You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “At first glance”.
At first glance
Posted in Uncategorized
Posted by NancyDon on September 2, 2013
http://chapelhillwatch.com/2013/09/02/at-first-glance/
Previous Post
Elected or selected?
Elected or selected?
Next Post
Lotsa lux
Lotsa lux
Recent Comments
- Nancy Oates on We’re still here
- Deborah Fulghieri on We’re still here
- Pluramus on Greene Tract series continues
- Nancy Oates on Greene Tract series continues
- Nancy Oates on Greene Tract series continues
- Plurimus on Greene Tract series continues
- Plurimus on Greene Tract series continues
- Nancy Oates on Greene Tract series continues
- plurimus on Greene Tract series continues
Blogroll
Categories
- 140 West
- Budget
- Business
- Carolina North
- CH2020
- Committees
- Community life
- Council Members
- County business
- Courts
- Courtyards of Homestead
- COVID-19
- Deer
- Downtown Chapel Hill
- Economic development
- Elections
- Environment
- Ethics
- Food Trucks
- Homeless Shelter
- Housing
- Land Use
- Library
- Lifestyle
- Media
- Museum
- Northside
- Occupy Protests
- Parking
- Police
- Politics
- Public Works
- Roads
- Sanitation workers
- Schools
- Social justice
- Spending
- Taxes
- Technology
- Town staff
- Transportation
- Trees
- UNC
- Uncategorized
- Work and Money
Tag Cloud
123 West Franklin advisory boards affordability American Legion annexation Bicycle Apartments bond referendum BRT Bus ads candidates Carolina Flats cell phones Central West CH2020 Charterwood Community Home Trust comprehensive plan county commissioners county government development Ephesus-Fordham fireworks form-based zoning Franklin Street Friends of Downtown Growth health care Historic District Commission historic districts Holidays Light Rail Obey Creek park-and-ride personalities real estate sales Rogers Road Shortbread Silent Sam students The Edge Timber Hollow towing traffic Trinitas VOEMeta
Del Snow
/ September 2, 2013I may have the dubious honor of being one the contrarians even though I thought that as a citizen and volunteer I had a right to well researched opinions. It is unfortunate, sad really, that anyone would try to create a groundswell of resentment against citizens working to support high quality and common sense development.
I hope that the current candidates are not intimidated by this and that they will ask the hard questions, support transparency in government, and choose to be inclusive in order to avail themselves of the widest berth of information.
many
/ September 2, 2013Substantive contribution requires a certain amount of refinement and disagreement, It is often necessary to intentionally play the devil’s advocate for the purpose of shifting perspectives.
Contrarian views are not by definition negative and if properly managed are a very constructive addition to the process of critical thinking. Too bad hizhonor is not up to the job.
………………To help hizhonor out, I have annotated my contrarian views below so he can better exclude them from his delicate, unopposed ears.
At first glance, reading your synopsis of what was said, it sounds as if George C is on the page that says entrepreneurial activity is likely a key to enabling the new middle class and solving the lack of upward mobility in this society. If I am not putting words in his mouth, I agree.
I think panhandlers are largely a subset of the homeless and displaced, not different. I also think the increase in vandalism is directly proportional to the number of homeless and displaced. I do not think they are bad people, just that they have less to lose that most others. “When you ain’t got nothin’ you got nothin’ to lose.”
I agree on same street continuity, but that is not a burning issue that makes into my top 20 reasons to vote for a candidate this time around.
I think high property taxes are more of a reason for the broader exodus of capital, but what is anyone going to do about it? See slides 48-51 in the presentation linked below.
/begin contrarian/
Clearly, many of the voters want Chapel Hill to be Greenwich Ct. That is the “brand” many in Chapel Hill are trying to achieve and it is an expensive, exclusive brand. Affordability is for others.
//end contrarian//
Bonnie has made the point that the students who are below the poverty level greatly skew the poverty statistics in Chapel Hill. That impact is quantified on slide 55 in the presentation at the link below. Yet even with the students subtracted, Chapel Hill poverty is still at twice what it is in Cary and three times Apex.
/begin contrarian/
As an aside, I remember being a very poor student (in retrospect, that experience taught me a lot more about life than I appreciated at the time. Thanks, Mom & Dad). So embrace that poverty statistic you inclusive worry warts. Wear it like a social justice badge of honor, and stop complaining about the vandals and students!
//end contrarian//
http://www.slideshare.net/carolinachamber/2013-state-of-the-community-report
Bonnie Hauser
/ September 2, 2013Part of the problem is there’s no accountability – so anyone can say whatever they want. I keep remembering obstructionist McClintock pointing out the need for better stormwater controls – and the mayor got away with suggesting that the floods are a 100 year issue.
What’s the process to hold leaders accountable and to advance the debate.
Tomorrow the Wake County Commissioners are expected to officially pull out of TTA’s plan. Who’s going to hold local officials accountable for committing our funds to a non-existent vision for regional transit?
Talk is cheap. but its better when there’s a dialog.
Fred Black
/ September 2, 2013Nancy, I was sitting well in the back and when the mayor made that comment, I didn’t sense that all eyes were upon you and Julie. Is this a “Nancy statement” for impact?
Diogenes
/ September 3, 2013What at thrill to see that the developer of the “apartments formerly known as Bicycle” have opted for a more erudite name, no doubt as a testament to our oft stated love of learning. Now they are “the Lux at Central Park”. Is it really true that you will be offering “Wednesdays with the classics” in the club house – and that it will be open to ALL lovers of the classics in the community?
Thank you again, Travis Vencil. I hereby nominate you to the Business Hall of Fame!
Del Snow
/ September 3, 2013Fred, who do you think that the Mayor WAS actually referring to?
Fred Black
/ September 3, 2013Del, I don’t know. I was reacting to a claim that I can’t verify from where I was sitting in the rear of the room. I didn’t see heads turn in the direction of Nancy and Julie up front, hence it made me wonder if the claim was made for “effect.” After all, it’s happened here before.
Matt Czajkowski
/ September 3, 2013I wasn’t there but perhaps he was referring to all the young families who have moved here recently and have become actively involved in the Central West “process” and who express with great eloquence why they moved here and the reasons for their concerns with some of the proposals for that area. Or perhaps he meant some of the long time Chapel Hill residents who by any measure are part of the “fabric” of Chapel Hill and are so distressed by the manner in which the process is being conducted that they are holding good old fashioned neighborhood meetings in their homes. Or perhaps he meant all the parents with kids in the schools in Central West who have organized and written letters to express their concern. Or perhaps he meant some of the long time members of the “Friends” who are deeply concerned with the process and some of the proposals. Or perhaps he meant me. Sounds like it could have been a lot of the residents in Chapel Hill!
Del Snow
/ September 3, 2013Matt – I think that you may have nailed it. Wherever I go in Chapel Hill, North, South, Central, East, I hear frustration, anger, and even sadness. Those looks of disbelief speak a thousand words.
Del Snow
/ September 3, 2013Thanks, Fred.
Fred Black
/ September 3, 2013With all of these feelings you would think that there would be more candidates for office and no one would be unopposed.
Del Snow
/ September 3, 2013You could think that, or maybe people have just given up because they have observed that so many voices are ignored.
The “feeling” on the street seems to be that citizens do their homework and present valid and objective data, ask hard questions, and rely on Council to hear them. When all that work is for naught, the word gets out.
DOM
/ September 3, 2013Seems like 90% of the dozen or so contributors to this site are always preaching to the same choir.
Fred, for one, tries to keep them from assuming there are others out there who believe they’re as important as they think they are.
Terri Buckner
/ September 3, 2013I think part of the mayor’s frustration comes from many citizens who rush to conclusions without understanding the facts. For example, “and the mayor got away with suggesting that the floods are a 100 year issue.” Language like that implies that the flooding of summer 2013 was normal when it wasn’t. It wasn’t the result of over-development–it was a 100-year event, meaning floods of that magnitude are rare and highly unlikely to occur.
The conversation that should be occurring around that issue, which is rampant within the Central West area, should be whether we want to design a community around random, rarely occurring events like that flood. To design/build for such events would make construction even more expensive and would add even more bureaucratic controls to the process.
There’s always going to be risk. The question is how much risk does the community want to take and what price they want to take for a zero-risk scenario.
Bonnie Hauser
/ September 3, 2013Terri – if you are following the central west discussion – its about how much height and density is appropriate for a communty with limitied transportation and that includes many single family homes, and lots of kids walking to school.
Stormwater and flooding is a townwide issue which will get worse with more density and fewer impervious surfaces.
to me – its not about risk -its about dialog. Conversation works better than platitudes – and as a friend of mne often says – “two monologues don’t make a dialog”
Terri Buckner
/ September 3, 2013Bonnie–I agree that we need to have dialog. What Mark said at the forum wasn’t a platitude; it was a fact. For dialog to occur, everyone has to listen, even when they don’t like what they hear. If someone isn’t coming to the conversation with an open mind, there isn’t going to be dialog.
And yes, thank you, I have been following the Central West discussions and a great deal of it has been on stormwater. Stormwater is an important issue, and they should be discussing it. But it shouldn’t be used as an excuse to justify the position of not wanting higher density development without really understanding what the issues around it are. For example, to really solve the problem around Eastgate, we’d have to tear down that shopping center. Not only would that not be legal, I doubt if anyone wants to lose those shops. So what are the alternate solutions?
many
/ September 3, 2013Terri,
Hmmm. “even when they don’t like what they hear” eh?
I think hizhoners “100 year event” comment does call into question his understanding of the scientifically projected effects climate change. Thing change, storm water is something that must be accounted and planned for on an ongoing basis. It’s not a one-and-done effort. Offhanded dismissals do not promote due diligence.
As you point out, one major problem is that places like Eastgate were built on catch basin swamps, and are now paved over permanently. Subsequent new development has increased the runoff problem. I seem to remember this same 2013 flooding happened to varying degrees in 2008, 2000, 1996 (Fran) and in 1982…..I think there are more instances, but these come to my memory immediately and are examples of greater frequency than the “random, rarely occurring events” hizhonor chooses to acknowledge. What was that about “coming to the conversation with an open mind”, again?
I think these event’s can possibly be mitigated and I think mitigation and planning is somewhere short of the hyperbolic “tearing the whole thing down”. However, it’s hard to have the discussion you say you want without the acknowledging the facts. Artificially removing risk from the plan without knowing how much it costs or what is possible is part of the lack of accountability (I think) Bonnie is talking about.
Those who care should be questioning some of the plans for further density in these natural drainage areas. Risk is something that can probably be addressed. Expense is part of doing business. “Should we?” is the question. Now where is that pesky discussion?
It sounds like Bonnie is saying in the case of the TTA accountability = blame? If so, I suppose I agree, the _accountability_ is with the commissioners (and, as as my friend Fred likes to point out, ultimately the voters).
The _accountability_ issue with our elected leaders is that they let their wish be the father of their opinion without first doing due diligence. I do not recall anyone from the county or town transit or planning staff being included ….. perhaps I am wrong, but if they were I didn’t hear about it, and their expert opinions seemed ominously missing from the public discussion. Storm water is a concern here too, especially along the New Hope watershed ……. where the TTA show significant “transit oriented” density served by light rail. I did not see storm water mentioned in their documentation or presentations.
I seem to remember hearing at least one newly elected County Commissioner say that the time for talking was over, indicating to me that he thought he had a clear understanding of the risk. I would love to hear his candid thoughts on the matter now.
The _responsibility_ for this mess however is with the TTA. The issue with the TTA is their plan is so burdened with suppositions, omissions and missing contingencies that I am astounded that they could present it as a business plan with a straight face. Even more amazing is that people bought it. In short, Wake County did not need to pull out to make the plan non-existent.
All that does not matter now though, because TTA has our tax money.
Again and again, the missing element in these discussions seems to be a well thought out plan supported _first_ by land use, and _then_ by zoning. I don’t think it’s is too late, I think there are corrective efforts that could be made.
Dan Bruce
/ September 3, 2013Terri, with all due respect, the 100 year flooding event has occurred at least three times since 1996. When you build in a flood plane you’ll probably experience floods.
Central West. That debacle will cost the taxpayers of Chapel Hill close to a quarter of a million dollars according to email exchanges between Stancil and Council. What is refused to be taken into account of in order to rationalize dense urbanization is:
1) Community input.
2) Stormwater issues
3) Transportation issues at the MLK – Estes intersection
4) Transportation issues on Estes Drive
5) School walk zones
From the start of the Central West process it was clear that the town was shaping a case for this neo-urbanism and IMHO all smoke and mirrors.
Terri Buckner
/ September 3, 2013This isn’t a discussion about the technicalities of stormwater. It’s about statements that call the mayor’s understanding of the stormwater issue into question and claim that he isn’t being held accountable for his statements. Language games like those allegations do not promote dialog. If the goal is to promote dialog, as Bonnie claimed, then such games are antithetical to her stated goals of dialog.
FWIW, stormwater engineers agree that the summer flooding was truly a 100-year event.
many
/ September 3, 2013*sigh*
Terri,
It is an attempt at a discussion about storm water and comments made by the mayor are just one example of a dismissive attitude toward inconvenient facts.
Language games indeed! The *extent* of the flood was perhaps a 100 year event but that is a distinction without a difference. History has shown conclusively that major *flooding* (the kind that displaces people) occurs twice a decade, if not more. Current plans promise to add to the effects of that documented flooding.
Now, what are we going to do about it?
Fred Black
/ September 3, 2013I guess some have not given up and are still willing to try to address issue:
To Our Central West Stakeholders:
As co-chairs of the Central West Steering Committee, Michael and I would like to respond briefly to comments made about the cost of developing the CW plan.
The creation of a small area plan by a group composed of and led by Town community members—and including the kind of broad community involvement pioneered in Chapel Hill 2020—is quite new to Chapel Hill. As such, it should not be surprising that it is proceeding at a pace and in ways that were not foreseeable at the outset. One result of this is that the Town staff and its consultants underestimated the level of resources that would be necessary to see this novel process to its conclusion.
The good news is that the Committee is nearing the end of its work and that many of the lessons learned by the group are already being applied to expedite the work for Obey Creek and other Future Focus areas.
We believe that the best time to fully dissect the reasons for the cost increases will be as part of a larger assessment of the process that we hope to conduct after the Committee has presented its recommendations to Council. At that time, we can evaluate what worked and what can be improved and then recommend ways for the Town to design these processes more efficiently in the future.
The members of the Steering Committee, the community members who regularly attend our meetings, and Town staff have been incredibly dedicated, putting in long hours to develop a thoughtful plan for change in the Central West area. We thank them for all their hard work and look forward to sharing the results of our deliberations with the Town beginning in October.
Regards,
Amy and Michael
DOM
/ September 3, 2013Thanks for posting this, Fred. I can’t believe the amount of crap the Central West committee members have gotten from a small minority who seem to think they know better, including Matt Czajkowski. These folks have gone well beyond the call of duty to try and do the best possible job with the tools they have available, yet they continue to get hammered by a strident few who don’t want to see any meaningful change in that area.
Why is that? Politics?
Diogenes
/ September 3, 2013Remember the discussion of the 100 year drought we had a few years back? Need to plan for the new normal. Raise rates to encourage conservation etc. 100 years is no longer valid? What’s good for the goose is NOT good for the gander! Would it be too facile to call it quackery!
Terri Buckner
/ September 3, 2013*sigh*
“Current plans promise to add to the effects of that documented flooding.”
Snarky response: I’m sure the town is going to completely ignore the issue of stormwater in order to build as densely as possible, ignoring all BMPs as they currently exist.
Measured response: Current plans would only add to the flooding problem if they don’t take into consideration new BMPs (best management processes). I don’t think it should be assumed that the town would use strategies from the 1960s/70s when CW and/or Fordham/Ephesus was first built.
many
/ September 3, 2013Terri,
I do not assume any such thing. As I have said before, the issue should be able to be solved. However the issues are important and dismissive attitudes and comments by hizhonor are not helpful in building confidence that these items are being dealt with appropriately.
What *would be* helpful is to understand what the proposal for mitigating the increase in storm water is. As Diogenes brings up, what are the plans for the additional water demand? Will the new reservoir be online in time? It’s the basic understanding of limitations and downstream impacts that seem to be missing.
All the pretty plans with no detail on how such basic infrastructure is limited (or not) by cost and physics is just fodder for the constant contrarian.
It’s OK to say “I don’t know”. But history has shown that it is not OK to say “I assume the town or county has it under control”
Matt Czajkowski
/ September 3, 2013DOM,
You are using a very broad brush when you characterize all of those expressing concern with the Central West process as the “small minority who seem to think they know better”. They represent a broad cross section of Chapel Hill residents. How do I know? I talk to some of them. You apparently hold the view that the answers are quite clear and questioning them is “knowing better”. If the answers are so clear why are thoughtful people who have chosen to live in Chapel Hill when they could live anywhere questioning them? Are they truly how you characterize them (us)?
It would be very convenient if they were only a strident few. Then their views could be dismissed –as some try their best to do.
DOM
/ September 3, 2013Matt –
The truth is, most of those you refer to “who have chosen to live in Chapel Hill” and are against the committee’s progress and process made the decision to live here thirty or forty years ago. Almost every young person I speak to who lives here or wants to live here in the future is looking for more housing choices that fit a much wider variety of incomes — along with a truly sustainable, walkable community in the Central West area. Expensive houses on half-acre lots that need automobiles to get everywhere should not be the standard we set for our community as we move into the twenty-first century. Time to look ahead, not behind.
“Fear of the new is the greatest enemy of progress.”
– Noam Chomsky
Del Snow
/ September 3, 2013You know, I’ve never heard one of the contrarians say that land should remain fallow. People are advocating for using data to support the best development for a specific site – one that works for the applicant, Chapel Hill as a whole, and the surrounding neighbors. Why do the questions about economic benefits (the town does NOT do a fiscal impact analysis), traffic impacts, need for environmental remediations, or even UNC’s forecast for student housing needs not belong in a discussion? Why would people asking valid questions, many times that the Town should be asking, result in dismissive attitudes?
Many years ago, when my son was still a child, he would watch me at Council meetings and he observed that Council was contemplative and seriously condsidered the comments made by speakers. And that was the the Council function, to listen and weigh and actually ask the hard questions themselves.
As far as stormwater goes, I’d be interested in the names of the engineers that said that the flooding occured due to a 100 year storm. No one knows if our weather changes will include much greater rainfall. I doubt that any of them would provide a guarantee that the amount of rainfall that we experienced won’t happen again in the near future. Impervious surface increase has a cumulative effect and cisterns are not being designed for that or the substantial rainfalls that we may have. The choice seems to be between the status quo on stormwater BMPs, or the “contrarian” safer view – planning for increased run-off and the possibility of increasing rainfall.
Matt Czajkowski
/ September 3, 2013DOM,
Since you choose to define this discussion by age and length of residence in Chapel Hill I would suggest you speak with some of the “young people” who are deeply involved in the Central West discussions and are expressing deep dismay with both the direction and the process of the “Central West” discussions. Hard as it may be for you to believe there are many who moved here to be in Chapel Hill for what it is today. Would they like it to be different in some ways. Absolutely — but not radically different.
As for housing choices that fit a wider variety of incomes. No one disagrees. The question is whether it is feasible. There is no evidence to support the assumption/premise that significantly greater density will lead to more affordable housing other than the vague assertion that at some point supply will exceed demand and prices will moderate or come down. Point to a single constrained attractive urban or even “suburban” area where more building and density has resulted in lower or more moderate prices? Manhattan? San Francisco? Palo Alto? Mountain View? It just hasn’t happened! Indeed the opposite has occurred.
As for “expensive houses” that require automobiles to get everywhere — that goes to the core ideological issue. Cars are here to stay for the foreseeable future except in the densest urban areas which Chapel Hill can never be but that is not a position advocates for high density in Chapel Hill want to, or are willing to accept.
To say “time to look ahead, not behind” suggests that those who disagree with your position aren’t either willing or able to look forward. The fact is that they are — they just see the future differently.
And of course to end with the Chomsky quote implies those who disagree are fearful of the new. There are many accomplished, thoughtful residents of Chapel Hill who happen to disagree with you and would certainly take offense to your implicit assertion. Apparently in your world view anyone who disagrees with what you think is the correct course forward can only be doing so because they are fearful or old. I for one may be old but I ain’t fearful dude!
many
/ September 3, 2013DOM,
Ha! ahahahahah-aahaha.
Pardon my mirth, but I find Orwellian humor in your misattributed and misquoted reference from someone who wrote a book entitled “Manufacturing Consent”, which is an indictment of the very model of unquestioned “progress” you are promoting.
I would love to see your reference to what you are attributing to Noam Chomsky . I am unfamiliar with it, please enlighten me. (insert emoticon here)
I believe you might have misquoted and mis-attributed, and the actual quote you refer to is “Fear is the greatest enemy of progress.” – James Ford Bell
BTW; My favorite Noam Chomsky quote is: “I was never aware of any other option but to question everything.” ― Noam Chomsky
Matt Czajkowski
/ September 3, 2013Here’s a letter from a bunch of those old people who have lived here for more than thirty years DOM!
August 25, 2013
Dear Mayor, Council Members and Central West Steering Committee Representatives,
The Estes Hills School Improvement Team (SIT) would like to express some very significant concerns regarding
the Central West Project.
The decision making for this project is proceeding without clear answers to several fundamental issues. Issues that have
very significant ramifications to our entire community and more specifically to the students of Estes Hills Elementary School
and Phillips Middle School.
Simply put, the added traffic burden this project places on these schools and surrounding neighborhoods is unacceptable and
compromises the safety of our students. As anyone who has ever driven on Estes Drive can attest the intersections of Estes Drive
with Franklin and MLK in their current state are painfully slow and cumbersome to navigate. It is unthinkable to imagine the strain
and safety concerns that additional traffic will place on these roads.
Development is inevitable but answers to these questions must be answered before this project continues.
Sincerely,
Estes Hills School Improvement Team
(Adam Schwartz, Drew Ware, Megan Valente, Amy Hird, Courtney Snooks Limerich, Shannon Grabowski,
Christine Cohn, Dawn McClendon, Sarah Barker, Amy Linane, Ann Partin, Jennifer Clark)
Fred Black
/ September 4, 2013Matt, are you saying that the SIT members have all lived here more than 30 years?
DOM
/ September 4, 2013Gee, I wonder how kids get to school in metropolitan areas? Maybe they’re all home-schooled?
Terri Buckner
/ September 4, 2013From the USGS:
“The term “100-year flood” is misleading because it leads people to believe that it happens only once every 100 years. The truth is that an uncommonly big flood can happen any year. The term “100-year flood” is really a statistical designation, and there is a 1-in-100 chance that a flood this size will happen during any year. Perhaps a better term would be the “1-in-100 chance flood.”
The actual number of years between floods of any given size varies a lot. Big floods happen irregularly because the climate naturally varies over many years. We sometimes get big floods in successive or nearly successive years with several very wet years in a row.”
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/FS-229-96/
Again, I don’t think the Mayor was being dismissive by stating a fact.
many
/ September 4, 2013Again, I think the Mayor was being dismissive by omitting facts and ignoring a valid, well documented concern by labeling it as an annoyance.
Terri Buckner
/ September 4, 2013Many–were you in the room when the statement was made? I was.
many
/ September 4, 2013You will never know, Terry. However I say what I say with authority.
Terri Buckner
/ September 4, 2013You say everything with authority–and no way to back it up.
many
/ September 4, 2013….and you.
Scott
/ September 4, 2013All of the comments above are fascinating to read. I am happy to see Council Member Czajkowski’s comments on several matters, especially about younger residents being active and probably liking many aspects of Chapel Hill as it is now – especially the schools being within walking distance if they are in the CW area. Nevertheless, the focus of the CW process and its unreasonable cost in $$, staff time, and resident time has been on the wrong issues. From the outside (as an observer at some but not all of the meetings – and not representing anyone as a client) I would say that many of the residents, some town staff, and the consultants have not addressed the real issues along Estes Drive that frustrated me when I lived near the schools – 2 different occasions. The unsafe conditions most people I know want fixed are the need for safe sidewalks and bike paths along Estes from the traffic light at Caswell to MLK. As soon as “we” admit that this is the most critical need to be addressed it is easy to see why it won’t be fixed by the CW process or plan and not by the current organization of town hall. Well before I moved here in 1989, the Town Council decided that the fiscal-economic model to follow is one where either NCDOT or developer’s pay for improvements needed now – as well as any needed because of a development proposal. For all practical purposes the Town has no significant capital budget for roadway or sidewalk improvements. When I moved here, there wasn’t even a capital budget for several years, if I remember correctly. So lets look today at the specific situation of CW and Estes Drive. We have heard in recent days that the school system does not intend to allow any expansion of the roadway in front of it, that NCDOT has no money nor plans to get any $$ for improvements along Estes Drive, most of the land along the road has been developed for more than 35 years and will not be redeveloped (so no improvement along that frontage).
In fact, the only new development in the corridor since 1990 has been Library 3 and now Library 3 expanded. So, back to the issues of citizen input, contrarians (maybe I am one?), political leadership and conflict in our development approval process. I would say that (1) if as a town we have no real budget for desperately need safety improvements along Estes Drive, (2) if the school board says we can’t have any right of way or changes to the front of their property, and (3) NCDOT has no money or plans for the foreseeable future, we are not going to see anything beneficial happen along Estes Drive for many years – UNLESS.
Unless (1) some unknown benefactor comes along and gives us $8-10,000,000 OR (2) we as a community actually tax ourselves as we should in order to make the improvements we need, OR (3) we provide those properties that can be developed with enough economic intensity to allow them to pay for their share (and more) of the improvements we want in the corridor. SO, I say to you who may or may not be contrarians and to you my neighbors living in the neighborhoods along Estes Drive – Do you want to change the economic-fiscal model to get some of the improvements needed in place or not? Are you willing to pay taxes to provide these improvements so that we can tell the developers – not so much intensity because we aren’t asking you to build all the improvements any more. For some reason, some very active residents have been able to make it seem as if all the problems are caused by developers. All of us have caused the problems. Does anyone on the Council or any of the candidates for council this year have the nerve to say to us all – “If we want a better quality of life and safety we need to begin to pay for it ourselves.”
many
/ September 4, 2013Scott. Well said.
I had not understood the capital budget angle. Unless sidewalk improvements are “hidden” in some other line item in the budget, it seems you are correct. The lack of a budget item for this specific purpose makes it indeed a problem to even scope a discussion and the effect is to re-enforce the contrarian high ground.
Of course it can be fixed, but no one has calculated (probably no one is willing to be shot as the messenger) exactly how much it costs….for what….and what the other puts and takes are to that big contrarian elephant in the room.
One small nit; when you say “Are you willing to pay taxes to provide these improvements ……. “, some might counter that paying for this infrastructure is not a matter of additional taxes as much as re-prioritization of the existing spend as investment.
I also thought of a second question that might arise; in the case where the existing right-of-way is not enough, are property owners willing to be compensated for some small strip of frontage to accommodate the infrastructure, in the spirit of community improvement and safety?
DOM
/ September 4, 2013Scott –
“Are you willing to pay taxes to provide these improvements so that we can tell the developers – not so much intensity because we aren’t asking you to build all the improvements any more.”
The only possible way Estes Drive will ever get sidewalks and bike lanes (in our lifetime) is if the developers pay for it. And without providing high-density possibilities to make that area attractive enough for those developers, Estes will continue to be an unsafe and unpleasant experience for bicyclists, school kids and automobiles alike. If that’s what the neighborhood really want, that’s what they’ll really get.
Councilman Czajkowski and others advocating for low/no density are only shining folks on when they say we can have a safer street but not give anything up to get it.
Bonnie Hauser
/ September 4, 2013I disagree with this basic premise that upzoning is the quick fix to and unsustainable economy. Bulding $17 million librarywith architectural blinds and slate floors and no bus service, or taxpayer funded buses, or a host of other issues are contributing to the fiscal insolvency. As Many suggests, some can be fixed by re-setting priorities (in a meaningful way).
Its not even clear that these projects will be economically positive. In support of those data driven obstructionists – it would be really nice to see some numbers – that show incremental costs and incremental value for these improvements. Maybe include a couple of lower density alternatives. Please remember to factor in the portion of the property that will be own by UNC or some other tax exempt entity.
Does anyone know how much of the property in Meadowmont is tax exempt UNC property?
I support development – but will never be convinced that some ideological notion of “the new Urbanism” or any other concept applies in a one-size-fits-all matter.
To quote Terri “sigh”
Scott
/ September 4, 2013Bonnie – you stated “I disagree with this basic premise that upzoning is the quick fix to and unsustainable economy.” You appear to be interpreting my comments to mean that I believe that up-zoning is an appropriate fix for the economic / town service / fiscal issues. I don’t believe that, nor did I say that. I described the box that the Council Members of the 80′ and 90’s put together and that is now un-functional. (It was then also, but no one was paying attention to the long term effects.)
“Building a $17 million library with architectural blinds and slate floors and no bus service, or taxpayer funded buses, or a host of other issues are contributing to the fiscal insolvency. As Many suggests, some can be fixed by re-setting priorities (in a meaningful way).” Absolutely Correct !
“Its not even clear that these projects will be economically positive.” Every project does not need to have an economically or fiscally positive impact. If we used that to measure everything (instead of a rational view of ‘needs of the community as a whole’) we would have substantially fewer churches, public parks and other community uses. We need a balance of reinforcing uses. You and I and most of us know that is true.
Many – your comment “The only possible way Estes Drive will ever get sidewalks and bike lanes (in our lifetime) is if the developers pay for it. And without providing high-density possibilities to make that area attractive enough for those developers, Estes will continue to be an unsafe and unpleasant experience for bicyclists, school kids and automobiles alike. If that’s what the neighborhood really want, that’s what they’ll really get.” is probably the most accurate comment about Estes Drive since June 2012 when the Council adopted the 2020 plan. So, if we have no NCDOT funding and no town funding and no school funding and low density for new development, you are correct, the environment along Estes will never get materially better. And if we follow the current development review process timeframes, the earliest that any serious improvements will be in place (and only for the frontage of the vacant properties – but apparently not along the school frontage if the school system can help it) will be at least 5 years from now. As a friend of mine commented to me a couple days ago, “Why didn’t the town spend $250,000 on right of way acquisition and needed sidewalks instead of another 18 months of study to so far determine nothing?” Darn good question. Who can answer it?
Fred Black
/ September 4, 2013Bonnie, why do you say the CHPL is not served by CHT?
Weekday Bus Information
CL, D and F Routes: CL, D and F bus routes serve Franklin Street within easy walking distance of the Library.
The Senior Shuttle, operated by EZ Rider, stops at the Library and is a free service that provides transportation for Chapel Hill/Carrboro seniors. See the schedule.
Weekend Bus Information
D Route and FG Route: The Saturday D and FG Routes serve Franklin Street within easy walking distance of the Library.
The Senior Shuttle, operated by EZ Rider, stops at the Library and is a free service that provides transportation for Chapel Hill/Carrboro seniors. See the schedule.
NOTE: Bus schedule links above provide both scheduled and real time service information. If you need further assistance, please call Chapel Hill Transit at (919) 968-2769.
Bonnie Hauser
/ September 4, 2013Fred -as you know library senior bus services was added (last week) after the major oversight was discovered. And the costs were not in the budget. There’s still major route issues for the entire town – and its unlikely that Southern Village residents will opt for two buses to the library – to be dropped of on Franklin Street. Of course the proof of the pudding…
Scott – the upside down economic comments weren’t targetd at you – more at the cult thinking that that density will create economic solvency. And its worse when people who call for data to support the idea are called “obstructionist”
From what I can see, economic development and the new urbanism is replacing “sustainability” as the new buzzwords.
That said – I hope you all noticed that while the town is seeking new and unusual ways to bypass its citizens, Steve Brantley secured Hi Chew -aicandy manufacturer who is building a plant in the county’s Buckhorn Economic Develpment Districts. 90 jobs, average income $38,000+ benefits, tied to education programs at Durham Tech and most of all – the area was pre-zoned and the project is embraced by local residents who welcome the opportunity for jobs and skills development.
http://www.chapelhillnews.com/2013/09/03/3161513/japanese-candy-maker-to-open-plant.html
Fred Black
/ September 4, 2013Bonnie, the senior shuttle began August 19 and is funded by a federal transportation grant. When we did have service to the library, it was discontinued due to lack of use. Also, the trail from Franklin is very easy to walk.
“I hope you all noticed that while the town is seeking new and unusual ways to bypass its citizens.” Why these cheap shots?
many
/ September 4, 2013Scott,
Just to set the record straight; DOM was the anonymous one who you quoted; “The only possible way Estes Drive will ever get sidewalks and bike lanes (in our lifetime) is if the developers pay for it”.
I hate to disagree with my good friend DOM, but I still think the problem is lack of leadership, Agreement is possible.
Now if they just hadn’t given away that half cent sales tax to TTA for “Our Transit Future” it would be paid for.
many
/ September 4, 2013Bonnie,
Actually “Hi_Chew” is the product, the manufacturer is Morinaga & Co.
Moringa is investing about $48 million to build a 120,000-square-foot manufacturing facility in the Buckhorn Economic Development District. Mebane will provide water & sewer, Orange county will pay for the extension. Orange County will still get the county taxes, but Mebane will annex the factory.
The factory will bring about 90 jobs with an average salary of more than $38,000 a year.
I expect most workers will choose to live in Alamance County.
The One North Carolina Fund provides a $264,000 performance-based grant, which is contingent upon a match from the Orange County and Mebane governments.
many
/ September 4, 2013Fred,
……..”Why these cheap shots?
I think this forum is actually pretty civil. Considering the number of anonymous posters and all…….
This is just a guess at the answer, but……. people might think its fair game when other people ask obviously ridiculous smart ass questions like: “Matt, are you saying that the SIT members have all lived here more than 30 years?” instead of addressing the posters point that not all opposition is defined by age and length of residence in Chapel Hill.
And yes, I could have provided examples of my own quotes, but yours are more fun in this context.