Tag Archives: environment

CarolinaNorth, ChapelHill, CitizenWill, environment, Government, LocalPolitics, Ruminations, UNC

Carolina North: Evans Conducting an Intellectual Exercise?

Leave a comment

“the book says, we might be through with the past, but the past ain’t through with us.”

Dr. Bergen Evans, The Natural History of Nonsense as bowdlerdized in the fantastic movie Magnolia

UNC’s current Moeser administration likes to announce major modifications to their developmental plans and strategies either in the deep doldrums of summer or the chilly recesses of winter. True to form, the administration and Board of Trustees modified their stance on the current collaborative process, embodied by the UNC Leadership Advisory Committee, while our community took their summer break

Starting out at May 26th’s board meeting, a couple UNC-CH Trustees unleashed a few impolitic bon mots:

“I think what the town should interpret out of that is there is a very strong sense of urgency about Carolina North and it is time to deal with Carolina North..The time for talking about it and trying to build consensus is coming to an end.”

Trustee and local developer Roger Perry, N&O, May 26th, 2006

This precipitous expression of irritation from local land baron Perry came after just a handful of LAC meetings. Trying to avoid the same kind of historical missteps UNC has made with previous community outreach efforts, the LAC spent those meetings establishing groundrules, process and goals. Luckily the talk continued. As of today (Aug. 20th), the LAC, after relevant discussions, has accepted a number of key principles created by Chapel Hill’s recently disbanded Horace-Williams Citizens Committee (of which I was a member – of which I believe had much more work to perform).

“I believe the voices that choose to be the greatest obstacles to this at the moment will be the voices that have the least impact, in the end, I believe it will be taken from our hands at some point by the leadership of this state.”

Trustee Rusty Carter, Herald Sun, May 26th, 2006

Carter’s remark echoes Senator Tony Rand’s 2001 threat to remove Chapel Hill’s zoning authority over the University. Beyond zoning, the town has very limited means to corral University developmental malfeasance. Even with it, the town could barely mitigate travesties like UNC’s encroachments upon the Mason Farm Road neighborhoods.

“It is our intention to move forward with the momentum of Carolina North…We would like to see this committee be a very active part of it, but if they choose to spend the next year not arriving at any definitive parameters, we are going to continue our momentum. That’s not out of any sense of animosity; it’s out of a sense of practicality and obligation.”

Trustee Rusty Carter, June 1st, 2006 Daily Tar Heel

What’s missing, for Carter and some of his fellow trustees, it appears is BIG MO! Wasn’t BIG MO coined to describe the momentum football teams need to build up to crush their opponents?

Chancellor Moeser recently appointed Dean Jack Evans, husband of 10-year veteran council member Pat Evans, to a two-year, $208,210 per year, position as “quarterback” to drive the Carolina North project forward:

“What we need, and what we have in Jack Evans is a quarterback, someone who will be calling the signals, actually planning and coordinating the planning of all of our team — leading that team to make sure that this project continues to move forward,” Moeser said today.

Chancellor Moeser, N&O July 27, 2006

With the selection of his new quarterback Moeser signalled a change of strategy.

Two teams now: offense – heavyweight UNC and defense – the local, as Moeser says, “wary” community.
Evans, former Dean of UNC’s Kenan-Flagler business-plex – current representative to the NCAA/ACC, will earn his pay pushing for completion of a project whose underpinnings and goals are suspect.

And he’ll be hellbent to do it.

“Whether or not it’s Jack Evans in this role or somebody else, there is a role for someone to state the urgency and importance of this…”

I understand the importance, the Mayor and Council understand the importance, the folks “wary” of the direction of this project, all of us, understand the importance of this project.

Many of us will be living with and, as NC taxpayers, paying for, the consequences of Evans’ two years of quarterbacking for decades to come. Our concern is not born of ignorance of the project’s greater importance to the wider fortunes of our State but of a healthy respect for the adage that “Haste makes waste” and the waste it will make is of our cherished town.

Time to put away the plaintive wail that the citizens of our communities DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE of the Carolina North project. This continued claim, quite frankly, is pure-T, grade-A horse shit.

What does Evans think of the current process? Last May he suggested the strong possibility that the effort will end up accomplishing nada:

Evans said he saw two possible scenarios from what Strom was saying. In the first, the committee reviews the list of principles to find those principles on which there is disagreement. After discussion of those disagreements, the committee will find those areas that may not be able to be reconciled, if there are any. Under the second scenario, the committee would merely identify those areas of disagreement without attempting to remedy them. “I hope that is not what we are doing,” Evans said. If that is the case, he said, the committee would merely be conducting an “intellectual exercise” without any real promise of accomplishing anything.

Dean Jack Evans, UNC Gazette, May 06, 2006

The town’s representatives and the Mayor has always made it clear that their participation was not a negotiation but a dialogue (more like multi-logue considering the 4 sets of representatives). Unfortunately, it looks like the LAC’s efforts are being superseded by the new “offense”.

Is it going to be “50 yards to the goal line – hard-charging Jack, his band of trusty trustees, pressing forward – crushing the weak defense”? Hard to say.

Beyond what happened over the summer, there’s Evans’ recent letters and this week’s LAC meeting (August 24, 2006, at 4 p.m. in the Redbud Room of the Friday Center) to help deconstruct Moeser’s tenor.

I’m also trying to wrap my head around Evans’ claim that “the space crunch on the main campus means Carolina North will have to accommodate academic needs.” (Whoa there Trigger! Moeser has always emphasized research and living only, discounting academic usage – which made some sense considering the nearly incredible [and expensive] increase in space on Main Campus since he became Chancellor).

Over the next week, I’ll be ‘blogging a series on CarolinaNorth: Evans’ New Principles, Specifications, Outcomes in an effort to understand and predict UNC’s future directions.

If you can’t wait or wish to do your own analysis, here’s some primary source material:

[UPDATE:]

Evans’ “counter-offer” is a reflection of the proposals on the table – proposals based on the guidelines developed by the Horace-William’s Citizens group (of which I was member). The principles and a schematic chronology of their development is here. (Thanks for the tip Barnes).

environment, Ruminations

This grass is not greener…

Leave a comment

From New Scientist

A nondescript grass discovered in the Oregon countryside is hardly an alien invasion. Yet the plant – a genetically modified form of a grass commonly grown on golf courses – is worrying the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) enough that it is running its first full environmental impact assessment of a GM plant.

It is the first time a GM plant has escaped into the wild in the US, and it has managed it before securing USDA approval. The plant, creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera, carries a bacterial gene that makes it immune to the potent herbicide glyphosate, better known as Roundup.

Immune to Roundup? Essentially, this grass is bio-engineered so you can dump ungodly amounts of herbicide on it without destroying your beautiful fairways. Small problem. Promoting indiscriminate use of Roundup ends up polluting the local environment.

ChapelHill, environment, Government, LocalPolitics, Ruminations

What Price Downtown? Possibly more than you might think…

Leave a comment

To be clear, the $500K direct payment + $7.9 million lease “kickback” ($8.4 million) I ‘blogged on earlier, in spite of what the Mayor affirmed today, is not necessarily fixed in stone.

As reported in July 15th, 2006’s Chapel Hill News article “Project Price Rising”

Council members said they’re open to paying more, though doing so would contradict the “memorandum of understanding” that Chapel Hill and Ram Development Co., the town’s private partner, signed in October.

Whom specifically?

Mayor Pro Tem Bill Strom said he’s willing to discuss increasing the town’s cash contribution to the project.

“Personally, I’m willing to go further depending on what the risks of the project are,” he said last week. “From other town projects that are being bid or built, we know in the last 15 to 16 months that construction costs increased 30 to 35 percent. That’s not speculative; we’re satisfied that’s a fact. So it shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that some elements of the project are going to have to be revisited.”

Councilman Cam Hill said he, too, was open to restructuring the financing.

How might the financing be restructured? Use of often abused TIFs (tax incremental funding) has been suggested.

Some council members, particularly Mark Kleinschmidt, are wary of using this method.

Tax money generated by new development typically goes to pay for services demanded by the project — fire and police protection, for example.

If that money is diverted to pay off debt for a private project, taxpayers will wind up bearing the costs of increased service demands, Kleinschmidt said.

“The truth is, though, as a council member, I’m not absolute on this,” he said. “It’s not a dead letter on my desk. But I think the taxpayers need to be aware of what the truth is about this kind of financial arrangement. I would have to see evidence of significant public support for this.”

So, the financial burden might expand and then shift further onto the citizen’s shoulders.

I respect Bill’s, Mark’s and Cam’s desire to improve downtown. I’ve supported them and their initiatives over many years. I have sided with them on many issues. In this case, though, I think they’ve gotten too close to the project to see that it has “slipped of the rails”.

One example? The predictable request by the developer to rework the financing.

The good news is that all three have rejected an immediate modification of the Memorandum of Understanding for Downtown Economic Development Initiative as originally outlined here.

And, as Cam said here

But the reality is the deal we were attracted to is the deal we want,” he said Friday. “The deal we had was a good deal. I do know I’m not afraid to walk away from it. I’m not wed to building something on Lot 5 to the point of making a deal I don’t like.”

I expect that sentiment is shared by most of the Council. I think the deal, as presently constituted, doesn’t make sense for the community.

Now, what constitutes a deal they don’t like?

ChapelHill, environment, Government, LocalPolitics, Ruminations

What Price Downtown? The Mayor Responds.

Leave a comment

Last week, the Chapel Hill News published a column I wrote (What Price Downtown) on the Chapel Hill’s downtown development project.

Today, Mayor Foy responds in a column titled Town prodeeds cautiously on downtown redevelopment.

Prodeeds, interesting typo ;-).

Before commenting on his response, I’d like to highlight an error in my column that the Mayor pointed out:

Will Raymond implied that the town had spent $4 million on the project. That figure is incorrect; the total cost to the town so far is $600,000.

Absolutely correct. Here’s what I said in my column:

Investing $4 million to date in the effort, the project is nearing the public hearing phase. Clear cut and excavated, my beautiful public space will vanish under the private heel of a looming “soft modernistic” behemoth. Rising nine stories, this disproportionate edifice will distort Franklin Street’s current village-like scale.

In an effort to excise a few words (if you’ve read anything I’ve written you know I can go on a bit) to get below the 750 word CHN limit (a limit I maybe should consider on this ‘blog), I completely torqued the sentence.

What I originally meant was, we’ve spent about $500K (the Mayor says $600K) on the process and we’ll have to belly up another “real” $500K. That, with the “kickback” of the $7.9M 99-year lease value on the properties, adds to $8.4 million in future commitments, $9M total. The $500K for digging a hole in lot #5 is already under dispute.

This is based on the recent town 2005-2006 2nd Quarter Report.

In the proposed Memorandum of Understanding, the developer will pay the Town $7.9 million ($4.75 million for Lot 5 site and $3.15 million for the Wallace Deck site) to lease Town-owned property for 99 years. The Town will pay the developer a fixed amount of $7.9 million for the construction of the Lot 5 parking garage and other Town-owned improvements. The Town also will pay $500,000 to support parking for affordable housing units.

Quite embarrassing. I will, if allowed, make a correction in my next column.

Now, on to the Mayor’s response.

This newspaper recently published letters and a column in which citizens expressed concerns about what has been called the Ram project, a proposal to build multi-story
residential/commercial developments at two town-owned sites in downtown Chapel Hill. I would like to address those concerns, give a general overview of the project, and clear up some inaccuracies.

The Town Council has focused on downtown as a priority because, although it’s good now, we know it can be better. We therefore engaged in a deliberate and thorough planning process for the downtown initiative (located at two sites: Parking Lot 5 and the Wallace Deck).

Plans for private downtown development are already moving quickly, with proposed Greenbridge’s ( 180K/sq. ft., 109 condos, $300K-$400K), Shortbread Lofts ( 165 units, 50 reserved as affordable) and the just completed Rosemary Village (38 condos, $350K-$700K). Do we need to convert citizen-owned assets into privately-held condos before we see the effect these planned buildouts will have on the housing market?

This planning began about five years ago and included citizen workshops, design work sessions, and public meetings. Last year, the council began working with a private developer, Ram Development Company, to bring the plans to fruition. In a July 30 column (“What price downtown?”), Will Raymond implied that the town had spent $4 million on the project. That figure is incorrect; the total cost to the town so far is $600,000.

Aside from cost, however, is the issue of whether the development project should be pursued at all. The Town Council is working on this project because we believe it will enhance downtown as the center of our community. We know that downtowns that have a mix of uses and people who live there are more vibrant than those that don’t. And we also know that a dynamic downtown — with people living, working, and relaxing — leads to a safe downtown.

Unfortunately, the plans for boutique shopping and luxury condos don’t really add to the “mix of uses” we need downtown. The privately-sponsored developments will provide housing and we already have plenty of empty commercial space downtown. Worse, the current proposal doesn’t incorporate an “anchoring” tenant, like a grocery store, that the surrounding community can “center” on. Without a kid-friendly plaza, a strong commitment to retain maximum public use, lot #5 lacks a strong focusing element.

But back to the finances. The council has entered into a memorandum of understanding with Ram, which outlines the basic terms and conditions of the proposed development agreement. Under the memorandum, the town’s cash contribution to the development would be $500,000, which would support the cost of parking for the affordable housing within the development. This amount is the limit of the town’s exposure, in a development that is expected to cost more than $80 million.

However, recent news reports are correct in stating that construction costs have risen so quickly that Ram is not now confident that it can develop the project as first envisioned. That means that the financing issue might have to be revisited and revised. But contrary to the assertions raised in a July 23 letter to the editor (“Town has bad record for paying off builders”), the Town Council has not authorized or encumbered any local property tax revenue for the construction of the development.

Additionally, the letter writer, Ole R. Holsti, criticized the town for its management of school construction and a bridge replacement. The town is not involved in any way with school construction, and the town properly managed the bridge replacement. In fact, the town has an excellent record in its stewardship of public funds.

Mr. Holsti picked some poor targets for criticism but he was on to something when he said “The first step in shaking this reputation is to let Ram Development understand that not an additional penny of tax funds will be forthcoming.” The Mayor did not respond to my concern the TIF (tax incremental funding) has come back into play. Debt issued under TIFs is, in the end, secured by the citizenry. We are exposed to significant liabilities.

The council continues to work on the downtown development. We look forward to hearing citizens’ thoughts as we proceed with the discussions this fall. We are fortunate in Chapel Hill to have citizens who are interested and involved in the business of the town, and who hold us to the highest standards. I hope and expect that people will pay attention to the council’s efforts for downtown, and will work with us toward what is best for the community.

I’m glad the Mayor looks forward to input from the tax-paying public. I wish he had addressed the issues of scale – a 9 story beast , the eroding reasons – filling the gap in downtown residential and commercial development, lack of public utility, etc. I raised in my column.

ChapelHill, environment, Government, LocalPolitics, Ruminations

What Price Downtown

Leave a comment

The following is from my first column for the Chapel Hill News. In a strange inversion of most ‘bloggers trajectories, I’m moving, slightly, from electronic to paper media.

First, a quick correction. In trying to trim my column to 750 words I made a mistake joining two sentences concerning the citizen’s financial outlays to-date. The Mayor says we’ve spent about $600K on the project plans. Matt Dee’s, in a Feb. 28th, 2006 News & Observer article, said:

Town leaders have spent about four years and more than $1 million taking plans from vague brainstorms to the detailed drawings shown Monday night.

I bet if you added in all the staff, Council and consultancy time, the real expenditures over the last 4-5 years, the figure would be above $1 million. If you pull in the legal and staff costs associated with the first run at leveraging the Wallace deck for downtown redevelopment, the Rosemary Square project, I’m sure the figure would go much higher.

In any case, it is not $4 million.

What are the true expenditures to-date? I will be doing some additional research to find out.

What about potential cost to the citizen? If we use the Mayor’s figures, we’ve spent $600K to-date, have a commitment to spend $500K more digging a futile hole in lot #5 and will be “kicking back” the $7.9 million earned on the 99 year lease agreement with RAM development. And, already, the $500K for the “hole” is in dispute.

With that in mind, here’s my column:

Over the nearly six years I’ve worked downtown, I’ve watched the nearby parking lot’s tree-lined sidewalks magnificently bloom in spring, shade our citizens in summer and explode with dazzling reds and yellows each fall. One of the few remaining unencumbered downtown public parcels, this human-scale open area visually connects and integrates Franklin Street into the surrounding neighborhoods.

A few months ago, two stately trees across the street were cut down, replaced by the mammoth metal posts of our town’s fancy new-style traffic signals. “How many folks thought about those trees?” I wondered. “Will anyone else miss them? How long will they furnish my memories?”

In 1979, the noxious gridlock of N.C. 54 years away, my first pleasant drive from Raleigh to town’s edge was interrupted only by the route’s sole traffic signal. Through rolling verdant pastures, past the quaint University Inn.

A right at the quiet Old Chapel Hill Cemetery. Under the arched trees of Raleigh Street. A left turn onto historic Franklin Street. An easy park at UNC’s publicly accessible lot in Porthole Alley.

Downtown, though replete with historic ambiance, exuded a youthful confidence. Locally owned record, grocery, hardware, clothes and stereo stores competed for my hard-earned lucre. Three cheap movie theaters within two blocks provided a welcome retreat into air-conditioned bliss. Restaurants ran the gamut of tastes and expense.

Enamored, I regularly spent a few bucks on the six-hour jaunt to Chapel Hill. Smelling of diesel fumes, I’d arrive at the bus terminal thirsty and travel wearied. Exiting onto the delightfully shaded lawn, I’d hop across the street to retrieve an ice-cold brew from Fowler’s Big Bertha (that grocery’s storied walk-in freezer).

I fondly remember that downtown.

Over the ensuing decades the evolving character of our “village on the rise” shifted. Fowler’s grocery closed with no replacement. Huggin’s Hardware, hammered by the pricing pressure of Lowe’s, became a casualty of our town’s first experiment with “big box” retailers. Competing against university and national chains, the Intimate Bookshop burned financially. Both Laundromats washed out. The Carolina Blue & White closed, then opened, now darkened again.

Meadowmont’s broken promise despoiled those welcoming pastures. The Wallace Deck vanquished the starry skies above my friends’ North Street back yard. UNC’s parking policies hampered free access. The Cobb chiller plant disturbed the quiet of the grave. A luxury hotel erased the terminal’s pleasant lawn.

During the same era, well-intentioned leadership, bolstered by developers’ promises, worked to constrain sprawl within our rural buffer, approved developments ringing town and created today’s donut-like topology that draws economic activity to the periphery.

Speculating that increased residency will revive downtown’s economic fortunes, the Town Council entered a private-public partnership with RAM Development to convert citizen-owned properties into mixed-use residential-commercial developments with 230 housing units.

Investing $4 million to date in the effort, the project is nearing the public hearing phase. Clear cut and excavated, my beautiful public space will vanish under the private heel of a looming “soft modernistic” behemoth. Rising nine stories, this disproportionate edifice will distort Franklin Street’s current village-like scale.

Where is the public utility, the community orientation? Why a hard concrete concourse, a “hands-off” fountain in lieu of a grassy sward and a kid-friendly splash park? Where’s the commitment to decent public bathrooms and drinking fountains? Why boutique shops instead of a natural community magnet like a grocery store? With competing private projects proposing hundreds of additional downtown dwellings and current cost projections more than $100 million, why develop the tracts at all?

Over the last 18 months, my disappointment increased, my support eroded. I began to wonder if town was following the failed trajectory of 1984’s $30 million Rosemary Square project as a council once again attempted to reform downtown.

The fires of my opposition ignited the night council discussed the project’s window treatments with more passion than the escalating public cost. Increased outlays to our consultant added tinder. When RAM Development disclosed plans to build 335 luxury condos near downtown, the largest such project in town’s history, and the mayor shrugged off the potential conflict of interest adjudging their development partner’s plans, the flickers swelled.

Finally, with the recent call for citizens to shoulder the developer’s private debt via tax incremental funding (TIFs), those nascent flickers firmed into the flame of resistance.

Council member Cam Hill, a key member of the negotiating team, recently said, “I do know I’m not afraid to walk away from it. I’m not wed to building something on lot 5 to the point of making a deal I don’t like.”

Cam, it’s time to dig out your running shoes and run, don’t walk, to the nearest exit.

environment, Government

Haven’t we heard that before?

Leave a comment

Council once again reviewed local businessman Michael Rosenberg’s (Health Decisions Inc.) Meadowmont palace Castalia. Castalia is a proposed mixed-use building, currently sited prominently in Meadowmont.

Tonight’s discussion focused on visibility.

Councilman Cam Hill gave a bit of a mixed message, saying in part that if the building really would be as hard to see from N.C. 54 as the architectural drawing purported, then that might be tempting. But he said he really didn’t think it was going to be that well screened.

HeraldSun, June 20th

Meadowmont? Not visibile? Where have I heard that before?

Let’s turn the wayback machine’s dial to Oct. 5th, 1994:

Design Review Board member Bob Stipe inquired whether proposed commercials buildings on the north side of NC 54 would be visible to passing vehicles. Mr. Davis said yes, adding that the buildings would have a maximum height below the area’s existing tree line. Julie Andresen inquired whether the developer was proposing a mixture of office and retail uses. Mr. Davis said yes. Ed Harrison inquired whether existing trees on the site would be preserved. Mr. Davis stated that the majority of trees up to three hundred and fifty feet into the site would be preserved.

Where did those trees go?

I’ve read that Castalia is the source of sacred waters used to clean Delphian temples . Maybe those waters could be used to clean out another mythic mess, Meadowmont’s Augean stable of promises.

ChapelHill, environment, Ruminations

Free Gas

Leave a comment

I asked the Council to look into LFG two years ago and then made it part of my environmental proposals for the 2005 Council campaign. Recently, UNC has suggested using the old 35 acre Horace Williams landfill site to produce clean energy for Carolina North.

Now, from the June 17th Chapel Hill News, comes this Letter to the Editor outlining successful uses for LFG.

Landfill gas projects (LFG) have been around since the late 1970s creating cheap renewable energy to citizens. When landfills decompose they create a gas called methane, which is 23 times more effective at trapping atmospheric heat then carbon dioxide. This gas can remain in the atmosphere for up to 15 years, increasing the speed of global climate change.

LFG projects capture 60 percent to 90 percent of methane released from landfills and help to improve the air quality of the surrounding communities as well as creating more jobs for the community. Each LFG project is equivalent to removing the emission from 14 million cars and will decrease the use of oil by 150 million barrels, which is a nice thing to hear since we have depleting natural resources.

Cost savings have helped companies such as General Motors save more than $5 million per year from their five LFG projects and SC Johnson in Racine, Wis., is saving $1 million per year. Of the 140 projects taking place in the United States, more than 700 landfills can cost-effectively install LFG projects.

Why don’t we do our part in helping the environment and increasing the change in our pocket? More information: 888-782-7937 or www.ncgreenpower.com. — Ronna Fischer, Chapel Hill

Thanks Ronna for pressing forward on local LFG.

ChapelHill, environment, Government

Council’s Conflict of Interest? Maybe just a slight edge….

Leave a comment

Following up on my earlier post on RAM Development’s “425 Hillsborough Street” 335 condo megaplex, today’s HeraldSun reports:

Foy acknowledged that a good prior experience with the town might give a developer a slight edge.

“If we’ve had a good experience in the past, then we might know we can negotiate in good faith,” he said.

Someone that you trust – someone that delivers – usually does have an edge in business.

But our town leaders have responsibilities that transcend “business as usual”, as Foy acknowledges:

Mayor Kevin Foy said Friday he hasn’t seen plans for the project, which is being called 425 Hillsborough Street by the developer. But, he said, the plan will be judged on its merits alone and the town’s handling of an application will not be affected by the official relationship with Ram Development.

“We view every development through the prism of what’s best for the town,” Foy said. He added that the town will judge the developer’s project against the town’s Comprehensive Plan, which describes where growth should occur.

The project’s expanse, as reported by the HeraldSun, is greater than that reported in the New & Observer:

According to the Ram concept plan, the new development would have 390 multi-family units on 15.6 acres. The site, just north of the university campus, currently holds 111 rental units, most of which are occupied by UNC students.

That’s quite an increase in density. Luckily, the plan will require a rezoning – putting it squarely before Council and local citizens.

The article also mentions the problems with Lot #5’s development

Recently the town sent a letter to Ram indicating the Lot 5 project wasn’t fully meeting expectations for the redevelopment of that town site

and quotes out-going Town Manager Cal Horton:

Horton said Ram’s performance wouldn’t impact the town’s handling of an application on the Hillsborough Street project if the developer chooses to submit a formal proposal.

“In our process, every development stands on its own,” he said. “There are many occasions when we work with people who are doing multiple developments. This situation is pretty ordinary.”

The current Council hopes that ceding prime public properties to RAM Development (for, what I believe, less than their longterm value) will spur a downtown economic renaissance (a rebirth that’s proceeding apace without RAM’s help). Taxpayer monies have and will continue to flow into this project. Further, the Council is closely partnering with RAM in the overall design of their $90+ million buildout.

And, then, as the downtown development plan nears kick-off, RAM proposes what has been reported as the largest condominium development in Chapel Hill’s history? A development that will surely benefit by its proximity to the same project Council is partnering on?

Ordinary? Try unprecedented.

CarolinaNorth, ChapelHill, environment, Government, LocalPolitics, UNC

How low can Moeser go? Transit, transportation and parking lots.

1 Comment

[UPDATE:] Please excuse the draft of this post, with broken links, that was earlier erroneously posted.

During my 2005 Council run, I was advised by “folks in the political know” that my optimistic call to UNC to put their 2003 Carolina North development plans aside and start anew would fall on deaf ears. “Don’t waste your time. You set the bar too high. Too ambitious a challenge.”

That plan, with its many deficiencies – 17,000 parking spaces, unimaginative design, lack of transit opportunities – was neither worthy of our world-class University or of the charming Town it occupies.

UNC needed to rethink the initial parameters of this mega-project,to craft a new collaborative development process, to tap their incredible on-campus talent and to assure the local community that our local values would be honored – our zoning authority respected.

Six months later, UNC has set aside their initial RTP-lite development plans, created a new community outreach group (the Carolina North Leadership Advisory Comm.), committed to following the town’s zoning authority and participated diligently (with a few continuing missteps) in the recasting of Carolina North’s design and development principles.

Maybe my optimism wasn’t so misplaced.

Buried in today’s June 9th, 2006 letter to Mayor Foy from UNC’s Chancellor Moeser are some new positive commitments from UNC.

Continue reading How low can Moeser go? Transit, transportation and parking lots. →

CarolinaNorth, environment, Government, Media, Ruminations

Next Exit: UNC

Leave a comment

The construction of a special I-40 interchange for Carolina North has been a persistent rumor.

Over the last 5 years, I heard UNC officially deny any such plan more than a dozen times. The last time for me, I believe, was when UNC’s liason to the Horace Williams Citizen’s Committee (HWCC) said she hadn’t heard anything about it.

According to Emily Coakley and Rob Shapard in today’s HeraldSun “Local officials say they’ve heard UNC might pursue a new interchange on Interstate 40 to serve the planned Carolina North research campus.”

Why worry if it’s just a rumor?

Well, I, as I’m sure other local longtime residents, remember a few trial UNC balloons that eventually became reality. Sometimes, it seems, the more outrageous, the more likely.

Creating an I-40 interchange and subsequent transit corridor near burgeoning neighborhoods and sensitive ecological preserves seems fairly outrageous. With the recent wildcard resolution by UNC’s Board of Trustees, a group that appears to be “chafing at the bit” for substantive action on Carolina, it’s not too difficult to imagine that there’s more substance to this I-40 rumor than in years past. That, of course, and it’s almost Summer – when the public is generally distracted – a time when UNC traditionally unleashes problematic proposals.

The now defunct HWCC has been following the transit-related discussions on Carolina North and, in their January memo, sketched out further particpation. I’m sure we would have been privy to UNC’s thoughts on a I-40 interchange.

Now, we’ll have to rely on the press and our local elected officials for adequate forewarning.

CarolinaNorth, environment, Government, LocalPolitics, Ruminations, UNC

Chafing: Prevention and Treatment

Leave a comment

From today’s Rob Shapard Herald-Sun article covering a Carolina North “October surprise” :

The Board of Trustees voted unanimously Thursday for a resolution that set the October ’07 date a day after trustees chafed at the pace of the latest Carolina North committee and said they were keen to “get off the dime” and get the project going.

Even though the BOT’s May 24th agenda listed Carolina North as an “information only” item, the BOT took action and passed a confusing resolution directing

the Chancellor to submit zoning and land development applications for Carolina North to the applicable local governmental jurisdictions no later than October 1, 2007.

The resolution has several meandering bits I’ll try to deconstruct.

The putative need for Carolina North has shifted with the years; yesterday the BOT proferred the following justifications:

there is now an urgent need to develop Carolina North. Conditions have evolved from 17 years ago, when the University first identified the importance of developing this tract of land and commenced the planning process for the property. Federal funding for research is declining and facilities for public-private partnerships are needed. In addition, there are very few new building sites still available on campus. And, many of our existing buildings do not lend themselves to the kinds of faculty interaction, interdisciplinary collaboration, and government and business engagement that are needed if the University is to use its resources most effectively and efficiently to address society’s pressing needs and attract jobs and economic activity to the entire state.

Wow! We surely wouldn’t want our local elected officials to stand in the way of UNC’s urgent desire to use its educational might to “effectively and efficiently … address society’s pressing needs and attract jobs and economic activity to the entire state.”

Whoa! Isn’t that the same kind of rhetoric we heard about other big ticket (read: expensive tax-payer supported boondoggles) projects like the Kinston’s Global Transpark, NCSU’s failing Centennial campus and the (currently contentious) Kannapolis North Carolina Research Campus (NCRC).

The NCRC got approval for $9. 4 MILLION from the NC Senate (and an additional annual promise of $8.4M) because Gov. Easley:

Hartsell said the proposed funding for the research campus was a suggestion from Gov. Mike Easley’s office.

He noted that the research campus is not only important for Kannapolis and Cabarrus County, but for the whole state.

Why? Well there’s an expectation that the new campus

should generate about 2,200 jobs in just its first 2 1/2 years of operation, according to an official with the firm that’s developing the biotech hub.

Hmmm, aren’t the developers aware they’re making the UNC BOT’s claim that “facilities for public-private partnerships are needed” look a bit askew?

And what of UNC’s need for new facilities?

The current $1.5 BILLION Main Campus buildout (not to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars of UNC Hospitals growth)

do not lend themselves to the kinds of faculty interaction, interdisciplinary collaboration, and government and business engagement that are needed

Are they kidding? What are NC taxpayers to think of the BOT?

It’s interesting that the BOT cooled their recent touting of biotech as the primary focus for Carolina North’s research mission. Maybe between recent NCRC recruiting efforts

With its ‘dream team’ of partners, the North Carolina Research Campus is helping to keep the Tar Heel state a step ahead of the national and global rush to grab a piece of the $63.1 billion biotechnology industry. At the Biotech 2006 conference today (May 22) in Winston-Salem, the campus’ project manager, Lynne Scott Safrit, will discuss the resources coalescing at the campus and the power and appeal of the bona fide biotech corridor developing in North Carolina.

their own observation that “Federal funding for research is declining” and UNC’s vice chancellor for research and economic development, Tony Waldrop, pointing out:

UNC Chapel Hill landed about $579 million for research in the last fiscal year. But he said about 52 percent of that federal money came through the National Institutes of Health, and that funding from NIH has flattened out and begun to decline in recent years.

HS

they realized that biotech, as a justification for the $1+ billion Carolina North project, was a non-starter.

Waldrop’s claim that “our faculty will continue to compete very well, but there’s going to be a smaller pool of money,” is dead-on – it’s competition from the new NCRC – but his further assertion that “we need Carolina North to continue to be a great research university” doesn’t logically follow.

Another interesting bit of the resolution involves citizen participation.

the Chancellor has established the Carolina North Leadership Advisory Committee to provide the University with a wide cross section of community thought on the principles that should guide the University in preparing for the development of Carolina North

Last LAC meeting, one of our town’s representatives, Council member Strom, told the Carolina North Leadership Advisory Council (LAC) that “Chapel Hill did not agree to hear outside groups’ ideas when it joined the advisory body” in response to a citizen’s group’s Carolina North presentation (the Village Project’s presentation).

At the same meeting, Ken Broun, the leader of the LAC said the committee will use information from other groups to inform its views but will not put those proposals in its report to UNC.

And, of course, there’s both the LAC’s two minute public comment rule (which I’ll be trying out soon) and UNC’s Broun’s comments about UNC not wanting to entertain 10 minutes of public Q&A (after their recent presentation).

All this seems to undermine the BOT’s desire for a wide cross section of community thought. Maybe the BOT’s resolution reaffirming a

commitment to seek out and listen to community input regarding the principles that should guide the development of Carolina North

will cause a general rethinking in the LAC on citizen participation.

Citizens need some venue as participation through Chapel Hill was certainly severely curtailed when Council abruptly dissolved the Horace-Williams Citizen’s Committee. This advisory board not only developed a number of principles underpinning the LAC’s current discussions on Carolina North but had also started working to flesh-out and fill-in-the-gaps in those guiding principles (the HWCC had presented Council a fairly extensive list of tasks they were taking on, on behalf of the town’s citizenry, to complete its mission).

In the end, what are we to make of this new timeline?

A case can certainly be made for Carolina North – but not the current case.

North Carolina’s taxpayers deserve a measured and reasonable evaluation of their return on this investment.

The underlying reasons for developing the Horace Williams tract change over time – as we can see from the BOT’s latest resolution.

Biotech is out. Vague assertions of promoting state-wide economic growth are back in.

The State appears to be a bit confused – both funding the new NCRC and making similar claims as to Carolina North’s state-wide efficacy.

The process needs time to unfold – and the BOT, for all its irritation, needs to be patient.

CarolinaNorth, environment, Government, LocalPolitics, Ruminations, UNC

The Last Horace Williams Citizen’s Committee. Hurrah?

Leave a comment

The HWCC chair presented our few, final (?), thoughts for Council on the Carolina North project and a response UNC’s Chancellor Moeser letter of Jan. 25th.

The most important recommendation, I believe, was that of the HWCC’s environmental sub-group (of which I was a member).

I lobbied hard for the elements that appear in the final document:

  • A baseline study of current on and off property environmental conditions.
  • The baseline to exceed EPA and other statute requirements.
  • The development of metrics to understand and measure Carolina North’s impacts year-in and year-out.

Unfortunately, we had the rug pulled out from underneath us before we could finish with a more detailed proposal.

I envisioned, and fought for, a strong proposal for UNC, chiefly, and the town, in a support role, to not only scientifically study, assess and document current environmental conditions both on the Horace-Williams tract and down-wind/down-stream of the development, but to pledge to regularly monitor conditions and apply “best class” metrics to determine environmental impacts.

UNC has an unique opportunity (and responsibility) to use the development of Carolina North as a large-scale laboratory for experimenting with “best practice”, sustainable, world-class “green” designs.

This 50 year project could yield invaluable inventive insights into “green” practices that will create new business opportunities for North Carolinians while promoting sound environmental stewardship – in Chapel Hill, in North Carolina and throughout the world.

I drafted the original HWCC response to Chancellor Moeser. Joe Capowski helped tighten it up. The final version captured, fairly well, my original intent (though, my original draft was much more detailed in its criticism).

There are a number of issues, concerns and omissions the HWCC suggested be addressed before “calling it a day” on UNC’s side of the Carolina North planning process.

Final thoughts are on agenda item [9a].