Bush’s Presidency should go down as the worst in our Republic’s short history. In the rush to create a new American Imperialism, Emperor Bush’s profligate Constitutional trespasses – the calculated, unchallenged scope and breadth of abuse of his Executive powers – have set a new standard of political authoritarianism.
Tag Archives: Government
Haven’t we heard that before?
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.
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.
Town Manager Stegall?
I’m impressed with what I’ve read by and about Sean Stegall.
With Sean we have a candidate for town manager that celebrates openness, wants to make community a cornerstone of his efforts and recognizes Chapel Hill’s need for some “conflict resolution”.
He has a flexible management-style – a trust in the folk working at all levels in our government and within the community.
But, as the town manager, the work of leadership is more about tapping into and leveraging the collective energies of those who work for the community, are served by the community and who are elected to govern.
The manager must create a sense of purpose that connects people together and drives the organization to a higher level of performance. This is best accomplished by assimilation of the collective “visions” held within the organization and community.
HS
As a person that can pinch the meanest of pennies – I heartily welcome a candidate thoroughly experienced in budgetary matters.
Sean is responsible for the preparation, execution and monitoring of a budget of $277,000,000. In addition, Sean is charged with development of the five (5) year financial plans for the City’s major operating funds.
c.v.
We could definitely use more than a spritz of entreprenurial spirit
If an organization is not constantly looking to improve its processes and procedures, it is falling behind.
– and the background and desire to use technology to drive operational efficiencies.
Stegall also is developing a wireless Internet program for Elgin residents, something that interests many Chapel Hill leaders as well.
Already, Elgin employees are using a Motorola system to communicate with each other, filing reports from the field, etc.
Wireless transmitters are on all city water towers.
“Being familiar with technology that may be one of the benefits of being 33,” Stegall said. “Technology is not an end in and of itself. It should be used for other ends.”
N&O
And he understands that the relationship between manager and Council is nuanced
The old saying goes, “Council makes policy, staff implements policy.” But policy making and policy implementation are not separate and distinct functions. In reality, policy making/implementation is a continuum of thought and relationships that transform ideas, policies, goals and plans into observable outcomes or ends such as a new street project, homeless shelter or park improvement. Because of this fact, council and staff share this continuum and are partners ensuring each other’s success. Because of this partnership, there must be open and on-going dialogue among the town council and department heads. Finally, this dialogue must include all community partners whether it is media outlets or neighborhood associations.
The Chapel Hill town manager must create a sense of purpose through a shared vision and open dialogue by and between the council, staff and community.
HS
Yes, he’s young. So what? We need a candidate with vitality and a fresh perspective to help our community make the next step in its evolution. Sean’s capabilities and diversity of experience are more than comparable to our current manager’s when he was selected.
Though I’m not a big fan of his take on TIFs (tax increment financing)Â or the joy of gambling profits, I liked his current perspective on town and hope his responses are more than “window dressing”.
Good luck Sean on your interview. Remember, Chapel Hill, for all its age, is still a youthful community – expect a fair hearing.
- The Herald Sun’s (HS) Q&A with Sean Stegall
- His bio (Stegall c.v.) posted on the town’s manager search site.
- An article from the News and Observer (N&O).
Session closed under North Carolina General Statute 143-318.11(a)(6)
OrangePolitics (OP) is covering Council’s (injudicious?) final sprint to hire a new manager.
OP’s Ruby Sinreich commented June 2nd on the quick narrowing of the field to a handful of white males.
Robert Peterson, June 5th, put on his tin foil hat and, I believe with some accuracy, laid out a scenario where one of the three putative candidates is a “ringer” . As he observed “What we have here, on paper at least, is a superstar. What better way to insure his getting the position than to pit him against someone mired in controversy and someone with 20 years less experience.“
This week, Council will spend 38 hours reviewing and then selecting, with minimal opportunities for direct public interaction, a new Town Manager. Unless, as Council member Mark Kleinschmidt avers “with all confidence that if there’s any doubt at the end of the week that we’re not hiring the best person for this job, we will hire no one.”
What role will Chapel Hill’s citizenry play in the evaluation of “what’s best”?
With the limited information before us; the Herald Sun’s Q&A’s of Ragan, Stancil and Sean Stegall – their bio’s ( Stegall,Ragan, Stancil) posted on the town’s manager search site – an article from the News and Observer – some Googled references – one wonders how the greater citizenry is supposed to evaluate these candidates.
They won’t have much of an opportunity this final week as 36 of the 38 hours set aside for candidate consideration are closed, closed, closed.
“The Council will move that this session be closed under North Carolina General Statute 143-318.11(a)(6).”
The Council’s actions to fill this key position with much less public discussion and involvement than other recent issues, for instance the renaming of Airport Rd. to Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd., seems counter to our town’s stated desire for maximum governmental transparency. To cap the current process off by cloaking a majority of the discussion behind 143-318.11(a)(6), well, it puts the fine point to folks concerns.
The remaining two hours for public input? The Mayor will be juggling Council and public participation.
I don’t quite understand Mark K’s response to Ruby S’s rushed feeling by saying “I don’t know why you insist on calling it a runaway train” when so many of the search committee’s meetings were ill-scheduled (for reasonable public participation) or closed under 143-318.11(a)(6).
- 10am, Weds. Mar. 15th, Mar. 22nd, Mar. 29th
- 10am, Tues. Apr. 4th [CANCELLED], Apr. 11th
- 8am, Tues. Apr. 18th; Sat. Apr. 22nd (the 1st possible one for me to attend)
- CLOSED Mon. May 8th 10am ; Fri. May 19th, 2pm ;Tues. May 30th, 9am
Missing an opportunity for greater openness, the minutes of the open meetings were only available at Townhall and not published on the town’s website.
As someone that closely followed the process (as well as one can without easily accessible minutes of the search committee’s meetings), I disagree with Mark’s comment that
“The decisions regarding the development of the selection process were all held in open public meetings–I think there were at least two of those–and there was a public meeting to assist on development of a profile.”
Feb. 27th, Council discussed some exciting options like “a website with questionnaire for public comment” and a process structured so the “Community to meet with all finalists“. But, sadly, these proposed mechanisms for community outreach were subsequently discarded (the public commentary) and watered down (this week’s two-hour, Mayorally-filtered, candidate meet-n-greet).
Direct citizen commentary was limited to the regular 3 minute slot.
By the Mar. 6th meeting, OP poster and local personnel expert Anita Badrock (VP, Smithers and Associates) suggested two possible “processes” for selecting candidates. As she observed:
I recognize that we have a culture of openness in our community that the Council wants to respect, but I believe the citizens would understand and be better served by a process that would allow the best qualified candidates to confidentially explore this career opportunity to the maximum extent possible. Many of the most highly qualified applicants are probably the kind of professionals that aren’t unhappy with where they are currently, but are excited and intrigued about the possibilities and opportunities that exist in Chapel Hill. That’s the type of person that probably would not want his/her current employer to know (s)he’s looking.
As someone that’s hired their share of sensitive workers, I also recognize the need for some discretion.
Unfortunately, the concern for candidates confidentiality out-weighed public necessity and the more citizen-interactive options, factored into Process #2, were soon to be dispensed with.
As per Process #1, 30 or so folks – Council members, staff, the local political “usual suspects” (former Council members, business folk, the Chamber, etc.) – were “interviewed” to develop a candidate profile. These interviews constituted, I guess, a surrogate for the public feedback via website or a general solicitation for written/oral comments.
In another blow to timely transparency, it was only recently that the candidate profile was published.
Ruby is on to something when she remarks that the Council
has set-up this entire process without actively engaging or even encouraging the public’s input in a meaningful way (ie: before we were down to a choice between 3 straight, white, males). I’m not saying we should be sitting in on confidential meetings or anything, but it really shouldn’t surprise the Council if most Chapel Hill residents don’t even know this is going on, and rest of us are annoyed about how it’s going.
I’m concerned this is becoming a trend rather than an anomaly…
The Council was elected to make decisions. NC statute and local ordinances require minimal public participation in one of the hardest decisions a Council will make.
Only a growing Chapel Hill custom of transparency – part of what folks seriously or sarcastically call “Chapel Hill values” – obliges the Council to widen participation – to cast sunlight into the deepest shadows of the decision-making process – to reach beyond conservatively expedient approaches – in selecting a person, if recent history serves, that will have more influence on our community as any ephemeral elected Council member.
This week, to echo Ruby, the citizens of Chapel Hill will have a chance to see if Council continues a growing trend away from greater transparency and participation or if their behavior is an anomoly in their pell-mell rush to fill this key position.
7:30am Wake Up Call for Downtown Partnership Members
Are you an early morning person? Interested in Downtown’s evolution? Like to interact with political heavy-hitters? Chapel Hill’s Downtown Partnership, a confederation of UNC, Town and business interests, is looking for two new members.
ALL CALL
The Chapel Hill Downtown Partnership has two available board positions beginning July 1, 2006.
The first is a Town of Chapel Hill appointed position. It is a three year term, running July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2009. Eligible applicants are downtown property owners that contribute to the Municipal Service District Tax. Town Council will appoint this position on June 26, 2006.
The second is a CHDP board appointed position. It is a one-year term, running July 1, 2006-June 30, 2007. Anyone can apply for this position. The Board will appoint this position in June 28, 2006.
To apply for either position – please go to http://www.chapelhilldowntownpartnership.com/ and link onto the link at the bottom of the page for the application. The application should be sent to the Town Clerk’s office ASAP.
Liz Parham
Chapel Hill Downtown Partnership
308 West Rosemary Street, Suite 202
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
(919) 967-9440 office
(919) 967-9475 fax
They’re soliciting two members though the terms of Fine, Perry and Alexander, at least based on the website are up. Also, UNC representative Suttenfield is moving on to greener pastures.
[ UPDATE: ] Via Liz Parham – UNC has appointed Steve Allred and Linda Convissor to replace Nancy Suttenfield and Roger Perry.
Continue reading 7:30am Wake Up Call for Downtown Partnership Members
Council’s Conflict of Interest? Maybe just a slight edge….
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.
Council’s Conflict of Interest?
RAM Development, our town’s partner in an increasingly troubling downtown development project, is now looking to build the largest condominium project in Chapel Hill’s history. Sited along Hillsborough Rd. on the current Townhouse Apartment parcel, the project would include 335 condos in 6 story blocks.
Without a site proposal, it’s hard to envision how such a massive development couldn’t harm the Bolin Creek watershed, create an incompatible juxtaposition with nearby charming historic residential areas and pressure the already difficult Hillsborough/MLK transit corridor.
Considering Council is knee deep in on-going negotiations involving RAM’s design for downtown’s Lot #5 behemoth (next meeting June 19th, 2PM), what leverage, if any, does RAM have in getting approval for what I expect to be one of the more controversial developments in town’s history?
CHAPEL HILL – Townhouse Apartments, a wilting, close-to-campus haven to UNC-Chapel Hill students for four decades, may be demolished to make way for one of the biggest condominium projects in town history.
Ram Development of Palm Beach Gardens, Fla., wants to build 335 condominiums stacked six stories high and 22 townhouses on the 12.5-acre site by 2010.
The company has a contract to buy the 111-unit complex between Hillsborough Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, less than half a mile north of Franklin Street.
The sale is to close next year. Meanwhile, Ram is to submit preliminary site plans for the project, simply called 425 Hillsborough St., this month, said John Florian, the company’s vice president of development in Raleigh.
News & Observer, June 15th, 2006
How low can Moeser go? Transit, transportation and parking lots.
[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.
One nation controlled by the medium…
Those who control the present control the past. Those who control the past control the future.
– Orwell, author 1984
Those who control our modern means of communication are free to manipulate the past, recast the present and shape the future. Powerful, greedy, immoral – the masters of our converging media/medium empires already trample heavily upon the newly emerging Town Commons.
Unfortunately, with today’s House vote destroying Internet neutrality, a vote generally along party lines, the monopolists now have untrammeled freedom to despoil the Commons.
What is Internet neutrality?
Greene on Ending Chronic Homelessness in Orange County
Council member Sally Greene is passionately pursuing a ten year plan to end local homelessness. Her participation, along with other valiant volunteers, gives me hope that the goal is achievable.
Tonight, she reports on the Orange County Partnership to End Homelessness’ efforts.
Of note, they’ve agreed to “emphasize the chronically homeless in our planning (but not at the expense of current efforts to help all the homeless).”
As documented by Sally, folks chronically homeless account for the lionshare of service consumption. Dealing compassionately with this key segment of the homeless population not only honors our better angels but makes excellent fiscal sense – strained resources can be freed up to address the larger population.
There’s more work for the OCPEH but this difficult decision has significantly advanced their cause.
I Heard That Lonesome Whistle Blow…
How lonesome is that whistler? Yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling on Garcetti v. Ceballos appears to have closed the door on public employees, at all levels of government, safely reporting governmental malfeasance.
I’ve asked a Council Member what this ruling means for Chapel Hill and our town staff.
Do we need additional employee protections to encourage reports of willful misconduct?
Applying to the Downtown Parking Citizen’s Committee
I proposed a downtown parking task force both as a citizen and a candidate for Council. Working, shopping and living (near) downtown for many years, I have seen the parking dynamic shift as development, transit and demographic trends progressed.
Currently, I believe the key parking problem is not supply but allocation of existing resources.
I have some ideas on how we can craft a partnership between town, university and private interests so that we can improve the “downtown experience” without having to pave over more of our vanishing natural downtown areas.
Here’s my request to Council asking to join with other stakeholders in working towards a more sustainable, healthier and friendlier Chapel Hill downtown.
Mayor and Town Council,
During the 2005 election, I proposed forming a downtown parking task force to pull together both public and private stakeholders to solve some of our parking allocation problems.
It was great to see Council Member Cam Hill’s call on April 10th for just such a new task force to review public parking downtown.
I want to join this new Downtown Parking Citizens Committee to help create a sustainable solution to our downtown parking issues.
May 8th, Council formed the Downtown Parking Citizens Committee charged with analyzing existing parking conditions; reviewing conditions in light of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, Downtown Small Area Plan and the Downtown Development Initiative; proposing plans to mitigate existing parking problems and developing strategies to implement the proposed plans.
Staff also recommended that the committee “consider appointing citizens who work, shop and visit downtown…”
I’ve seen the downtown parking dynamic change over 27 years. I’ve regularly shopped, visited and PARKED downtown for two decades. I’ve worked downtown for over 5 years (and, luckily, have a reserved spot). Day in and day out, school in and out, morning, noon or night, East to West End, I’m quite familiar with the vagaries of finding parking downtown.
Besides the hands-on experience, I’m conversant with the various plans – Comprehensive, Downtown Small Area, Downtown Development – studies (like the LSA [parking(PDF)] [mobility(PDF)] and prior citizen group efforts), ordinances and LUMO restrictions that influence the existing parking dynamic. Further, I’ve read and reviewed a number of key transit and transportation studies and proposals – from town, from NC-DOT, from the University – that should inform any proposed solutions.
Finally, I believe I have some new ideas on how to form a collaborative proposal that brings Town, University and private business efforts into alignment to not only help solve some of the more intransigent of parking issues but to also to add flexibility into our overall parking/transit approaches.
Thank you for your consideration,
Will Raymond
If you’re interested in improving the “Downtown experience” and want to participate on a task force with a constrained and strategic mission, fill out an application and email it to the town’s Town Clerk. Additional Town Clerk contact information.
NC Lottery: Powerball is powerless…
11PM local news:
- WTVD 11 leads with today’s Powerball snafu problems.
- WRAL 5, after leading with nearly 4 minutes of ‘Canes news, covered the glitch.
- NBC17, bless their hearts, led with about 5 minutes of ‘Canes game review and didn’t make it to the State’s newest con-game until 6 stories in .
NBC17 also deserves kudos for being the only station to mention the extremely long odds, 1 in 146 million, of winning the ‘ball.
WTVD was a bit breathless in their coverage – the news guy excitedly telling us “we’ll have to wait until tomorrow’s drawing”.
WRAL played up the “inconvenience” people had waiting to squander their bucks.
I’m going to give WRAL a small break because they did a nice piece on the expected correlation between counties with high unemployment and high ticket sales.
Wilson County has the fourth highest unemployment rate in the state and often ranks No. 1 in ticket sales per capita. Nine other North Carolina counties selling the most tickets per adult have unemployment rates above the state’s average.
“It is not unexpected,” said state Sen. Janet Cowell. “I think that is what other states that have lotteries have seen.” Cowell explained that is part of why she opposed the lottery all along.”It really is a regressive tax, essentially, that really impacts lower income communities, not higher income communities,” she said.
“I don’t think that has any conflict with us,” said Wilson County’s Employment Security Commission manager, Terri Williams. “We’re here to help them find work and to help them with unemployment until they can find work.”Williams believes continued fallout from several plant layoffs and seasonal tobacco cuts are more to blame, but admits, “Of course, we hate to see the poor spending money on lottery tickets.”
Yep, so today’s computer snafu isn’t the only glitch we’ve seen in the system.
Carolina North: Chancellor Hooker Friday, December 8, 1995
I’ve recently been reviewing some of my old links covering the evolution of UNC’s Carolina North development.
Continue reading Carolina North: Chancellor Hooker Friday, December 8, 1995
NC Lottery: Ready to waste a buck?
Let the frenzy begin: Powerball tickets go on sale today.
And if you plan to play, please consider throwing in another buck for the Powerplay option just to irritate Scientific Games, whose (now former) lobbyists brought such high ethical standards to our little State-sponsored con-game.