Vote for sheriff

We haven’t had to think about what we want in a county sheriff for a long Nancy Oatestime – 32 years, to be exact, because that’s how long Lindy Pendergrass has held that vaunted role. After eight terms in office, the 80-year-old is ready to retire.

Six men are campaigning for the position: Charles Blackwood, David Caldwell Jr., Andy Cagle, Larry Faucette, Buddy Parker and Keith Webster. All but Cagle have made a career in law enforcement. All are registered Democrats. The primary election on May 6 will be key to selecting the new sheriff, though likely only a first step.

To win the election on May 6, a candidate would have to receive 40 percent plus one additional vote. In a field of six well-qualified candidates of the same political party, it’s unlikely that one candidate will dominate. If no candidate gets 40 percent-plus-one, the county will schedule a runoff on either July 15, if any of the federal races requires a runoff, or June 24 if not. The top two vote-getters in the runoff will appear on the November ballot. So those election signs may dot our roadsides for quite some time.

I asked each what sets him apart from the other candidates, what Orange County’s biggest problem is, and how long each planned to stay in office. Here are their responses:

Blackwood was second-in-command at the Orange County Sheriff’s Office when he retired in December 2012. After 32 years at the sheriff’s office, he has experience in all aspects of day-to-day operations, having served, managed or supervised every division. He is most concerned about the illegal drug trade in the county that leads to residential and commercial break-ins and other property crime. He feels it’s critical to examine ways to reduce the jail population and find alternatives to incarceration of the mentally ill. His focus is on getting elected, not on how long he’ll serve. Now 54, he has plenty of good years left in him. http://www.blackwoodforsheriff.com

Caldwell’s career has taken him from the Carrboro Police to the Army Military Police, followed by a stint training police in the Caribbean islands before he joined the Orange County Sheriff’s Office in 1988. He left in 2008 to complete his criminal justice degree, and he has worked as an environmental justice organizer since. His involvement with diverse groups and his concern for community fairness drive him. If elected, he’ll make promoting better understanding among various groups in the county a priority, including cultural training for officers so all citizens feel respected and included as part of the community. He’ll stay in office until the job is done. http://www.davecaldwell4sheriff.com

Cagle, a business owner in the area for the past 15 years, has made a career in business management, with extensive experience in public relations as he managed his family’s musical acts and booked their national appearances. He cites several pressing concerns in Orange County, including gangs, drugs, break-ins, home invasions and school violence. As for how long he’d serve, he said voters will tell him. http://cagleforsheriff.com

Faucette retired from the Orange County Sheriff’s Office in 2009 as a captain. His commendations include twice being named Officer of the Year. Since retiring, he has served as a school resource officer, coached high school sports and volunteered with community nonprofits. He sees the role of sheriff as protecting and serving the community, not just arresting bad guys. He is committed to accountability, diversity and fairness. He would continue community programs such as LifeTrack, SALT, GREAT and DARE, and expand programs that guide young people to become responsible, successful adults. He would take a multipronged approach to law enforcement, not only identifying and apprehending offenders but also establishing a positive and supportive presence in the community. http://www.larryfaucetteforsheriff.com/about-1

Parker began his law enforcement career with the Orange County Sheriff’s Office, but since 1995 has served with the Hillsborough Police Department, where he is a sergeant. As sheriff, he would lead from the field, not from behind a desk. His door would always be open to community residents, visitors, law enforcement officers, and staff from other agencies. He sees a need for Orange County to improve communication, collaboration and cooperation among agencies, citizens and schools, which would enhance the quality of life for everyone. Crime crosses city limits, and training and working closely with other communities and agencies would ensure a safe place to live, work and attend school. He would train and mentor deputies into leadership positions. He does not see himself serving for 30 years. http://www.voteparker4sheriff.com

Webster has law enforcement experience with the Orange County Sheriff’s Office, the Hillsborough Police Department and now the Carrboro Police Department, where he is a lieutenant and received the Medal of Valor in 2008. At each agency, he has learned what works and what doesn’t. He has firsthand knowledge of what a modern law enforcement agency needs, and he has insight into how to effectively implement needed reforms in the sheriff’s office. He believes deputies need better formation and training, including in the use of technology, and clear, accessible avenues for advancement. He would like deputies to reflect the diversity of the county and be proud to be who they are. Now 45, he has the time and energy to be an active sheriff to see the changes through, perhaps two or three terms. http://keithwebsterforsheriff.com/home
– Nancy Oates

by on April 28, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in County business, Elections
Tagged
Posted by Nancy Oates on April 28, 2014

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2014/04/28/vote-for-sheriff/

See schools run

Recently, I listened to a couple of longtime friends reminisce about their Nancy Oatesearly days as first-graders at Glenwood Elementary School. Both of them entered first grade already knowing how to read. They were put into the Dick and Jane reading group. Average readers were sent to the Spot and Puff group. Those not yet able to read were assigned to the Little Baby Sally group. Sometimes when the teacher had her hands full, members of the Dick and Jane group led the Little Baby Sally group, tutoring them in phonics and helping them recognize words.

Such was the state of gifted education in Chapel Hill in the 1960s. Much has changed since then. The Gifted Program in Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools today seeks to identify children of high intellectual potential in kindergarten, then offers tiered enrichment programming for the gifted, the highly gifted and those so smart they are deemed to have “profound learning needs.” (More than a decade ago, I read a letter to the editor in which a mother referred to her child as “severely gifted.” I guess that’s who the last category serves.)

CHCCS has a reputation for its stellar public schools, the high marks many of its students score on proficiency tests, and high graduation and college acceptance rates. And that, above all else, keeps families paying high prices for real estate in the school district despite high property and taxes. The average price for a single-family home in Chapel Hill is about $400,000 and comes with an annual property tax bill of about $7,000. That seems like a reasonable sacrifice to make when you consider that tuition in private schools in the area ranges from about $13,000 to $22,000. That’s per child, per year.

So when the school system came into a budget crunch and the school board initially decided to make the cuts from the academically gifted program, parents took notice. Within weeks, the school board had recanted and decided not to make any cuts anywhere, but instead ask for full funding, even though it would mean a property tax increase of 3 cents per $100 of a property’s assessed value.

I’m certainly not advocating for the school board to make cuts to any remedial programs for students who do not have the advantages that their high-IQ peers enjoy. But I can see why the board changed its mind on cutting from the academic top. If the reputation of city schools begins to slip, people are less willing to pay more for housing inside the district. Real estate prices begin to slip, and that means less property tax revenue coming in to pay for all of those extras that make Chapel Hill desirable – a luxury library, an art czar, a marble bench that no one sits on, and all those consultants who back town staff.

We need our gifted programs as much as we need remedial programs, though for very different reasons. See us jump to pay more taxes.
– Nancy Oates

by on April 21, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in Budget, Lifestyle, Schools, Spending, Taxes
Posted by Nancy Oates on April 21, 2014

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2014/04/21/see-schools-run/

Office-retail only

Ellie Kinnaird’s voice was drowned out during her final years in the N.C. Senate by affluentNancy Oates colleagues who, having reached a high level of creature comfort, put in place policies that closed off that path to others. After several years of advocating for laws that made life better for residents in all socio-economic classes, Kinnaird found herself in recent years ignored and outvoted by senators who served the interests mainly of those already well-off.

When Kinnaird addressed council members at a Town Council meeting last month, suggesting that Ephesus-Fordham be rezoned as office and retail only, she may have felt it was deja vu all over again. Not a single council member picked up on her excellent suggestion of a way to avoid digging a deeper debt pit for taxpayers to climb out of.

Council is considering rezoning the 190 acres of the Ephesus-Fordham area as a high-density commercial zone that will gift all developers with an expedited approval process and kick in $10 million in infrastructure improvements that developers often are asked to pay for. Apartment buildings are considered commercial development but, unlike office and retail establishments, cost the town more money in services than it will collect in tax revenue.

The impetus for the E-F rezoning was to ease the tax burden of residential property owners by bringing in more money from office and retail development. Unfortunately for taxpayers, the first projects likely to come out of the ground will be apartments, which will increase the tax burden for homeowners for at least the next decade until some of the office and retail space is built.

Kinnaird’s recommendation offered a practical solution that would go a long way in reducing widespread community opposition. People in Chapel Hill need places to shop for everyday items. The town has no shortage of specialty shops, jewelry stores, art galleries and gourmet merchants, but no place to buy socks and underwear and other functional items that do not have to have cache.

Establishing an area with retail stores on the ground level and office space above would create a shopping destination that might lure back some department stores or other chain stores we frequent that we now have to go to another county to patronize. We might hate the area’s seven-story buildings, but we would go there to shop.

If the town were to sever the DHIC project and Park Apartments from the Ephesus-Fordham zone, then designate the remaining areas as only office and retail, the zone would almost certainly be revenue positive. We wouldn’t risk overwhelming our school system or the Public Works department. And town residents would have an alternative to spending our consumer dollars in another county.

Kinnaird knows what she’s talking about. We would do well to listen. Ephesus-Fordham is back on the Town Council agenda for this Thursday, April 17.
— Nancy Oates

by on April 14, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in Economic development, Housing, Land Use, Lifestyle, Spending, Taxes
Tagged ,
Posted by Nancy Oates on April 14, 2014

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2014/04/14/office-retail-only/

Hometown brand

Driving home from Raleigh one spring night with my car windows rolled down, I Nancy Oatesstopped at a traffic light. A car pulled up beside me, and the driver hollered out, “You must be going to Chapel Hill. I can tell by your bumper stickers.”

Chapel Hill used to be known as an enclave for liberals: people who put time and energy into making society better for everyone. But the town’s reputation seems to be shifting a bit. Whereas public displays of wealth used to be tolerated, now they seem to be aspired to.

The last discount department store in town will leave Chapel Hill in June. Roses, serving the community for more than 40 years, has been priced out of University Mall. Mall landlord Madison Marquette raised the rent on Roses’ space last year, and Roses anteed up to stay put. But this year, the lease offered by Madison Marquette raised the rent even more and cut the space in half. That deal was not fiscally viable for the merchant that sold clothing and sundries at rock-bottom prices.

From an economic development view, the store’s closing makes sense for the town. An art gallery, jewelry store, trendy restaurant or boutique will take over the space at the higher rent, and the town will collect extra sales tax revenue from the pricier goods sold. Residents on a budget will soon move out of town, if they haven’t already, because the town is redeveloping all of its affordable housing out of existence. It makes no sense for budget-minded expats to commute into town to shop at a discount store when there are so many low-cost shopping options over the county lines east, west and south of us.

But as the town moves resolutely toward a moneyed, exclusive community, I feel increasingly uncomfortable. Not because of whether I, personally, can afford to live here, but because I’ve never aspired to live somewhere that prides itself on being a place that only the wealthy can afford. Just as I’m somewhat repulsed by wearing someone else’s name or logo on my clothing and personal property, I feel a similar yuck factor at living in a place that brands itself as a sort of Governors Club without the gatehouse.

The more money I acquire, the more choices I have of where to live. Can my money buy a place where I feel at home with my bumper stickers?
– Nancy Oates

by on April 7, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in Business, Economic development, Housing, Lifestyle, Taxes
Tagged ,
Posted by Nancy Oates on April 7, 2014

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2014/04/07/hometown-brand/

Public-private = win-win

Chapel Hill needs a Stuyvesant Town, a large-scale complex of safe, Nancy Oateswell-built, no-frills apartments with rents affordable to your average working stiff.

For some years during my New York days I lived in Stuy Town, an 11,000-unit complex built on 80 acres of what used to house leaky gas storage tanks and businesses and apartments that would put up with the unpleasant conditions. Met Life bought the land and built Stuy Town and Peter Cooper Village (where the apartments were larger and had higher rents) in 1947, giving preference to veterans, Met Life employees and government workers. Met Life enjoyed a tax abatement in exchange for making the units rent-stabilized, allowing the rents to rise only a certain percentage instead of fluctuating at market rates.

In 2006, Met Life got an offer it couldn’t refuse and sold the complex to a consortium for $5.4 billion. The consortium raised rents to market rate, in some instances in mid-lease. The real estate market crashed a few years later, and the consortium couldn’t make its payments so turned Stuy Town and PCV over to a creditor. Then it came to light that the consortium had been enjoying the tax abatement while charging market-rate rents. The tenants sued. The case went to the Supreme Court, and the tenants won, though they are still waiting for their money.

Chapel Hill doesn’t need the lawsuits spawned by real estate investors’ greed, but the town could use a reasonable public-private partnership to create workforce housing. My understanding is that North Carolina law would prevent a property tax abatement in exchange for below market-rate rents. (If anyone knows for sure, please chime in.) But the town could explore public-private partnerships that give something to both sides.

For instance, the town could work with UNC, the town’s largest employer, to grant expedited approval for workforce rentals on campus that give priority to university and hospital employees. Some of the four-bedroom suite dormitories could be converted fairly cost-effectively to buildings of two-bedroom apartments. Convert one bedroom to a kitchen and designate another as a living room by enlarging the doorway into the central hall and creating a doorway between the kitchen and living room, and you’ve got a modest two-bedroom apartment. Put a laundry room with coin-operated washers and dryers in the basement and install a bike rack out front, and tenants are minutes from work.

Or sell some town-owned land to UNC, with the understanding that the university build workforce rentals on it for employees. Too late now, but the town could have held firm on negotiating with 123 West Franklin that 10 percent of those apartments be for junior faculty and support staff.

Town Council recently approved designating a town planning department staff member as the affordable housing point-person. Let’s hope the person who fills that position is creative, open to ideas and understands the term “win-win.”
– Nancy Oates

by on March 31, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in Housing, Land Use, Lifestyle, UNC
Tagged
Posted by Nancy Oates on March 31, 2014

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2014/03/31/public-private-win-win/

Plans vs. promises

At its March 10 meeting, Town Council passed an Affordable Rental Housing Nancy OatesStrategy that was such a foregone conclusion it should have been on the Consent Agenda. But without the fanfare of a staff-narrated PowerPoint and a time for public comment, council members and town staff would have been deprived of a feel-good moment. And while the document puts the spotlight on an area of need that has long been ignored, and the strategy does include some good ideas, that feel-good moment is going to have to last a long time before we see any tangible results.

Some proposed tactics are simple and can be implemented at little cost: Designate a town staff member as the point-person for affordable rentals. That way, developers interested in providing affordable rentals would know who to contact to learn the process, perks and pitfalls of doing so.

Another: Implement expedited reviews for subsidized affordable housing developments. To do this, staff must work with the town attorney on what is legally enforceable. We like to think that Chapel Hill can do what it wants within the confines of its own liberal-minded bubble, but we are smack in the middle of North Carolina and subject to all the draconian laws passed by the state General Assembly and the governor. To structure a deal that will guarantee affordable units requires a keen legal mind, which we have in Ralph Karpinos. Town staff just have to ask him.

Other suggestions in the strategy are more pie-in-the-sky: Encourage the production of affordable rentals through incentives. Good luck with that one. In order to get DHIC, a developer with a track record of building affordable rentals in Raleigh, to commit to building affordable units in Chapel Hill, the town had to give DHIC $2 million worth of town-owned land, and then agree that the units would be affordable only for 30 years. After that, DHIC can convert the units to market rate or above, as is happening to the Colony Apartments in Ephesus-Fordham and to other 30-year-old apartment complexes in town that comprise organically affordable housing but have been resold to private equity investors who exploit the potential for maximum profit.

The plan includes a tax hike of 1 cent per $100 of property valuation, or $40 a year for the average $400,000 house in Chapel Hill.

Meanwhile, it looks like the Eubanks Road Convenience Center will get water and sewer before the Rogers Road neighborhood. Until we make good on our 40-year-old promise to provide water and sewer to an affordable neighborhood that has taken one for the team for two generations, all our lofty strategizing is only so much hot air.
– Nancy Oates

by on March 24, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in Ethics, Housing, Land Use, Taxes, Town staff
Tagged , ,
Posted by Nancy Oates on March 24, 2014

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2014/03/24/plans-vs-promises/

Hounding town staff

Town planning director J.B. Culpepper and I* went to see “The Great Gatsby” atNancy Oates the library, rather than attend the Planning Board meeting taking place at the same time. Culpepper evidently had confidence, as did I, that town planning department staff would do their job in presenting the revised plan for Timber Hollow to the board.

We were wrong.

The owner-investors of Timber Hollow submitted a revised plan to town planning department staff, who, in turn, presented it to Town Council. Some council members saw the revisions as substantial and instructed town planning department staff to send the revised plan to the Planning Board and the Community Design Commission to get input from those two advisory boards.

Planning department staff told the CDC only that the developers “had shifted a number of units,” but that the amount of disturbed land and impervious surface had decreased, and there “was no change to the total areas, unit count or affordable housing,” according to CDC chair Jason Hart. So the CDC made no comment on the revised plan.

Planning Board chair Neal Bench said of the planning staff update to his board, “We have not seen the specifics” and “legality was not discussed.”

The legality refers to the developer asking staff for a density bonus beyond the increase from R-4 to R-5 in exchange for the promise of making the rent for 14 apartments affordable to people making no more than 80% of the Area Median Income. State law won’t allow that deal, yet no one on the planning staff has run this proposal by town attorney Ralph Karpinos. During the Ephesus-Fordham redevelopment hearings, Karpinos said that increased density in exchange for affordable units was unenforceable, but the town planners shepherding Timber Hollow through the rezoning process were not aware of Karpinos’ statement.

It’s certainly not the first time town planning staff have blown off council members. Numerous times the mayor or other council members have asked the planning staff for information before making a decision on a development issue, and when decision time rolls around, the planning staff have failed to deliver.

Taxpayers should not have to follow town staff around making sure they do their jobs, yet apparently that’s the only way to find out whether staff are doing what their bosses – council members – ask them to do.

Is there any wonder why taxpayers have such anxiety over the prospect of Form-Based Code in Ephesus-Fordham that allows town staff to make all the development decisions and answer to no one?
– Nancy Oates
*We did not go together; we just both happened to be there.

by on March 17, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in Council Members, Town staff
Tagged , ,
Posted by Nancy Oates on March 17, 2014

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2014/03/17/hounding-town-staff/

Brass tacks, not bronze plaques

Sometimes when I feel overwhelmed by deadlines, I’ll make a list of all I haveNancy Oates to do, then slip in something that’s so easy to do it’s almost a given. “Wash hair,” I might write, or “check email.” I do that first, then I can feel like I’ve accomplished something, and I’ve managed to procrastinate on the hard stuff, using a “legitimate” reason.

Maybe that’s the frame of mind Orange County Commissioners were in at their Feb. 18 meeting when they approved a Commemorative Plaque Policy, a decision that was several months in the making. The board wrestled with such weighty issues as which buildings and projects were worthy of plaque-hood, and cost, characteristics and language for the markers. Ultimately, commissioners decided that buildings and renovation projects costing more than $1 million deserved a 2-foot-by-2-foot square bronze plaque that would include the names of all sitting commissioners at the time, the county manager, and the designer and contractor. The plaques would cost about $1,300 to $1,500 apiece.

Never mind that we closed the county landfill almost a year ago, and we still don’t have a plan for what to do with our trash, nor do we know how we’ll pay for recycling pickup. Commissioners have yet to schedule a town hall meeting to bring the community into the solid waste discussion.

We can see the writing on the wall with cuts to Medicaid (which reduces the number of school social workers, among other cutbacks) and teacher pay, but what have commissioners done to plan for the fallout when the impact of those cuts hits home? As teachers begin to leave the profession and we can’t attract new ones because of the lack of respect our state government has for teachers, how will we handle the shortage? Year-round schools have been known to mitigate overcrowding, though it could have a disruptive effect on family life. We need to begin that discussion.

Commissioners are planning to put a $100 million bond referendum on the November ballot to cover the cost of building a jail, schools and county offices. County staff have not laid out a facilities plan, though Commissioner Alice Gordon has been asking for one for a year. But commissioners did approve a new meeting room for themselves, which would cost $1.5 million, making it eligible for a plaque.

With 65 percent of our taxes going to the county, we need to feel confident that our county commissioners are paying attention to the most efficient use of our money. We need them to collaborate with municipal governments to avoid duplicating services. We need them to prioritize, deciding what buildings we need before approving plaques for them. And we need them to let us know what they’re doing and why.

Come to think of it, “prioritize,” “collaborate,” “be transparent” might make a good list.
– Nancy Oates

by on March 10, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in County business, Taxes
Tagged ,
Posted by Nancy Oates on March 10, 2014

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2014/03/10/brass-tacks-not-bronze-plaques/

To our health

At the Feb. 24 Town Council meeting, a community member asked council members Nancy Oatesto pass a resolution urging Gov. Pat McCrory and the General Assembly to accept the opportunity to expand Medicaid, an option made available by the Affordable Care Act. The cost would be paid for by federal taxpayers, 100% for the first three years, phasing down to 90% by 2020.

This resolution was a no-brainer. As federal taxpayers, we’re paying for the benefits of Obamacare for the rest of the country. Why should those of us who live in North Carolina deny ourselves health-care coverage for those least able to afford it? Instead, McCrory and the state Legislature expect state taxpayers to pick up that cost, at the same time we’re turning down money from federal taxpayers across the country.

Because health care is a right – state hospitals can’t refuse to treat anyone, even if the patient has no money to pay the bill – and because without Medicaid, the poor are denied the well-care doctor’s check-ups and preventive measures that lower health-care costs, North Carolina taxpayers have to pay more – some $65 million over 10 years – by refusing to accept the Medicaid expansion.

So why would our state leaders do something clearly not in our best interests? Maria Palmer provided a clue as she relayed a conversation she had with someone on the front lines of the health-care industry who said, in effect, if you have a chronic illness, you’re better off moving out of state.

The light bulb clicked on for me then. All those draconian new bills the General Assembly has passed and McCrory has signed into law – foregoing the benefits of Obamacare; cutting unemployment and making us ineligible for maximum federal money; getting rid of the medical expense tax deduction, which primarily will hurt the elderly; slicing funding for public education – they are motivators to get the unwanted out of the state to make room for a Masters of the Universe class. If you are sick, old, out of work or can’t afford private schools, McCrory and the General Assembly don’t want you here.

What McCrory and his legislative posse fail to understand is that those laws also will discourage better-paying businesses and corporations from moving in. While our state-level politicians busily work to re-create the 1950s, the rest of the country is moving forward. Healthy businesses that want to grow won’t come to North Carolina because they wouldn’t be able to convince their employees to relocate to a narrow-minded state that truncates their opportunities. And we’ll have a harder time protecting our Chapel Hill bubble because the Legislature is watching to make sure that local municipalities don’t enact any ordinances contrary to state law.

Council adopted the resolution. A healthy economy includes a community in good health.
– Nancy Oates

by on March 3, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in Economic development, Ethics, Lifestyle, Politics, Taxes
Tagged
Posted by Nancy Oates on March 3, 2014

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2014/03/03/to-our-health-2/

Senior special

A concept plan for a dense subdivision on the agenda at last week’s councilNancy Oates meeting drew not a single resident to protest. Maybe this developer knew to schedule his presentation at the exact same time as a UNC men’s basketball game, or maybe this developer offered something that many of us have been waiting years for.

Epcon Communities has proposed Courtyards of Homestead, 64 single-family one-level homes laid out cheek-to-cheek on 18 acres along Homestead Road, across the railroad tracks from Homestead Village. Each home would have a private courtyard instead of a yard to maintain. The homes are geared toward empty-nesters, age 55 and older, who want to downsize without feeling downwardly mobile. Because of the one-level floor plans, residents could age in place. The houses would range in size from 1,500 to 2,600 square feet, with two or three bedrooms and a two-car garage. When the developers mentioned the price point of $275,000 to $400,000, even our youthful mayor seemed interested.

No housing option like this exists in Chapel Hill. If you want to age in place in a modest-sized one-level home with no yard, you have to move out of town and probably out of Orange County.

The developers, based in Ohio with almost 30 years’ experience creating these senior-living communities, seem sincere in targeting aging baby boomers, but they may have underestimated the pent-up demand for detached homes of this size, location and price. Young professionals and families will see the attraction, and while such demographic diversity might add to the appeal of the neighborhood, young families likely will have school-age children. If they snap up the homes, that will have ramifications for our school system, which is already nearly at capacity.

Council members brainstormed a few ideas for making the subdivision less appealing to young families, then turned the problem back over to the developers to solve. Scrapping plans for an outdoor pool would be a good-faith gesture. I know my bikini days are never coming back, and the aquatic center is within walking distance for those of us who go to the pool to do laps, not to loll. That would free up space for a bus turnaround, which might lure bus service out that far along Homestead.

Former council member Laurin Easthom suggested in her blog (laurineasthom.com) that the developers commit to the Housing for Older Persons Act of 1995, which gives them tax credits if 80 percent of the homes have a resident 55 years or older living there. The savings could be put toward the 15 percent of units that need to be affordable housing. Maria Palmer suggested the affordable units could be stacked like condos to save money.

If should council approve this project, I predict a sort of Krzyzewskiville of seniors popping up in front of Epcon’s sales office. If council decides it’s in the town’s best interest to not restrict the subdivision to empty-nesters, baby-boomers who want first dibs on these homes will have to learn to box out. And we just might see our mayor in line, too.
– Nancy Oates

by on February 24, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in Housing, Land Use, Lifestyle, Schools, Transportation
Tagged
Posted by Nancy Oates on February 24, 2014

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2014/02/24/senior-special/

« Older Posts
Newer Posts »