Tag Archives: Downtown

ChapelHill, Community, Downtown, EconomicDevelopment

Downtown Development Intiative: Feb. 12th’s Comments

Leave a comment

Tonight’s vote is not about whether Chapel Hill is a town or a city or whether we need to vitalize Downtown or not. We know that Downtown needs help.

Tonight’s vote is simply about whether the RAM proposal is a good deal for the town’s citizens – both now and in the future….

After reviewing January’s proposal, reading 100’s of pages of confidential minutes, listening to hours of confidential negotiations, rereading all the published material on this project, it is quite clear that this is a
broken deal.

There are so many reasons to turn this deal down, so many, I’ll mention just a few:

Affordable housing is important in our community but affordable housing at any cost is not a good deal.

What kind of precedent does this community set when we spend $7.5 million housing cars at this facility and give property worth millions dollars to a developer so he can build million dollar condos – all so we can get 21 small units?

Council says that these units are sufficient for families but that assessment has not really been made. We don’t know the economic viability of units where folks have to park off-site when their neighbors don’t…. Or can only park between 6pm and 6am. How family friendly is that?

And the %1.5 condo fee cap sounds so alluring but it makes up a significant chunk of qualifying tenants monthly income.

The $7.5 million would be better invested in strengthening existing neighborhoods and building affordable housing units more akin to what we KNOW our citizens desire.

Council continues to celebrate the %1 Art funding going to an out-of-state artist for a centerpiece who’s public usage has not been clearly defined. Nearly a year after I first asked, I still don’t know if my 10 year-old son or his friends will be trespassed off the property for dangling their feet in the fountain.

And why is it that the lions share of this public investment isn’t going to structural improvements in our local art’s scene? Why not provide an on-site arts space? For that matter, why aren’t the taxpayers getting on-site play structures, public bathrooms, drinking fountains.

The pretense that this development improves our transit picture is disturbing.

Without sufficient walkable living infrastructure – grocery stores, parks, schools, jobs – the tenants of this building will inevitably make car trips – maybe as many as a typical resident.

Why no anchoring grocery store? Why no commercial office space for jobs? And why no discussion of incorporating the planned Downtown transit transfer station?

LEED certification is a minimal requirement for today’s sustainable buildings. The lack of a firm commitment for energy reductions in the design and operation of this building is just not acceptable. We know, with better accuracy than RAM showed in forecasting construction cost increases, the trend line for energy costs is only up. Energy efficiency is more than saving money – it is about doing the right thing.

How will Chapel Hill claim moral leadership on environmental issues when our Council approved, financed, built an environmentally sub-par project?

Approval of the initial stages of Carolina North is coming soon. How can our Council demand the highest caliber of environmentally sound development from UNC when they won’t practice what they preach?

You need to walk the talk…

As Council member Kleinschmidt asked, without the carrot of Lot #5, can we ever get a good deal on re-development of Wallace Deck? You know the answer – it will be from difficult to nearly impossible. Will we have to sell the Wallace Deck to get redevelopment? My guess is yes.

Finally, what about the pure bread-n-butter of paying for this project?

Tonight’s coversheet claims we will see significant property and other tax revenues. It also claims a %43 increase in parking revenue. Yet, as we’ve seen, just over the last 9 months, this projects economic projections have been seriously flawed – flawed to the point of losing half the original projects scope. Add to that the public investment increasing 15-fold. Where is the business-like certainty? What proof the return on public investment exceeds the cost of services?

This is a broken project. If Council approves it, please, please, don’t expedite the special use permit.

The public is still coming to terms with the wild shifts in this projects scope and cost – please give them the courtesy of a reasonable time to review what will be the most significant public investment of the next decade.

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

The Sad Story of Council’s Downtown Development Initiative

Leave a comment

They say, the story is buried in the details.

After reviewing hundreds of pages of confidential documents and listening to hours of ridiculously poor audio recordings of confidential meetings, I can, sadly, stand by my public assertions that the private-public Lot #5 development Council will most probably be thrusting upon us this evening is a terribly flawed beast.

By now, Council should realize that a re-think is in order. But I doubt that will happen….

Yes, it looks like Chapel Hill’s citizens are going to underwrite the development of million dollar condos, lose its moral leadership to criticize other environmentally poor initiatives, set the sub-standard for a new downtown development cycle that will create concrete canyons quashing the charm of our unique berg.

Like dumping a gallon of perfume in a reeking cesspool, the latest “updated” proposal does little to cover the stench that has settled about “the plan”.

RAM Development, directly, and Council, as I expect with tonight’s acquiescence, has no will to ameliorate the vast negative fiscal, environmental, social and political consequences of earlier versions of this plan.

Worse yet, instead of giving the public ample opportunity to review and reflect, the Council is voting to expedite the SUP (special use permit) to rush their development partner’s application through. Beyond the propriety of granting special favors to ones development partner, the problem of public participation has been swept to the side.

“Ahhh, Will, but the public has been given plenty of opportunity”. What a crock. The deal Council is voting on tonight runs to 160 pages – the public record thousands – yet the Council, generally, has made little attempt to integrate a broad perspective ala the NCD (neighborhood conservation district) process – to draw in to the process all the citizens of Chapel Hill.

We’ve heard quite a bit of enthusiasm from those that stand to gain from this precipitous decision. The developers – who benefit from Council’s ill-conceived direction. Those great social champions who want to broaden our affordable housing stock – but, in this case, at too steep a cost. Those that stand to make tons of bucks from the wealthy inhabitants of the publicly underwritten rooftop villas.

Why hasn’t Council tried to build a broader context around this development? Why didn’t they start a conversation with the wider public – the same public that will be picking up the tab for this mess – months ago?

Why? Because a measured assessment of this project, as currently constituted, by the public, would ring its death knell.

And for those Council members caught up in this “rah rah” – “do something, do anything” – atmosphere engendered by folks standing to win big by big, big, big development – that is unacceptable.

ChapelHill, CitizenWill, Downtown, EconomicDevelopment, LocalPolitics, Ruminations

Downtown Development: RAM’s VP Cummings’ Smackdown

4 Comments

Ouch! Obviously stung by Council member Jim Wards comment about “switch-n-baiting”, RAM Development’s VP Casey Cummings delivered a death blow to Council’s request for affordable condo fees for the affordable housing units and a commitment to energy efficiency.



[MOVIE]

Both requests seem quite reasonable.

What use is it for the Land Trust to “sell” a condo to an affordable housing applicant just to have them priced out by condo and parking fees?

On the energy front, as former OWASA board member Terri Buckner notes over on OrangePolitics

Not a single citizen speaking at last night’s hearing or at the first public hearing on Lot 5 challenged the Council to ensure energy efficiency. There seemed to be an assumption that “LEED certified” means the development will be energy efficient. However, LEED certified is the lowest level of LEED and even at Platinum status there is no assurance that a LEED building will be energy efficient. To get around that problem, the state of North Carolina has adopted ASHRAE 90.1 for all state constructed buildings.

Chapel Hill is not willing to meet the same requirements as NC State? Dang, we usually lead the State in environmental initiative.

As far as “bait-n-switch”, RAM was challenged last year on their original rosy financial projections. Were they knowingly over promising expecting to under deliver to get the deal?

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

Town investment up 15-fold. Value of the property discounted. Property moving from public to private hands. I understand Jim Wards sentiments.

Downtown, EconomicDevelopment, environment, Government, LocalPolitics, Ruminations

The Chickens Have Roosted: Council’s Environmental Credibility Gap

Leave a comment

We lost that argument when we passed parking lot#5 as designed.

One of the chief criticisms of the new Downtown Development Initiative (DDI) is that the Lot 5 building is setting a poor precedent for what is yet to come…


[MOVIE]

Councilmember Jim Ward tried to put the brakes on Council’s pellmell acceptance of “the new deal”. Failing that, he went ahead and proffered a friendly amendment to not only require LEED Silver certification but to meet NC State’s governmental building standards with the ASHRAE 90.1 %20 energy efficiency requirement.

Councilmembers Strom and Kleinschmidt, working against character and on behalf of “the deal”, watered down Jim’s request leaving RAM Development’s VP Cummings to deliver the final smack-down.

In spite of those environmental, financial and social concerns, Council went ahead and approved the next, and probably final, stage of the project.

Not more than an hour later, during a discussion of UNC’s requested modifications to their development plan #3, Chapel Hill Councilmember Jim Ward aptly describe the fallout from setting that precedent.

Now is not the time, it was about three agenda items ago was the time. You just..and others…just said fine with parking lot #5, which is going to have no energy savings. I think we lose our credibility when we pass that and say, “you guys have to do better than us” but our project is fine – it’s so SOP [standard operating procedure].

I don’t think we have any credibility…put your money where your mouth is…

We lost that argument when we passed parking lot#5 as designed.

Thanks Jim, I know it was tough getting crushed by the Lot 5 Jagannath.

ChapelHill, Downtown, EconomicDevelopment, Ruminations

Downtown Development: Steamrolled by Jagannath

Leave a comment

I went to this evening’s Council meeting fully expecting to be steamrolled.

Yes, the negotiation team has worked years on “a deal” but not “the deal”. Since Nov. 20th, no real new details have been forthcoming.

I’ll be posting the video of tonight’s action tomorrow, so I’ll reserve detailed critiques until then…

Just a few quick comments, then:

  • Jim Ward’s description of how his “love was lost”, switch-n-bait and his solid reasons for opposition
  • Bill Strom and Mark Kleinschmidt watering down an amendment to the resolution to hold the the Town and its partner, RAM development, to the same energy efficiency requirements as we’re asking UNC to…
  • Laurin Easthom’s itemized list and request for specificity. Other Council members “response” to her request…
  • RAM’s VP Cummings shooting down reasonable condo fees for affordable housing and Leeds Silver + %20 energy efficiency
  • Mark K.’s remarks that paying reduced fees will make folks feel like second class citizens. Heck, if I made the commitment to move my family into a 850′ unit in what will generally be an expensive place to live, I’d be happy to deal with the tension of paying affordable condo fees.
  • The comment that the negotiations haven’t been rushed. True enough. Rushed has been the education and time for citizens to digest this radical right turn.

This is the first major issue I’ve come out against folks – Cam, Sally, Bill – that I’ve strongly endorsed in the past. The experience has been interesting….

For anyone interested, here’s the latest datasets for my Powerpoint (ugh!) presentation:

I’ve already tweaked the elevations again in GE using altitude. I believe I’m either going to have to go back to 3DS to fine tune the data or import the same topology that the model was developed against into GoogleEarth (GE).

I believe the Planning Department (Gordon Sutherland and company) might have better models of Granville Towers. Mine are envelopes of the actual structure, height based on the testimony of RAM’s designer (who provide comparable elevations for Granville, University Square, NCNB Plaza).

Also, I understand that the Mar. 2006 RAM Development Planning documents included a 3DS model of their development. When I get my hands on that, I’ll go ahead and update the Downtown.

Please feel free to use the material. If you should get the topology %100 before I do, please send me a copy ( campaign AT willraymond.org ).

ChapelHill, CitizenWill, Community, Downtown, LocalPolitics, Ruminations

Out-Foxed Chapel Hill Style

Leave a comment

The Downtown Development Initiative is a steamroller (in more ways then one). Check out this summary of comments from Nov. 20th’s public hearing. A little light and less nuanced than the opposition comments I recall. Good thing there’s a video record on-line.

So why introduce the following bias?

Potential Advantages of the Project

-Mixed use adds life to downtown
-Residents downtown year-round desirable
-Will stimulate other private development
-Residential development is the key to revitalization
-Will visit cultural facilities, businesses, increase tourist dollars
-Need diversity of pubic spaces and flexibility for uses
-Proposal could be a model for other developers
-Project embodies sustainability principles: economic, environmental, social
-Improves quality of life
-Reduces dependence on automobile
-Improves ability to work where live
-Helps prevent sprawl and retain rural buffer
-Removes surface parking
-Provides significant public open space
-Improves tax base
-Commend LEED certification and energy efficiency
-Improves public safety downtown
-Provides affordable housing
-Consistent with Downtown Small Area Plan
-Is right place for a taller building
-Downtown needs a multiple use center to attract people
-Quality of the design is high
-Public art will be center stage
-Supports vibrant, walkable, liveable community
-Economically a good deal for the Town
-Indirect public benefits make deal even better
-It is the right place for the project; keeps out of neighborhoods
-Will provide more people downtown to sustain retail downtown uses
-If we want to retain the rural buffer, we need more density in Town of Chapel Hill
-Thanks for keeping the affordable housing in the proposal

Concerns Noted Regarding the Project

-Make design fit in with Chapel Hill
-Financial risk too great for the Town
-Wrong place for this development; put in neighborhoods?
-Ruins spirit of Chapel Hill
-Principle of revenue neutral investment not being met
-Take more time to consider project
-Latest “magic bullet” that will not improve quality of life
-Will units be quiet and have firewall construction?
-Will it be family housing?
-Incorporate solar technology and be a model for energy conservation
-Is commitment to local businesses being met?
-What happens if the developer goes bankrupt?
-99-year lease is too long
-Buyout of rights in 50 years could be a concern for Town down the road
-Make sure underground parking is well-lit
-Make sure condominium association dues are reasonable for the affordable units

ChapelHill, CitizenWill, Downtown, EconomicDevelopment, LocalPolitics, Ruminations

Downtown Development: Easthom’s questions, questions, questions…

Leave a comment

More questions about the Town’s and RAM’s Lot 5 development (DDI) plan?

Well, there’s been a dearth of specifics, so there should be a wealth of questions.

Add to the throng of “those who want to know” Council member Laurin Easthom.

With tonight’s pre-vote presentation on DDI looming (not a public forum)), Easthom weighs in with her questions in what is the most public analysis by one of our elected officials of the “new” RAM development deal.

She’s not against development but is looking for solid answers to questions that should’ve been answered over the days since Nov. 20th:

There undoubtedly has been much written and discussed about the redevelopment of Parking Lot Number 5. Here are my feelings. I think that redevelopment of this site for residential and commercial use is important for being an impetus for more good redevelopment downtown in the future.

More here.

The Town’s stale site (as of 12/04/06) on the Downtown Development Initiative (DDI).

ChapelHill, CitizenWill, Downtown, EconomicDevelopment, Government, Ruminations

Downtown Development Initiative: A Few New Perspectives

2 Comments

Lot #5 Downtown Development RAM building design based on Nov. 20th public hearing proposal . The model is in proportion and the proper height. It wasn’t until I laid out the model that I realized how large a beast we have here…


Looking North towards Lot 5 Dec2


Lot 5 Hovering above Baptist Church Steeple Dec2


Continue reading Downtown Development Initiative: A Few New Perspectives →

ChapelHill, Downtown, Government, LocalPolitics, Ruminations

Downtown Development Initiative: Our Fair City Before Lot #5

1 Comment

Making some progress on a GoogleEarth visualization of downtown.


Here’s some data if you want to either visualize Chapel Hill within GoogleEarth or want to start fresh with a re-import. Small caveat on the GoogleEarth import – don’t turn on the terrain as I still need to tweak the elevations to get the right output.

If anyone manages to adjust the terrain before Sunday, please consider routing the changes back my way….

Tools:

Data:

Hope to have Granville Towers and RAM’s Lot 5 proposal by Sunday. And, with any luck, a decent flyby to demonstrate the visual impact of the 104′ leviathan.

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

Downtown Development Initiative: Search for Wholesome Goodness Continues…

1 Comment

I believed the Town’s web site covering the Downtown Development Initiative would be updated after Nov. 20th’s public forum. After ten days, I finally sent in a formal request.

Here is Town Manager Stancil’s response:

Dear Mr. Raymond:

Thank you for our email message at 10:49 am on Dec. 1 to the Manager, Mayor and Town Council in which you requested that we “publish the remaining reports, discussions notes, comments, etc. that went into forming the “new deal” over the Summer”.

To the extent that there are documents related to the negotiations that took place this past summer which are public records under North Carolina law, we will be pleased to make them available for copying.

We are in the process of reviewing the staff files to determine what materials are public records and can now be released. However, it will not be possible to complete this work and determine what documents can be provided until next week.

Your message also states that “the final deal is set and the public still doesn’t have those details.” As the Agenda materials for the Council’s Dec. 4 meeting indicate, the Council is being asked to consider whether to authorize the completion of a Development Agreement to be brought back for the Council’s consideration in early 2007.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Roger Stancil

Town Manager

Thank you Roger for getting back before close of business.

CitizenWill readers, I apologize for not moving more quickly on my request for further information.

AffordableHousing, ChapelHill, CitizenWill, Community, Downtown, EconomicDevelopment, Ruminations

Downtown Development Initiative: Where’s the beef?

Leave a comment

[UPDATE]

How could the negotiations team done a better job informing the public throughout the process?

Here’s two examples from Greensboro’s District 5 Council member Sandy Carmany covering their coliseum issues, this one from a year ago and this one from November.

Sure, she wasn’t hampered by reporting on material potentially shielded under NC’s open meetings laws, but, then again, not every decision or thought process going into RAM’s “new” deal was by necessity shielded.

The only Council member directly involved in the negotiations, Sally Greene, has done the best informing the public of her thinking process on Lot 5 though nothing I read prepared me for such a right turn.

Original post:

Council had an excellent opportunity over the last week to answer the critics of the new Downtown Development Initiative Lot #5 deal.

Over the Summer, the public’s investment in the deal ballooned 15-fold, from $500K to north of $7.2M (with additional revenue hits, etc.). The Wallace Deck portion excised. Public space diminished. Boutique shops up, affordable commercial space missing. $385-$415 per square foot property, slated, as one critic pointed out, probably for affluent student housing.

What, over the Summer, caused the deal to change so radically for what I, other downtown business folks, two Kenan-Flager business school professors and many other concerned citizens consider the worse?

Council could’ve released more information – to provide a solid foundation for the public’s understanding of “the deal”. I’ve followed this deal quite closely. I agreed to “bite my tongue”. to not criticize the problematic elements of the original deal, to wait on the “new deal” which would correct the more egregious of the public’s concerns.

I’ve spent hours trying to pull together all the whispers, hints, etc. that incidentally wafted the public’s direction over the course of the Summer. But what I have is not enough.

The Council has the responsibility and obligation to fully disclose the details, to the fullest extent
allowed by law, of this deal.

Mr. Manager, Mayor and Town Council,

Thank you for being more timely this week and publishing the RAM development agenda item before close of business. Unfortunately, the agenda item is fairly light on the background of the “new deal”.

Would you please publish the remaining reports, discussions notes, comments, etc. that went into forming the “new deal” over the Summer?

I know that there’s some legal issues involved in releasing all of the notes – legal issues that will become moot after you sign the deal – so I’m not asking for ALL the information now (though I will be exercising a citizen’s FOIA prerogative ASAP).

I’m asking that you release everything you can prior to the meeting, including information not protected under the confidentially agreement but also not,to date, publicly disseminated.

For instance, would you please provide details of your consultations with the Local Government Commission (LGC) on financing?

This would include notes, reports, detailed analysis, etc. Please be thorough in your disclosures.

I’m interested in the LGC’s take on leveraging the secured debt, effect on our town’s debt ratings, thoughts on the quoted interest rate, etc. Essentially, I imagine, the same kind of financial analysis that a private business uses in evaluating the risk-rewards of taking on debt.

Finally, the main conduit for publishing this data has been the DDI website which hasn’t been updated since Spring. I’ve asked the Council to update the information on the RAM deal in a timely fashion. Several folks told me to “hold my horses”, that I needed to wait until the “final” deal was set.

Well, the final deal is set and the public still doesn’t have those details. I was hoping that this issue would be addressed over the last 9 days but it hasn’t.

The public has one weekend to review these critical additional details.

Please, if you can’t update the website, then submit them to the citizenry directly. If emailing or providing paper copies is easier, that’s fine.

I’ll make sure they get into the public domain over the weekend.

Thank you for your prompt attention,

Will Raymond

AffordableHousing, ChapelHill, CitizenWill, Downtown, EconomicDevelopment, Ruminations

Chapel Hill Downtown Development Initiative: The Debate

3 Comments

Posted these individual citizen comments from the Nov. 20th Public Hearing on the Downtown Development