Crossing over

Come Wednesday, I will cross over, moving from the spectator side of the Nancy Oatescouncil dais to Participant Row. And that means Chapel Hill Watch must undergo a metamorphosis of its own. No longer will I be able to critique content after the fact. If I disagree with a colleague or hear a council member behaving inappropriately, I will have to voice my opinions in real-time.

For six years, I’ve been telling you what I think; now it’s your turn. Chapel Hill Watch will look forward more often than not. I’ll give a heads-up on issues that will come before council, and I’ll welcome — in fact, I’ll rely on — your comments to tell me what people in the community think about those matters. Share your insight into unintended consequences, impact on your quality of life and what action you’d like council to take.

In the years since I started Chapel Hill Watch, I’ve observed council become increasingly dysfunctional. Council members came into meetings as if they’d already promised their votes to someone — an ethical violation, of course, and from what I learned in my new-council-member training, a violation of state law, which prohibits council members from voting in quasi-judicial matters if they have a fixed opinion on the issue or have had any undisclosed ex parte communication. We haven’t even been sworn in yet, and already developers have been contacting council members they believe to be the most vulnerable to persuasion. From what I learned in training, those conversations will have to be disclosed before a council member can vote on a proposal.

I have noticed one thing that all of us on council have in common — and now that I’ve been elected, I have to switch from referring to council members as “them” and replace it with “us.” Each of us believes we are right. As part of our training, council members are given a book by Chapel Hill organizational psychologist Roger Schwarz, who runs a consulting firm advising global and federal organizations. (Council members elected before the book came out in 2013 can get a copy from the town manager’s office, if they haven’t received one already.) The book is a step-by-step guide to moving from trying to manipulate colleagues into agreeing with you, to learning from one another, which results in better decisions.

But making that transformation will require each of us to talk to one another publicly, even when it feels uncomfortable, to take risks and sometimes to make a leap of faith.

I’m hopeful about what our new council can accomplish. We have enough philosophical differences among us to have some robust discussions, if everyone participates and the new mayor allows uncomfortable conversation on the dais.

And I’m looking forward to what you have to say about how we can make sure Chapel Hill continues to be a livable town.
– Nancy Oates

by on November 30, 2015  •  Permalink
Posted in Council Members, Elections, Ethics
Posted by Nancy Oates on November 30, 2015

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2015/11/30/crossing-over/

Winding down or unraveling?

I’ve heard tales of people, upon receiving an eviction notice, vandalizingNancy Oates the very place they call home. At the Nov. 16 meeting, we saw a bit of that behavior by some council members wrapping up their terms and others anxious about the change that newly elected officials might bring.

The meeting opened with a developer who has contributed to the political campaigns of some council members proposing that town-owned land be deeded over to a private for-profit business. D.R. Bryan, developer of Southern Village, said Weaver Street Market wants to expand its outdoor dining space, and the bank won’t lend him money to do that unless he owns the land. Presumably, Bryan’s money is tied up in construction of a hotel going up along U.S. 15-501, which likely will be quite profitable for him. Southern Village would lose three parking spaces in an area that already feels squeezed by a shortage of parking.

This was the first public hearing on the matter, and it was scheduled to return to council in January for a vote. But Maria Palmer panicked and pushed for the unusual move of voting on the same night of the proposal’s first public hearing. Enough council members agreed, which is how we, the taxpayers, ended up donating town land to a for-profit developer. Jim Ward was the sole vote against the transaction.

Next up: proposed changes to the Northside Neighborhood Conservation District standards. A property manager spoke out against what he saw as an inappropriate use of the NCD to encourage affordability. Mark Kleinschmidt responded with an all-out rant. I had not seen this side of the mayor before, and I wished I hadn’t seen it last week. I give credit to the community member for standing his ground against the scolding.

The evening ended with a concept plan review of proposed self-storage units for the gateway location of the corner of MLK Jr. Boulevard and Weaver Dairy Road. The storage units would be masked on two sides by a 3-story office building, but what a commercial dead space. Several council members expressed disappointment in the use, but no one gave the developers the courtesy of letting them know that it might not be worth spending more of their investors’ resources on.

And if storage units can generate sufficient profit on expensive Chapel Hill dirt, why do developers say they can’t make the numbers work for workforce housing?

Tonight is the last meeting for this iteration of council. It will be long. Community members are peeved at the Chicago-style politics of it all. Let’s hope that council members will bring their best selves to the table tonight and leave office with their dignity intact.
– Nancy Oates

by on November 23, 2015  •  Permalink
Posted in Business, Council Members, Elections, Land Use, Northside, Parking
Tagged ,
Posted by Nancy Oates on November 23, 2015

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2015/11/23/winding-down-or-unraveling/

Council member’s U-turn

As we grow in population, we have to grow in infrastructure. Some of the Nancy Oatescurrent Town Council members don’t seem to understand that parallelism. That’s one reason voters elected four new representatives to council a couple weeks ago.

But at last Monday night’s council meeting, one council member may have seen the light.

At that meeting, transit director Brian Litchfield and his team presented a half-dozen ideas about how to implement Bus Rapid Transit, an express bus system that runs in lanes reserved solely for buses. He included diagrams and doctored photos to show viewers what various options might look like along a few major thoroughfares: having the dedicated bus lane closest to the curb with either one or two lanes of general traffic in each direction, with and without a center turn lane; putting two dedicated BRT lanes in the center; and widening the street to preserve two lanes of general traffic in each direction.

As always, Litchfield’s analysis was thorough. He compared costs and how each alternative would affect travel times for buses and cars. He clarified that the alternatives could be mixed and matched along the 17-mile north-south route to get the best fit with each road segment.

But the visuals took Maria Palmer by surprise. She objected to widening the roads to accommodate BRT. “That’s for a city, not a town,” she said. Then, pulling the not-in-my-front-yard card, she declared: “I don’t want to come out of my neighborhood and see a highway.”

Community members opposed to the current Light Rail route must have smacked themselves in the forehead. They have been using cost and safety concerns to sway council. Maybe all they needed to do was show a drawing of what a road would look like with a train down the middle of it.

Palmer has been one of the many “yes” votes that over the past couple of years have approved some 5,000 residential units. Putting all those new residents in cars would choke our roadways. We need a beefed-up transit system to handle the residential growth.

Chapel Hill Alliance for a Livable Town formed because so many in the community recognized that such a large population bump in a short period would require an equally aggressive and immediate response by public transit.

Much discussion will happen before major decisions are made about BRT configurations. But it’s encouraging that sitting council members are beginning to see what so many of us have been talking about.
— Nancy Oates

by on November 16, 2015  •  Permalink
Posted in Council Members, Transportation
Tagged
Posted by Nancy Oates on November 16, 2015

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2015/11/16/council-members-u-turn/

The Council Show

At the election night party I attended last week, the wife of a supporter Nancy Oatesmentioned that she’d gotten so caught up in the excitement of the campaign that she might even tune into what she called “The Council Show.”

Certainly campaign and post-election coverage in the popular press loads expectation that episodes of The Council Show won’t lack for dramatic tension. It will be up to those of us on the dais, newbies and old-timers alike, to bring our best selves to discussions to avoid the partisan gridlock that has hog-tied national government and pushed state government to extremes.

The upcoming season features a new cast of characters. For the first time in anyone’s memory, the council to be sworn in on Dec. 2 will include six women. That’s an unprecedented two-thirds majority of females. Gender does come into play in problem-solving and working through conflicts. I won’t offer up the gross generalization that men tend to beat each other up then go for a beer together, while women plot to get even. But gender differences are evident in group dynamics. Just ask anyone who has participated in Girl Scout leader meetings and the Boy Scout equivalent. Both groups might accomplish the same items on a to-do list, but the routes each takes to get there are very different.

While the current council has only a handful of meetings left, the work doesn’t stop. Some decisions council will make at its Nov. 9 meeting will have ramifications for the new council. Here are a couple highlights:

Town staff will turn in a report on that $10 million gleaned by mortgaging Town Hall to pay for Ephesus-Fordham road and stormwater improvements. Council needs to pin down some of the vagueness. Does Phase I still include reconfiguring the Fordham Boulevard-Ephesus Road intersection, revisions to the Rams Plaza entrance and the superstreet? The net cost to the town for Phase I was to be $2.4 million. Now it’s up to $2.6 million. Where will the extra money come from? And does it include design costs incurred by Kimley Horn before the project can be put out for bid? What land will be acquired for $900,000? Does it include Booker Creek wetlands? Or the right-of-way Blue Rock Apartments agreed to donate?

3 Birds wants to terminate its parking agreement with the town, claiming that it is now up to the agreed-upon 80 full-time employees. Before council agrees, it should ask to see the paperwork 3 Birds files with the Employment Security Commission to verify that the firm does have 80 full-time employees working onsite and that they are not unpaid interns. The agreement was made in good faith that 3 Birds would add to local economic development. Let’s get the number of employees verified, as well as ascertain that 3 Birds has made all of its $10,000 annual payments to the town, before closing out the deal.

Tune in this week. You won’t want to miss an episode.
– Nancy Oates

by on November 9, 2015  •  Permalink
Posted in Council Members, Economic development, Elections, Politics, Roads, Spending, Town staff
Tagged ,
Posted by Nancy Oates on November 9, 2015

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2015/11/09/the-council-show/

The big money at stake

This election boils down to economic theory. One theory, held by the Nancy Oatesincumbents and a challenger who as an advisory board member voted in lockstep with them, aims to add enough luxury housing filled with high-wealth individuals that national chain stores will open branches in town. This group is banking on sales tax revenue and residential property taxes to fund town operations. Affordable housing strains that model, so adding more would be a detriment, and that is reflected in this group’s recent decisions.

The other theory, ascribed to by candidates endorsed by Chapel Hill Alliance for a Livable Town, says that increasing the commercial tax base proportionate to residential taxpayers will balance the tax burden and strengthen the community by enabling local, independent businesses to flourish. Though affordable housing costs the town money by not providing enough tax revenue to cover the cost of services, people who live and work in the same town feel invested in the community. As a candidate endorsed by CHALT, I believe the benefit of having people who work in town being able to live in town is worth the cost.

I believe the retail ship has sailed already due to decisions made by Town Council members many years ago to discourage national chains and big-box stores from opening in town. I would like Chapel Hill’s economic development officer to focus his attention on recruiting business that provided what we need going forward. For instance, Town Council has approved quite a bit of senior housing. Thus, we will need home-care services and assisted living facilities in the near future. A new business incubator has opened in town, so we’ll need affordable office space with shared conference room and reception and gathering areas to make it possible for these fledgling businesses to stay in town.

In an editorial in Sunday’s Chapel Hill News, a local real estate broker wrote that in this election, “there’s some big money at stake.” He’s right. Though he perhaps was thinking of how he would benefit from policies that keep housing prices high, I’m thinking of Town Council’s recent practice of shifting development expenses from private developers to homeowners. In the past couple of years, we have seen council try to get homeowners to pay for new roads and stormwater abatement necessitated by new development. This on top of residents absorbing more traffic jams and crowded schools.

Residential property taxpayers are loath to take on any more burden. The town’s current $51 million of debt eats up 16% of the town budget to pay it down. Best practices recommend capping debt service at 10%. And if the $40.3 million bond referendum passes, the town’s debt load will almost double. A good portion of the bond will cover what I consider routine maintenance or capital projects that could have been avoided had routine maintenance not been delayed.

Polls open Tuesday, Nov. 3, at 6:30 a.m. and stay open through 7:30 p.m. In this election, big money is at stake. If you vote, you have a say in how it’s handled.

I am running for Town Council, and I would be honored to receive your vote.
– Nancy Oates

by on November 2, 2015  •  Permalink
Posted in Economic development, Elections, Housing, Land Use, Lifestyle, Politics, Schools, Spending, Taxes, Town staff, Transportation
Posted by Nancy Oates on November 2, 2015

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2015/11/02/the-big-money-at-stake/

Inspecting Inspections

Problems persist at the town’s Inspections Department. Despite nagging byNancy Oates the Home Builders Association of Durham, Orange and Chatham Counties, the response from the Planning and Sustainability Department, which oversees Inspections, has been sluggish.

At the Oct. 19 Town Council meeting, Planning and Sustainability director Mary Jane Nirdlinger gave an update on progress in trying to fix functioning challenges that have plagued Inspections for years. Though the town charges higher permit fees than any surrounding jurisdiction, its ability to perform inspections in a timely manner lags behind its peers. It takes far longer to get a permit and inspection done in Chapel Hill than elsewhere in the area. That costs builders and homeowners time and money and discourages builders from taking on projects in Chapel Hill.

Nirdlinger started her presentation with the positives: The department has hired two additional people and cross-trained staff. Decks and sheds no longer require a zoning review, and the threshold above which a homeowner must apply for a permit for renovation work has been raised to $15,000. The department has switched from a paper to digital application so people can apply online, has updated its software and has simplified its zoning-building form. It does some inspections concurrently rather than sequentially, to eliminate the builder having to wait for a second inspection appointment on a project. It aims to drop the waiting time between zoning and building reviews from 15 days to five.

But the department is not there yet.

Holly Fraccaro, CEO of the HBA-DOC, said that since she filed a petition to council in April requesting that improvements be made, it has taken 77 days to get Nirdlinger’s department to meet with the HBA and agree on goals. Village Plaza Apartments was approved in less time.

Collecting data to track a project still flummoxes Inspections. A builder who spoke to council volunteered to write an Excel spreadsheet before he left the meeting that night; it could be shared on Google Docs so all inspectors could enter information. Nirdlinger demurred, preferring to tinker with software the department purchased a few years ago that she admitted didn’t work well for inspectors in the field. They ended up writing down information on slips of paper and returning to the office to enter it into the system. When Jim Ward directed her to capture the information on a separate spreadsheet until the software could be made to work, Nirdlinger responded, “We’ll try.”

Meanwhile, Inspections staff morale is low and turnover is high. And waiting in the wings, needing significant time and attention from Inspections, are the developments at Obey creek, Ephesus-Fordham, The Edge (now called Carraway Village because the developer is moving forward with the apartments but putting the commercial buildings on hold), and more than 5,000 residential units already approved by council.

Inspections comes back to council in February for an update. Let’s hope for serious improvement. Public safety hangs in the balance.
– Nancy Oates

by on October 26, 2015  •  Permalink
Posted in Town staff
Tagged
Posted by Nancy Oates on October 26, 2015

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2015/10/26/inspecting-inspections/

Who determines livability?

Elkins Hills homeowners and renters turned out in force last Wednesday to Nancy Oatesconvince council members to grant the protections of a Neighborhood Conservation District from what they see as the too-fast pace of development townwide. But one lone property owner and landlord gave council pause when he asked about how an NCD should be used.

Houses in the neighborhood off MLK Jr. Boulevard range from 700 to 1,500 square feet, and people use the street as a sidewalk because car traffic is so low. Most homes there sell from $150,000 to $200,000. The neighborhood is a mix of students, families and retirees, some of whom are aging in place in their one-level homes. The neighborhood character has remained relatively unchanged since the houses were built in the 1940s and ’50s, but a recent teardown that was replaced by a two-story home rented to five students (yes, that violates the town’s occupancy ordinance) alerted residents that their community was as vulnerable to any other neighborhood of starter homes that investors view as “underperforming assets.”

One property owner who rents out his house asked whether the NCD should be used as a way to preserve affordable housing or as a vehicle for allowing people to age in place. Undoubtedly, he wants to maximize his financial investment, and who doesn’t?

But while buying a house is a vehicle to increase financial stability, a home is also a haven. The value of a home is more than how much money you get when you sell; it is a major factor in your quality of life. Do you live in a place that reflects your values, where you feel safe and rejuvenated though life’s pressures bear down, where you feel connected to both society and the natural world?

While campaigning I’ve been invited into homes of all sizes and prices all over town. In each one, I can see why people want to live in Chapel Hill. From visiting their homes, I can see what people mean when they talk about livability. For council to dictate what that livability should look like for everyone, even in the well-meaning but misguided belief that their policies will result in some affordable housing in years to come, is doing a huge disservice to their constituents.

NCDs are one way to ensure workforce housing. Though Maria Palmer said she didn’t consider Elkins Hills affordable, homes there sell for half the cost of the average house in town. That may not be good enough for Palmer, but it’s one tine of a many-pronged approach to enable the people who work here to live here.

Council more or less agreed. (Some council members pushed for allowing accessory dwellings, essentially doubling the density of a neighborhood where the accessory units could be larger than the main houses.) Council voted 8-0 to allow the neighborhood to proceed.
– Nancy Oates

by on October 19, 2015  •  Permalink
Posted in Housing, Land Use, Lifestyle
Tagged ,
Posted by Nancy Oates on October 19, 2015

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2015/10/19/who-determines-livability/

A not-as-long goodbye

On 60 Minutes last night, President Obama talked about how he felt coming Nancy Oatesto the end of his legally allotted two terms and whether he wished he could serve a third. He said, as all incumbents do, that he was proud of what he had accomplished so far in office and that there was more to do and he’d like to be part of the work ahead. Then he admitted it was “bittersweet” to be looking ahead to his final year in office. He spoke eloquently about how it was time for new leadership, “new legs,” new energy and new perspectives.

The president captured what so many of us feel when we have to leave work we love.

I have served on boards that require its members to roll off after serving one term, and stay off for at least a term before regaining eligibility to be re-elected. One board term that ended recently was three years long; every year, a third of the board was replaced.

I confess, the first time the board met after my term had ended, I felt sad not to be among them. I had bonded with my colleagues and liked and respected them. The decisions we had made had an impact on the organization we served, and I enjoyed the deliberative process. But it was best for the organization to have a steady influx of fresh viewpoints, new enthusiasm and a change of interpersonal dynamics.

Town Council, and by extension the community, would benefit from turnover on a regular basis.

One moment, above all else, solidified my belief in term limits for Town Council members. It came as Ed Harrison voted against Obey Creek and apologized to his colleagues on the dais, saying he felt he had to listen to his constituents.

What has happened to Town Council that a member has to beg forgiveness from other council members for representing the best interests of the community members who elected him to office? When a decision-making group becomes too static, its members’ allegiance grows stronger to one another than to the organization they serve.

Some argue that voters determine term limits by voting elected officials out of office when it’s time for them to move on. But given that as few as about 11% of registered voters show up at the polls for Chapel Hill municipal elections, that means our town leaders are chosen by as few as 5.6% of the populace, who often are political insiders or people who expect to need council’s backing for a project.

Non-voters I’ve talked to say they stay away from the polls because they don’t believe their vote matters. I’ve encouraged them to vote and see.

George Washington got it right when he said that elected officials should, after serving a predetermined time period, return to life as ordinary citizens. Human nature being what it is, ceding such a role to someone else is hard to do. That’s why we need an ordinance to spell out when it’s time to say goodbye.
– Nancy Oates

by on October 12, 2015  •  Permalink
Posted in Council Members, Elections, Politics
Tagged
Posted by Nancy Oates on October 12, 2015

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2015/10/12/a-not-as-long-goodbye/

Ask, and get real answers

Someone needs to tell the town’s Planning Department staff that Chapel Hill alreadyNancy Oates has an ordinance that governs bed-and-breakfasts.

Oh, wait. Someone already has. Several someones, in fact — the former director of planning, the town attorney and multiple people in the community, including Chapel Hill Watch — going back more than 15 years. And still, when a council member asked what ordinance governs B&Bs at present, town staff gave false information. Sustainability officer John Richardson wrongly told Maria Palmer, “Today, a traditional bed-and-breakfast wouldn’t be permitted.”

Here are the facts: The Home Occupation section in the town’s Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO) outlines what you can and can’t use your home for in earning money. In addition to laying out how many employees you can have in your home office, the ordinance states that you can use two bedrooms and no more than 750 square feet as a bed-and-breakfast. As the owner/manager of the establishment, you must live onsite.

If you want to rent out more than two bedrooms or rent out your entire home and live offsite, you ditch the LUMO and call your home an Airbnb, which is unregulated by town ordinance. The Airbnb website has more than 600 listings for Chapel Hill.
State law requires that the owner of a B&B live onsite, but town attorney Ralph Karpinos said there may be ways around that restriction if the town decides to move forward with enacting a new law to govern B&Bs.

This speaks to a point I’ve been harping on in my campaign stump speeches: Town Council can’t make effective decisions about where to lead the town if council members don’t have an accurate picture of where they are at present.

Why is no council member asking, What problem does this solve? Or, Why this ordinance now? Council decisions should solve problems, not create them. The town has no B&B problem, and changing the regulations (from allowing two bedrooms to four or as many as 12) will create problems that didn’t exist before. If the town’s motivation is to collect occupancy tax, start with the Airbnb’s already up and running.

Community member John Sweet researched which homes in downtown historic districts were owned by corporate investors and presented council with his significant findings. Maria Palmer said the map convinced her to vote for allowing bigger B&Bs because the corporate investment properties were poorly kept-up and were student rentals. Wouldn’t you rather live next to a B&B than a student rental? she asked, as if people who dreamed of owning a B&B would buy out a corporate investor, who is making far too much money on student rentals to sell.

Bottom line: Council needs someone on the dais who will ask questions. And council needs a staff that will provide accurate information. How can council make good decisions otherwise?
– Nancy Oates

by on October 5, 2015  •  Permalink
Posted in Budget, Business, Council Members, Downtown Chapel Hill, Economic development, Elections, Land Use, Lifestyle
Tagged
Posted by Nancy Oates on October 5, 2015

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2015/10/05/what-problem-is-solved/

How about yours?

Community members at last Monday’s Town Council meeting turned the “not in Nancy Oatesmy backyard” philosophy on its head, asking instead, “Why not your backyard?”

At the Sept. 21 meeting, developers presented their proposed plan for Amity Station, a tall apartment building on West Rosemary Street where Breadman’s sits now. The parcel is in the Northside Neighborhood Conservation District, and developers would need the 2.2-acre lot rezoned.

Initially, the developers had planned a 10-story building targeting student rentals. But the Community Design Commission expressed disapproval. When the developers came to council last week for a concept plan review, little had changed, other than one story had been lopped off, the pool deleted and the target market rebranded as “market rate” instead of “student rental.” The plan also added some space that purportedly would be affordable offices to give the entrepreneurs at Launch across the street a place to land.

The 242,500-square-foot building would have up to 165 apartments and 340 parking spaces for cars that town staff apparently believes won’t be driven anywhere because staff analysis showed no traffic impact.

Northside residents turned out in force to reiterate what they have said in numerous Rosemary Imagined meetings: This project was too big for their compact community, and Northside could not absorb another tower of student rentals. Residents wanted stores and businesses they would patronize to encourage their neighborhood to be a walkable community.

While developers couched their plans for widening Nunn and Andrews lanes and including grassy areas conducive to “Saturday morning activities,” one resident countered with a murky video of a party in a Northside backyard of about 100 students milling around, plastic cups in hand. The neighborhood has Saturday morning activities seven nights a week, he said.

Other residents noted that if council was intent on adding student housing to the community, it should look for spots on the other end of Rosemary Street in the historic district where housing prices are higher than in the Northside Historic District. (To be fair, the Franklin-Rosemary Historic District has absorbed Lux and may soon see another large student apartment complex nearby.)

One resident asked, “Would you allow this in your neighborhood?”

A UNC student urged the university to renovate dorms on campus into apartment-style residences to incentivize students to remain on campus where it is safer.

Perhaps it’s the magical atmosphere of election season, but council members stood up to developers and in so many words said, “No.”

That shift in policy takes a big step toward creating the town we want to be. If developers believe that council will approve a rezoning for a very tall apartment complex that does not fit in with the community, it destroys all motivation for the developer to propose a less profitable project that better serves the community.

Let’s hope that courage prevails, even after the election is over.
– Nancy Oates

by on September 28, 2015  •  Permalink
Posted in Council Members, Downtown Chapel Hill, Economic development, Elections, Housing, Land Use, Lifestyle, Northside
Tagged
Posted by Nancy Oates on September 28, 2015

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2015/09/28/how-about-yours/

« Older Posts
Newer Posts »