Second chance for Charterwood

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Second chance for Charterwood”.

by Nancy Oates on March 2, 2012 • Permalink

Posted in Economic development, Housing

Tagged Charterwood, development

Posted by Nancy Oates on March 2, 2012

http://chapelhillwatch.com/2012/03/02/second-chance-for-charterwood/

69 Comments

Barbara
/ March 2, 2012

Can you add a link to the original story?
Dan Shannon
/ March 2, 2012

The WEEKLY is putting the story up this morning and will send the link as soon as we can.

The $4.3 million breaks down as $3 million for the land purchase and the balance being for four year’s of plans, lawyers, revisions, designs, God knows what-all. At the end of the process Bill Christian will still own the land, but it is likely to be worth considerably less than what he paid. Developing is a risky business, not for the timid.
Dan Shannon
/ March 2, 2012

Here’s the link to the story:
http://www.chapelhillmagazine.com/blogs/chapel-hill-magazine-blog/reviving-charterwood
tom field
/ March 2, 2012

I don’t think the Council should care how much money developers are willing to gamble. ONE thing matters: is the town more attractive and more livable or are we paving over paradise so a rich guy can have three cadillacs instead of just two.
DOM
/ March 2, 2012

Tom Field –

It’s not about how much money a developer makes, it’s about how much property taxes the town’s citizens have to pay under the existing inane approval process we have in place. Your comment makes it pretty obvious; you’re either rich enough so you don’t have to care, or so naive that you can’t see the forest for the trees. Either way, get real.
Terri Buckner
/ March 2, 2012

Was a financial model offered that demonstrated the retail portions of Charterwood would pay for the residential? If not, then DOM makes it pretty obvious he doesn’t understand (or accept) that residential development does not pay for itself.
DOM
/ March 2, 2012

Terri –

Check the numbers. Or better yet, just pull up the ladder and drift off into your own sunset.
Fred Black
/ March 2, 2012

Terri is right, retail development does not pay for itself in terms of what it cost the Town to service them, BUT, that’s only part of the story. People who live in those residential developments tend to have jobs. They pay federal and state taxes on their earnings. The make purchases and they pay taxes on them. A portion of these tax dollars return to us as a Town in various ways – from the federal government, from the state, and from the county. I have not seen a good multiplier effect number that I would hang my hat on, but it’s clear that residential developments do have a multiplier effect that is critical to our community.

Part of the multiplier that is very difficult to estimate but so important is that value added to the Town by those living in the homes – how much would the Town have to spend for the untold hours of volunteer service residents provide at no expense to the Town? I think the only paid “volunteers” are the members of the Town Council, but what about the thousand of other unpaid volunteers. No desirable places to live, no citizens who are the volunteering types.

Anyone have a good multiplier effect number?
George C
/ March 2, 2012

Fred,

I think you probably meant to say “residential does not pay for itself….” in the first sentence of your comment. Is that correct?
Terri Buckner
/ March 2, 2012

When it costs the town almost twice as much to pay for the amenities expected by residents, doing good works for the community doesn’t balance out the burden those costs put on social services, staff salaries, etc. Federal and state funds have been dwindling over the past several years. New development really has to pay for itself or local budgets (town and county) are going to continue in the same sad state they’ve been in recently. I agree with Fred that we need a more detailed review of what development costs in real terms–at both the town and the county levels.
Fred Black
/ March 2, 2012

ThanksGeorge, residential does not just pay for itself, it pays more!

Terri – volunteer work is just ONE example that we tend to discount when we talk about these things but a multiplier has to consider all of these things. Can you think of a town that has gone broke by having homes built within their limits? Evwn under reduced funding we receive dollars because people with jobs pay taxes. Of course the property taxes don’t balance the true costs for town services, but were they ever intended to? Whait to the next revaluation and watch what happens when our values get set lower and tax revenues are reduced. We need a balanced tax base and a project like this helps us move in that direction.

Just wondering how much social services and staff expenses would rise if they had to pay for all of the volunteer hours people donate so freely to do so many necessary jobs each day?
Jon DeHart
/ March 2, 2012

It should pass this time . The time for public comment was when this project was going through all the Boards and Commissions . Which it was passed by all…. I sit on the transportation board and we had no negative public comment when we discussed it .
Name Withheld By Request
/ March 2, 2012

One of the most amazing things about Charterwood’s failure to get approval is Del Snow’s very vocal role in assisting neighborhood organizations in their efforts to stop it. Ms. Snow was actively communicating with and advising these special-interest groups even while she was a sitting member of the Planning Board – who was charged with deciding the project’s fate.

This dual activity is, to me at least, an open violation of the oath she took when she became an advisory board member, and it severely diminishes the planning board’s credibility.

Here’s an excerpt from the Town’s oath:

“Members of advisory boards and commissions shall not discuss, advocate, or vote on any matter in which they have a conflict of interest or an interest which reasonably might appear to be in conflict with the concept of fairness in dealing with public business. A conflict of interest or a potential conflict occurs if a member has a separate, private, or monetary interest, either direct or indirect, in any issue or transaction under consideration. Any member who violates this provision may be subject to removal from the board or commission.”

I would like to suggest to Ms. Snow that she resign from her Planning Board position because of this blatant conflict of interest.

Speaking as a former member of an advisory board, I always tried to fair and objective and honest, and not let my own personal issues and beliefs interfere.

I hope there are advisory board members out there, past and present, who agree with me.
Terri Buckner
/ March 2, 2012

Fred, if growth paid for itself, or as you claim, more than pays for itself, would you think that as the community grows, budgets would be improving rather than getting worse? In 2010-2011 county budget, funding for schools declined as well as county department operating expenses. So if growth pays for itself and operating costs are declining, then why are the towns and the county still looking at budget deficits? I’m not understanding your math.
Fred Black
/ March 2, 2012

Terri, I just want to consider “paying” in a much broader way. You are talking about only the property taxes paid to the Town versus what it costs the Town in terms of service. We need to consider other ways to think about this. Furthermore we shouldn’t just frame this in only our current economic situation.

We should also consider why our tax rates for personnal property are set the way they are.
.
/ March 2, 2012

Chapel Hill’s residential property taxes are based on market rate property values, which have risen in Chapel Hill since 1995. The average home in Chapel Hill increased in value to 2.6 times its 1995 value.

Each homeowner pays three property taxes: one to Chapel Hill, one to Orange County, and one to Chapel Hill/Carrboro City School District. In that time, Chapel Hill added over 4,000 single family homes and an untold number of townhouses and apartments, adding enormous taxable value, and thus tax revenue.

Chapel Hill taxes rose so that homeowners now pay 2.44 times as much as in 1995. Orange County taxes rose to 2.52 times the 1995 amount. CHCCS District tax rose to 3.26 times the 1995 amount. In the same period, the Consumer Price Index rose 1.48 times.

Growth does not pay for itself, judging from actual tax data.
George C
/ March 3, 2012

I would like to respond to “Name Withheld By Request” who has suggested that Del Snow resign from her Planning Board position. It is true that Del was very active in opposing Charterwood and I’m sure she provided advice to many people in their efforts to oppose this project. Del also opposed the Aydan Court project that Council rejected last year.

I was on the opposite position as Del on these projects but when I sat on the Planning Board with Del I always knew her to be fair in her positions and civil to her opponents. The fact that Del was the only advisory board member opposed to Charterwood shows that she is willing to defend her position under unfavorable (and possibly uncomfortable) conditions. But she hasn’t hesitated.

It is important for Chapel Hill that we do not try to be too homogenous. We need in our Town not only diversity, but diversity of opinions. And we should extend a welcome when someone challenges us to defend our opinions because such challenges will either reveal the weaknesses of those opinions or buttress their strengths even more.

IMHO you don’t have to like Del Snow’s opinions but you should certainly respect her right to them and you should thank her for taking the time to serve the Town of Chapel Hill and for her efforts on its behalf, even if you don’t always agree with the result.
Name Withheld By Request
/ March 4, 2012

George C.
“It is true that Del was very active in opposing Charterwood and I’m sure she provided advice to many people in their efforts to oppose this project.”

But if the advice she provided is based on “inside information” she received as a result of her position on the Planning Board, doesn’t that constitute unethical behavior according to the advisory board oath she has worn to uphold?
George C
/ March 4, 2012

I’m not aware of any “insider information” ever being provided to Planning Board members. All of our meetings were always open to the public and publicly posted at least 48 hours beforehand. For the last several years the Planning Board meetings have also been taped so that any citizen can go back and review the tapes.
Again, even if I didn’t agree with Del’s position I have no doubt that she acted with complete integrity as a member of the Planning Board.
Del Snow
/ March 5, 2012

Terri-a financial analysis of Charterwood is very interesting.
The amount of sales tax revenue to Chapel Hill (originally estimated as $100,000) was reduced by the applicant to $22,000 after Northwoods V challenged the numbers presented and recalculated the estimate. That number only holds true if the space is rented. Considering that both Chapel Hill North and Timberlyne have vacancies and The Edge is printed on Town visioning base maps, and that Bridgepoint is already approved just down the block, the area is awash in retail.
And, as you correctly stated, residential development is revenue negative to the town-the last Town figures quote 76 cents of property tax revenue for every $1.00 of services. Because this is rental housing there will be NO affordable component.
Office space is propsed even though CH currently has at minimum a 15 year supply of office made up of inventoried space, approved, and in consideration (University Square, The Edge). This does NOT reflect Carolina North.
Ignored is the cost to the Town of degradation of Booker Creek, the loss of a magnificent grove of old growth trees, and the reversal of CH’s tradition of neighborhood protection.
Fred-although I appreciate the sentiment, this is the first time I have ever heard of “potential volunteers” being a rationale for approval of a development.
It is unfortunate for Mr. Christian that he has invested so much in these plans. I met with him, at his request, on July 8, 2008, before purchase was finalized, and reflected that the Northern Area Task Force report did NOT endorse the vision he had for this property. So he went into it with full knowledge of the constraints. I’m sure that there is a suitable use for this property, but Charterwood, as proposed, is not it.
And-to Anonymous-As George said (BTW, thanks, George!), I have always been open and forthright, too bad you won’t say who you are!
DOM
/ March 5, 2012

Del Snow –

Is there any type of development in Chapel Hill that you would be in favor of?
Jason
/ March 5, 2012

I grew up in this town and it seems like every time a development comes before approvals Del is there to oppose it. I would love to hear what Del would like developed.
Fred Black
/ March 5, 2012

Del, you seem to miss my point. I did not say that “potential volunteers” are a rationale for approval of a development and I don’t understand why you desire to characterize my comment that way.

Yes, we all understand that residential development is revenue negative to the town when you examine taxes paid versus Town services. What I said is that if we think broader and consider the multiplier effect, those who occupy residential space bring more to the Town than just the property taxes they pay. I cited the return from volunteering as just one of several examples.

I would hope that we can think in a brooader context than just the “76 cents of property tax revenue for every $1.00 of services” kind of thinking. Has this broader context of a multiplier effect ever come up in Planning Board discussions? If not, then I am even more dissapointed than I am already.
Del Snow
/ March 5, 2012

I’ll try to answer everyone’s questions and comments-
Dom-I checked all of my Planning Board votes that are on line (you can check it on the Town website) and found that of 19 development votes, I voted FOR 15 and against 4. The 4 that I voted against did not, in my belief, fulfill the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, which the Planning Board is charged with upholding. As a matter of fact, I spoke to Council in favor of Bridgepoint, which is up here in my neck of the woods. I do not believe that I was appointed to rubber stamp.
Jason-See above for voting record. I would like to see redevelopment before development on environmentally sensitive land. Ram’s Plaza/Volvo is a central area that is bad need of a fix. Why not make it into a destination a la Cameron Village or American Tobacco? Creativity is important. Ditto for UMall. The Greene tract could have a public/pvt partnership on it. Carolina North will happen. Why not take these incremental steps and evaluate the cost/benefit before turning all of Chapel Hill’s corridors into Capitol Boulevard?
Fred-I’m sorry if you think that I mischaracterized your comment. People who live here do not necessarily work here, spend money here, or even volunteer here, but they do definitley use our services. Are you saying that there are intangible and unquantifiable benefits to growth? There may be, just as there may be intangible and unquantifiable consequences to IRRESPONSIBLE growth. Additionally, the surge of rental property developments is depriving our community of both affordable housing and seemingly, significant payments in lieu. Lastly, when there are complaints about property taxes, one thing that should be considered is that the property tax paid is a reflection of how highly Chapel Hill homes are valued. They are valued highly BECAUSE of the schools and the belief that Chapel Hill honors specific values, like the environment and diversity. IF schools become overcrowded and diversity is lost with expensive rentals (Charterwood’s 2 bedroom units are propsed to rent at $1600-$1750.), what will make Chapel Hill a destination to live in? Why not choose just any other Town? Then, your valuation will go down, as will your property tax. That is not the way to solve the problem. As for a speculative “multiplier effect,” it has not come up when George was chair, when Mike was chair, nor during my term as chair.
Fred Black
/ March 5, 2012

Del, sorry you don’t get what I said, but thanks for the lecture and the implication that others just don’t understand these issues as you do.
Del Snow
/ March 5, 2012

Gee, I’m sorry that you think that I came off that way-I was just happy to have an opportunity to let others know what I really think. I answered everyone questions and comments to the best of my ability.
Chris Jones
/ March 5, 2012

Re: 76 cents property tax value per $1.00 of services. This is a great canned quote, but, like most others, it fails to tell the whole story . . . as Fred mentioned (several) times there are quantifiable and unquantifiable measures that new residents add to the community – sales and use tax, volunteerism, diversity (doesn’t just have to be economic diversity to count as diversity, folks), etc.. Additionally, the best part about this economic environment is that it is forcing all levels of government to re-evaluate that “$1.00 of services.” I think that many would agree with me that, spread across town, county, state, and federal, there is significant waste in the respective budgets. Reducing that waste certainly improves the oft quoted 76% ratio.

Re: 15 year supply of office space . . . huh? I don’t recall that from Dwight’s reports. Also, I’m pretty sure that all here would agree that, as a community, it’s critical to add to the commercial tax base so that growth can come from that segment as opposed to constantly raising your personal property tax rate (or, may favorite, call it “no tax increase”, but bump up assessed valuations by 50-10%). I don’t know if we’re talking “if you build it they will come”, but I’m damn sure they won’t come if we don’t build it.

Re: Capital Blvd. Del, I don’t know you, and I hope you don’t take this personally, but when you start tossing out purposefully incendiary comments like that, you start to lose credibility with people like me. I don’t want Capital Blvd . . . you don’t want Capital Blvd . . . Charterwood didn’t propose Capital Blvd, and you know darn well that this community is never going to allow something that looks remotely like “Capital Blvd.” . . . using it as a point of reference to color your argument strikes me as an intellectually dishonest attempt to inaccurately portray the development in a manner that rallies those around your beliefs.

I do hate to say that directly to you, as there are often comments on here that teeter on (or flat out are) personal attacks, and I truly mean it as constructive feedback.
Fred Black
/ March 5, 2012

Del, I never made a comment pro or con in re Charterwood. I said nothing about our tax rate, affordable housing, rentals, our schools, or other points contained in your lecture that followed my name. I only made the point that it is not just a simple equation that Terri first stated, “it costs the town almost twice as much to pay for the amenities expected.” Should we not consider the whole/big picture as we plan our future.

Still looking for that list of values people talk about as if we all have the same list. As a CH2020 co-chair, I assure you that we are worlds apart on “our” values.
Del Snow
/ March 5, 2012

Chris-
I appreciate you not attacking me personally.

The .76/1.00 issue is one that the Town, including Dwight, quote. I definitely agree that any and every budget should be analyzed for waste and increased efficiency. It would be great if there was an agreed upon new ratio!

I’d guess that you wouldn’t support unlimited growth-somehow we have to find the “tipping point” beyond which our water/schools/waste/infrastructure will no longer be able to support the population.

Office space: You are correct-Dwight never said 15 years. Here are my calculations (figures taken from “Strategy 5 office market analysis paid for by CH and from development proposals) all on website:
Inventory (spring 2010) 300,000 sq ft.
approved: Hillmont 450,000 sq ft.
The Edge 80,000 sq ft
University Sq 275,000 sq ft
per Strategy 5 asst’d
smaller projects 75,000 sq ft.
TOTAL 1,180,000 sq ft.
historical absorption rate in a GOOD econonmy-70.000 sq ft/year (per Strategy 5) = 16.85 years
note: this does not include Carolina North.

As for my Capitol Blvd. comment. 1) It was not meant to be incendiary. I never said, nor implied that Charterwood’s proposal was, in itself, that kind of proposal. My comment was that if all our transit corridors are rezoned high density, then the cumulative effect of MLK, 54, and 15-501 from the Durham line to Southern Village will be comparable to Capitol Blvd. I hope that you attended the 2020 Visioning Charette exercise. Some of the facilitators were trying to force citizens to choose only high density options. Rosemary and George are aware of this and have taken appropriate action, so I am not making this up.

There have been developments that have been approved in CH that various people dislike. Matt dislikes 54E, many people don’t like Rosemary Village or Greenbridge. But they are all built and we have to live with them. I’m merely suggesting that we choose projects that we canl be proud of and those that will succeed.
Chris Jones
/ March 5, 2012

Del, thanks for taking the time to respond. Just a couple of quick points . . .

Making MLK, 54, and 15-501 high-density doesn’t scare me a bit. I believe that our community design standards won’t allow it to look like Capital Blvd.

The following only holds true if you have an interest in growing this community — if you are a no-growth advocate, then you can stop reading. You better get on the bus with “tall” and “high-density.” Unless you are interested in abolishing the rural buffer (which we know will never happen), then the only available substitute is to go up. And before someone tosses the gentrification card, that rural buffer has done more to raise residential property assessments than Greenbridge or Shortbread ever considered.

Once you come to the realization that “up” and “dense” is really, unfortunately, the only options, then it becomes a design question. How can you do this (ala Charleston historic district) and retain the characteristics of our community without turning it into Capital Blvd. It can be done, and, I, for one, trust our community to not let the 54 corridor turn into a treeless stretch of used car lots and strip malls.

Re: your final paragraph, and I know you weren’t trying to say otherwise, but it bears mentioning: it’s irrelevant to me that Matt C doesn’t like East 54, or that “many people” don’t like other developments. Many people like both of the developments (I’m neutral on Rosemary Village but like the Warehouse apts, love East 54, and like the concept, if not the final result or placement, of Greenbridge). If we, as a community, sit around and wait until we can find a project that everybody likes, it’s going to be a long damn time before we do anything in this town.

Finally, I understand where you got your 15-year number now . . . while I think the logic to get to that number is correct, my point was that we, as a community, should be aiming for MORE than the historical absorption rate. The historic metric will not repair the imbalance in tax revenues in this community — in my opinion, in order for CH to thrive, we MUST grow the commercial sector.
Nancy Oates
/ March 5, 2012

If people who live here don’t work here and don’t spend money here, that is an indicator that we need to allow more commercial development and not make it so hard for businesses to thrive (i.e. the sign ordinance that will not allow logos or colors). Then maybe residents would have more time to volunteer because they wouldn’t be spending so much time commuting to work out of town or driving to Durham to shop. Our diversity is shrinking because the town has limited residential growth, pushing housing prices up. The average price of a house or condo is $400,000 in Chapel Hill, meaning a monthly mortgage payment of more than $2,500, and that doesn’t include property taxes and utilities, so a rental unit at $1,600 a month allows a little more SES diversity.
Del Snow
/ March 5, 2012

Hi Fred-
I’m not too sure why you are so angry at me. Although we may disagree, we both are trying to honestly support what we each think is best for Chapel Hill – that must count for something!.

I’ll be happy to share my values/hopes with you-these are not in any specific order-

Environmental stewardship
A process for working co-operatively with UNC
Diversity in housing/jobs/population/age
Neighborhood protection
Increased bus service
Creative planning (making CH a destination rather than a clone of other towns)
More Mid-level retail
Anonymous
/ March 5, 2012

whatever your position
1) residential (particularly residential that generates school children) does not lower tax rates

2) a development that by sq. footage is almost completely residential will not net lower tax rates

3) commercial helps with tax rates, not so much cause of the sales tax, but because it pays full taxes for schools which is 50% of your county tax (without generating need for service (children).

charterwood is basically a trojan horse to get in a lot of residential.
Deborah Fulghieri
/ March 5, 2012

Does anyone know if constructive of residential rentals gives rise to school impact fees?

Residential construction in Chapel Hill is reminiscent of the Akio Morita’s famous cost curve, whereby the marginal cost per unit went UP the larger the order, because it would be necessary to build additional facilities to accomodate it. That’s what building has done in Chapel Hill– required capital investment in fire and police stations, garbage trucks, schools, and with them additional personnel salaries and benefits, and materiel.
DOM
/ March 5, 2012

A sad and ironic sidenote to this discussion – Dwight Bassett resigned today. I for one will miss his input greatly and I think everyone else that worked with him will too.

With many people still shortsighted enough to be chanting the “No Growth” mantra, he definitely had the most thankless job in town.
DOM
/ March 5, 2012

Del Snow –

“Neighborhood protection”

For/from whom?
Anonymous
/ March 6, 2012

@ Deborah
yes there are impact fees.
http://www.co.orange.nc.us/planning/Fees.asp

I think they need to be revisited. I think the big push for
multifamily (rental) units is partially due to a discrepancy in these fees.
single family detached pay a fee of $11,000 to CH schools however, multifamily (rental) only pay $1000 per unit!
No wonder charterwood is asking for a special use permit to make lots of multifamily.
George C
/ March 6, 2012

A draft report prepared for Orange County in December 2007 by TischlerBise looked at the calculation of impact fees for the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School system. At that time they estimated that a single family detached home was likely to have 8.6 times as many students as a multi-family dwelling.
http://www.co.orange.nc.us/occlerks/0809166dC.pdf
While this difference doesn’t quite account for the 11-fold difference in fees posted by Anonymous, it does suggest that the fee structure is not totally out of whack.
However, with the changing economy as well as changing demographics of our community it is probably time to revisit how our school impact fees are calculated if it hasn’t already been recently done.
Jason
/ March 6, 2012

Some folks wonder why can’t there more single family affordable housing in Chapel Hill. Here are several reasons:
Impact fee: $11,423
OWASA fees: $4,000-5000 for home under 2000 s.f.
Engineering costs to design/manage/etc to CH (stormwater) requirements: $7000-10,000
Construction of required stormwater feature: $4000-8000.
That’s +- $30,000 before any dirt is turned.
Chris Jones
/ March 6, 2012

Jason,
To add-on, you can’t turn the dirt until you acquire the dirt, which is typically at a premium compared to neighboring communities, due partially to the list of perceived “values” and substantially by the inflation caused by the rural buffer.
Terri Buckner
/ March 6, 2012

Jason–do you think it’s a good practice to expect new housing units to pay for the existing infrastructure? I can’t tell if you oppose the practice or are just pointing out that it creates a challenge for building affordable housing units. BTW, do you know what % profit most developers expect?
Jason
/ March 6, 2012

Terri – Do I think the impact fee of 11.4k (single family) is too much? Sure I do. It was 4.4k in 2008. Nothing wrong with an impact fee, but CH’s is way out of whack. As you know CH requires developers to set aside a percentage of lots to be sold at a fixed price point (deemed to be affordable). So let’s say that price point is an affordable 120k. 25% of that is eaten up by engineering, imact and OWASA fees. Then take the typical 20% of the sale price and dedicate that to the cost of the land. So now the developer/builder has $66,000 left to build the home. No profit (and typically a sizeable loss) and only affordable to the person who buys it. And even if the builder can sell homes for 200k the accessory costs make it difficult to turn any type of profit.
Terri Buckner
/ March 6, 2012

Jason– I was trying to find out if you are opposed to charging impact fees, regardless of amount. The principle behind impact fees are that new residences should pay to buy into the existing infrastructure such as schools, water/sewer treatment, roads, etc. How the principle is applied is a different question. I think 11K is too high also, but if we agree that impact fees are reasonable, then the discussion should be on how to bring down the true cost of living here.
Deborah Fulghieri
/ March 6, 2012

I note that CHCCS property tax has risen at more than twice the inflation rate, because more building has required more teachers’ and administrators’ salaries and benefits. The property tax for Orange County, which builds schools, has also risen faster than inflation, all this in addition to the impact fees paid during that time.

Steve Scroggs, when he was district ass’t superindendent, noted that multifamily housing yielded many more students than consultants expected.
Road Warrior
/ March 7, 2012

The thing everyone is forgetting is that this is the second attempt at development on this land. Del has fought both. Personally, I prefer residential to retail, because retail in suburban areas tends to bring crime.

As for more kids in schools, I am not sure why this is a bad thing. Chapel Hill is becoming too old and it is making it a very strange place to live. We had Light Poles deemed unsafe at Cedar Falls Park for about 20 years. We don’t have a pair of football uprights on youth fields in town (those are Rugby at Cedar Falls).

Our Soccer and baseball fields have locks on them to prevent casual residents from using them (part of that is sod protection, but still).

Del had no problem approving an emergency homeless shelter next to a park, but an actual development for working families is a problem? This is not an attack, I only know her as someone who has fought every development near her house.

I live in Parkside and I have seen better developments defeated. I don’t really like the size and scope of Charterwood, but as the land becomes more valuable the size and scope will only get worse.

What is making us like Cary are people who have the “I got mine attitude” of the older residents who only care about the school system or the parks when it means there might be children in them.
DOM
/ March 7, 2012

Let’s just hope that Charterwood’s revised effort to get approval brings some sense to Town Council members and they pass it, as they should have earlier.
Deborah Fulghieri
/ March 7, 2012

@Road Warrior:
More kids in schools and parks is a good thing: schools and parks have to be paid for since no one’s figured out how to make them materialize out of nothing. Either we as a town embrace growth without complaining about increased taxes occasioned by it, or we work out in advance how much growth will cost existing residents and weigh the benefits and the costs.
Del Snow
/ March 7, 2012

Chris-Is there something between “tall and high density” and “no-growth”? I tend to think there is, mainly because I am not a believer in extremes. Hypothetically, let’s say all transit corridors in Chapel Hill plus downtown are zoned high density from the get go. What if (and I would guess you would say it’s a big “if”) it doesn’t work out as well as projected? My suggestion would be to go dense in some select places and step back and see how it works out. As for the metaphorical Capital Blvd-I would hope that would be avoided, but you have to remember that board members and even elected officials and staff come and go. The historical absorption rate was in a “good economy” so one could argue that our 15 year number is even longer. It is enough time to increase the commercial sector somewhat and re-evaluate in a few years.
Jason
/ March 7, 2012

I love how Del is quoted in the paper saying the developer is “gaming the system” and trying to find a loophole. Del – some would say you are doing the same thing by leading the opposition of Charterwood and chairing the planning board.
George C
/ March 7, 2012

Jason,
Unless they’ve changed the rules since my time as Chair of the Planning Board, the Chair gets only 1 vote, the same as everyone else. The Chair’s function was to lead the meetings and I never knew there to be any source of additional power or clout attached to the title. There was certainly no extra pay associated with its duties. 🙂