Tag Archives: Downtown

Carrboro, ChapelHill, Community, Development, Downtown, OrangeCounty

Mark Zimmerman: Give Them a Home

2 Comments

A nice follow up to Terri’s homeless census post is Mark Zimmerman’s My View column in the recent Chapel Hill News

How do you solve the homeless problem? Give them a home.

That almost sounds like a bad joke, doesn’t it? But it’s what the Orange County Partnership to End Homelessness Steering Committee is about to propose in its Ten Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness. The partnership includes 60 community leaders representing dozens of organizations working on a local plan in response to a federal homelessness initiative.

Included among the partnership’s recommendations is a plan to move chronically homeless from the streets into permanent housing accompanied by intensive services.

The program is a relatively new idea called Housing First. It’s a federal initiative based on the principle that some people — the chronically homeless — need the stability of a residence before they can overcome the issues that led to their homelessness. The traditional model has required people to become “housing ready” before getting their own place. Housing First turns that model on its head.

So who are these chronically homeless? They are a group born of a federal definition: individuals, homeless for at least a year, or consistently homeless over several years, with a disability (often substance abuse or mental illness). These are folks who haven’t just been hit with problems. They have become part of their problem.

The chronically homeless are a minority of the homeless population (39 were counted in Orange County last year). However, they are among the most visible. Current treatment and care programs haven’t proven very effective. This group uses a disproportionate share of services, draining limited resources. They are costly to our hospitals and are more likely to draw police attention. They are often the ones who invoke the unfortunate vituperation of some residents, businesses and visitors.

That “vituperation” has been commented on extensively over on this thread at OrangePolitics.

Mark continues:

Housing First will take a commitment from the community to succeed, especially since we don’t want to divert funds currently assisting the transitional and non-chronically homeless. Indeed, Housing First is just one of multiple strategies in the Ten Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness to address the continuum of housing needs in our community.

I hope this proposal will engage our community in productive debate, for there is one point on which both advocates for and detractors of our homeless population agree: We should get these folks off the streets. Whatever else you may think about it, Housing First promises to accomplish that.

Checkout the whole column to see how Mark’s thinking change over the course of his investigations.

ChapelHill, Community, Downtown, EconomicDevelopment, Government, OrangeCounty, Ruminations, Transportation

Chapel Hill 2035

1 Comment

[UPDATE] The Chapel Hill News’ OrangeChat noted the growth Mar. 5th.

The Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan Socio-Economic projections are in and, as Sally notes, they forecast a whopping increase in population.

Table 1: Draft 2035 Plan Socio-Economic Projections

Jurisdiction

Population

Employment

2005

2035

% inc.

2005

2035

% inc.

Chatham County*

34,629

153,362

343%

8,196

16,953

107%

Durham County

229,796

370,007

61%

172,825

308,886

79%

Carrboro

21,328

26,879

26%

4,320

6,751

56%

Chapel Hill

52,394

81,297

55%

35,314

81,227

130%

Hillsborough

12,651

22,613

79%

5,762

14,606

153%

Orange County**

43,739

55,537

27%

3,946

7,255

84%

*Includes the portion
of Chatham County that is in the Triangle Regional Model area.

55% increase in population, 130% in employment! 81,297 folks living in Chapel Hill with employment at 81,227 seems to indicate quite a few folks will be coming from out of town. If you review their maps, it also appears that UNC’s Carolina North plays a huge role in that projected employment increase.

Whatever the reliability of the projections, and coming on the heels of Council’s dreadful and precipitous decision to create a TC-3 zone allowing 120′ tall buildings, I hope our fair Downtown doesn’t end up looking like this:

ChapelHill, CitizenWill, Downtown, EconomicDevelopment, Government

Giving Kiosk Out, Panhandling Meters In?

Leave a comment

Last year, the Downtown Partnership (DPC) commissioned a “giving kiosk” for Downtown. Callie Warner, my neighbor and metalsmith, designed what Liz Parham, Direcor of the DPC, described in this May 16th, 2006 Chapel Hill News column [PDF] as an “economic development tool”:

This past week the Chapel Hill Downtown Partnership carried a concept proposal for a privately funded “Giving Kiosk” to the Town Council for review. The purpose of the Giving Kiosk is to provide downtown visitors with an alternative to giving money to panhandlers by directing their giving to human service agencies that provide beneficial services to those that are in need in the downtown area; to educate the public on the services that are needed and those that are offered; and to educate the public on how social and behavioral issues are hindering the economic vitality of downtown and our community’s growth.

The Chapel Hill Town Council saw this more as an “art project” – introducing a bureaucratic muddle as local curmudgeon Roland Giduz noted last June

This plan is to install a giving kiosk is as an alternative to donating to panhandlers. It will be completely privately financed. It won’t cost taxpayers a penny and should relieve the popularly perceived image of beggars harming the aura of Chapel Hill’s public shopping area.

An anonymous donor has offered to pay the $17,000 construction cost of building and installing this small sidewalk structure downtown. As tried and used elsewhere in similar circumstances, it offers people the option to contribute to designated charities instead of enabling panhandlers. The Chapel Hill Town Council recently considered this proposal, seemed to like it, and commissioned a local artist to submit a design. The resulting design by Callie Warner shows a securely- built rectangular structure, simply roofed and with slots for contributions. It is purely a functional kiosk, both in design and appearance.

As all too often happens when something is caught in the maw of bureaucracy, the kiosk idea has been shoved aside ‘til it can be considered as art, rather than as a functional structure. It now awaits a decision — yet-to-be considered or approved – as to whether it is art instead of a simple structure for its intended purpose. Until then there’ll be no giving kiosk and no donation of it or to it.

In the past, I’ve been critical of some of the harsher aspects of Denver’s Give a Better Way campaign , echoing our local Council champion of homelessness causes Sally Greene’s concerns :

Narayan thus argues, and I agree, that a concern that the presence of panhandlers in a downtown district discourages foot-traffic and therefore undermines the economic health of downtown is not a morally valid reason for the further regulation of panhandling.

On the other hand, the impulse behind the idea of the giving kiosk had much to recommend itself. I think it represented a genuine wish to be helpful, to reach out as a community to help those in need. The trouble is that we don’t have natural connections with panhandlers; they appear to us as strangers, one at a time, seemingly cut off from the community. We really don’t know what a pandhandler will do with the dollar we give him, and we have reason to fear the worst. The initiatives that the Downtown Outreach Work Group is about to embark on are potentially good ones–as long as they include a recognition that in the end we cannot control the lives or wills of others, that not every panhandler is dishonest or deceitful, that there is genuine need staring us in the face. (The Denver program’s home page is pretty harsh: a picture of an upturned palm, inscribed, “Please help. Don’t give.”)

Yes, the impulse to give, to help is commendable and should be nurtured.

That’s why I’m willing to follow Denver’s lead while Council works out the finer points of art, and suggest we trial Denver’s practical approach of using recycled parking meters to collect funds:

The city of Denver has recycled old parking meters to help in the fight against homelessness.

The old parking meters have been placed at various locations in downtown, including Skyline Park.

The idea is to encourage people to put the money into the parking meters instead of giving to panhandlers. Money raised from the meters will go to organizations fighting homelessness.

Mayor John Hickenlooper said the city’s 10 year plan to end homelessness is working.

“Denver’s 10 year plan to end homelessness, what we call Denver’s road home, has really become a national model,” Hickelooper said. “I think we’ve had the greatest success in getting the whole community to buy in, to believe this is something we can tackle as a community.”

Officials unveiled 36 of the homeless meters on Monday.

Denver’s CBS4 Mar. 5th, 2007

The lede of this story – “help[ing] the fight against homelessness” – highlights yet again an unfortunate conflation between panhandling and homelessness.

They’re not equivalent.

I hope that it is a distinction the Chapel Hill Downtown Partnership Work Group on Homeless shares as they move forward.

ChapelHill, Community, Downtown, EconomicDevelopment

Not Everyone Walks Across the Crosswalk

Leave a comment

Ellen, a small step in the right direction.

From the Liz at the Downtown Partnership

The Chapel Hill Public Works Department with assistance from White Oak Construction will be replacing handicap ramps at prominent downtown crosswalks in the following locations beginning on March 12:

* Franklin Street at Columbia Street
* Mid-block crosswalk at Porthole Alley and
* East Franklin at Henderson Street
* Entrance and exit for Parking Lot 3 in the 400 block of West Franklin Street

Replacement of existing handicap ramps is required for the Town to come into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Town plans to begin this project during the University’s spring break in anticipation of reduced traffic volumes downtown. In an effort to further minimize inconvenience to pedestrians, demolition work will be scheduled at night.

Concrete pours will take place before 8:00 a.m. whenever possible; however, a crosswalk undergoing ramp construction will be closed to allow concrete to cure. Consequently, pedestrians may be temporarily redirected to the next available street crossing. As part of the ramp replacement project, it may be necessary for space at the curb to be reserved for construction parking and staging.

During ramp construction at Parking Lot 3, the parking lot will remain accessible to vehicles. Pedestrians will be able to continue along the sidewalk on the south side of West Franklin Street with a minor detour around the work zone.

Weather permitting, the project may be completed before March 23, 2007.

Questions or concerns may be directed to Harold Harris at the Public Works Department, 612-9560.

Not everyone walks across the street, nice to see we’re working the issue.

Next stop Rosemary?

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

Parking Downtown: Water, Water Everywhere, Nary a Drop to Drink

Leave a comment

I served on Chapel Hill’s Downtown Parking Taskforce, which wrapped up its business two weeks ago and which will be presenting its findings formally on Feb. 26th [AGENDA].

I meant to comment more frequently on our work but circumstances and some cautionary notes from staff intervened. It’s an interesting issue – how much of the preliminary work of a committee you serve on do you want to expose?

I wouldn’t want to shut down the free expression of the wildest of ideas. And, though the process was open to the public, like so many of our citizen’s groups rarely covered by the media – hardly attended by those outside the relevant committee.

I certainly commented frequently (and vociferously) on my and others participation in the Horace Williams Citizens’ Committee. I went into the issues discussed within the Technology Board, but didn’t speak to the internal and external tensions that contributed to its dissolution.

Reporting on my next committee (if I’m ever appointed to one after my vocal opposition to Lot #5) will probably be dependent on a number of factors…of which I hope to get some feedback on from my readers…

The Parking Taskforce was pretty effective – and ranks up there with the HWCC for citizen participation.

The meetings usually stayed on point – had some humorous commentaries (including a prominent local comparing University Square to Cabrini Green) – and generated a slew of good ideas.

Here is the cover letter [DOC] and finalized [DOC] report that will be presented on Feb. 26th.

I’ll be adding my support and a little commentary that night – please send me any comments (campaign AT willraymond.org ) or add them to this post.

I appreciate that my central themes of cooperation/collaboration in terms of parking resource allocation made it into the final report.

Unfortunately, the section on using modeling and metrics to manage parking policy – a section I promoted – was excised. Maybe too business-like an approach – but I believe any implementation plan that doesn’t incorporate targets, a methodology to measure progress and actual timely measurements is flawed. We should have time to repair this omission as staff fleshes out the recommendations.

The guidelines I drew up on behalf of the committee were also not included, partially because they were redundant, partially because they didn’t fit into the report structure and partially because we ran out of time to discuss/elaborate/refine on them.

I present them here for completeness.

1. Parking is provided for the public good by the citizens of our community. The public, irrespective of economic, social or other status, will come first. Parking policy, to the greatest extent possible, shall not be discriminatory.

2. Public and private parking is an important and strategic common resource for our Downtown’s success. Parking policy will cultivate private-public management policies to successfully conserve and cultivate this common resource.

3. Fees collected from public parking will not be seen as a revenue generator for the general fund.

4. Fees from public parking are to be utilized for parking and other transit oriented infrastructure support and improvement.

5. While productive public parking policy furthers the social and environmental goals of our town, the primary focus of downtown parking is economic development.

6. Public parking policy will be driven by timely metrics. An “evergreen” process based on measured utilization will be used to adapt to changing conditions.

7. The public’s ability to understand novel parking strategies is not to be underestimated.

8. Parking strategies will be based on “best in class” flexible approaches. Parking requirements fluctuate by time of day and year, location and special activities. “One size, fits all” policy is not appropriate.

9. Failure to abide by commitments to utilize transit in lieu of providing required parking facilities has consequences. [update: this applies to businesses that made commitments to use transit in lieu of building lots]

Additional documents used during our discussions:

I have some additional resources I used that I’ll try to post sometime soon…

Government, LocalPolitics

Treasonous Slime: I know how Howard feels…

Leave a comment


Used by Joe Killian’s kind permission.

Automatic Writing’s Joe Killian caught NC’s Rep. Coble (R) returning to Greensboro after his finally joining in with the critics of Bush’s Iraq “surge” nuttiness.

Howard, I’ve been part of the treasonous cabal protesting our actions in both Iraq and Afghanistan since the beginning – welcome to the our reality-based club.

In my community opposition to our country’s ill-thought foreign adventures hasn’t generated any appellation of “treasonous slime”. On the other hand, my heretical and traitorous opposition to the Lot #5 Downtown development is, sadly, a different matter… 😉

For those folks, a small reminder of the calculus I use:

…there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it because Conscience tells him it is right…

ChapelHill, CivilLiberties, Community, Downtown, EconomicDevelopment, Government, LocalPolitics, Ruminations

Chapel Hill News: Crushed by Council’s Jagganath

Leave a comment

I commented Dec. 4th that the Lot #5 development juggernaut was powered by an all-consuming illogic I fully expected to crush rational opposition.

I wasn’t disappointed [VIDEO].

Echoing that sentiment, today’s Chapel Hill News speaks of a

“proposal…so big and had so much town involvement — Mayor Kevin Foy and council member Bill Strom have been its primary cheerleaders — that it has generated its own momentum.”

Private-public partnerships have and can be quite effective in promoting good policy on many fronts, but, unfortunately, land development is one that’s been subject to quite a bit of abuse.

Whether being consumed and co-opted by the process or willful ignorance, the landscape is rife with examples [thanks Molly, I miss you] of private interests implementing poor public policy – and a perversion of the public good in a rush to implement “sustainable economic development”.

By any objective standard, the ever quickening trajectory of this project has left judicicious public review in the dust:

When they unveiled the new version in November, the scale of the thing had dramatically shrunk — no more Wallace Deck project — although its cost remained just about the same, and the town’s financial stake had dramatically grown, from the original half-mil to $7.25 million. That’s more than a little tweak.

The project has been on a fast track ever since, and apparently will remain on one; the council agreed to move the project speedily through its review process.

Yep, the steamroller was shifted into higher gear last week.

The CHN shares my qualms:

The town is too closely bound to the project for our taste. Either retain the property and use it for truly public purposes — as a park, for example — or sell it to a private developer and be rigorous in reviewing whatever plans that developer proposes.

What can we do?

Contact our Council members (CONTACT) and let them know you don’t want to be steam-rolled by private interest.

Remember, Laurin Easthom and Jim Ward are fighting this proposal – Bill Strom and Kevin Foy are the most vocal boosters with Mark Kleinschmidt facilitating. Sally Greene, Cam Hill, Ed Harrison and Bill Thorpe support this “taking” to various degrees.

I’ll also be reporting on alternative modes of protest as they develop.

arts, Carrboro, ChapelHill, Community, Downtown, EconomicDevelopment, LocalArts, Ruminations

Jon Wilner’s Shocking Culture

Leave a comment

From the Chapel Hill News ‘blog OrangeChat, a guest post by Jon Wilner, executive director of the Carrboro ArtsCenter:

Culture Shock would be a vehicle for marketing the arts in our community in an attempt to create a destination for what the evening’s facilitator, Bill Flexner, called the “diamond in the rough.” The “diamond” refers to the four towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough, and Pittsboro.

The folks over on OP weighed in, with Ruby Sinreich reacting strongly to an N&O report titled “Area wants to cash in on arts assets.”

I had the same initial reaction. Wilner joined the fray with some illuminating commentary.

Chapel Hill has led the way on buying or commissioning art, like the notable $671,000 being spent on an out-of-town artist for Lot #5’s plaza, but we’ve lagged on support for hands-on art (more on that later).

The facilitator’s report on the first CultureShock gathering is available now from their website.

AffordableHousing, ChapelHill, CitizenWill, Downtown, EconomicDevelopment, Government, LocalPolitics, Ruminations

Downtown Development: Feb. 12th Council Debate

Leave a comment

[UPDATE:] The video below streams from my site – here’s the Google Video that streams faster.

Here’s the complete “debate” Council held on the Lot #5. Note how quickly the expedited SUP application was approved.


ChapelHill, CitizenWill, Downtown, EconomicDevelopment, environment, LocalPolitics, Ruminations

Downtown Development: The LEEDs Trade-Off, AIA 2030 Up Next

Leave a comment

Sally Greene suggested trading formal LEEDs certification, which RAM’s VP Casey Cummings said cost $225K, for a required %20 energy reduction, as measured against ASHRAE standards.

Cummings claimed that $14.5K of the $225K involved energy modeling and measurement – the rest involved paper shuffling.

After reviewing the current proposal, it is still not clear that the Town has discussed a baseline with RAM for what a “reduction” entails – let alone a methodology to establish meeting the ASHRAE goals.

That issue aside, if we trade away LEEDs, which as Sally pointed out is an arguably flawed tool (no surprise, local folks pointed that out over a year ago), we still need to establish a firm requirement for a reduced energy footprint and make the commitment to independently establish compliance with that requirement.

In other words, not just take RAM’s word (“trust but verify”).

So, if we spend the $14.5K to verify adherence to LEEDs principles without doing the LEEDs paper-shuffle – well, that seems reasonable in isolation.

But, then again, why are we trading away anything? We’ve already reduced the public space, we’ve upped our public investment 15-fold, we’ve assumed a significant liability for less and less public utility. Our compliant negotiating team let RAM chip, chip, chip away the value.

And why just %20? If RAM pushed for %50, they’d qualify for a hefty tax break – $1.80 per square foot. Heck, they would get $0.60 per square for hitting %17.

Why are we begging them to do the “right thing”?

Luckily, Council will have an opportunity to attenuate their environmental misstep when Tom and company submit the following challenge to Council calling on all local building to meet the much more stringent AIA 2030 goals – a suggestion, at least for Lot #5, that was dismissed almost without comment.

Resolution to the Town of Chapel Hill to Adopt the AIA 2030 Challenge:

Combating Climate Change through Building Design

Whereas buildings in the United States are responsible for 48% of primary energy consumption and 46% of greenhouse gases; and

Whereas current trends indicate that, unless immediately addressed, the amount of energy consumed by buildings will continue to escalate; and

Whereas 7% to 8% of energy consumed in the United States (150 Btus/gallon water) is associated with the treatment and transport of municipal water; and

Whereas to restrict global warming to less than 2 degrees C above pre-industrial era levels will require atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, now at 380 ppm, to be held below 450 ppm; and

Whereas the decisions made today in designing buildings will directly impact the amount of energy consumed by those buildings for decades to come; and

Whereas technologies and skills exist today that enable architects to design buildings to consume a fraction of the energy that is typical of current construction; and

Whereas the American Institute of Architects has adopted the targets of “The 2030 Challenge”, establishing the national goal of immediately reducing “site” fossil fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions in new buildings and major renovations by 50%, and continually improving energy performance so buildings constructed in 2030 will be carbon neutral; and

Whereas the Town of Chapel Hill has agreed with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to jointly participate in a carbon reduction program;

Therefore, be it resolved that the Orange County Democratic Party calls upon the Town of Chapel Hill to recognize the imperative of immediately addressing climate change through the buildings built within the Town by taking all necessary steps to insure that all new buildings, major renovations and additions be required to consume 50% less fossil fuel energy than is typically consumed.

Further, in order to mitigate the impacts of climate change associated with the operation of buildings and to reduce greenhouse gas levels to those experienced in 1990, we additionally call upon the Town of Chapel Hill to require the improvement in the energy and water efficiency of our building designs at the following rates until, in 2030, our buildings consume only site-generated and/or purchased renewable energy.

Years % reduction in non-renewable energy
2007 – 2010 50%
2010 – 2015 60%
2015 – 2020 70%
2020 – 2025 80%
2025 – 2030 90%
2030+ 100%

For a Council that appears to be incapable of managing its own environmental concerns, the AIA 2030 challenge might be too much of a stretch.

I hope that I’m wrong and that they’ll rise to the challenge.

ChapelHill, Downtown, EconomicDevelopment, LocalPolitics, Ruminations

Downtown Development: Feb. 12th Citizen Comment

Leave a comment

Endorsing the flawed deal:





Anita Badrock Chapel Hill/Carrboro Chamber of Commerce


Criticizing the misbegotten proposal:





Andrea Rohrbacher former Council candidate, Chair of the Downtown Partnership, representing the Sierra Club.




Francis Henry downtown business owner, longtime resident of Chapel Hill.




Jean Brown Chapel Hill/Carrboro school advocate




Tom Henkel Long time resident, brilliant alternative energy consultant.




Mike Collins leader of Neighborhoods for Responsible Growth




Joyce Brown Environmental activist, former Council member.




WillR of Citizen Will.

ChapelHill, Community, Downtown, Elections, environment

Godzilla vs. Bambi::RAM Development and Chapel Hill

Leave a comment

If I worked for RAM Development, I’d be dancing quite a jig this evening.

Not only have they negotiated the sweetest of deals – their own publicly underwritten Downtown tower of wealth – they’ve gotten the friendliest of non-reviews by the majority of Council.

Maybe folks will like “rah rah” growth RAM Development style. If so, they’ll be pleased to see that they’re geared up for Phase III:

CHAPEL HILL – Ram Development Co. is moving forward with two projects at the intersection of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Weaver Dairy Road.

On Feb. 21, Ram will go before the town’s Community Design Commission with plans totaling about 130,000 square feet on either side of MLK Boulevard.

The first project, called MLK at Westminster, proposes 48 condos, two banks and a 22,000-square-foot office and retail building on the west side of MLK at the edge of the Northwoods neighborhood.

The second project would include a 16,000-square-foot Walgreen’s drug store and a 22,000-square-foot office and retail building on the east side of MLK near Timberlyne Shopping Center.

N&O Feb. 9th, 2007

Is it really “MLK at Westminster”? That surely sounds, ummm, bland? Safe? White?

What happened to Phase II?

That’s Hillsborough 425 – the 335 pricey condos replacing the existing 111 affordable apartments.

So, for those keeping score, RAM Development now has 4 on-going projects before the current Council.

ChapelHill, Community, Downtown, EconomicDevelopment, environment, Government

RAM’s VP Casey Cummings – The Sixth Beatle?

Leave a comment

Is RAM Development’s Casey Cummings the sixth Beatle?

I’ll have to wait until tomorrow to get some video snippets (wish the Town was streaming video!) to get direct confirmation but it sure seemed like he was comfortable jumping up to the podium sans a request of Council.

I’m not quite sure the propriety of his hard charging rebuttals but I have seen the Mayor spank folks for making unbidden comments outside the normal time for testimony.

Heck, I wish I had had the opportunity to publicly cross-examine his assertions but I bit my tongue and chose to respond via the ‘blog.

Others commented on Cummings ease breaking convention in responding to Jim Ward – and seemed shocked that the Mayor didn’t rein him in.

I’m not surprised. With tonight’s vote, it’s clear that the Council has tilted away from the citizens and towards their partner – that in a sense they’ve been co-opted (though I still think it falls short of one person’s claim that they’ve succumbed to Stockholm Syndrome ) .

Given how difficult it was for me to see Foy’s, Kleinschmidt’s, Strom’s and Greene’s defense of RAM’s tipsy-turvy assertions, maybe, from Cumming’s side, their performance was emboldening.

The bar has been lowered. The door is opened. The precedent is set.

Campaign, ChapelHill, CitizenWill, Downtown, environment, LocalPolitics

Downtown Development Intiative: Thank you Sir, May I Have Another?

Leave a comment

I missed the exact vote but the Council has not only authorized the Lot #5 development but put it on a fast-track.

Talk about compounding a mistake. What’s clear, especially after this evening, is the bulk of Council does not comprehend the consequences of their decision. From my understanding, the SUP (special use permit) gives the Council little leverage to modify building requirements peripheral to the issues specified in the SUP.

To wit, any leverage to mitigate the hazardous waste liability, to make the %20 ASHRAE and AIA 2030 energy goals requirements, is gone.

Below is the liability language Laurin Easthom and Jim Ward referred to:

3.5 Town’s Obligation to Remediate.

In the event that any Hazardous Substance is found on Lot 5, the Town shall be responsible for adopting a remediation plan reasonably acceptable to Developer and the Town’s environmental engineer to remediate such Hazardous Substances in accordance with Environmental Laws. The parties agree that any remediation required will be undertaken by the Developer on behalf of the Town and the Town will reimburse the Developer for the actual cost thereof or, at Developer’s option, the Town will pay such cost on a direct basis, it being agreed that the Developer has no obligation to fund on an advanced basis the Town’s Remediation Cost. For purposes hereof the actual cost of the remediation shall be the incremental increase in construction costs directly relating to any required remediation (the “Town’s Remediation Cost.”) For example, in the event that the soil on Lot 5 is contaminated by a Hazardous Substance and must be removed, the cost of any excavation to remove the same shall not be treated as a remediation cost allocable to the Town if such excavation was otherwise required in connection with the construction of the Project.

However, if the soil excavated and removed must be treated under the remediation plan, then the cost of such treatment (but not the excavation) shall be borne by the Town. The Developer shall submit to the Town on a monthly basis the cost associated with any required remediation and the Town shall reimburse the Developer therefore, or pay such costs on a direct basis, within thirty (30) days of the receipt of an invoice.

Page 27, January Agreement

Prepare to bend over Chapel Hill.

ChapelHill, Downtown, EconomicDevelopment, environment, Government

Downtown Development Intiative: Easthom, Ward on Hazardous Waste Liability

Leave a comment

Live ‘blogged from hearing:

Laurin Easthom picked up on a point that I didn’t have time to speak to this round: hazardous material remediation.

It’s incredible that a hazardous waste assay hasn’t been done on a piece a property that is known to have had oil and gasoline exposures. Back in the ’80s I used to do environmental assays of just such properties. The cost was quite modest, moreso considering the heightened risk entailed by this site.

As Laurin pointed out, the taxpayers will eat the open-ended cost of remediation – now, as the project starts, instead of later. So, one hit on tainted soil in 2007 could cost the Town’s taxpayers $2-3 or more million.

Where’s the due diligence? This is symptomatic of the gaps opened up during the negotiation process.

Now Jim Ward has jumped in on the hazardous waste issue adding that remediation is more than soil removal. Volatilization of the chemicals could require long term pumping strategies. As Jim said “I’m not ready for an open ended commitment”.

Jim calls RAM’s Casey Cummings out on the energy commitment language in this agreement – “don’t we already know what your answer is?” Jim Ward wants the language struck as a farce – non-sensical given RAM’s VP Casey Cummings rather stern declaration that they won’t do more.

Mayor Foy tries to defend RAM Development’s language – saying, incredibly, “it’s not like they will just change the numbers”. This with a project that has lost half of its putative purpose while increasing required public expenditures 15-fold. Tomorrow’s video clips hopefully will capture Foy’s strange defense.

Jim Ward jumps in with a valiant defense – and makes the excellent point that they’re leaving a tremendous legacy – a poor legacy if they let the project go forward.

Later on:

Foy suggests there should be some give and take – more negotiating but RAM has already squeezed an incredible deal out of Council. Trading more elements away makes a tragic mess worse. My review of the negotiating process convinced me that our Council members compromised all the promise of this project away while RAM gets to pickup a bigger and bigger payday.

Sally Greene jumps in bolstering RAM’s VP Casey Cumming’s suggestion that they don’t spend $200K on a consultant to verify LEED compliance but on actual energy improvements. The problem? RAM’s credibility on delivering to target has been tarnished by their recent history. Reagan’s “trust, but verify” comes into play here. How, other than measuring the compliance, do we know we hit ASHRAE’s targets?

No reason to ask for compliance if it isn’t measured?

RAM’s VP Casey Cumming’s wants to move on to the SUP as the gatekeeper. Ralph Karpinos, the Town’s Attorney, points out that the SUP concerns itself only with LUMO (land use ordinance) variations and not energy/environmental concerns.

The Council, if the plan to “walk the talk” needs to stop the process tonight.

Dang! It’s tough watching Foy, Strom, Greene and Kleinschmidt work so hard on RAM’s behalf. Of course, Bill and Mark, using strategy to push through the proposal, were quick to move the resolution.

Hill and Thorpe are still out.

Right before the vote, Jim presses again on the hazardous waste liability. Karpinos says our only recourse is to default on the agreement and take our chances in court. In other words, the risk – which seems quite high given the prior use of this property – is passed on to the taxpayer.

Basically, RAM can sue the Town to move the project forward EVEN if the Town determines the cost of hazardous waste remediation isn’t tenable. The developer, RAM in this case, holds all the cards… The Town’s additional counsel says we have to go forward no matter what “damned if we do, dammed if we don’t”.

Would the “rah rah” folks pushing this broken deal be so jubilant if we don’t have the money to do social program improvements or couldn’t build the new pool complex, etc.

The counsel says the second environmental assay was unsanctioned and that there was a “smell of gas”.