Tag Archives: EconomicDevelopment

ChapelHill, CivilLiberties, Community, Development, EconomicDevelopment, Government, Media, MunicipalNetworking, Ruminations, Technology

Community Networking: Profiting from Poor Leadership Clearwire Gains a Toe-hold

Leave a comment

Profiting from Council’s continued inability to craft effective technology policy, Clearwire, a wireless Internet service provider utilizing proprietary spectrum, has gained a toe-hold in our community.

These days, it’s hard to imagine getting through high school without the Internet.

However, there are at least 100 students at East Chapel Hill High School whose families cannot afford the service.

This number is a big concern for Ginny Guilfoile, East Chapel Hill’s Parent Teacher Student Association president who started a program to provide loaner computers and Internet access for students in need.

“I thought, how would it be if my kid didn’t have a computer,” Guilfoile said. “I knew there were kids that could not keep up with the other kids at East without the Internet.”
…
The district’s Information Technology Division was able to form a partnership with Clearwire, a high-speed wireless Internet provider.

Ray Reitz, the district’s chief technology officer, explained that by using Clearwire, the need for costly land-line phones or cable is eliminated.

“The cost of Internet access has been the main obstacle. The Clearwire solution is a completely wireless solution,” Reitz said.

Daily Tar Heel, Feb. 28th, 2007

Long time readers know how I’ve promoted the development of a community-owned network to stimulate economic development, bridge the digital divide and increase Town’s operational efficiency.

Councilmember Laurin Easthom has been the only elective leader to-date promoting the cost effective and tactical deployment of this “must have” infrastructure.

“Must have”? Yes, to compete effectively in the global marketplace we need to invest a modest amount in technological infrastructure.

Rider said she has received very positive feedback from the 42 students to whom the program has provided Internet access so far.

“One student told me the quality of her work improved because she had time in between going to school and working on assignments,” Rider said. “Basically they all talk about the same thing – how it was very hard to do their work and how much easier it is right now.”

Guilfoile said that although the program has been successful this year, the PTSA might not be able to sustain the funds needed to continue it unless they find a long-term source for funding.

Only 42 students now out of 100 alone at East covered by the $15,000 in grant money.

What of all the other students and residents within Town that are cut-off from the new Town Commons?

Free access to both information and information infrastructure is critical for our community’s success.

Recently, local activist Ellen Perry pointed out in a thread on OrangePolitics the problem the homeless have when cut-off from communication:

has any one ever thought about helping these folks get social security and a post office box so they could start to help themselves . if people dont have anywhere to get there mail its hard to start to get a check or a medicaid card or food stamps or apply for any of the stuff people have when they have a home.

As last week’s Independent headlined (Bridging the divide
Techies across the Triangle are finding ways to connect people around the world), more and more services are being directed and delivered via the ‘net.

For a community that prides itself on social justice and intellectual prowess, the continuing failure to bridge the gap is inexcusable.

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…

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, 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.

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”.

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.