated? The Wallace Deck improvements, the real honey for this bee, are GONE.
  • Lease amount dropping from $7.9 million TO $1 (ONE) DOLLAR per year
  • Taxpayer contribution increasing 14.6 times, %1360 – from $500,000 to $7.3 million
  • Moving from a manageable $500K out of “on-hand” funds to $7.3 million
    • supposedly borrowed at %5
    • sum added to our Town’s current debt
    • impacts our debt ratio, bond rating and forward ability to borrow
    • “the Town would incur an estimated annual debt service cost of $725,000 in the first year, decreasing annually by about $18,000”
  • RAM’s original equity investment of $23 million has dropped to $12.5 million – nearly %50 drop in equity investment, though, on the plus-side, it’s upfront money.
  • Borrowed monies using COPs financing mechanism – a secured debt normally reserved for essential building
    • COPS (“certificates of participation” [PDF]) are usually used to finance essential buildings and projects (sewer, water, schools, etc.)
    • My research to-date indicates the dominant private-public partnership using or proposing COPs in NC are prisons, coliseums. convention centers, etc.
    • Town income directly affected – “Revenues to pay the debt service on the proposed borrowing would be property taxes, sales taxes, and parking revenues above those we are currently receiving.”
  • Shrinking PUBLIC SPACE – from 31,000′ in the original proposal, to 27,215′ (no published usage patterns – Are we accepting RAM’s restrictive idea of “public”?).
  • Missed opportunity for internal space for public use – arts facilities, museum, etc.
  • Commitment to provide affordable commercial space for local economic development is missing.
  • No commercial space for an integrative tenant, like a grocery store, that reduces off-site travel by the condo-residents and draws folks in from surrounding neighborhoods.
  • After 50 years, the developer gets a “sweetheart” deal to acquire the land and air rights for $2 million (imagine the value of that property 50 years hence).
  • Developer is supposed to find 10-15 additional on-street parking spaces (the incredible difficulty of doing the Downtown Parking Task force, of which I’m a member, just discussed).
  • “Owners” of affordable housing units HAVE TO LEASE OFFSITE PARKING, 21 spaces rented at below market rates.

The deal with RAM Development was never very good, at least for the Town. RAM’s payment of $7.9 million ($4,750,000 to lease Lot 5, a one time lease payment of $3,150,000 for the air rights over the Wallace Deck and the Rosemary/Henderson street lot) was a steal of a deal.

$7.9 million for 99 years of use of citizen-owned, prime downtown real-estate? Incredible.

$99 for 99 years? Impossible!

Several folks pointed out that RAM’s original projected rate of return, less than %3, was financially infeasible and would have to be “re-traded”. Last year I publicly stated that RAM had over-promised and would under-deliver – that dramatic renegotiation upwards, more inline with Grubb’s competing bid, was an inevitable result.

For instance, I work on the corner across Church St. and remember well the Devil’s own time the construction crew had digging my building’s basement. I never bought into the idea the Town would only pony up $500,000 to build underground parking structures in the granite ladened Lot #5 – and I sure as heck found it difficult to believe that RAM, our Council members or any other longtime residents would buy this malarkey.

When I brought this and similar issues up with our leadership, both then and since, I was told “not to worry” and “the deal is the deal”.

Why should the citizens of Chapel Hill pay the piper? Remember how “thrilled” RAM was to get a piece of Chapel Hill’s action?

In the most stark example, Grubb’s financing model would produce a 21.77 percent return on its $10.5 million investment in condominiums on the Wallace Deck site. Ram sees only a 2.98 percent return on its $23 million investment there.

“If they’re willing to do it for that,” Harris said, “God bless ’em.”

Even if the company wanted to, Grubb couldn’t make a counteroffer, Stainback said, explaining that the proposals are considered “best and final offers.”

Two council members asked Cummings whether Ram’s financial model was too good to be true.

He said no projection ever is exactly right but that his company hopes to ride the growing trend of people returning to downtown.

After the meeting, Ivy Greaner, Ram’s managing partner, said the profit margins are healthy enough to sustain the project.

But Ram also is seeking a foothold in North Carolina. The company is willing to make less money in Chapel Hill to get a centerpiece project in the Triangle.

“This is a special town,” Greaner said, in a suitor’s tone. “We love Chapel Hill.”

N&O

Guess the Chapel Thrill has worn off for RAM. We’re special, just not $7.3 million special.

The Town and Ram claim costs have unforeseeably skyrocketed in the last year

In the time that has elapsed since the Developer formulated the development plan for Lot 5 and the Wallace Deck sites and the Town negotiated the October 24, 2005 MOU with the Developer, construction costs have increased by as much as 30 percent and interest rates have increased significantly.

yet we’re supposed to accept that the other rosy projections, like a %5 borrowing rate and an above average return on parking fees, retail and property taxes will pan out?

Since the original deal was inked, the national average cost of building materials hasn’t exceeded %11, with a recent flattening (due to lower energy, aggregate and raw material costs) of an annualized increase between %5 and %7.

Worse, last October, after closing the deal (N&O), Keith Cummings, president of Ram,

…personally guaranteed with his own money that the project will be completed as planned, according to the document signed Monday. Any increased costs — because of issues such as the rising price of construction materials — are to be borne by Ram.

Personally guaranteed.

Come on, I feel like the Town’s citizens are being taken to the cleaners on this deal.

Until I see the specifics of the %30 increase, I must assume it was part of the “shell game” of under-bidding to win the contract.

If this turns out to be the case, what must we expect of RAM’s projections (“guarantees”) concerning their luxury, mega-condo development – the largest in Town’s history – at 425 Hillsborough Street?

And once we’re hip deep into this development, what restricts RAM from coming back to the well? Quite frankly, while I’d hate to “throw away” any taxpayer investment, it certainly would be easier to back out of a $500K losing proposition than a $7.3 million boondoggle. The modest protections of paying on delivery don’t seem sufficient.

The return of the public’s investment better be phenomenal to justify this private-public partnership. With this project’s current fiscal track record, financial prudence, above all, should steer our leader’s decision, especially when we go against our Town’s tradition of letting the voters decide to take on such massive financial obligations.

Speaking of prudence, beyond the $7.3 million demanded by RAM, the Council is supposed to approve a major chunk of debt tonight for the Homestead Park Aquatic Center. As today’s HeraldSun reports

The next key step comes tonight, when the Town Council will consider approving a contract with the Resolute Building Co. to build the Homestead Park Aquatic Center. The contract on the table is for $5,238,000, although the town manager would be authorized to approve up to $530,000 in change orders if necessary, as the work proceeded.
…
In the town’s 2006-07 budget, the council authorized borrowing another $750,000 for the Homestead project. That’s in addition to the bond funds the town and Orange County both are allocating for it.

Orange County is putting about $4.3 million into the project in bond funds approved by voters across the county, and Chapel Hill is contributing about $1.2 million in bond funds.

That’s nearly $2 million of debt we’re taking on – with a possible upward tick already projected. Strange that the citizenry had a voice in taking on that $2 million obligation, but we’re left out of directly approving an amount 4 times as large.

I’m going this evening with my concerns, fully expecting Council to answer each issue fully before moving forward. Hopefully the missing issues of public access, accommodations and facilities will be covered.

Here’s the “new deal” being proposed this evening.

  • Town leases building pad to Developer under Ground Lease for a term of 99 years (the “Ground Lease”). Rent under the Ground Lease will be $1 per year plus the various benefits the Town will realize from the development of the Lot 5 Project, including but not limited to public space to be developed by the Developer at its cost but owned and operated by the Town, public art corresponding to 1% of the total cost of the project, affordable housing that will be required to be subsidized by the Developer, LEEDs certification of the project, the additional cost of placing the Condominium Parking underground, the enhanced tax base, and the general economic developments that will be generated for the entire downtown area.
  • The Developer shall have the right, which shall be assigned to the condominium association upon turn-over, to terminate the ground lease and acquire fee simple title to the land and/or air rights on the date that is 50 years after the commencement of the ground lease. The termination fee shall be $2 million.
  • The Developer will construct approximately 137 for sale condominium units (15% of which shall be affordable for a total of 21 affordable units) and approximately 28,540 square feet of retail.
  • The Developer will construct, pursuant to plans and specifications approved by the Town, the public plaza/public space aggregating approximately 27,215 square feet. All of such public space will be owned and operated by the Town.
  • The improvements on Lot 5 will be LEEDs certified.
  • Developer will construct an underground parking garage below the condominium/retail building containing approximately 161 parking spaces (the “Town Parking”) that will be available to the general public including retail patrons (i.e. no monthly rentals). The remaining parking spaces aggregating approximately 169 will be allocated to the owners of the condominium units (the “Condominium Parking”).
  • Developer and the Town will seek to secure appropriate permission for an additional ten (10) to fifteen (15) on-street parking spaces that will be allocated to the Town.
  • The Town Parking would be located on the first level of the underground parking garage and the Condominium Parking would be located on the level below the Town Parking.
  • Upon completion of the parking garage, the Developer will convey to the Town, fee simple unencumbered title to the Town Parking at a purchase price equal to $7,245,000, which represents Developer’s current estimate of the cost to design, permit, finance, plan, supervise, and construct the Town Parking (“Town Parking Costs”). Developer agrees to provide documentation as may reasonably be required by the Town and the Local Government Commission to assist with the financing of the purchase of the Town Parking. The Town may, at its option, elect to audit the Town Parking Costs and in the event said costs are less than $7,245,000, the Developer shall refund the excess amount within 30 days of demand thereof. In the event the audit indicates that a refund is due, the Developer shall also reimburse the Town for the cost of the audit not to exceed $20,000
  • Parking for the affordable housing units will be provided by the Town at the Wallace Deck or other Town-owned property. A below market rental rate would be charged for such parking.
Carrboro, ChapelHill, CitizenWill, Elections, LocalPolitics, Ruminations

Signs, Signs Everywhere Fewer Signs?

2 Comments

Made a quick 18 mile cycle through the major municipal precincts, along major roads, ramps and intersections last night to pick up some signs for a few candidates plus my Honest Abe NO on the referendum.

Baddour’s supporters, considering the incredible number of his signs, seemed to have done an excellent first pass. Continue reading Signs, Signs Everywhere Fewer Signs? →

Carrboro, ChapelHill, CitizenWill, CivilLiberties, Government, LocalPolitics, OrangeCounty, Ruminations

Election Day 2006: Hogan Farms and Beyond…

Leave a comment

Covered Hogan Farms from 6:45am to 9:45am. BOCC candidate Jamie Daniels was handing out material until roughly 9am. Stein supporters covered the precinct from 7ish on. The Democrats staffed a table handing out sample ballots the whole time I was there…

As of 9:35am, 300 confirmed voters with another 10-15 milling about waiting to go. When I called in to report the numbers to O.C. Democratic headquarters, was told the 10am figure was 369.

Hogan Farms has a nice setup – including hot coffee. A welcome bit of hospitality considering the temperature and rain began falling in earnest as I left. Judge Baddour was getting some good support. So to folks voting NO on the districting referendum. A welcome surprise.


2AM Chapel Hill Library – Prepping Signs

[UPDATE: ] Moved the rest of the photos here.

The rain has let up a bit. I’m hoping most of it has swept through by 4:30pm when Elijah and I start working Chapel Hill library (Estes Hills – my home precinct).

Carrboro, ChapelHill, CitizenWill, CivilLiberties, LocalPolitics, OrangeCounty, Ruminations

Please Vote Tuesday, November 7th, 2006

1 Comment

For my RSS reading readers ;-)!

Find your precinct HERE .

Please vote Tuesday, Nov. 7th. Polls are open 6:30AM until 7:30PM.

  • Vote NO, NO, NO on either of the divisive Orange and Chatham county districting referendums.
  • Vote YES for Baddour and Anderson Superior Court District 15B.
  • Vote YES for Vanderbeck commissioner Chatham District 4.
  • US Congress District 4: Wish I could write-in Kanoy
  • State Supreme Court Chief Justice: Parker
  • State Supreme Court Associates: Timmons-Goodson, Martin and Robin Hudson (over Calabria based on tenor towards capital cases)
  • State Court of Appeals: Bob Hunter and Stephens
  • State Senate: Kinnaird
  • Orange County Sheriff: Pendergrass (like Parker’s emphasis on reducing turnover and using technology but unsure about other issues)
  • Soil and Water Conservation Supervisor: Snipes and Shooter

Precinct locations for Orange County and SAMPLE BALLOT
Precinct locations for Chatham County and SAMPLE BALLOT

Note precinct changes: More information here.

  • Battle Park precinct votes at the Chapel Hill Senior Center 400-A S. Elliott Road Chapel Hill for the November 7, 2006 Election only.
  • Coles Store precinct have been split into two precincts.
    The School Districts divider line determines your precinct and voting location:

    • If you live in the Orange County School District (to be known as Coles Store 1 Precinct), you will continue to vote at the Union Grove Methodist Church, 6407 Union Grove Church Road, Chapel Hill, NC 27516.
    • If you live in the Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District (to be known as Hogan Farms Precinct), you will now vote at the Lake Hogan Farms Clubhouse, 101 Commons Way Dr, Chapel Hill, NC 27516.

The Superior Court District 15B candidates are:

Baddour and Stein 3rd Quarter campaign finance reports.

Fox’s 3rd quarter report [PDF] was available by Friday.
Anderson’s 3rd quarter [PDF] just today (Nov. 6th) [UPDATE:] Tom Jensen on OP informs us that the report was available Saturday.

Videos and commentary on Oct. 11th’s Superior Court District 15B UNC Young Democrats forum.

Videos and commentary on Oct. 16th’s Superior Court District 15B Bar members forum.

Carrboro, ChapelHill, Chatham, CitizenWill, CivilLiberties, Community, Elections, Government, Hillsborough, LocalPolitics, OrangeCounty, Ruminations

Sign, Sign Everywhere a Sign…

Leave a comment

This time last year I was catching 14 winks in preparation for election day.

Earlier in the evening I had made the rounds collecting my outlying signs for redeployment. About 3 hours from now, I was leaping out of bed to fill some balloons, say a hasty goodbye to the family and rush to pick up local activist Tom Jensen ( thanks again Tom for kindly assisting with the last round of sign deployments at every municipal polling station).

It was the start of one of the longest days in my life. Exhilerating, enjoyable, extraordinary, engaging – the hospitality and good cheer of the citizens of Chapel Hill made the long hours fly by.

The beautiful fall weather was an incredible bonus.
Continue reading Sign, Sign Everywhere a Sign… →

Carrboro, ChapelHill, CitizenWill, CivilLiberties, Elections, LocalPolitics, OrangeCounty, Ruminations

Vote No on Orange County Districting Referendum, Another No from Katz

Leave a comment

A resounding NO from former Orange County Democratic Party chair Barry Katz in his Oct. 28th LTE to the Chapel Hill News:

I will vote no on the ballot referendum to restructure the Orange County commissioners.

First, there hasn’t been enough public debate on the merits of change, and I oppose change without voters’ understanding its consequences. Second, since the mid-1930s, The Chapel Hill News has reported countywide contests between candidates in favor of funding schools, health clinics, etc., and candidates who oppose raising taxes to fund such services. Most years the pro-funding candidates win and they do it with support from all parts of the county, albeit with greater support in southern Orange. So this is an old story.

Third, my six years on the county Planning Board suggests to me that underlying the push to change how county commissioners are elected are residents who are concerned about “restrictive” land-use planning and the rights of landowners to do what they want with their land. I joined the board as a skeptic regarding land-use planning and left a confirmed proponent of strategic land-use planning. We have only to look at Wake County to see how unregulated growth leads to urban sprawl, a lack of public transportation and too little public open space.

Orange County has been in a decades-long urban-suburbanizing transition that will continue past my lifetime. Agriculture now accounts for about 1 percent of the county’s economy, but the value of agricultural land has skyrocketed in recent decades due to residential housing demand. “Recent residents,” i.e., people whose grandparents weren’t born in Orange County, constitute a strong majority of voters and now determine the outcome of local elections, as is only proper. Not only would new and future Orange residents benefit from planning, but agricultural landowners would enjoy sustained maximum land values if the quality of life stays high in the county, as would occur under a thoughtful land use plan.

I hope landowners recognize the practical truth in this notion. — Barry Katz, Chapel Hill

Community, Elections, Government, LocalPolitics, OrangeCounty, Ruminations

Judge Calabria, FairJudges.net and the problem of 527 monies

Leave a comment

From todays New & Record (11/01/06):

An independent political organization called FairJudges.Net began airing the ad this week. By promoting four Supreme Court candidates, it upsets a system meant to create a level playing field in judicial contests. Watchdog groups are up in arms.

“Democracy North Carolina believes the activities of FairJudges.Net are a disturbing and unhealthy development for judicial elections in North Carolina,” director Bob Hall said.

The N.C. Center for Voter Education called on “those responsible to stop airing these advertisements,” executive director Chris Heagarty said.

Even a beneficiary, Chief Justice Sarah Parker, wasn’t pleased. “If I had my druthers, I’d prefer to run my own campaign and plan my own strategy without unsolicited help from outside parties,” she said. “It would suit me fine if the ads did not run.”

The ad promotes “fair judges,” naming Parker, Mark Martin, Patricia Timmons-Goodson and Robin Hudson.

Judge Calabria is so far the only judge to respond to my email on the possible deceptive campaigning practices over at Morehead Planetarium.

The injection of big money in judicial races is a concern – that’s why NC switched to “voter-owned” judicial elections (at least for some judicial positions).

The complaint puts a major test on the state’s public financing system, adopted two years ago and touted as a way to remove partisan and big money influence from the courts.

Participants in public financing are allowed to raise a maximum of about $70,000 in contributions. The state then chips in, giving candidates for Court of Appeals about $144,000 and Supreme Court chief justice hopefuls about $217,000.

WRAL5, 11/01/06

The end-run, legal though it may be, around these limits is troubling – something acknowledged by the chair of the organization former N.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Burley Mitchell:

FairJudges.Net, chaired by former N.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Burley Mitchell, says its mission is to provide “positive, accurate, bipartisan information about judges.”

That isn’t how Levinson sees it. In asking the state for additional funds, he protested that 527 spending bypasses “public financing restrictions and guidelines …”

He’s right. The playing field has tilted. This also pushes judicial politics into a potentially troubling realm, where special-interest groups can spend millions to sway voters.

In West Virginia two years ago, a 527 group funded with more than $2 million from a coal company executive helped defeat a Supreme Court justice. It prompted the legislature to enact tougher restrictions. North Carolina might have to do the same, at least barring 527s from pouring money into last-minute ad campaigns.

Mitchell conceded Wednesday that “527s generally should be of concern to people” but defended the ad as “nothing but positive.”

It may be, but the prospect of big-money, special-interest influence in judicial elections should raise a hue and cry every time.

N&R, 11/02/06

CarolinaNorth, Carrboro, ChapelHill, Community, Government, Ruminations, Transportation, UNC

Carolina North: Housing from UNC’s perspective

Leave a comment

From Jack Evans concerning housing at Carolina North.

At the LAC meeting on October 19, we agreed that the University would draft some thoughts for the continuation of our discussion regarding housing at Carolina North. The attached file is our response to that request. As you will see, we found a number of issues and questions that we think are worthy of further discussion within the LAC. We don’t believe that our discussions to this point have reached a stage that
would permit the formulation of consensus principles, but we hope our discussion tomorrow afternoon will move us in the direction.

This follows on Mayor Mark Chilton’s (Carrboro) discussion of Oct. 19th (documented on OrangePolitics)

The Leadership Advisory Committee on Carolina North had an interesting discussion about housing as a part of Carolina North this afternoon.

Here are some prepared comments that I presented as a way of launching the discussion:

The housing problem at Carolina North is, in short, that the new workers at Carolina North will either live at Carolina North or they will live elsewhere and need to commute to the campus. There is not a great deal of vacant housing currently available within the Chapel Hill Transit service area (although there is some), so new employees will either have to occupy housing that is to be built in the Chapel Hill Transit service area, or they will have to live outside that service area and commute. Let’s take a look at the scale of the problem…

I suggest you read the extended discussion. UNC’s issues and discussion follow:

Discussion Issues and Questions Related to
Housing at Carolina North

Prepared for the LAC discussion on November 2, 2006

We believe that housing at Carolina North is a critical aspect of attracting employees, both faculty and staff, to the University, and helping existing employees find housing closer to campus. However, we believe that many issues will require further discussion within the LAC in the process of formulating specific planning principles that will be used to guide planning related to housing.

We envision the housing at Carolina North as a mixed-income community. That is, the housing will be a mixture of market, work force, and affordable housing. We need clear understandings regarding the definitions of these three categories. And we do not yet have enough information to set percentages for these three categories, but we will commit to study the issues.

The housing planned for Carolina North must be financially feasible, financially sustainable, and market driven. Although the University will likely retain ownership of the land, we anticipate that a large portion of the housing will be privately developed, thus adding values to local tax rolls. On that premise, the housing must provide opportunities for a reasonable return to prospective developers.

While housing at Carolina North will not solve all of the housing problems of the Chapel Hill/Carrboro community, UNC-Chapel Hill has a commitment to finding the right mix of market, work force, and affordable housing that will avoid making those problems worse. In this regard the University will maintain the goal that each stage of development at Carolina North will contain some level of each of the three types of housing. It may be appropriate to think of the first stage (approximately 10 years) as a test market that will provide valuable information about housing and will inform planning for subsequent stages.

As discussed in the LAC meeting on October19, we do not anticipate undergraduate instruction at Carolina North. Consequently, we do not foresee the need to build undergraduate housing at Carolina North. We do, however, anticipate some level of housing at Carolina North for graduate students and post-doctoral fellows. These groups of residents are likely to be married with children. Since housing at Carolina North is likely to be multi-family construction, this could also assist the University’s efforts to attract the best graduate students and post-doctoral fellows. For this type of housing it is possible, though not necessarily certain, that the University would be the developer and operator of the housing.

The discussion of housing during the LAC meeting of October 19 explored linking overall employment at Carolina North and the planned supply of housing. We consider it to be difficult to define and implement a linkage of this sort in advance. A number of questions deserve consideration. For example, what restrictions should apply to housing at Carolina North?. Should CN housing be primarily or exclusively for employees of the University or UNC Health Care System, or should it serve a broader population? What issues related to social and cultural diversity in CN housing should we consider? If work force and affordable housing involve some form of subsidy or constrained appreciation in the form of price caps or restrictions on sale, what issues are raised if some of this housing is occupied by non-University employees?

To the extent that University employees occupy housing at Carolina North, use of SOVs would be favorably affected. Similarly, to the extent that University employees living anywhere make use of transit (whether within the service area of the Chapel Hill transit system or not) use of SOVs would be favorably affected.

One of the inputs that we need for this and subsequent discussions is information that incorporates our best estimates, stage by stage, of the level of employment to be anticipated at Carolina North. Although we will not be able to formulate these estimates with great precision, it is important to get the order of magnitude approximately correct so that our discussions about housing, transportation, and fiscal impact will be as realistic as we can be at this stage or our work.

11/1/06

BTW, here’s Mr. Evan’s contact information:

John P. Evans
Executive Director, Carolina North

Hettleman Professor of Business
304 South Building, CB 4000
Chapel Hill, NC 27599
919-843-2025

ChapelHill, Elections, LocalPolitics, Ruminations

Fool me once, shame on you…: Judge Calabria responds.

Leave a comment

Nice and quick response from Judge Calabria:

Mr. Raymond,
I will look into this as soon as I finish sending a letter to the State
Board of Elections about the violations that are occurring on TV. I have
already requested rescue funds. I will be happy to provide a copy of my
new letter to you after I send it to Mr. Leake. if you would like one.
Sincerely,
Ann Marie

Judge Ann Marie Calabria
Candidate for NC Supreme Court

Let’s see how quickly, if at all, the rest of the candidates respond.

[UPDATE:]

Dear Mr. Raymond,

Mr. Leake was gone for the day and we do not have his email address.
I will look into the Orange County Early Voting matter.

Thanks,
Ann Marie Calabria

ChapelHill, CivilLiberties, Elections, LocalPolitics, NationalPolitics, OrangeCounty, Ruminations

Fool me once, shame on you…: Possible Republican Judge Election Trickery

4 Comments

According to WCHL1360 some kind of organized tomfoolery is going on at the Morehead Planetarium polling place

Some students from UNC Chapel Hill are working to get votes for Conservative judges, but are not always transparent in their efforts.

Chapel Hill attorney Bob Epting says a young woman approached him outside the polling place and asked if he was a Democrat.  When he said yes, she gave him a list of candidates.

The implication was the list was of progressive judges (essentially Democrats) in this non-partisan race.

Fred Black relates the following over on OP:

Yesterday when I voted at Morehead (#996 since Oct. 23d), there was a young lady on the edge of the parking lot. She asked me if I was going to vote and I replied that I was. She handed me a small piece of paper that listed Duke, Martin, Levinson, Calabria, Bailey, and Stroud. With the DTH and the WCHL story as background, I asked if the named people were all Republicans. She said that she thought so but their’s are nonpartisan races. I asked her what organization she represented and she said she was just helping her friend who was in class.

More information on this BlueNC and OrangePolitics threads.

With the current vote flipping problems in Arkansas, Missouri, Texas and Florida – all biased towards Republican candidates – one has to wonder if the Morehead trickery is the least of election 2006 problems.

That said, I’ve gone ahead and contacted the campaigns of Duke, Martin, Levinson, Calabria, Bailey, and Stroud in case they weren’t aware of folks scamming the electorate in their name.

Their handling of this mess will be a great indicator of their willingness to cultivate public trust both in the election and judicial process.

Contact information:

  • Judge Duke – www.rustyduke.com judgeduke@rustyduke.com
  • Justice Martin – www.justicemarkmartin.org mmartin@justicemarkmartin.org
  • Judge Levinson – www.justicelevinson.org campaign@justicelevinson.org
  • Judge Calabria – www.calabria4judge.com amcalabria@nc.rr.com
  • Judge Bailey – www.judgekrisbailey.com judgekdb2006@nc.rr.com
  • Judge Stroud – www.judgestroud.com JudgeStroud@aol.com

Mailto link: MAIL the JUDGES.

My email:

RE: Apparent organized effort to deceive Orange County voters
TO: Judge Duke, Justice Martin, Judge Levinson, Judge Calabria, Judge Bailey, Judge Stroud

According to local media reports (WCHL1360 – http://www.wchl1360.com/details.html?id=2124 ) and several eyewitness reports ( http://orangepolitics.org/2006/11/republicans-attempt-to-deceive-orange-county-voters/#comment-65383 ) , an organized effort is being made in Orange County to deceive voters in your name. A list of your names is being presented to Democratic voters in a fashion meant to mislead uninformed voters into voting for you.

Given your current standings as judges, given the responsibility you’ve been entrusted with, given the tenor of all your campaigns, I imagine this tomfoolery comes both as a surprise and a disappointment.

Now that you are aware of the problem, would you please publicly ask the participants to desist? A quick resolution to this problem will serve the public well.

Thank you for your prompt attention,

Will Raymond
Independent, Orange County