Is the thrill gone?

I had a conversation not long ago with a musician, a mixed-race man in his Nancy Oatesmid-20s working a day job unrelated to music as he got his career started. At one point he asked where I was from, and I told him I lived in Chapel Hill. His eyes lit up.

“I call it Chapel Thrill,” he said.

I asked why.

First he told me of the music clubs he had yet to land a paying gig in; the closest he’d come to performing in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro music scene was to play at special events in the clubhouse at Governors Club. He lived in Burlington and was equidistant to Greensboro, another college town. But Chapel Hill was different, he said.

There were different clubs and bars on Franklin Street, stretching into Carrboro. Walking down the street downtown felt different from Greensboro. “The diversity,” he finally said. “You see so many different people on Franklin Street.”

And isn’t that a part of what drew all of us here, even middle-aged, middle-class white women like myself?

The man’s comments took me back to my teenage years when I moved from Iowa to New York, leaving behind the constraints of living up to the expectations of being an Oates. As I walked along the crowded streets of Manhattan, I was enthralled by all of these different lives, all taking different paths, even though we were all in the same place. Years later, when my then-husband wanted to leave New York, the one condition I set was that we not move to a place where everyone had the same expectations. We agreed on Chapel Hill.

And therein lies my uneasiness as I see the recent development decisions shaping the town. Our economic development officer and town manager apparently have decided that the fiscally prudent route is to draw more people to Chapel Hill who have more money to spend than the retirees and middle-class families and students on a budget.

We’re already seeing the commercial shift readying for the demographic change. Almost all of the restaurants that have opened on Franklin Street recently are national chains. All of the clothing stores are chains, albeit across a smaller region. The development planned for Obey Creek includes national chain big-box stores. And the redevelopment of Ephesus-Fordham has independently owned stores talking of moving out.

How will we make sure the diversity we value and offer to residents of more provincial towns around us will flourish?
– Nancy Oates

by on June 23, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in Business, Downtown Chapel Hill, Economic development, Land Use, Lifestyle
Tagged , , ,
Posted by Nancy Oates on June 23, 2014

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2014/06/23/is-the-thrill-gone/

Breaking inauspicious

You know how you approached the start of every episode of “Breaking Bad” with Nancy Oatesthe feeling that something was going to happen that you didn’t want to know about, but you watched it anyway? I get that feeling lately when I turn on the TV to watch a Town Council meeting.

“Breaking Bad,” said to be one of the most-watched cable shows ever, wrapped up its five seasons last fall. The premise was that a high school chemistry teacher, diagnosed with a fatal illness, decides to open a meth lab to provide for his family financially once he’s gone. Each week, you saw him put a toe or more over some moral boundary that he had never crossed, until finally at the end of the series he has turned into an unrecognizable immoral monster.

Tonight’s council meeting agenda includes not only the plan for 25 percent of the transportation improvements for the Ephesus-Fordham redevelopment, but a special meeting at 5:30 p.m. to review bids for the former Chapel Hill Museum building at 523 E. Franklin St.

At the 5:30 p.m. meeting, council will decide which offer to accept on the former Chapel Hill Museum building. During the E-F hearings, we heard six council members talk about adding property tax revenue to ease the tax burden on residential property owners. Three of the four bids on the former museum would take the property off tax rolls. Bids range from $752,000 from a private buyer who wants to turn the property into a nonprofit hub to UNC’s offer of $1,025,000, but, again, would pay no taxes.

Then at 7 p.m., council gets an initial look at E-F’s transportation plan. In March, town staff made a presentation to the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce that showed a new road through Village Plaza to the former movie theater site that East West Partners bought and plans to redevelop would be paid for by the developer. On documents sent out prior to tonight’s council meeting, the road now appears on the town’s tab. The six town Council members who voted for E-F rezoning claimed that the redevelopment would add commercial space and the extra tax revenue would ease the burden on residential property owners. Now we find out that the first project to be built will be residential (East West is building luxury apartments in the space) and will cost taxpayers even more money by footing the bill for East West’s road.

As background music, East West partner Roger Perry has broadcast an opinion piece on WCHL radio talking about what he calls Chapel Hill’s financial “crisis.” So what is he doing about it? Milking taxpayers for freebies to increase his company’s profit.

Will council take a couple more steps in the wrong direction tonight? Or will a majority have the moral fiber to say no?
– Nancy Oates

by on June 16, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in Council Members, Economic development, Ethics, Land Use, Museum, Politics, Roads, Spending, Taxes, Transportation
Tagged , , ,
Posted by Nancy Oates on June 16, 2014

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2014/06/16/breaking-inauspicious/

Downtown, no waiting

Chapel Hill didn’t make GQ’s list of Best College Towns (When Students Are Nancy OatesGone) as Durham did, but we’ve got plenty going on all summer long – including at least one spot that wasn’t here before students took off for their summer adventures.

Opening a new business just as a third of your customer base leaves town could spell disaster. But John Hanna, owner of Mina’s Grill next to the Franklin Hotel, knows from disaster. He opened his first deli on Sept. 9, 2001, a couple blocks from the World Trade Center in New York. Less than 48 hours later, the terrorist attacks forced him to shut down for 6 months. So he’s not fazed by a 3-month soft opening.

Mina’s Grill, named for Hanna’s favorite martyr, he said, is a real New York deli owned and operated by a real New York deli guy, which he still would be had two of his three daughters not decided to enroll at UNC. But here they are, and so is he.

Build your own salad, sandwich or pasta dish. Try the Garlic Melt. Next!

As long as you’re on West Franklin, saunter down to Sophie and Mollies in The Courtyard for two floors of competitively priced boutique fashions for college and professional women. Sales staff are committed to making sure your purchases make you look as good as you feel.

Commercial space at 140 West is filling up with the opening of Old Chicago Pizza & Taproom and Spicy 9 sushi bar and Asian restaurant, the former serving pizza and beer and the latter offering up sushi and menu items from Thailand, Korea, Japan and China.

But all is not chain restaurants at 140 West. A fashion boutique for men, Gentlemen’s Corner, opened a new store, its fourth, on UNC graduation weekend. A UNC alumnus opened the flagship store in Pinehurst shortly after he graduated and has since expanded to Wilmington and Palm Beach, Fla.

On the east end of Franklin Street, more women’s boutique fashions are available at Fedora, which opened in the former Carolina Pride location. You can’t miss the hot pink exterior. One of a six-store chain in North Carolina, the Chapel Hill Fedora targets college-age and young career women.

And Sup Dog is supposed to open today. The family-owned business with its original store on East Carolina University’s campus in Greenville is expanding to Chapel Hill, bringing its 23 exotic hot dogs, 15 specialty burgers, full bar and its secret Sup Dog sauce. Sup Dog fills the vacancy where Pepper’s Pizza had been. The owners carved out an outdoor dining enclave with wooden banquettes along the Franklin Street façade and installed a flat-screen TV, so you won’t miss a minute of programming though dining al fresco.
– Nancy Oates

by on June 9, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in 140 West, Business, Downtown Chapel Hill, Economic development
Tagged
Posted by Nancy Oates on June 9, 2014

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2014/06/09/downtown-no-waiting/

Chapel Hill politics, Chicago style

My sister in Chicago periodically sends me articles about the shenanigans of Nancy OatesChicago politicians: ex-convicts who have served time for bribery, tax fraud and corruption running against one another; and a “visionary leader/advocate” filing to run again now that he’s out of prison for getting $40,000 of home renovations done in exchange for zoning changes to facilitate a development project. My sister and I laugh at these so-called public servants in office only to serve their own interests who feel no shame in living their lives void of ethics.

Now it’s my turn to send my sister stories.

While everyone on Town Council clucks sympathetically about the problem of not enough affordable housing, a majority of council members repeatedly vote to approve development that forces out what little remaining workforce and middle-class housing we have left and stick it to the taxpayers to subsidize for-profit developers.

Some recent cases in point:

In the Ephesus-Fordham redevelopment, council could have approved the DHIC affordable housing project and a couple of “shovel-ready” commercial projects, then taken time to figure out how to ameliorate flooding and traffic problems in the adjacent middle-class neighborhoods — and just as important, how to pay for them. Instead, council rushed through a plan that adds about 1,500 new residences to the area and no revenue-positive commercial projects.

I spoke briefly with Lee Perry of East-West Partners, which has a mixed-use project planned for Ephesus-Fordham, and suggested he voluntarily include some below-market-rate apartments in his project and thus position himself as a hero going into the Obey Creek talks that East-West has taken the lead on. But Perry didn’t take me up on my suggestion. Perhaps he knows that he has enough council votes in the bag for Obey Creek already.

Council passed a density bonus for Timber Hollow Apartments, an unprecedented boondoggle that will enable the developer to reap millions and won’t result in any affordable units for the community. The town attorney admitted that the plan may not be legally defensible, and the developer hemmed and hawed when council member Matt Czajkowski asked him point-blank whether he believed the deal was legal. Chapel Hill planning director J.B. Culpepper stage-whispered a response for the developer that side-stepped the answer.

One of the principals in Timber Hollow is a Pittsboro commissioner who has the power to vote yes or no on a massive development project Culpepper’s husband is trying to get Pittsboro commissioners to approve. Culpepper retired days later and plans to work as a private consultant to developers, seeing the financial success former planning director Roger Waldon has realized by doing the same.

Town staff have dismissed all community input on Obey Creek and spent town resources marketing the property, even though the land is not within town limits, meaning the town will receive only a share of the county tax revenue from the project. Here’s an idea: Annex first, invest town resources later.

Meanwhile, the town is asking the county to forego its share of Ephesus-Fordham tax revenue. Is this a back-scratching thing? Let’s see how many council members move into Obey Creek and work for the developer, as former Mayor Rosemary Waldorf moved into Meadowmont and worked for East-West after that controversial project won approval.

All this is very disheartening given that upstanding and above-board developer Gordon Grubb, who plays by the rules, has yet to receive council approval for redeveloping Glen Lennox that has been years in the making and will preserve affordable housing and provide other benefits to the community.
– Nancy Oates

by on June 2, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in Council Members, Ethics, Housing, Politics, Town staff
Tagged , , , ,
Posted by Nancy Oates on June 2, 2014

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2014/06/02/chapel-hill-politics-chicago-style/

Housing hypocrisy

I couldn’t help but wince when council members began their remarks at the MayNancy Oates 19 Town Council meeting after nearly a dozen community members made impassioned pleas for money to support affordable housing. One organization played a 9-minute video of interviews with people who had benefited from affordable housing programs in Chapel Hill, perhaps assuming some council members didn’t believe that these people truly exist. Which is not a far-fetched assumption given the way a majority of council voted on recent development projects that directly affect the affordability of housing in town.

Council members are in the midst of tweaking the town manager’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2015, which starts July 1, 2014. Donna Bell, who adopted a let-them-eat-cake attitude toward those of modest means throughout the Ephesus-Fordham redevelopment process, started off the council comment period by suggesting that money for affordable housing be found in the budget by not paying anything toward the town’s OPEB liability. OPEB is the amount the town has to pay retired employees for pensions and health coverage. Though town manager Roger Stancil has made some changes in what new hires can expect when they retire, which has reduced the OPEB liability by millions, the town still has an obligation of about $60 million.

The next few council members who spoke agreed to jettison paying down our OPEB liability. After all, even such a large unfunded liability will take years to make the town go belly up, long after current council members have stepped down. Or most of them, anyhow. (Let’s hope they take a more responsible approach to planning for their own retirement than they do for the town employees they represent.)

What made the comments from council members so painful to listen to was that the most ardent hand-wringing came from council members who had voted against structuring the Ephesus-Fordham redevelopment plan to press developers for affordable housing.

Most council members seemed eager to give the public the impression they supported affordable housing. And in their vision of themselves, I think they do. But they’re not making the connection between their votes and the unintended consequences that result. Just as a budget has finite boundaries – if you add to one category, you must cut from another – so, too, is the housing supply in a town constricted by a rural buffer guarding its border. If you make room for developers to create high-rent units, you have less real estate left for housing the rest of us can afford.

Rather than scramble to find the least vocal group from which to take funds and redirecting them to affordable housing, council could ease the pressure on themselves and the rest of us taxpayers by thinking through the consequences of their votes before they make them.
– Nancy Oates

by on May 26, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in Budget, Council Members, Housing, Spending
Tagged
Posted by Nancy Oates on May 26, 2014

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2014/05/26/housing-hypocrisy/

Keeping pace with community

Ed Harrison understands that you can’t be a leader without followers. And ifNancy Oates you get too far ahead of your followers, your nothing more than a guy on a road by himself shouting, “This way, really, I know what I’m doing.”

At Town Council’s May 12 meeting, Harrison was one of three council members to incorporate community research and views into their own thinking about the form-based code proposed for the redevelopment of Ephesus-Fordham. Jim Ward and Matt Czajkowski were the other two who voted against a blanket rezoning that would “give up the store,” as Ward said.

Ward chastised staff for not exploring affordable housing options seriously and Sally Greene, who had positioned herself as an affordable housing advocate, for folding on code adjustments that could incentivize affordable housing and energy efficiency. Greene said incentives wouldn’t work, and she named cities where that proved true. Ward countered that incentives do work in Chapel Hill, and he cited the $40 million worth of affordable housing, some 200 units, the town has now because of incentives.

(Greene did recommend, and the majority approved, that properties along the western and southern edge of Elliott Road be omitted temporarily from rezoning, leaving open the possibility that they might later be layered with incentives for affordable housing to replace existing businesses.)

Czajkowski tried in vain to explain financials, along with the gap between theory and reality, to the majority of his colleagues. He has consistently added insight and intelligence to council discussions, only to be dismissed as an outlier. In Ephesus-Fordham and other discussions, he has shown a sensitivity to people living on a budget and has supported measures that ensure a place for middle-class and working-class residents.

Harrison said while he could see some benefits to the staff’s rezoning proposal, he recognized that too many community members “weren’t there yet.” To ignore that reality would be ineffective leadership.

A big part of why many in the community weren’t there yet was that staff had not thought through adequate stormwater protection for the surrounding neighborhoods. Ephesus-Fordham makes up one of the largest swaths of middle-class housing, in part because of poor drainage in the area. Homeowners have invested in runoff remuneration rather than in fancy additions or selling their homes to people who would tear them down and build McMansions on the generous lots. If the $1.2 million the town plans to spend on stormwater management isn’t sufficient, neighborhoods will experience more runoff and flooding problems. Not only will their taxes go up to pay for additional stormwater management by the town, but they’ll need to invest even more in their on-site water problems.

Harrison also made reference to the ongoing problems with the town’s Inspections Department, noting that it doesn’t matter what the ordinance says if Inspections doesn’t enforce them.

A heartfelt thanks to Harrison, Czajkowski and Ward for defending the interests of residents working hard to hold onto their place in Chapel Hill.
– Nancy Oates

by on May 19, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in Council Members, Economic development, Housing, Land Use, Politics, Spending, Taxes
Tagged ,
Posted by Nancy Oates on May 19, 2014

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2014/05/19/keeping-pace-with-followers/

Get it right first

UNC researcher and Chapel Hill native David Schwartz turns his analytical eye toward some of the factors that may be fueling our mayor’s apparent urgency to approve Form-Based Code initially in the Ephesus-Fordham area. Schwartz realizes there is more going on with the Ephesus-Fordham issue than simply the mayor wanting to impress his colleagues in the Mayors’ Innovation Project, but there is a striking discrepancy between the planning procedure and outcome described in the MIP-funded report and what has actually transpired. Here’s what Schwartz has to say:

As some of you may know, Mayor Kleinschmidt serves on the steering committee of an organization called the Mayors’ Innovation Project (MIP). This group will be holding their summer meeting in Chapel Hill this August. In 2012, MIP awarded a $20,000 Technical Assistance Program grant to Chapel Hill to develop a form-based code for the Ephesus-Fordham area. This grant was used to hire consultants who, together with Town staff, produced a January 2013 report called “Form-based code guide: Making performance work for Chapel Hill.” This report contained many admirable and progressive goals and recommendations, almost none of which were actually put into practice; nor can they be found in the Ephesus-Fordham redevelopment plan (i.e., the proposed rezoning and draft form-based code) that the mayor is now pressuring Town Council to pass ASAP.

Here are links to 1) the application the Town submitted for the MIP grant and 2) the project summary.

http://www.mayorsinnovation.org/pdf/ChapelHill.pdf

http://www.mayorsinnovation.org/pdf/ChapelHill_Summary.pdf

It is clear from these documents that the mayor envisioned, and perhaps still envisions, applying form-based code to multiple areas of town beyond Ephesus-Fordham, and that the progressive goals the mayor and town staff advertised for this project, such as responsible growth, environmental sustainability, affordability, and community support, have been largely jettisoned in order to pursue the single very narrow, short-sighted, and ultimately unsuccessful goal of stimulating commercial redevelopment in EF.

It is difficult to understand why the mayor is in such as hurry to approve a rezoning plan that hundreds of town citizens and several council members feel is poorly conceived, irresponsible, and inconsistent with the community’s stated vision for the area. It may be that he is eager to be able to tell his MIP colleagues when they come here in August that he has “accomplished” the governance project for which the organization provided funding, even if the accomplishment resembles what MIP funded in name only. I suspect that if the mayor’s colleagues on the steering committee were to advise him in this matter, they would say that it’s more important to get the plan right — to first do the necessary infrastructure and fiscal planning and to craft a code that does more than simply promote further gentrification — than to get it passed quickly.

In the meantime, perhaps MIP should ask for their $20,000 back.

– David Schwartz

by on May 12, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in Business, Economic development, Housing, Land Use, Spending, Taxes
Tagged
Posted by Nancy Oates on May 12, 2014

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2014/05/12/get-it-right-first/

Vote Tuesday, May 6

What are the chances that a lottery ticket you buy might change your life? Not goodNancy Oates odds. But here’s something you can do that likely could change your life and everyone’s around you.

Go to the polls and vote.

Tuesday, May 6, is primary day in Orange County. The candidates we elect will make decisions on how our tax dollars are spent (and will we have to pay more), how safe our community will be and how efficiently justice is meted out, what becomes law in the state and how those laws are interpreted and implemented.

In the primary, we’ll vote for senator, at least one county commissioner, register of deeds, sheriff and N.C. Supreme Court associate judge. Some ballots also have U.S. House of Representative and county school board candidates.

View the sample ballot for your precinct here: http://www.co.orange.nc.us/elect/SampleBallot.asp. Find your voting precinct, then click on your party affiliation (R=Republican, L=Libertarian, D=Democrat, U=Unaffiliated). You’ll see your candidate options. If you haven’t done your research yet, you’re getting close to deadline. Think about your choices, about what the community might look like if your candidates win and lead us into the future. Then make time to go to the polls and VOTE.

Polls open at 6:30 a.m. on Tuesday, May 6, and close at 7:30 p.m. Don’t wait until the last minute. Your vote counts.
– Nancy Oates

by on May 5, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in County business, Courts, Elections, Politics, Spending, Taxes
Tagged
Posted by Nancy Oates on May 5, 2014

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2014/05/05/vote-tuesday-may-6/

Hauser’s plan for schools

Bonnie Hauser, my choice for county commissioner-at-large, brings a fresh perspective to many important issues we face. In her words and from her experience working on numerous issues in Orange County for more than a decade, here’s her proposal for the county to reprioritize spending to address school funding needs:

In my “previous life,” I was a partner with PricewaterhouseCoopers, where I spent my career helping organizations become more efficient while improving customer service. Based on that experience and my work in our community, I believe that the same principles can be used to create a path to sustainable school funding for Orange County.

So, what are the issues associated with school funding? What steps can put us on a path to sustainable school funding?

Recent attention has been given to the needs for our schools and a possible voter referendum for bonds and increased taxes. I believe, however, that our real problem is that the county’s school funding formula is broken and needs to be fixed. That will take time, so I’ve offered ways to address short-term needs to alleviate immediate pressures and allow county and school leaders better plan for the future.

I’ve shared my ideas with leaders from both school systems, current and prior commissioners, and senior county staff. They all agree with my assessment: Business as usual is not working, and we can do better.

1. In the short term, commissioners can identify areas in which spending is not aligned with public need and make necessary cuts or changes. That includes eliminating non-essential items, consolidating county office space and redirecting funds slated for less urgent projects such as remote rural parks. Additional monies are available in the county’s well-funded reserves.
2. For the long term, we need a school funding policy that separates out buildings and maintenance, and funds them based on need, separately from the per-pupil allocation. This will clarify confusion around equity between the school districts and help the county anticipate long-term capital needs.
3. Also long term, we need to ask leaders from both school systems to work together to agree on a standard budget presentation and some simple measurements of performance to allow greater transparency – especially as both districts grow.

To me, this makes more sense than funding schools – capital and operating – based on a percent of property taxes. My approach will better prepare us for changing conditions such as population growth, curriculum changes and decreases in federal/state funding.

County commissioners can always choose to increase taxes to fund schools – with or without voter approval. The tradeoff is that Orange County is becoming less and less affordable, and our workforce, seniors and minority populations are leaving. I believe we can do better.

One last point: It’s easy to blame the state, but some of the problems are of our own making. Our facilities have been allowed to fall into disrepair, and urbanizing districts (Wake, Guilford, Mecklenburg) are all spending more to pay teachers and create excellence. Orange County needs to update its policies to adequately fund schools as a priority and give taxpayers confidence that we are preparing for the future.

Business as usual is not working, and sustainable school funding is one important way that we can do better.

Bonnie Hauser, candidate
Orange County Commissioner-at-large

by on April 30, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in County business, Elections, Spending
Tagged ,
Posted by Nancy Oates on April 30, 2014

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2014/04/30/hausers-plan-for-schools/

Wreck-reation

Folks who attended the Town Council meeting Monday night in the Southern Human Don EvansServices building off Homestead Road were treated to new definitions of recreation space.

The meeting included a continuation of a hearing on the proposal by Blue Heron to expand the Timber Hollow apartments by adding 109 housing units. Fancy units would be built adjacent to The Junior (Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard) as well as in two buildings where the complex now has a recreational area.

During the meeting, Blue Heron representative Michael Fiocco of the Pittsboro Board of Commissioners, characterized a strip of land to the east of the apartments to be credited to Blue Heron’s requirement to provide the town with recreation space. The 65,000-plus square feet of space that Fiocco cited is mostly an easement for Duke Energy and Orange Water and Sewer Authority. So the developer is calling space that Progress Energy maintains, with its defoliant chemicals and sprays and energy pylons, as a place where the children of families who live in the apartments can send their children to cavort.

But you have to give Fiocco and Blue Heron props for their perverse inspiration — taking credit for something that the builder and its minions have no control over and then trying to spin it to look as if the developer is doing the town a favor, now that’s creative.

But then what can you expect from a business concern that wants to get approval of the expansion of the complex, yet is canvassing companies for a buyer to sell it off to that will turn around and do the town another favor by turning workforce housing units into condos. Now that will definitely solve the workforce housing problem, right?

Council member Maria Palmer actually lauded the Blue Heron reps for their efforts to include so much recreation space. She obviously has never visited the site and would do well to walk the space some time to see how insalubrious it is to playing children.

Of course, Blue Heron also wanted to include a street in its calculation for recreation space, but town staff apparently said, “Nice try,” and refused to allow that.

But the developer will provide a 15,000-square-foot private dog park, and that counts as recreational area. Might be safer for kids to play in the dog park than among the power lines and defoliants of the easement.
–Don Evans

by on April 29, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in Housing, Land Use, Lifestyle
Tagged
Posted by Don Evans on April 29, 2014

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2014/04/29/wreck-reation/

« Older Posts
Newer Posts »