WCHL1360 covered yesterday’s Downtown Partnership update.
Listen [MP3] to what Director Liz Parham and local “top flight” business guy Scott Maitland had to say.
And Dan S., if you’re reading this, thanks for the sly hat tip.
Tag Archives: Community
CHFD: First Class Firefighters
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.
Downtown Development Initiative: Stanford on a Sea of Asphalt
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.
Downtown Development Initiative: Culbreth and the Domino Effect
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…
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…
Municipal Networking: Nary a Citizen Advocate to be Found
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.
Downtown Initiative: $500,000 here, $7.3 Million there, pretty soon we’re talking real money…
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.â€
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.”
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 Leaseâ€). 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 Parkingâ€) 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 Parkingâ€).
- 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 Costsâ€). 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.
Carolina North: The Invisible Discussion Forum
[UPDATE] As of November 20 2006 4:45 pm, we’ve had two questions and two comments by “site admin”.
Questions:
Hi, I haven’t seen anything lately that lays out the architectural vision of Carolina North. Could you point me towards any current plans? Thank you.
November 20 2006 9:46 am by Robert PetersonIs UNC still planning to realign Estes Drive as part of Carolina North development? Shouldn’t changes so potentially disruptive be discussed with the community that depends on that road as a major arterial connection?
November 20 2006 9:28 am by Ruby Sinreich
The comments referred to the “Attendee Comments Received at the Ecological Assessment Listening Group Meeting With Biohabitats Inc., Nov. 6, 2006” and “two maps created by Biohabitats of Raleigh. The maps were marked up in the Ecology Listening Session on November 6.”
Good notes that haven’t been previously published on UNC’s Carolina North site or on the UNC-LAC mailing list (at least the one I’m a member of).
Not exactly answers to either of the questions or to my earlier third question on forum rules but a response all the same.
[ORIGINAL]
Did you know that UNC has created an online discussion forum?
Hey, I wouldn’t have known but for this email:
Hello all,
I’m writing to let you know that the public discussion forum for Carolina North is now accessible online at http://research.unc.edu/cn/view_comments.php. If you would like to post a comment, click the “leave a comment” link at the bottom of the page, and you’ll be asked to register your name and e-mail address. Once registered, you’ll receive a confirmation e-mail, after which you can post comments.
Thanks,
Colie Hoffman
Office of Information and Communications
962-6137
which didn’t appear on the normal UNC Carolina North LAC (Leadership Advisory group) email list – a list, by the way, which you can get on ONLY by contacting UNC here (no “self-subscribing”).
UNC’s Carolina North group has done a fairly decent job on their, admittedly biased, main website, including posting timely videos and minutes of the Carolina North Leadership Advisory Committee (UNC-LAC) meetings.
Creating a discussion forum is a bold step for the development folks in Moeser’s administration, so points for trying, but 8am to 5pm EST moderation kind of misses the mark.
Please be aware that we only add new comments to the discussion forum during regular business hours (Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST).
Given that, I still wanted to heap credit on UNC for this apparent e-democracy effort but the lousy advertising and the the lack of forum rules (possibly undercutting open debate) really make that difficult.
Disappointing. Mustn’t let Moeser’s “freelance dissenters” engage in free form discussion ;-)!
Hey, I registered,
Your registration was submitted successfully. You will receive an email from “HTTPD Daemon†containing a URL that will allow you to view and participate in the Carolina North public discussion forum.
and added this question, “What rules of moderation will you be applying to this forum?”
Wonder how long after 8am, Monday, Nov. 20th, 2006 I’ll find out…
Bus 734’s Act of Kindness
Say what you will of “Chapel Hill values”, but it can be quite nice when you’re on the receiving end.
This morning I watched the driver of Bus 734 pull over for a moment to let a young man, already wheezing from running up MLK to the Kron Building stop, jog the next 20 yards to clamber on. Sure, the driver could’ve kept on going – answering to the demands of the clock – like many drivers do in other jurisdictions. But, hey, this is Chapel Hill.
Thank you Bus 734, for your act of kindness.
Yum, Yum, it’s RSVVP Day. Eat out and kick %10 into local hunger relief efforts…
It’s RSVVP day and I didn’t realize it! I managed to eat out at one of the few local restaurants, the Lime & Basil, that isn’t participating.
Drat! Guess I’ll have to eat out again for dinner ;-)! This time I’ll choose from this list of participants.
Hat tip to Paul.
On Tuesday, November 14, 2006, area restaurants will donate 10% of their breakfast, lunch and dinner proceeds to help alleviate hunger in the Triangle. It’s simple. We advertise. The public eats out (or gets take-out). The restaurant makes a donation. Everyone gets a meal. Restaurants sharing V(5) + V(5) percent (5+5=10%), or RSVVP, has raised more than $425,000 to fight hunger since its inception in 1989. The fundraiser will be advertised extensively on TV, radio, newspapers, direct mail, and posters. Our major sponsors include SunTrust Bank, ABC 11, The Herald-Sun and The Chapel Hill Herald, Money Mailer Durham-Orange, Curtis Media and 1360 WCHL. Posters will be displayed throughout the Triangle asking the public to “eat locally, feed locally†on our designated RSVVP day.
List of Carrboro/Chapel Hill participants below the fold Continue reading Yum, Yum, it’s RSVVP Day. Eat out and kick %10 into local hunger relief efforts…
Herald-Sun Editor Robert Ashley gets an earful from CitizenWill…
Went to an interesting Downtown Partnership sponsored Safety Forum this morning, the notes of which I’ll post later…
While there I had the pleasure of meeting the Herald-Sun’s Robert Ashley.
Poor guy. He probably wouldn’t have sat next to me if he’d known I was going to give him an earful about the Herald-Sun’s on-line linking policy.
As I recently wrote, cutting the community off from their historical narrative is not only selfish, it is bad business. Robert disputed my “bad business” assertion, telling me the HS makes plenty from their archival content.
Ouch! I’ll bet whatever paltry sum they’re making from paywalling, the ill will they’re generating amongst both their on-line readership and those, like myself, that are FREELY steering customers (“eyeballs”) their way far outweighs the traditional business value of hiding content from the greater ‘net-world.
Already folks who want to reference HS articles are either, one, skirting fair-use provisions excerpting enough of the content to bolster their points or two, turning to other media outlets with far friendlier community-service oriented policies.
Doc Searls, always an entertaining and insightful commentator on new media, wrote recently about the cracks forming in the paywall and why, sans community service, paywalling is dumb business:
That’s why I’ve tried to limit the argument to the real trade-offs involved. This has nothing to do with “citizenship.” It has everything to do with the facts of publishing life, where the Web is a larger and larger context. Newspapers and magazines make some money by selling old stories through Lexis-Nexis and Dialog. But they make most of their money from advertising and subscriptions, which might both increase if archives are exposed to the Web.
Robert, if you’re reading this, I want to emphasize that I’m your ally.
I want to strengthen all our local journalistic enterprises – to help your institution make the leap from a manufacturer of paper and ink products to a valued community service provider. But you need to make the move soon…new media is moving at Internet speeds and it won’t be long before your backwards policy is irrelevant.
At the end of it all, if the Herald-Suns and News Observers of the world want to cut off their “long tail”, so be it…
Fish, Fowl, Eyeballs, Journalist: None of the above?
My Nov. 4th Chapel Hill News column was kind of choppy this week. I guess one of the “nots” I can add to the list is a paragon of brevity. Some folks use the term “citizen journalist” to describe what I’m doing on CitizenWill – a description that hasn’t quite jelled into a term of art.
Whatever I’m doing, both the ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation are working hard to protect my right to do it, please consider
supporting Bloggers’ rights.
###
I am not a journalist.
Sure, I’ve written guest columns for the Herald Sun, the Daily Tar Heel, and now, full circle, for the Chapel Hill News. But that does not make me a journalist.
Self-published, some of my online work falls under the rubric of “citizen journalist.†Yet that loosely applied classification carries little gravitas in the world of politics and governance.
My ruminations require primary research, occasional interviews, analysis – behaviors associated with trained journalists. But my posts, though sometimes grist for the news, lack the institutional news outlet imprimatur.
And, always, I bring my acknowledged point of view. Not crafted by publishers, editors, advertisers, media marketers — my interests and passion dictate my content.
At Greensboro’s recent unconference ConvergeSouth, professional journalists, online activists, performers and readers, discussed the current consequences of new media enterprises — the corrosive, even subversive, effects of the personal printing press on the venerable Fourth Estate – and speculated on what is yet to come.
Continue reading Fish, Fowl, Eyeballs, Journalist: None of the above?
Sign, Sign Everywhere a Sign…
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…
Judge Calabria, FairJudges.net and the problem of 527 monies
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.
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.
Carolina North: Housing from UNC’s perspective
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 NorthPrepared 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 NorthHettleman Professor of Business
304 South Building, CB 4000
Chapel Hill, NC 27599
919-843-2025
Nov. 1st: Carey, CitizenWill and the 2006 Redistricting Referendum in Hillsborough
I’m once again on the hot seat tomorrow as pro-referendum Orange County Commissioner Moses Carey (and legions of staffers) try to counter my pro-democracy arguments against local election redistricting 😉
Seriously, if folks walk away understanding how this redistricting actually diminishes “small d†democracy, distorts voter-power, potentially overweights rural influence and that other, better, alternatives were not adequately entertained, I’ll be satisfied.
Since the last “debate”, Commissioner Carey has reversed his previous assertion that the expansion of the board to seven members and the districting must be done together – it doesn’t. He did assert, evidence to the contrary (look southward to Chatham for instance), that districting isn’t divisive and that this referendum is the best way to promote minority representation. Again, alternatives, like cumulative voting, do a much better job promoting minority voices without sacrificing “small d” democracy.
Finally, based on this WCHL1360 [MP3] interview, Moses appears to have no idea or desire to carry forward with increasing local democratic access to our government if this referendum should fail.
Hey, at least he didn’t use the NC legislature as bogeyman argument.
ELECTION FORUM — The League of Women Voters-ODC will host an educational forum on the November referendum on district elections for Orange County commissioners at 7 p.m. in the Orange Water and Sewer Authority conference room, 400 Jones Ferry Road in Carrboro. A second forum is scheduled for Nov. 1 at 7 p.m. in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom, 106 E. Margaret Lane in Hillsborough.