Just because they can

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Just because they can”.

by on June 8, 2015  •  Permalink
Posted in Economic development, Environment, Housing, Land Use, Lifestyle, Roads, Spending, Taxes, Transportation
Tagged , , ,
Posted by Nancy Oates on June 8, 2015

http://chapelhillwatch.com/2015/06/08/just-because-they-can/

Previous Post
Next Post
Leave a comment

70 Comments

1 2

  1. anon

     /  June 9, 2015

    unless there is a large outcry from the citizenry in person at council meetings; the council tends to go along with staff. Even when a development seems to go against a council member’s own intuition and own public comments (e.g. The Edge), in the end they go along with developers/staff unless there’s massive public showing … The Edge is one of those mystifying times when council members make lots of great comments (why not more commercial or office – since ideal location right near I-40 (a la southpoint); why not put residential above commercial; why not put a huge office tower (a la Quintiles) along I-40; one of the last commercial type parcels that is not previously developed in CH, it’s a greenfield so why rush and make a mistake, etc..) all of these were direct council comments, but then the developer ignored them all and the council just rubber stamped it anyway… The citizens have no hope of council not going along with the developer and staff it seems, based on the Edge.

  2. Nancy

     /  June 9, 2015

    And even with a strong community outpouring, council members vote the way developers who fund their re-election campaigns want them to vote. Think of Central West, Ephesus-Fordham and now Obey Creek, in addition to The Edge. I was taken aback that Donna Bell made no pretense of absorbing new information at the Obey Creek hearing last night, saying that she had made up her mind long ago to vote for the maximum amount the developer would build, and she wasn’t going to change her mind.

  3. Fred Black

     /  June 9, 2015

    “…council members vote the way developers who fund their re-election campaigns want them to vote.”

    Nancy, over the years there have been votes for projects where council members who voted “nay” had also accepted contributions from developers. And would those who voted “yea” still have voted that way if they hadn’t accepted any developer-related contributions.

    Same issue with contributions from non-developers. Some donors don’t like how a member votes on something from time to time, yet they contribute again. Put me in that column.

  4. Nancy

     /  June 9, 2015

    Fred, this particular council in the past year or two seems particularly vulnerable to pressure. Recall last night when Sally asked that the Arts Advisory Board weigh in on the water feature, and Maria and Donna jumped on her, and Sally backed down and said, “Just a consult; the developer doesn’t have to listen.” Even Sally, who I count on to show starch, wilted. What is happening to this council?

  5. anon

     /  June 9, 2015

    it’s not campaign contributions. It’s more making sure they get the Independent weekly endorsement. And seriously a few of the council members made great points against the Edge (and encouraging to build more if it was office space or commercial so it’s not just not build it) but in the end council just went along. If the people in Southern village don’t mobilize against obey creek you can forget anything that’s not exactly what the developer wants. The rest of chapel hill doesn’t care how awful it becomes there or whether chatham future development is going to require 6 lanes there eventually.

  6. bonnie hauser

     /  June 9, 2015

    Anon- I agree about the public showing. But its sad to think that 100 people can drive a decision that impacts tens of thousands.

    The crowd places more political pressure on decision- makers – but in the end, we need better information and more open dialog- not a bigger circus.

    Why wont our governments move these important discussions into work groups and take them out of chambers?

  7. Deborah Fulghieri

     /  June 9, 2015

    Town staff have been working flat-out for over a year to put together a development agreement for the Obey Creek developer-on-behalf-of-its-client, exactly as proposed in 2010. It does not acknowledge the 15-501 South portion of the Comprehensive Plan (Chapel Hill 2020) that was put together in 2011 and 2012 and adopted by Council in 2012.

    I watched the meeting last night and was impressed as Mark Kleinschmidt in his capacity as mayor interrupted member after member of the public. He talked over Susan Lindsay, Joe Buonfiglio, Jeannie Brown, Neal Bench, Buffie Webber, Travis Crayton (he interrupted Mr. Crayton in order to call Ms. Webber back to the microphone after her time was up), Monte Brown, Dale Coker, and even Amy Ryan. He already has the publicly promised votes of Donna Bell and Maria Palmer, and the likely vote of George Cianciolo along with his own. He has shepherded a majority for this gigantic project which has been put together by town staff, so why be rude to the public?

  8. many

     /  June 9, 2015

    Deborah, “impressed” was not the word that came to my mind when I read your post.

  9. Terri

     /  June 9, 2015

    The speeches made by Donna Bell and Maria Palmer toward the end of the agenda item are informative and I hope all CH voters will take the time to listen to them.

    Ms. Palmer claims that there are thousands of people who commute into town because there is insufficient housing. I work with a lot of people, most of whom don’t live here and have no interest in living here. Recently hired staff that have moved to the community don’t even look for housing in CH–it’s just too expensive to live here. Building new apartment buildings isn’t going to decrease the commuters IMHO.

    The other issue that continues to bother me is this concept of ‘senior housing.’ I did a project this spring on senior housing and according to the literature, the goal of most seniors (including myself) is aging in place and in multi-age neighborhoods.

  10. Bruce Springsteen

     /  June 9, 2015

    I went to the TC meeting in person last night for the first time ever. It’s as slow as it looks on TV. When they have a big thing like Obey on the agenda I don’t know why they can’t have a separate night for that instead of making everyone sit through 1.5 hours of that other stuff.

    Considering how long the whole thing is to begin with I think it would be a good idea for TC members Ward to some degree but especially Bell and Palmer to be more concise, or concise at all. I get that people have views to express but get to your point and then finish. As that guy said on Seinfeld when George was double dipping, “Take one dip and end it!” Give one angle on your opinion and end it!

    I think one good way for TC to bring in revenue to CH is to impose a tax every time “um” is uttered at a council meeting. TC members, developers, speakers, everybody, it’s um, um, um, um.

    How about that little booth to the right where TC members get a drink, or whatever? That was interesting. It’s kinda odd but I don’t begrudge them that because maybe they have to stretch their neck or adjust their pants and they don’t want to do it with everyone watching. It’s a good setup for an experiment though. What you do is get about a dozen sweaters ranging from dark red to bright red. Wear the dark red one and store the rest in that booth. Each time you go to the booth to (supposedly) get a drink of water, take off the sweater and put the one on of the next lighter color. Each color change will be small but over the course of the evening the overall change will be large. And see if anyone notices. You may think “Of course people will notice” but I’ve seen experiments where more obvious changes go unnoticed.

    Bell and Palmer basically admitted they’re voting in favor of Obey and to me says that for better or worse it’s a done deal.

  11. Deborah Fulghieri

     /  June 9, 2015

    WARNING: opinion. Many people commute to town for work because they can get more for less outside Chapel Hill. Just ask economic development officer Dwight Bassett, who told the Chapel Hill News in 2012 that he doesn’t want to live here; taxes are too high. I think people want to live in houses. (That’s why every member of mayorandcouncil lives in a single family house.) Maybe they are like me, and Dwight Bassett, and enjoy a bit of garden. Fresh air. Birds. Quiet. Trees. Privacy. I know that’s what I hoped for when we moved here instead of Houston.

  12. Bruce Springsteen

     /  June 10, 2015

    I think Deborah has sort of hit on the essential tension of the matter. People want a bit of a garden, fresh air, birds, quiet, trees, privacy. But the one more thing that they want that complicates the whole deal is physical proximity to where they have to be to earn their living. After all, if you leave off the “where you earn your living” part then you can go 50 miles in any direction and you’ve got all the fresh air, birds, quiet, trees and privacy you want and for way cheaper than CH / C .

    Speaking of the C in CH / C, that’s a factor in the big picture too. Due to historical accident, C is one town and CH is another. But in practical terms CH and C are all one town.

    But CH has to at least give lip service to how to deal with UNC-CH workers, an increasing number of whom are coming from Chatham. C, OTOH, can pretend they’re just their own little town and say they’re protecting the environment by having a rural buffer to the west and north. They have the luxury to ignore the fact that woods 5 miles to the west and north of UNC inevitably means development 15 miles south and east of UNC and the associated cars driving to and from UNC to work each day.

    That’s all fine, the world is going to go on regardless, but it does mean that the next time someone from C says that they’re protecting the environment by keeping a rural buffer they don’t actually mean they’re protecting the environment.

  13. David

     /  June 10, 2015

    Terri,

    I agree that building apartments will do little to reduce the amount of commuting into Chapel Hill or to reduce the amount of land within the local region being converted into traditional single-family housing, for two reasons. First, as you say, many commuters, especially those with children, are not interested in living in the kind of high-density, urban style housing that is currently being built.

    Second, even if they were interested, most of them couldn’t afford it because the apartments that are being built are targeted toward affluent households.

    I’m guessing it is possible, if there were the will to do so, to build the kind of apartment housing that is both attractive and affordable to moderate-income individuals who have children and who work in Chapel Hill, but neither private real estate developers or the town have an incentive to do so, because the former can make more money building high-end apartments for childless young professionals and affluent retirees and, from a fiscal perspective, the Town or, rather, the County, benefits more from housing that does not contribute new students to the school system.

    So the construction of high density housing within Chapel Hill will likely simply worsen local congestion without either reducing auto emissions associated with commuting or conserving land.

    That’s why I feel we need to be doing much more than we have been to preserve the affordable family-friendly housing that still exists in Chapel Hill.

    Some relevant articles:

    http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpress/1638/what-is-transit-oriented-development-supposed-to-be/

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-luxury-rental-projects-add-to-rent-squeeze-1432114203

  14. Terri

     /  June 10, 2015

    I did get a laugh from the claim that through this project the town is ‘getting’ 85 acres of preserved open space. That is a claim worth a salesmanship award–distracts from the fact that 120 acres were declared permanent open space by an earlier council. Then to make matters worse, they actually discussed whether to add language that would make it hard for a future council to do what they are doing by undoing a previous council’s compact with the community.

  15. many

     /  June 10, 2015

    Perhaps the council could name it mendacity park?

  16. Nancy

     /  June 10, 2015

    Bonnie — I couldn’t disagree with you more. If 100 people, if even one person, has information that can solve a problem that is going to negatively impact the lives of tens of thousands of people who commute through that bottleneck Obey Creek will create, that person should absolutely drive the discussion. The government did take this to a work group, in the form of the Compass Committee, which had unanimous agreement on solutions to do Obey Creek better. And council ignored all of them. The circus became painful as we watched council members embarrass themselves by fawning over the developer or caving to scolding by their colleagues or the applicant. We need better, stronger decision-makers on the dais. November can’t come soon enough.

  17. Don Evans

     /  June 10, 2015

    Wish I knew what motivated the council members — bribes, blackmail, willfull ignorance — but they sure ain’t making decisions for the benefit of the community.

    Bell and Palmer showed an appalling level of willfull ignorance Monday night. Bell as much as said that she would vote for the project because it is not in her neighborhood and that the traffic wouldn’t affect her. Palmer showed yet again her amazing lack of thoughtfulness and confused reasoning and inability to be swayed by facts, adding to her title of Worst Council Member Ever.

    Maybe there’s a way to force the council members to read their packets (obviously some of them don’t even skim the reports) and especially consider (not just listen to) the exceptionally informative presentations made by the public. But I guess none of that can happen unless Roger Perry gives his permission.

    Yep, the council members are Perry’s dogs and he has them well in-leash. Government by the willfully ignorant, instead of government by the well-informed, is not working out, is it?

  18. Terri

     /  June 10, 2015

    I don’t think its fair to assume council members don’t read their packets. But if you make your mind up before you have all the data, then everything you read or hear confirms your preconceived beliefs. I feel sure that Maria truly believes what she says, it’s just that she’s so convinced of her own rightness that she has closed herself off to anything that doesn’t align with those beliefs. Who knows about Donna–she volunteered to be on the Compass Committee but it was clear even back then that she had already made up her mind.

  19. Bonnie Hauser

     /  June 10, 2015

    Nancy –

    These issues are too complicated to rely on the circus to sort them out. The Compass Committee was the right idea and their report was great. It broke down when the council was allowed to ignore it, and has been downhill ever since.

    I find it incredible to see how hard citizens are working to get this right only to be dismissed by empty rhetoric from the dais.

    I can’t wait for November either but fear that the rhetoric will carefully belie the facts.

  20. Fred Black

     /  June 10, 2015

    You know, as much as some of you complain about projects and decision making, tell me what is gained by calling someone “Perry’s dogs” and saying that he has them “well in-leash?” You want people to take this Blog seriously? Why not try being civil and think about how your labels can be interpreted.

  21. Terri

     /  June 10, 2015

    Fred,

    I do not support name calling, but no one on council or staff reads this blog–they apparently don’t read their emails or listen when the public speaks either. That is a form of incivility that I find much more egregious than the name calling.

    Not only does the leadership of this town not listen to its citizenry, but it argues and tells them they are wrong. It produces wave after wave of document revisions, asks its citizens to review those revisions and then makes changes before the citizen comments can be reviewed. A significant amount of time Monday night was spent with either a staff member or an elected official telling a citizen (including representatives from their advisory boards) that their comments were not in alignment with the “current” version of the development agreement.

    Those citizens spent their precious time and energy reviewing those documents and yet staff just blithely made their own changes while the out-of-date citizen reviews remained on the previous version (the pattern applies to multiple iterations not just the last), undoing that citizen effort. Same with the Compass Committee and the South 15-501 Advisory group. Those people spent hours and hours of their time, for no purpose because council members like Donna Bell and Maria Palmer and apparently the mayor, made up their minds a long time ago.

    There used to be a compact between the town and its citizens. That compact has been breached, possibly beyond repair. A few names being called is minor in comparison.

  22. Don Evans

     /  June 10, 2015

    Fred

    So what would you call someone who ignored residents’ well-reasoned objections and advisory board recommendations, chided speakers for their opinions, showed a dismissive attitude toward concerned neighbors, kowtowed to a developer rather than getting meaningful concessions, went out of their way to give away an RCD tract of land, ignored a looming traffic nightmare, doomed businesses across the street, gave tax payer money to enrich a developer and signaled an intention to vote one way before getting all the information?

    Maybe “dogs” is too kind.

  23. Fred Black

     /  June 10, 2015

    Terri, George C. reads and comments from time to time, so that’s just not accurate to say it’s not read by any Council members. And yes, some staff read it too.

    Don, you seem to believe that name calling is appropriate, fine. Remember that when it blows back on you; ignorance has a way of doing that.

  24. Terri

     /  June 10, 2015

    Let me rephrase Fred. if anyone on council or staff read this blog, it has no influence whatsoever on their decisions. It’s as much of a non-factor as all the well-researched and professional information citizens have provided through advisory boards and personal investment.

  25. Don Evans

     /  June 10, 2015

    Fred

    You didn’t address any of the issues I brought up in my “ignorance.” Do you know about these valid points or are you comfortable just ignoring them?

  26. David

     /  June 10, 2015

    Question for you long-time political observers: Has there ever been a time during the past, say, 30 years, when council members were perceived to be as disdainful and dismissive of citizen concerns as they are now perceived to be? If the answer is no, what accounts for the current gulf between the elected officials and the people they are supposed to represent? How does it happen that the direction the majority of council members want to take the town diverges so much from the direction that, as best I can tell, the majority of politically engaged residents want to go?

  27. Fred Black

     /  June 10, 2015

    Don, I was almost certain that you had a handle on the English language. The childish name calling over shadows any points that you are trying to make.

    David, do we know if there are other citizens who are in agreement and actually out number the vocal opponents? I think it has always been very difficult to ascertain the majority position in this town. Election outcomes do tell us something.

  28. David

     /  June 11, 2015

    Fred,

    The best evidence I am aware of is the community survey that the town commissioned in 2009, 2011 and 2013. It was administered to a scientific sample of several hundred residents. In the 2009 survey, fewer than 30% of respondents indicated that they were satisfied with the way the Town was managing growth or planning for the future.

    Although that specific question was not asked in the later surveys, respondents were asked in 2013 which of various categories of new development they wanted to see more of. There was greatest support for more retail development and least support for more residential development. All the new mixed use development projects that have been approved over the past year have been more than 50% residential, because that’s what the developers want to build, or, rather, what they can most easily obtain financing for.

    So it does seem me that, as best I can tell, the Council is approving development that aligns better with the interests of real estate developers and the property owners they represent than with the stated interests of the broad majority of town residents. Council members will say, and they may well believe, that the projects they are approving do in fact serve the broad public interest, but, in my view, these claims do not stand up to scrutiny.

    I assume you are familiar with sociologist Harvey Molotch’s idea of the city as a “growth machine,” wherein the interests of those who profit from land use intensification are prioritized over those of the general population of existing residents. Do you find this analysis applicable to what’s happening in Chapel Hill or to growth in the Triangle generally?

  29. David

     /  June 11, 2015

    Fred,

    Continuing my prior comment, elections do tell us something, but they may tell us mainly how effective different local interest groups are at selling their message and getting their own supporters out to the polls. In terms of resources and PR savvy, it is far from an even playing field. The Chamber has a well funded professional PR operation and full time staff engaged in political advocacy on behalf of those who benefit from land use intensification whereas the general resident population has only loosely organized, poorly funded groups of volunteers.

  30. Fred Black

     /  June 11, 2015

    David, every other year we hear that “the voters” are fed up and will throw out all of the incumbents on the ballot. We haven’t seen anything close. Could it be that what the surveys tell us that people like has a higher priority than development?

    As a Chamber member and recently retired board member, it is a real stretch to claim that the Chamber has a well funded PR operation and a full time staff engaged in political advocacy. Remember that Chamber member members have cross-cutting interests with other members, both within business categories and between them. Advocating for members’ business interests and the interests of the local business community is the goal, and yes, development is a part of that but not the major focus.

  31. anon

     /  June 11, 2015

    Fred, David – as you may know in off year elections at best 20% of eligible voters bother to vote. That is why as long as palmer and bell get the Indy week endorsement they will be elected in perpetuity. The few people who do bother to vote tend to blindly follow that guide.

    Also, a lot of voters probably have no idea as part of developing Southern Village a prior council agreed to downzone Obey creek to one house per acre.

    The most important part of the compass committee report is the suggestion that a conservation easement be taken on most of the obey creek land by a third party to ensure it never be developed. I may have missed it but is that part of the agreement?

    The most egregious part of this is that current council members seem to care less about agreements through zoning past councils have made and also ignoring lots of their own committees recommendations. I’d encourage people to look over the compass committee report

    http://www.townofchapelhill.org/home/showdocument?id=21723

    I think the title of this post is probably one of the more accurate/interesting ones – why ignore prior council agreements and their own committees report ? “because they can”

  32. Don Evans

     /  June 11, 2015

    Fred

    Did you get the part about willfull ignorance?

  33. Terri

     /  June 11, 2015

    Anon–section 5.12 of the draft development agreement says “The tract shall be owned by the Town of Chapel Hill. The Town shall further protect all or portions of the Wilson Creek Preserve by granting a conservation easement(s) to a third party or other means approved by the Town Manager. Once it is deeded, any further trails or development in the Preserve shall be identified and paid for by the Town, consistent with the terms of any conservation easements. The Developer Owner shall be obligated to maintain only the trails that are agreed to as part of the Agreement.”

    This is just another reason why it’s important to have all the details spelled out in the Development Agreement before it is adopted.

  34. David

     /  June 11, 2015

    The INDY has had a monopoly on endorsements in the past but that will no longer be the case. There will be at least one or two other respected sources of endorsement. So the INDY may not carry as much weight with voters as it has in the past, and I say this as one of those who in the past has blindly followed the INDY’s voting guide.

    Fred,

    The Chamber has a full time staff member whose job title is “government relations.” What is government relations if not political advocacy? And as you know, whenever a major development proposal comes up for council review, similarly worded letters of support from Chamber Board members and Chamber rank and file fill the inboxes of the Mayor and Council members. Chamber staff reliably speak at almost every council hearing in support of each new development proposal. Outside of the hearings Chamber staff phone council members at home to try to line up their support for approving rezonings and special use permits. The Chamber gives out widely publicized awards to those council members who vote in favor of the development proposals the Chamber supports, i.e., all of them. Chamber staff help raise campaign funds for Council members who they believe will reliably vote to approve new development proposals. When out-of-town developers want to influence local opinion and council opinion in favor of a development proposal, they donate money to the Chamber. Whatever else the Chamber may do, it is certainly an organized and effective political advocacy operation on behalf of land use intensification.

    Note that I am not saying there is anything at all wrong with the Chamber’s advocacy efforts. Indeed, I admire their skill at what they do. I am merely saying, as one social scientist to another, that the interests of those who benefit from land use intensification are not perfectly aligned with the interests of the broad population of existing residents, and that, at present, the former have a better organized and more effective advocate for their interests than do the latter. Such was not always the case in Chapel Hill.

  35. Nancy

     /  June 11, 2015

    An interesting comment by the mayor at last Monday’s Obey Creek hearing: When a constituent objected to a street the town planned to build in the RCD, the mayor said the council created the RCD and the council could take it away. What happened to the council members we elected who said they were concerned about the environment?

  36. Fred Black

     /  June 11, 2015

    David, I won’t go back and forth with you here about the Chamber. You have so many inaccurate statements so if you would like to discuss, please call me, I’m in the book.

  37. DOM

     /  June 11, 2015

    Someone recently described homeowners who are against new development in their community as “Got-Miners”. Are we sure that’s not something that’s happening here, just a little?

  38. Terri

     /  June 11, 2015

    DOM–you can continue misrepresenting the opposition to Obey Creek as Got-Miners or NIMBY or anything else, but I think by doing so it makes you a rumor-monger.

    The opposition to Obey Creek is not about development–it’s about the size of the development and the impact that size is going to have on traffic. By town staff’s own numbers, a smaller development will produce the same revenue and drastically reduce the impact of traffic. It also gives the town sufficient leeway with traffic that they can develop the park and ride lot in Southern Village as recommended by the Compass Committee.

    Ed Harrison was the only council member to even mention wanting to understand more about reducing the size of the developers plan at Monday’s meeting.

  39. DOM

     /  June 11, 2015

    Terri –

    Rumor-monger? How so?

  40. Nancy

     /  June 11, 2015

    Fred, once you and David work out what, if any, inaccuracies are in his comment, please edify the rest of us. I don’t see any inaccuracies in what David wrote.

  41. anon

     /  June 11, 2015

    terri – I think the third party recommendation is important since any future council can do whatever it wants as we see in this case.

    seems like the Compass committee has a lot of great recommendations: permanent conservation easement owned by third party (not the Town) being one of them.

    also the compass committee if I understood what I read essentially says the current proposal is too big.
    It’s amazing anyone serves on these committees since it seems like council doesn’t weigh what they say compared to staff or developers

  42. Fred Black

     /  June 11, 2015

    Nancy, tell me, what widely publicized awards were given to council members for voting in favor of development proposals?

    Which Chamber staff members helped to raise campaign funds for Council members?

  43. David

     /  June 11, 2015

    Fred,

    From a January 30, 2015 Chapel Hill News article:

    “The Chamber also awarded Chapel Hill Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt with the Chair’s Award for Public-Private Partnership . . . . 2014 was such a big year for economic development success because of his leadership and his tireless leadership and his ‘yes’ vote on all of the critical economic development projects that came before the Chapel Hill Town Council.”

    Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/community/chapel-hill-news/article10237928.html#storylink=cpy

  44. Fred Black

     /  June 11, 2015

    Yep, he’s the mayor so who are the council members?

  45. David

     /  June 11, 2015

    Fred,

    You’re right. I mispoke. Let me rephrase my earlier statement: “The Chamber gives out widely publicized awards to elected officials who vote in favor of the development proposals the Chamber supports.”

    But then there is also this:

    Chamber Announces Finalists for the Business Excellence Awards

    Young Professional of the Year: Lee Storrow- Chapel Hill Town Council

    The award this year actually went to another nominee, Daniel Eller, so we can say:

    “The Chamber nominates for widely publicized awards council members who vote in favor of the development proposals the Chamber supports.”

    http://business.carolinachamber.org/news/details/chamber-announces-finalists-for-the-business-excellence-awards

  46. Fred Black

     /  June 11, 2015

    David, let’s be accurate and look at the criteria for Lee’s award.

  47. Terri

     /  June 11, 2015

    Can we all acknowledge that we should be precise in our language and that name calling accomplishes nothing? If we acknowledge that, we can focus on the real issues instead of these distractions.

    Can we also acknowledge that we all have different values and different ways of fighting for our homes and community? Fred chose to fight for his via the military. Don chooses to fight for his with verbal sarcasm. David chooses data. No one is right and no one is wrong–but we each have personal tolerances for the strategies of others. In the long view, we each choose to do battle for that which we care about with the tools and weapons available to us.

  48. Deborah Fulghieri

     /  June 11, 2015

    The Got-Miners are the mayor and members of council who say, “I’ve got my single-family home, and it’s far away from the James Taylor Bridge. I’m personally unaffected by fumes, delays, noise, and more delays, not to mention I get contributions and Chamber of Commerce awards and who-all knows what other favors in the bank, if I vote for 1.6 million square feet of conditioned space plus 800,000 square feet of parking! Yeehah!”

    “I don’t even know what 40 acres clear-cut and covered with all that looks like, but I never have to look at it, it’ll be across the James Taylor Bridge!”

  49. Deborah Fulghieri

     /  June 11, 2015

    Now that de-annexation bills are coming up more often in the NCGA, we can all wonder what might happen with Obey Creek, whose developers have put the longest possible delay on annexation (to July 31, 2016– as Ben Perry told the Planning Commission, “It’s a good business decision for our client to extend the time to the maximum”). It’d be a good business decision to request a de-annexation bill, for the same reason.

  50. many

     /  June 11, 2015

    Terri,

    I would prefer people stick to the issue as well. Three quick observations on the recent exchange:

    1) As with most ad-hoc online forums, some prefer to thrust and parry over small side points, feigning outrage over insignificant inaccuracies or misinterpretations rather than sticking to the topic. This is why the discussion gets sidetracked. I have taken this bait before myself.

    2) Taking the bait once more, it is difficult to imagine that there is not one more appropriate choice for “Business Excellence Awards” If you have doubts look at the list of all the people who got the same award and what they do, now pick the one who doesn’t belong. This comment is not meant to disrespect Lee Storrow’s contributions to non profit and government endeavors, but Lee has no experience in the business sector. The award itself is harmless and orthogonal to the real issue.

    3) Sometimes the dissembling seems intentionally aimed at derailing what would otherwise be an effective discussion of a real issue that confronts the town or a subset of residents in favor of going down infuriating rat holes. Other times it is offered up as supporting evidence for a point that really doesn’t need it.

1 2