Tag Archives: LocalPolitics

ChapelHill, Development, EconomicDevelopment, environment, Government, LocalPolitics, Ruminations

Lot #5 Downtown Development: Do you smell gas?

Leave a comment

As we know, There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns.
That is to say we know there are some things We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don’t know we don’t know.

— Donanld Rumsfeld, Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing

Well we know that Rumsfeld was is a jackass.

What the majority of our Town Council didn’t want to know when they rushed forward on the Lot #5 juggernaut, was the extent of the hazardous waste remediation required to make the site suitable.

Oh, they knew that there had been at least one former gas station on-site.

And they knew that during a previous assay an environmental tech had taken an unauthorized sniff of the dirt that revealed gas fumes.

But rather than taking the prudent step of testing before committing to the Lot #5 boondoggle – making this all to known unknown known – to use a Rumsfeldian turn of phrase, the majority stuck their heads firmly in the sand and instructed the Town Manager to move ahead.

Kind of like Bush and Rumsfeld in Iraq. Jump first, measure the consequences later. And we know how effective that has been.

What’s the big deal?

Beside making a decision that has already undercut our Town’s moral authority to set the highest caliber of environmental standards it has exposed our taxpayers to a potentially stiff financial penalty.

The “rah rah” growth folks on Council like to say this ridiculously bad Lot #5 deal with RAM Development won’t cost the taxpayers one pretty cent – except for the hundreds of thousands for required consultants, disrupted city services, staff time, etc. – until the Town’s 161 parking spaces are complete.

The problem? Our taxpayers are on the hook for any hazardous waste remediation – remediation that will have to paid for now. The cost, considering the geology, could run into the multi-millions of dollars.

That’s millions of dollars out out of our taxpayers pockets, this year, for one huge mistake. Millions that won’t go to increasing our Town’s commitment to abating chronic homelessness or increasing social services. Millions that might mean the difference between having an aquatics center or losing our quality bond rating.

On a slightly positive note, it looks like some of our Council took my and others concerns to heart.

Most likely too late to squeeze of the deal without some kind of fiscal damage, Town is going ahead with the environmental assay they should’ve done first.

Good news? We’ll find out the broad outlines the environmental damage.

Bad news? We’ll have to start paying millions of dollars this year to cleanup the mess.

Worse news? If this initial assay isn’t done properly or is oriented to quell criticism rather than measure the extent of the true problem – well, the taxpayers of Chapel Hill better be prepared for the “death of a thousand cuts”. Not an unlikely scenario given RAM Development’s halving the scale of the project – keeping the cost roughly the same – and extracting a 15-fold greater financial commitment, $7.5 million so far, from the Town.

This cleanup, if it follows the trajectory of similar projects I’ve been part of, will probably cost quite a bit more than originally anticipated. It will be the gift that keeps on taking.

Hang on to your wallets folks, we’re in for a messy ride.

Parking Lot 5 to Close for Test Borings

The Town of Chapel Hill has hired a contractor to conduct environmental assessments of a site that is selected for a proposed $75 million three-section building complex combining condominiums, retail, and parking on Town-owned Parking Lot 5 in downtown Chapel Hill.

The environmental assessments, to be conducted by Environmental Consulting Services, Ltd. (ECS) will require closing the parking lot located between Franklin and Rosemary Streets at the intersection of Church Street.

Municipal Parking Lot 5 will be closed from 4 a.m. to 1 p.m. Saturday, March 17, from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. Sunday, March 18, and 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. Tuesday, March 20. All vehicles must be removed. Accommodations will be made for individuals with leased parking spaces. Call the Town’s Parking Services Coordinator at 968-2835 for more information. Motorists may find available parking at the Rosemary Street Parking Deck, 150 E. Rosemary St., Municipal Lot 2 at 100 E. Rosemary St., or Municipal Lot 3 at 415 W. Franklin St.

The environmental assessment will include a geophysical study to determine if underground tanks are present, as well as up to 30 test borings of the soil. While the Town has conducted previous environmental studies, this week’s assessment will provide a more detailed examination of the soil conditions of the site. Engineers will evaluate and describe site hydrogeological conditions; determine the location, type and concentrations of contaminants; and determine the requirements for remedial action based on the applicable regulatory environmental guidelines.

Negotiations with Ram Development Co. are under way since the Council authorized Manager Roger L. Stancil on Feb. 12 to execute the development agreement. Issues for negotiation have included energy efficiency construction, parking for affordable housing, and environmental considerations. Reflecting its commitment to environmental stewardship, the Town has pursued additional information on the site’s environmental conditions as negotiations continue.

The Town has completed an earlier environmental assessment of the Parking Lot 5 site. Following this phase one study conducted by ECS on Aug. 18, 2004, engineers recommended a ground penetrating radar survey be performed to determine if underground storage tanks are located on the site. Next week’s survey will determine if such tanks are located on the site. ECS also performed work on Oct. 27, 2004, and April 13, 2005, for additional explorations to evaluate the depth to rock in Lot 5 as part of the design analysis for underground parking.

Citizens may review information on the Town website about the Downtown Economic Development Project at http://townhall.townofchapelhill.org/projects/dedi/

I’ll be looking forward to the timely release of these reports and plan to review them in detail.

I also will be calling on Council, as I have before, to stop any further movement on this project pending the results of these tests. To give our residents a chance to catchup and reflect on the consequences of “digging a deeper hole”.

Surely they deserve to know how much the hazardous waste remediation is going to cost before having their Council further the process.

My guess, based on the rushed, imprudent and unfortunate decisions the majority of Council have already made on this project, they won’t stop the juggernaut.

Community, environment, LocalPolitics, OrangeCounty, Ruminations

Trash Talk: Systematic is the New Watchword

Leave a comment

The commissioners asked county staff to do a more exhaustive search of sites, citing solid waste management director Gayle Wilson’s statement that the process of looking for a transfer station site hadn’t been as “systematic” as previous searches for landfill space.

From today’s N&O report on last night’s (Mar. 13th) BOCC meeting.

After reviewing the Orange County Solid Waste Advisory Board (SWAB) and Landfill Owner’s Group minutes covering the transfer station site search, I’m more convinced than ever we need a decision matrix that incorporates more dimensions than a straight engineering site selection suggests.

That matrix should assign values to social, environmental, economic, growth, transportation impacts and assess possible sites against that more “full blooded” metric. I’ll be interested in seeing if staff will first create a new process for evaluation or tailor the current criteria to narrow the search.

The lack of a systematic approach didn’t stop BOCC member Moses Carey from pushing forward for an immediate decision:

Chairman Moses Carey had pushed the board to make a decision Tuesday, citing a time crunch. A consultant hired by the county said it will take as long as four years to get a transfer station up and running. The Eubanks Road landfill is expected to be full by late 2010.

Not quite sure why taking the time for a measured approach now will greatly delay a project scheduled for 2010. Given the current status, a delay now to select more appropriate criteria – say criteria suggested by the landfill’s current neighbors – is the most prudent path.

Draft timetable from Mar. 13th’s agenda item:

ChapelHill, CitizenWill, Community, Downtown, EconomicDevelopment, Government, LocalPolitics, MunicipalNetworking, Technology, UNC

Municipal Networking: St. Cloud Soars Above Chapel Hill

Leave a comment

As longtime readers and local voters know, I’m a strong advocate for bringing community-owned information infrastructure to Chapel Hill. Simply, to create a truly free new Town Commons benefiting our citizenry.

I’ve been working the issue now for over three years – banging the drum of strategic economic stimulus, social improvement – bridging the “digital divide” – and governmental innovation.

Local naysayers, like Councilmembers Strom and Kleinschmidt, continue, at least for now, to impede a tactical approach to building up Chapel Hill’s information infrastructure.

I’m a results oriented guy. I like to think that these folks, when faced with success after success, will eventually join in and seize this cost effective opportunity to kick start a key economic driver for Chapel Hill’s healthy future.

To that end, I’ve provided example after example, here and abroad of how a municipal network catalyzes a community’s innovative drive.

Two years ago I started talking about St. Cloud, Florida’s plan to provide free and ubiquitous connectivity to their community of 8,500 households.

Sep. 11, 2006, just prior to asking Council, again, to get the muni-networking ball rolling, I posted on St. Cloud’s wildly successful six month anniversary (Municipal Wifi: St. Cloud on Cloud Nine).

“So let the naysayers and talking heads let fly, but the little secret that is secret no more is that the results of a carefully planned and deployed municipally owned system delivered free to the citizens as a public service is actually the most successful, beneficial and effective model in existence.”

So says Jonathan Baltuch, who help found MRI, a consultancy specializing in planning economic development strategies for municipalities.

March 6th, 2007 marked St. Clouds’ community-owned network’s first year anniversary.

How are they doing?

MuniWireless says One year later, St. Cloud citywide Wi-Fi network shows impressive results:

St. Cloud, Florida’s network has received so much press because it is one of the few city-funded, city-owned networks in the US and it provides free Internet access to residents and businesses. Although the city owns the network, it has outsourced operations and maintenance to HP.

Jonathan Baltuch, founder of MRI, the consultant to the city, says: It is therefore fitting that at this year’s Muniwireless conference in Dallas the Cyber Spot celebrates its first anniversary on March 5, 2007. Being a pioneer with the first municipal owned system of its kind (although dozens of other communities are following suit), the Cyber Spot was immediately the subject of attack by the incumbents who were terrified by the prospect of communities taking back their digital rights. All throughout this year, while rumors and misinformation flew across the net fueled by various dubious sources, St. Cloud went about its business of providing its citizens with a premium quality service that saved the residents millions of dollars, eliminated the digital divide and created economic, educational and social opportunities for the citizens of the community.

Another by-product of this effort is that the city collected a comprehensive database of real world statistics and system information on the network.

Baltuch adds: The uptake rate of 77% is impressive when you consider that fee-based networks are attempting to reach uptake rates of about 20%. Incumbent broadband providers of cable and DSL rarely break 30% in any area after many years in the market. If the goal is true digital inclusion then reaching 20% – 30% in a community is unacceptable. This is why municipalities should be directly involved in providing this alternative service, hopefully for free, but at minimum for an extremely low cost.

Indeed, those who say that a municipally owned broadband network can never deliver good service are simply wrong. Many of the critics of municipally owned broadband mischaracterize the networks as being run by city employees who have no experience in delivering broadband service. In reality, most cities that fund and own the network, outsource the deployment, operations and maintenance to private companies. St. Cloud’s partner is HP.

At the end of 2006, Novarum, an independent wireless testing company, surveyed cellular and Wi-Fi broadband networks across the US. They ranked St. Cloud’s network no. 1 (and the only one with 100% service availability) ahead of Sprint, Verizon, AT&T, Earthlink and many others.

Why St. Cloud must be breaking the bank to provide this level of service! Afraid not:

The Capital expense was funded through the local economic development fund. The annual operational expenses are funded through the internal savings to City operations, which exceed the annual cost of operations.

That is the same argument local advocates have been making all along.

We could’ve been St. Cloud. We could’ve, and can still be, a competitive contender in the networked world.

You think Chapel Hill is safe? St. Cloud is in Florida – too far away to snatch North Carolina mind share.

As reported in today’s MuniWireless Greenville, North Carolina rolls out downtown Wi-Fi hotzone

The size of the coverage area is 1.3 square miles (3.3 square kilometers). It encompasses City Hall and the Pitt County Courthouse. This area is home to many businesses and the town commons where concerts are held in the spring and summer.

If the city decides to roll out a network that covers the entire community the area of coverage will be 31 square miles (80 square kilometers), and the initial cost estimate is approximately $2.5 million. The cost of the test bed is $51,000. It utilizes an existing Internet connection of 6mb down and 1mb up. The systems integrator/ISP is WindChannel out of Raleigh, NC and they are installing a Nortel Networks solution using 7220 access points and a 7250 centralized controller.

Greenville.
North Carolina.
Home of East Carolina University.

Eating Chapel Hill’s lunch.

EconomicDevelopment, Government, LocalPolitics, Media, MunicipalNetworking, Technology

Easthom Update on Chapel Hill WiFi

Leave a comment

In case you don’t subscribe to Council member Laurin Easthom’s ‘blog The Easthom Page, she has an update on some possible forward motion on implementing a municipal network.

Updated staff report on wireless with council discussion is tentative but hopeful for April 23. Such a report will be pretty inclusive and give us the staff’s full range of realistic possibilities for the council and public to consider at that time. I’ll update accordingly, or if things change.

She tagged it to her recent post on “Wifi and Economic Development”.

Thanks for the update Laurin.

Community, Downtown, EconomicDevelopment, Government, LocalPolitics, Media, MunicipalNetworking, Ruminations, Technology

Chapel Hill’s Public Forum on Information Technology

8 Comments

If you would like to see our Town use technology to more effectively address social issues, improve operational efficiencies and drive the cost of doing government business down, then make a date to attend the rescheduled Public Forum on Information Technology 7-9pm Mar. 21st, 2007.

The event will be held in the Conference Room of the Chapel Hill Public Library, 100 Library Drive, Chapel Hill [MAP].

While the invitation by “the Town of Chapel Hill to the public to offer comments and suggestions on how it can use information technology to provide more effective and efficient services” is encouraging, given the consultant-oriented agenda

The purpose of the focus group is to provide citizens an opportunity to comment on the components of an information technology environment that would assist Town government operations to provide for the effective and efficient delivery of services to the community. Receiving public input is a part of the process of developing a needs assessment, which is being developed by RHJ Associates Inc. under contract with the Town.

I’m a little concerned that this is more about checking off the “public participation” requirement than soliciting real input.

Council approved the RHJ proposal for a needs assessment [PDF] Nov. 6th, 2006.

Who is RHJ Associates, Inc.?

RHJ Associates, Inc. (RHJA), a Delaware corporation, was established in March, 2000 as a follow-on to the discontinued public sector business unit of The Network Address, Inc. (NAI), Annapolis, Maryland to continue serving the local government community. RHJA focuses on information technology issues confronting municipal governments, is managed by Robert (“Jake”) Jacobstein, formerly Vice President of Client Services of NAI’s public sector business unit, and includes other experts in fields of technology relevant to accomplish day-to-day municipal operating objectives. Upon formation of the company, RHJA expanded its services by teaming with seasoned consultants who possess depth and breadth in virtually all areas of applying technology to government operations. RHJ associates have a minimum of ten years working experience serving the local government sector. RHJA consultants offer a holistic set of services in addressing municipal technology needs. These services include strategic planning, needs assessment, telecommunication planning and design, including voice, data, video and multi-media, organizational development, project management, enterprise resource planning, vocational systems acquisition, and institutional network specification and development,. Collectively, RHJ associates have served hundreds of public entities by assisting them with their information technology challenges.

Sounds good doesn’t it? Strange thing – the only website I’ve found for them (http://rhjassociates.com/) list their address as:

1124 Ragsdale Ct.
New Port Richey, FL 34654
(301) 332-2300
(646) 225-7777 (fax)
Jake’s Email

The site is rather, ummm, elegant in its simplicity.

If there’s another site, I haven’t stumbled on it yet. This kind of appears to be a one man operation run by “Jake”. The curricula vitae of his staff, at least the staff he had in 2004 looks impressive but his proposal to Council was silent on his 2007 assistants (if any).

How did RHJ Associates get involved? Town Manager Roger Stancil.

Town Manager Roger Stancil had recommended a contract with RHJ Associates Inc., a Maryland-based municipal technology planning company which he had hired in Fayetteville, where he worked as city manager before coming to Chapel Hill in September. The company is managed by Jake Jacobstein, a former executive with The Network Address Inc.

N&O’s Jesse James DeConto, Oct. 26th, 2006

Hey, working with someone you’ve worked with before and trust is a smart idea. The no-bid $37,000 contract – not so smart.

Especially for a guy that seems not to be broadly experienced in building social networks or business systems but, instead, has focused on optimizing telecommunications.

At least that’s what he did for Fayetteville’s Public Works Commission (their hometown power company) Oct. 11th, 2006 .

Consideration of Purchase of New Telephone Switch and Related Components
Presented by: James Rose, Chief Administrative Officer Jake Jacobstein, RHJ Associates
Recommendation: Award contract to Embarq (formerly Sprint) [OUCH!]

Same for Cumberland County, Jan. 25th, 2006.

The committee discussed at length the pros and cons for the phone system being voice over IP or digital. RHJ Associates, Jake Jacobstein will attend a meeting with the Partnership staff to provide an initial consultation for what is best for the Partnership and OFRC tenants.

Or Colonial Heights, Virginia Oct. 26th, 2006

The objective is to replace the entire telephone system with a new system that increases the effectiveness of 911 PSAP systems users and the public safety service level to the citizens. The City Emergency Communications Center desires to acquire a system with a proven technical and functional design and preference will be given to Proposers that have currently installed systems that closely approximate or satisfy the City Emergency Communications Center’s requirements in the major functional areas.

Hey, nothing wrong with telecommunications! I worked many years for Nortel – even programmed telephone gear. Heck, I think VOIP (voice over Internet) is the bee’s knees.

And don’t get me started on municipal networking and WiFi.

Just because it appears Jake is top heavy in telecomm , there is no reason he couldn’t be fluent in the latest tech trends. I went on to help bootstrap a couple .COMs to multi-million dollar status as a CIO/CTO. I’m at ease with the latest-n-greatest the computer field offers.

No reason Jake couldn’t have tread the same path.

Still, it is curious, at least to this former member of the unreconstituted Technology Board (you remember how Mayor Foy peremptorily dissolved those apparently nettlesome citizen groups don’t you?), that a needs assessment tapping the wisdom of our computer-oriented citizenry isn’t being performed interactively on the ‘net.

Where is the online forum?

Geez, one of the great advantages of online technology is to open up the discussion – to create a long tail of collaborative content to help fuel innovation.

A few missteps here but Mar. 21st will prove RHJ Associates mettle. 7-9pm. The Library. Bring your tech wishlist.

Carrboro, ChapelHill, Community, environment, LocalPolitics, OrangeCounty, Ruminations

Trash Talk: Do you have a Minute? How about 17 years worth?

2 Comments

I appreciate folks dropping by and sampling my blather.

While I write CitizenWill from a Will-perspective, I also try to be somewhat objective in my analysis. Not just say, for instance, that Greenbridge is too tall but to actually measure and model its footprint in GoogleEarth. I also like to link to my source materials so that folks can cut through my BS and do their own homework.

In fact, one reader just asked for some of the SWAB minutes I’ve drawn upon. I’ll deliver that plus 17 years of Orange County BOCC minutes to boot.

Unfortunately, quite a few documents are Adobe PDFs. Worse, many are actually scanned as images instead of textual documents that a Google or Yahoo can index making searching a real beast (for a couple hundred bucks, the county could purchase OCR software to convert those images to text).

Textual PDFs of the Orange County Solid Waste Advisory Board (SWAB):

The following are the minutes for the landfill’s LAND OWNER’S GROUP (LOG) 0/01/1990 to 04/01/2007 [no, I haven’t read them all – yet 😉 ]
I’ve tried to remove duplicate references and narrow the list to those minutes most pertinent to both the landfill and transfer station site selection.

WARNING! The list is over a hundred items long and may take a while to load on a dial-up Internet connection.

Continue reading Trash Talk: Do you have a Minute? How about 17 years worth? →

CarolinaNorth, Community, Development, environment, Government, Hillsborough, LocalPolitics, OrangeCounty, Ruminations

Trash Talk: If not Eubanks, where?

Leave a comment

Given the anticipated growth patterns in Orange County, siting the transfer station near a high capacity transit corridor would seem to be best. The BOCC has two additional sites located at just such a location – the Eno Economic Development District [EEDD] (as I noted in Orange County’s Garbage Center of Gravity).

The EEDD is not without some flaws, including the nearby Eno River, but given the access to the already heavily travelled Hwy. 70/I-85 and a nearly adjacent railroad corridor, the EEDD’s transit profile appears quite promising.

After reviewing the various advisory board, staff and other recommendations made over the last few years on siting a transfer station I’m struck by how options were narrowed in absence of other factors.

It would be great if the reassessment that Mark Chilton has called for would include a new kind of decision matrix that took into account a wider variety of factors for deciding a new location:
economic, social and environmental impacts, future growth – including Carolina North, the current and projected centers of waste creation (like UNC), energy costs, etc.

In other words, we need a decision matrix that incorporates more dimensions than a straight landfill engineering problem. That matrix should assign values to social, environmental, economic, etc. impacts and assess possible sites against that metric.

The two US70E sites referenced in tonight’s agenda item [PDF] are:

5412 US70E. Tax Value: $654,435. Asking Price: $3.8M. Size: 19.05 acres.

5701 US70E. Tax Value: $326,942. Asking Price: $2.0M. Size: 16.27 acres.

Google MAP of general area.

Here are the profiles for each of the selected sites:

5412 US 70E (click image to expand) 5701 US 70E (click image to expand)
ChapelHill, Chatham, CitizenWill, Community, Government, LocalPolitics, Media, OrangeCounty

Trash Talk: SqueezeThePulp Led Online

9 Comments

Though I’ve quoted many relevant comments from OrangePolitics, a watering-hole for local pols, the “other” local forum, SqueezeThePulp has been popping with online commentary for months.

Here’s one of the more active threads Proposed Orange County Landfill Transfer Station Survey which led off with this David Richter open letter to the Orange County Board of Commissioners (BOCC) and elective councils of Carrboro and Chapel Hill:

An open e-mail and appeal to each of elected leaders of Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro:

Proposed: Eubanks Road and the surrounding areas should be removed as a proposed site for the Orange County Landfill Transfer Station from further consideration for now and for the foreseeable future.

Dear Elected Leaders:

I am asking each of you to take an immediate public and personal position on the above proposal. There was a column in the Chapel Hill Herald on Tuesday, 2/13/07 and the Chapel Hill News, 2/14/07 that talked to all the reasons why Eubanks Road should not be the site of the new Landfill Transfer Station. However, the simple fact is that the Rogers Road community was made a promise in 1972 on placement of the Orange County landfill on Eubanks Road. When the landfill was filled to capacity, the Rogers Road community would no longer be subject to Orange County waste facilities and activities. We should not quibble on technicalities or wording. That was the spirit of the promise.

We can talk about how that promise was already broken, but that would not be useful or productive. If the transfer station is located on or near Eubanks Road, it will clearly be a break of the promise and an act of intentional or unintentional “Environmental Racism”. This promise and the decades of contribution by the Rogers Road Community override all the other considerations of cost and expediency. As our current elected leaders, you are responsible to fulfill that original 1972 promise assuring the integrity of our local governments, adhering to the values of our community and just plain doing the right thing.

I am asking each of you to respond to me by March 1^st . The response should be a Yes or No to the above proposal. I will compile all the responses and report it to the local papers. I will also feedback all the responses to those who did respond. Besides each of your names, I will place one of the following entries with no caveats:

– Yes (for the proposal)
– No (against the proposal)
– No position
– No response

I appreciate your attention to this issue and look forward to your responses and a positive result. Thanks.

David Richter

Commissioner Moses Carey responded to David

Mr. Richter;

I am certain that you have followed the process the County is using to make this important decision about the location of the Transfer Station. Our efforts to communicate with the area residents and consider all available sites have been reported in local papers. Additionally the issue of a “Promise ” has been discussed in this community for many years. While you may not be familiar with those past discussions, you may consult the archives of the news papers to become updated on those discussions.

The BOCC has a process to make a decision on the Transfer Station site and I trust we will adhere to it. That process includes listening to area residents and weighing all available information before making a decision. The views of the Towns on the currently considered sites is the next bit of information we will receive for discussion at our march 1st work session during which the public may listen, but not speak. You may wish to attend to be further informed.

However, it would be premature and unethical in my opinion for any elected official to respond to you as you have requested prior to considering all information which must be considered to make an informed decision on this matter.

I look forward to seeing you at our meeting.

and David responded to Moses

Commissioner Carey:

Thank you for responding to my e-mail. I do appreciate your time and consideration. However, I am baffled by your response and disagree with your rationale.

1) I do agree that we have an ethical problem but disagree where the ethical problem lies. Regardless of whether people agree on the reality or the interpretation of the “promise”, it is an undeniable fact the Roger’s Road community has lived with the Orange County Landfill for over three decades in their back yard and all the resulting negative impacts to their quality of life. After three plus decades the fact that Orange County Board of Commissioners is even considering the same area as the site of the Transfer Station is of itself unethical. It is time to look else where to solve Orange County’s waste problems.

2) I do not understand what process you were referencing in your response. I was unable to retrieve any process with a search. If there is a documented process please point me to it. However, in the last posted minutes of the Solid Waste Advisory Board meeting of 11/2/06 it seems there is no current alternative Orange County site list or search of a site in progress. In fact it is my understanding there is no official criteria for a Transfer Station site in place. The minutes clearly promote the Eubanks Road site for the Transfer Station as the path of least resistance. As far as I can tell, Eubanks Road is the “ONLY” site within Orange County under consideration. Please tell me if I am wrong and if so I apologize and where can I find the list? It is also important to note that any “process” leading to an unethical result is far from appropriate.

For our elected leaders to stand up at this time and be counted is not unethical; it is the right thing for them to do. I urge them to be counted, if not through an e-mail to me (I am just a single citizen speaking for myself) then through other venues. I also urge the Orange County Board of Commissioners to take the ethical path and instruct the Solid Waste Advisory board to take Eubanks Road off the table and find another site for the Transfer Station regardless of the convenience factor. After all, the Rogers Road Community has been living with the “inconvenience” for a long time.

David Richter
Carrboro

Yes, SqueezeThePulp snide, nasty and tough at times with a few dust ups that drown the signal out with noise (like the crappy tit-for-tat that Fred Black and Mark Gill had in the middle of this transfer station discussion) but it does serve a locally online community that Ruby’s OrangePolitics doesn’t.

And that online community, on the Rogers Road issue, led the way.

Carrboro, ChapelHill, environment, Government, LocalPolitics, OrangeCounty

Trash Talk: Promises Unmet

Leave a comment

[UPDATE:] Dan Coleman posted this nice summary over on OrangePolitics of the ’97 minutes:

Thanks, Mark. Your four points are absolutely correct. As well as reviewing the 1997 agreements, the Commissioner’s ought to take a close look at the landfill neighbors’ current “Hope List”:

  • 1) Cover open bed trucks going to landfill (agreed to in 1997 document)
  • 2) Lower speed limit from 40 to 25 (issue with DOT)
  • 3) Trash pick up along side Rogers Road (agreed to in 1997 document)
  • 4) Site clean up and community assistance
  • 5) Transit system for Rogers Road (promised in 1997, cost estimate for next FY requested last month)
  • 6) Summer jobs for youth (15-19)
  • 7) Sidewalks on both side of road (Carrboro is proceeding with study of its side)
  • 8 ) Define county-wide goals as relate to Rogers Road communities
  • 9) Recreation program in this community

I met with Reverend Campbell and Barbara Hopskin last week to discuss this list. It seems to convey a clear sense of what the neighborhood is looking for. I was struck by the extent to which these items are matters of common-sense, with many part of our regular processes for neighborhood improvements (improvements Rogers Road has waited on for far too long).

Thank you Dan for doing the heavy editing!

[ORIGINAL]

As I posted before, the Rogers Road community was supposed to receive value in trade for siting a landfill in their backyards.

During the Oct. 22nd, 1997, Assembly of Governments meeting (minutes [PDF] ) the following statements were made, reviewed, submitted to a vote and either passed or not.

First, these 5 key points of which each governmental body was asked to agree upon:

1. The County becomes the local government with primary authority and responsibility over operational and policy matters related to the solid waste system, subject to the limitations imposed by the Agreement.
2. In its capacity as the system operator, the County agrees to establish and maintain a new disposal facility, and in return for access to disposal capacities the Towns agree to provide their solid waste and recyclables to the County system.
3. The parties jointly agree on the location of that new disposal facility.
4. The parties agree on benefits or benefits processes related to the communities (a) in the area of the existing landfill and (b) in the area of the new disposal facility.
5. The parties agree on some treatment of the Greene Tract.

The following commitments were made:

ITEM FOURTEEN (xiv): This item reads as follows: The Working Group recommends that three residents of the area near the Eubanks Road landfill (two in the Rogers Road area, an one in the Millhouse Road area) be identified to receive all mailings and information sent to members of the Landfill Owners Group or its successor agency. This information should be made available to all residents of the area.

A motion was made by Council member Chilton, seconded to Alderman Gist, to approve this item as written.

VOTE: MOTION PASSED

Status: I’m not aware of the compliance with this directive.

ITEM TEN (x): This item reads as follows: The Working Group recommends that Chapel Hill Transit re-route the North-South connector bus line to serve Rogers Road on either its northbound or southbound trip, starting with the 1998-1999 service year. For the duration of the 1997-1998 service year, the Rogers Road area should be designated as a Shared Ride Feeder Zone if this can be accomplished within adopted budgets and available resources. [MY EMPHASIS]

Council member Franck stated that changing the bus route would be a “zero” cost option from a budgetary viewpoint. It will have a slight cost from a transit operation standpoint. This was not the first choice of Manager Cal Horton who recommended an alternative route.

A motion was made by Council member Franck, seconded by Alderman McDuffee, to approve Item Ten.

VOTE: Motion Passed

Status: Unmet due to various reasons. Brought up again during 2005 Chapel Hill election. Finally looks to be implemented.

This item reads as follows: The Working Group recommends that Orange County erect “Children Playing” and “School Bus Stop” signs on Rogers Road. Residents of the Rogers Road neighborhood will identify appropriate locations for these signs.

Commissioner Halkiotis asked if the Department of Transportation had declined this request.

Council member Chilton said that they had declined, however, the Town of Chapel Hill would provide these signs.
A motion was made by Council member Chilton, seconded by Alderman Gist, to approve this item as presented.

VOTE: Motion Passed

Status: For several years I’ve heard complaints from Rogers Road citizens that the signage is not sufficient.

ITEM EIGHT (viii): This item reads as follows: The Landfill Owners Group will budget for the installation of perimeter fencing around the Orange Regional Landfill no later than the 1998-1999 Budget Year. Prior to completion of the fence, the Director of the Orange County APS shall be notified ,strong>to ensure that no large animals are trapped inside the fence.

Commissioner Gordon requested clarification regarding the concerns staff had about providing this perimeter fencing.

County Manager Link indicated that staff had questions about whether a 6’ fence was adequate given that deer could jump over a fence that high.

Council member Chilton stated that the neighbors were concerned about animals going into and out of the area, in particular dogs and vermin. The construction of a fence designed to control animals would be approximately $50,000 more expensive than the cost of the original fence which was approximately $150,000.

Commissioner Halkiotis suggested that the height and mesh needed to be adequate to keep out both vermin and deer.

A motion was made by Mayor Nelson, seconded by Alderman Gist, to approve this item as presented.

VOTE: Motion Passed

Status: Might’ve dealt with large animals getting out but the converse, keeping small animals like rats in, not complied with to the Rogers Road community’s satisfaction.

ITEM SEVEN (vii): This item reads as follows: The Working Group recommends that residents living near the Orange Regional Landfill take initiative in identifying perpetrators of illegal dumping near the landfill to assist in successful prosecutions. Identification of vehicles, license tags, drivers, and/or types of articles discarded should be made when possible.

The Landfill Owners Group will investigate with the Orange County Attorney the possibility of enacting legislation which would provide for civil penalties for illegal dumping, to make it easier to penalize people who litter. In addition, the LOG will publicize the names of those convicted of illegal dumping.

The Working Group recommends that additional “No Littering” signs be erected in the neighborhoods near the landfill.

A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Alderman Gist, to approve Number Seven.

VOTE: Motion Passed

Status: A common complaint is that the current garbage transfer trucks produce a great amount of roadside litter. I’d be interested if anyone knows of haulers being cited for violating either local or state litter laws.

ITEM SIX (vi): This item reads as follows: The Landfill Owners Group will adopt a policy governing construction at the Orange Regional Landfill. This policy will govern issues affecting neighboring residents, including nighttime construction, blasting, and noise. The policy will identify ways to mitigate or eliminate adverse effects on landfill neighbors, and will require all neighbors (those living in the areas to be provided with water and sewer service) to be notified one week in advance of the start of construction. Such notification shall include the estimated duration of construction, and a description of any special construction activities which may impact neighbors. Notification will, at a minimum, include posting of signs on the four roadway entrances into these neighborhoods (the north end of Millhouse Road, both ends of Eubanks Road, and the south end of Rogers Road).

Under ordinary circumstances, the LOG and its contractors will avoid construction between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 am and will provide for immediate notification of neighbors when emergency circumstances dictate that construction activities are unavoidable during these hours. The LOG will ensure that any contractors carrying out construction at the landfill follow the Orange County Noise Ordinance.

Council member Chilton stated that Chapel Hill staff’s assessment was that construction would most likely be happening all of the time, which would mean that signs would be posted all of the time.

A motion was made by Alderman Zaffron, seconded by Mayor Nelson, to approve Number Six of this agreement.

VOTE: Motion Passed.

Status: I remember complaints about construction noise when the landfill infrastructure was being modified/expanded during the early 2000’s. Not sure how the complaints were resolved.

I would hope that a similar provision would be adopted and ENFORCED if the transfer station is built on Eubanks.

ITEM FIVE (v): This item reads as follows: The Landfill Owners Group will adopt a policy which doubles the minimum frequency of litter pickup on roads surrounding the Orange Regional Landfill. This will result in litter pickup on Eubanks Road east of the landfill entrance at least twice weekly, on Eubanks Road west of the landfill entrance at least six times annually, and on Rogers Road at least eight times annually. Future modifications of these pickup frequencies shall be made only by the Landfill Owners Group or its successors.
A motion was made by Council member Franck, seconded by Alderman Zaffron, to approve this item.

VOTE: Motion Passed.

Status: Roadside litter is a common complaint. I don’t recall any complaints on frequency – I hope to get a better read on this soon.

ITEM FOUR (iv): This item reads as follows: The Landfill Owners Group will adopt a policy which requires loads of mulch leaving the Orange Regional Landfill to be covered. The Landfill will make available for sale tarps of various sizes for purchasers of mulch to cover their loads. This policy will become effective after a three month grace period, during which time education will be provided to mulch purchasers at the landfill.

A motion was made by Alderman McDuffee, seconded by Council member Franck, to approve this item.

VOTE: Motion Passed

Status: From personal observation (based on several years of following trucks on Eubanks after exiting Millhouse) it seems that government-related loads of mulch are the most likely to be inadequately covered and blowing out. Not sure what the general compliance has been with this provision.

ITEM THREE (iii): This item reads as follows: The Landfill Owners Group will prepare and recommend a policy for adoption by the Chapel Hill Town Council which will require loads of waste (MSW and Construction and Demolition waste) being brought to the Orange Regional Landfill to be covered. Under the policy, loads which are not covered would be subject to fine. The fines would become effective after a three month grace period. Non-commercial first-time offenders should be offered the option of purchasing a tarp at the landfill in lieu of paying the fine.

Council Member Chilton stated that there is already a state law to this effect but it is not as stringent as this requirement would be.

A motion was made by Council member Pavao, seconded by Alderman Zaffron, to approve this item.

Status: Need more information. My personal observation is that compliance has slipped over the years as development has increased.

[UPDATE:] Carrboro Board of Aldermen Dan Coleman offers this succinct list of motions approved and defeated. From OrangePolitics:

ASSEMBLY OF GOVERNMENTS
OCTOBER 22, 1997

  • Item: three residents of the area near the Eubanks Road landfill (two in the Rogers Road area, an one in the Millhouse Road area) be identified to receive all mailings and information sent to members of the Landfill Owners Group or its successor agency.

    Motion Passed

  • Item: no expansion (beyond the existing permitted disposal capacity) of the disposal areas (MSW or Construction and Demolition) of the Eubanks Road landfill occur.
    The Working Group recommends that the Landfill Owners Group or its successor make no incremental land acquisitions at the Eubanks Road Landfill.

    MOTION FAILED

  • Item: following the closure of The Eubanks Road landfill, portions of the landfill (as allowed by regulations), the Neville tract, and at least 50 acres of the Green tract will be used for recreation facilities.

    MOTION FAILED

  • Item: sponsor a public information meeting regarding the planning boundary (future annexation boundary) between Chapel Hill and Carrboro.

    MOTION FAILED

  • Item: re-route the North-South connector bus line to serve Rogers Road on either its northbound or southbound trip, starting with the 1998-1999 service year

    Motion Passed

  • Item: erect “Children Playing” and “School Bus Stop” signs on Rogers Road.

    Motion Passed

  • Item: budget for the installation of perimeter fencing around the Orange Regional Landfill no later than the 1998-1999

    Motion Passed

  • Item: Investigate with the Orange County Attorney the possibility of enacting legislation which would provide for civil penalties for illegal dumping, to make it easier to penalize people who litter. In addition, the LOG will publicize the names of those convicted of illegal dumping.
  • Item: The Working Group recommends that additional “No Littering” signs be erected in the neighborhoods near the landfill.

    Motion Passed

  • Item: policy will govern issues affecting neighboring residents, including nighttime construction, blasting, and noise. The policy will identify ways to mitigate or eliminate adverse effects on landfill neighbors

    Motion Passed

  • Item: litter pickup on Eubanks Road east of the landfill entrance at least twice weekly, on Eubanks Road west of the landfill entrance at least six times annually, and on Rogers Road at least eight times annually.

    Motion Passed

  • Item: requires loads of mulch leaving the Orange Regional Landfill to be covered. The Landfill will make available for sale tarps of various sizes for purchasers of mulch to cover their loads.

    Motion Passed

  • Item: require loads of waste (MSW and Construction and Demolition waste) being brought to the Orange Regional Landfill to be covered.

    Motion Passed

  • Item: water and sewer mains be extended to provide service to the area along the entire length of Rogers Road; Millhouse Road from Eubanks Road to New Jericho Road; and serving households on other side streets off these main roads (including, but not limited to Purefoy Drive, Rusch Road, Priscilla Lane, Sandberg Lane, Meadow Run Court, Manor Drive, Manor Court and Blackwood Mountain Road)

    Motion Did Not Pass

Campaign, ChapelHill, Elections, LocalPolitics, Ruminations

CitizenWill is Certifiable

Leave a comment

As some of the more “critical” of you readers have noted elsewhere, CitizenWill is certifiable – and here’s the proof.



I zipped down yesterday to Raleigh for the 2 hour campaign treasurer training session to comply with the new NC election statutes. Though I’ve been filing reports since 2005, and a lot of the material was old hat, the session, held at the tucked away State Board of Elections (SBOE) was still interesting.

Here’s a few observations.

Of the 24 folks attending, PACs and candidates were equally represented. I sat next to Linda Stevens treasurer. Time-Warner’s PAC was there. Some very spiffy dressed folks – election newbies – helping run Rocky Mount’s mayoral and sheriff elections attended.

Only one other candidate, former or otherwise, came – a man running for Zebulon council and his wife. He said that election campaign rules were being prolifically broken in Zebulon.

As a side note, Mike Nelson told me I was foolish to be my own treasurer – which, given all the “complex” contributions he received in 2006 😉 – I can appreciate. He also said he didn’t review the reports, something I think is a bit foolish. Mike’s pushing for some reforms at the county level – non-partisan elections, unfortunately, is not one of them.

A long lead up to mentioning that the training I received will be online and available in May.

I suggest every candidate – even those like Mike with the luxury of a campaign treasurers – go through the self-paced tutorial. In the end, the buck stops with the candidate.

Some confusion was introduced by the SBOE this year as the reports are now based on an election cycle – which starts the day after the election – instead of current method, which tracks the years. The gap between Nov. 8th to Dec 31st has to be handled differently. Several PAC folks whinged on about the delta.

In the toothless election law reforms department, county party executive committees can give unlimited funds and receive unlimited funds. Chapel Hill municipal elections are non-partisan (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) so this wide open avenue to funding doesn’t pertain but what a major gap.

Also in the toothless vein, folks can give $50 per day in cash up to $4000. Why toothless? Cash is fungible and hard to track – like a check. Bundling contributions appears to be a problem.

Business contributions, which are illegal, continue to be an issue.

Lots of time spent talking about in-kind from folks who are self-employed – are they acting as an individual or a business? For those folks, if you receive a check on their business letterhead, a “business statement” must be filed by the campaign asserting that the individual commingles personal/business funds and only has a single account for everything…

Using administrative staff or even your business phone for campaign activities is verbotten.

The trainer underlined that contributions from out-of-state require all info be reported (too bad the same couldn’t be said for out-of-county).

That said, records of all contributions must contain complete info though complete reports are only necessary if the aggregate contributions are over $50.

In-kind contributions require a receipt – including candidate in-kinds. Receipts are not reported.

Another common mistake: loan proceeds plus contributions from an individual cannot exceed $4000 per individual unless one of the excepted groups – (candidate, spouse, party committee). My total campaign was a little more than $3300…

Any amount of postage can be paid in cash.

Expenditures. Vendor expenses must be itemized. I’ve seen local reports that didn’t itemize.

Designation of Committee Funds form needs to be filled out to dictate
the fund transfer if you should die/etc. Leaving funds to a 501c3 allowed.

NCS: 163-278.16B “Use of contributions for certain purposes.” [PDF] was the biggy.

(a) A candidate or candidate campaign committee may use contributions only for the following purposes:
(1) Expenditures resulting from the campaign for public office by the candidate or candidate’s campaign committee.
(2) Expenditures resulting from holding public office.
(3) Contributions to an organization described in section 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. § 170(c)), provided that the candidate or the candidate’s spouse, children, parents, brothers, or sisters are not employed by the organization.
(4) Contributions to a national, State, or district or county committee of a political party or a caucus of the political party.
(5) Contributions to another candidate or candidate’s campaign committee.
(6) To return all or a portion of a contribution to the contributor.
(7) Payment of any penalties against the candidate or candidate’s campaign committee for violation of this Article imposed by a board of elections or a court of competent jurisdiction.
(8) Payment to the Escheat Fund established by Chapter 116B of the General Statutes.
(b) As used in this section, the term “candidate campaign committee” means the same as in G.S. 163-278.38Z(3).
(c) Contributions made to a candidate or candidate campaign committee do not become a part of the personal estate of the individual candidate. A candidate or the candidate who directs the candidate campaign committee may file with the board a written designation of those funds that directs to which of the permitted uses in subsection (a) of this section they shall be paid in the event of the death or incapacity of the candidate. After the payment of permitted outstanding debts of the account, the candidate’s filed written designation shall control. If the candidate files no such written designation, the funds after payment of permitted outstanding debts shall be distributed in accordance with subdivision (a)(8) of this section. (2006-161, s. 1.)

The update of this statute was prompted by the Speaker Black debacle.

Interesting point raised on the fashion front. Under the new regulations a candidate can’t purchase a new suit to campaign in and pay for it with campaign funds. Since the suit has a lifetime beyond the campaign, it’s considered a personal expenditure.

Websites and email are not addressed in media regulations. Personal website can be used for campaign purposes without a disclaimer if no new costs associated otherwise it might possibly be considered an in-kind. The law is silent on “new media”.

Another major problem (that the crew over at BlueNC are well aware of), independent media buys with a “Not Authorized by…” can be bought in unlimited amounts. That is, if someone, like Anglico’s Puppetmaster, wants to purchase unlimited media for a candidate and states “This ad is not authorized by my toady to be…”, then it’s alright.

I was astonished by this loophole and had the trainer clarify my understanding. Amazing!

Printed disclosures no less than 12pts, for newspaper 28pts. I threw one of the SBOE staff a curve when I pointed out that different fonts have different sizes at 12 pts.

Interestingly , in television, if you mention opposition candidate the candidate must speak the disclaimer. Not sure about radio.

youTube is not covered.

Over and over, the SBOE emphasized yo need to keep records of every contribution no matter how small. And look for edge cases. Example – sell $20 t-shirt + $30 contribution, you trigger the $50 reporting limit.

Any committee can use the SBOE’s software for managing reports.

That’s about it. I’m now a qualified campaign treasurer for the next 4 years.

If anyone needs a hand forming their committee, I’ll be happy to help: campaign AT willraymond.org

Carrboro, ChapelHill, CivilLiberties, Community, Development, environment, Government, Hillsborough, LocalPolitics, OrangeCounty, Ruminations

2035 Orange County’s Garbage Center of Gravity?

1 Comment

I was struck by a conjunction between the following image from the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan Socio-Economic projections I mentioned earlier and the debate currently raging over siting a trash transfer station on Eubanks Road.

35 years ago the Orange County landfill currently blighting the Rogers Road community was sited close to Chapel Hill/Carrboro communities because they constituted the predominant source of garbage.

Now, with projections of dramatic population shifts 30 years hence, it seems like the center of gravity for Orange County’s trash production (creation?) is shifting North.

I did a quick review of the Orange County Board of Commissioners agenda items covering the Rogers Road issue and couldn’t find a discussion of a new “trash axis”.

Maybe those more mathematically inclined could weigh in on how to calculate this new centroid which, it would seem, help locate the most effective transfer site.

Potential site for transfer station at the Hwy 70/I-85 split (within the Eno Economic Development District):


Eno Economic
Development District

ChapelHill, Community, Development, EconomicDevelopment, LocalPolitics, Ruminations

Oh,Oh Walgreen

Leave a comment

One of RAM Development’s Chapel Hill projects is the poorly sited Walgreen’s on the corner of MLK (Airport Rd.)/Weaver Dairy Rd [MAP]. I’ve commented ( Godzilla vs. Bambi: RAM Development and Chapel Hill) on the problematic expeditious manner this project is taking through “official” channels.

Our Council’s dealings with RAM Development shouldn’t even have the appearance of being preferential.

RAM’s customer, Walgreen Co., seems to be having a bit of trouble involving preferential treatment:

Walgreen Co., the largest U.S. drugstore retailer, was sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission over claims the company assigned black managers and denied them promotions based on race.

The retailer, based in Deerfield, Illinois, used race as a reason to send managers, management trainees and pharmacists to low-performing stores and to stores in black communities, the agency claimed in a statement. Walgreen also denied employees promotion opportunities in violation of U.S. law, the EEOC said.

“It is quite serious,” said Andrea Baran, a senior trial attorney for the EEOC, in an interview. “We received charges from around 20 individuals in the Kansas City-St. Louis area,” as well as Florida, Detroit and other regions, she said. “All of the evidence supported these people’s claims.”

The U.S. government lawsuit follows a court victory for the company last month in a case also related to discrimination allegations. Walgreen won a jury verdict in a suit brought by four Texas men who claimed a clerk used a racial slur when they tried to have film developed at a store in Reno, Nevada.

Bloomberg, Mar. 7, 2007

ChapelHill, Elections, Government, LocalPolitics, Technology

Proprietary Public Policy: Chapel Hill Streaming Video Goes Live?

Leave a comment

In reviewing this evening’s notes on increasing the Town’s election contribution limits ($200 to $250) and lowering the standards of disclosure ($25 instead of $20), I noticed that Internet video is now available.

The Town’s proprietary Windows Media-based solution from Granicus was opposed by a number of members of the since dissolved Town Technology Advisory Board.

Here’s an overview of their system.

Sure, the Macromedia (now Adobe) Flash player used with the content I’ve posted on youTube and Google Video is proprietary, but, unlike the Granicus system, both give you a download option.


UPDATE:
The media player was not honoring the “no autoplay” directive. For the sanity of my readers, I’ve put in this direct link.
DIRECT LINK

I hope this issue is resolved before final deployment.

BTW, I think the current $200/$20 thresholds should stand until contested. Further, rather than fiddling with the limits we should be pushing for public financing – which, luckily, is on tonight’s agenda [#13]. The Council is asking the State permission to trial public financing.

Of course, asking is a lot easier than doing. Hopefully this won’t die on the vine after election 2007.

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…

Carrboro, environment, LocalPolitics, Ruminations

Rogers Road, Trashed Again? Carrboro Board of Alderman Weigh In

2 Comments

[UPDATE II:] Excellent write-up covering the history of the landfill by Aarne Vesilind in today’s Chapel Hill News.

[UPDATE:] It appears some of the videos have synch issues introduced by the youTube post processor. They’re watchable. I’ll be reloading them once I’ve identified the problem.

I was planning to speak at the Feb. 20th, 2007 Carrboro Board of Alderman meeting on the apparent predetermined decision to trash the Rogers Road community once again. Instead I attended to a family matter.

It didn’t matter as the concerned citizenry turned out to ask the Carrboro BOA for help.

Mark Schultz’s Chapel Hill News Orange Chat posted a piece in near real time (way to go guys).

These snippets were mixed down from this complete [REALMEDIA] recording provide on-line by the Town of Carrboro (imagine that 😉 ).

GoogleVideo of whole discussion.

Comments by concerned citizens: