Feature presentation

We’ve gotten spoiled. With Town Council’s newfound determination to end council meetings before midnight, and breaking out council discussions in midweek work sessions at the library (which are not on TV nor videoed and accessible by computer), the regular Monday night meetings end two to three hours after they begin.

Tonight may be an exception.

Several topics made the agenda for public hearing night, and first up is Roger Stancil’s budget recommendation that includes a 2-cents-per-$100-valuation property tax hike. Usually this draws a host of commenters, from representatives making a final pitch as to why their organization needs the amount of money allotted it, or more, and taxpayers who question why something was not included or why so much was allocated to something else, or weigh in on how the funds could be distributed more effectively.

Next, a LUMO amendment to increase fines for landlords who are repeat offenders in ignoring town ordinances. Most commonly cited violations were for too many cars parked on a property and two many unrelated people living in a rental unit. The two are related in that over-occupancy usually is detected by too many cars parked in a yard. Nevertheless, the town is requesting that the limit of cars per duplex be increased from four to eight, given that a landlord is legally allowed to have four unrelated people per unit. Doing the math, double it for a duplex and triple it for a triplex, but town has its limits, and eight cars per lot seemed a good compromise. We’ll see which triplex owner is the first to file a lawsuit.

The third item on the agenda is to have the contractor creating the new LUMO from the CH2020 document include revisions to the Resource Conservation District. Now, I haven’t kept up with the progress of the RCD changes after town staff originally recommended reducing all riparian buffers to 50 feet, but not knowing about a topic has never stopped me from commenting before. The resolution associated with the agenda item only allows the contractor, Code Studio, to do the work. The comments to be added are embedded in the hour-and-a-half-long video of presenters found at http://chapelhill.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=1729. Riparian buffer width will come into play in the very near future as some of the concept plans for Central West development involve building in the RCD.

Finally, Duke Energy wants to build a power substation in the Calvander-Eubanks Road area and will present a concept review plan to start the process. Some neighbors already beleaguered by groundwater contamination from the landfill want to make sure Duke does enough landscaping to protect them from unsightly views.

With this varied lineup, you’re sure to find something that will get your blood pressure up. Enjoy!
– Nancy Oates

by on May 20, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Budget, CH2020, Environment, Land Use, Taxes
Tagged ,
Posted by Nancy Oates on May 20, 2013

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2013/05/20/feature-presentation/

Obey Creek: From Outreach to Inclusion

Southern Area resident Jeanne Brown has this to say about the evolving community engagement process for Obey Creek:

Three years after Town Council members asked to know what a Development Agreement for Obey Creek would look like, a long-awaited public engagement process is beginning to take shape – thanks to council suggestion that staff, East West Partners and community members Amy Ryan and I work together to craft an initial Exploratory Phase.

At the end of this first phase, council will decide if the project is appropriate for a Development Agreement.

The draft Exploratory process, which was presented at the April 29 council work session, details opportunities for public participation, including a public information meeting, two multi-day workshops, a series of key topic sessions and online data collection opportunities.
But by assigning all leadership and decision-making to an outside consulting team and by using a series of reactive feedback meetings as the format for community “discussion” of important topics, the community will continue to find ourselves in a position of having to respond to developer and consultant generated recommendations or plans rather than being allowed to play a participatory role in shaping our own future.

Furthermore, because the schedule includes a multi-evening community workshop during the last week of school and then concentrates discussion of key topics such as traffic and environment during the summer months, it continues to feel as though the intent of the process is to value efficiency and technical decision-making over true community engagement.

Having worked as a consultant doing process improvement and redesign for companies and organizations in the past, I wonder why we have spent three years trying to get to a process that provides necessary community planning steps and meets common goals of transparency, fairness (clarity and impartiality), inclusion, data-informed decision-making and, in this case, planning from the ground up (blank slate).

Incorporating these goals into a process plan is not rocket science but it does require commitment to those goals every step of the way.

So, where are we now, and where do we go from here?

During their April 29 work session, council addressed several important issues, including a role for citizens in decision-making and the timeframe for the process. At the end of their discussion, council members asked staff to return with a proposal for a Central West-style steering committee; council member Gene Pease suggested the need to adjust the timeframe.

For the 30 or so community members who attended the work session, it was helpful to hear council discuss this “process,” which has up to now been too vague to understand. During a rare opportunity for public comment, individuals from numerous neighborhoods applauded council’s decisions followed by a statement from East West’s Ben Perry, who reaffirmed his company’s commitment to open community dialogue.

Further discussion is expected at an upcoming council meeting or work session.

In the meantime, a walking tour of Obey Creek has been scheduled for Wednesday, May 22, at 10 a.m. Details can be found at http://townofchapelhill.org/index.aspx?page=15&recordid=5585.

Interested in attending but unable to get away on a Wednesday morning? Hopefully, in the future, we won’t have to ask; but for now, e-mail staff at: developmentagreement@townofchapelhill.org.

Include the words “Obey Creek Exploratory Phase” in your subject line!
— Jeanne Brown

by on May 13, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Land Use
Tagged ,
Posted by Nancy Oates on May 13, 2013

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2013/05/13/obey-creek-from-outreach-to-inclusion/

The bleaching of Chapel Hill

Last week I walked along MLK Jr. Boulevard to go from my house off Piney Mountain Road to Harrington Bank. Schools had a delayed opening that day, and I passed several groups of high school students waiting along MLK for the school bus. Presumably they lived in the modest rentals and mobile homes in the area. All but one student had skin browner than mine.

We will lose that diversity in the process of turning affordable housing options into high-rent districts. Yes, yes, we all know minorities who make more money than us, but the fact remains that many of the most affordable sections of town are home to a preponderance of minorities. Yet another casualty of Chapel Hill transitioning from a village to an enclave.

The problem isn’t unique to Chapel Hill. Across the country, we are losing our middle class, making it increasingly difficult for residents to move from the modest-income jobs many of us started in to the comfortable income we have later on. I got on my soapbox about this to someone not long ago, and he said, “You’d be a lot happier if you didn’t pay attention.”

Sadly, that attitude might be why only 15 percent of town residents vote. And why so many people, including some Town Council members, think workforce housing is a good idea in theory but too much trouble in practice.

Demographically we are a highly educated, relatively wealthy lot. We could be leaders in social justice causes, and at one time we were. But of late, we seem content to be a bedroom community to Raleigh and Research Triangle Park, sending our kids to good quality public schools, picking up a latte as we drive our SUVs to the library and leaving the prepaid buses to UNC students, all the while grumbling about our high taxes and the lack of convenient parking.

Those of us who own property in Chapel Hill are lucky. Through no planning on our part, we were born to the right parents, blessed with resilience and have access to other resources that afford many freedoms. We can pass those advantages on to our children and to other people’s children. Or we can price out all those kids waiting for the bus along MLK, force them to move out of an excellent school district, deny them the advantages that our children have.

Council members have the power to shape development and decide whom to make room for. Their decisions incentivize their vision. They can make the approval process easy for developers who commit to preserving some workforce housing and tell those whose proposals don’t contribute to the community to try again. They can determine whether our rainbow in Chapel Hill has more than one stripe and whether we’ll share our advantages with those not quite so lucky.
– Nancy Oates

by on May 6, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Ethics, Housing, Land Use, Lifestyle
Tagged ,
Posted by Nancy Oates on May 6, 2013

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2013/05/06/the-bleaching-of-chapel-hill/

Invite them where?

I listened to a panel discussion on WCHL yesterday afternoon as I drove around doing errands in the rain. Local residents who held various leadership roles in Chapel Hill and Carrboro talked about their vision for the town. One comment in particular stuck with me. Delores Bailey, executive director of Empowerment, said she would like to see Chapel Hill invite UNC students to stay in town once they graduated. But for that to happen, she conceded, Chapel Hill needed a place for them to live.

George Cianciolo, co-chair of CH2020 also spoke of his desire to preserve diversity in town, and that hinged on affordable places to live.

Dwight Bassett, Chapel Hill’s economic development officer, touted the launch of LaUNCh, a business incubator, and its potential to contribute to economic diversity. But until those entrepreneurs hit it big and get bought up by Microsoft, they will have to live out of town or triple up with roomies to share the rent on a closet-size apartment with brushed nickel appliances.

And I watch Timber Hollow Apartments, a former oasis of modest-income housing next door to me, be transformed by Ron Strom with granite countertops, high-end fixtures, and a state-of-the-art club house and swimming pool that will result in rent hikes beyond the means of the graduate students, teachers and municipal workers who live there now.

Town Council members talk as if they agreed that affordable housing is necessary, but so far they have only pushed for higher payment-in-lieu and considered a tax hike to subsidize rents. The cannibalization of older, affordable units into high-rent districts won’t stop until council puts its foot down.

Council can’t require rents to be affordable. But if council members hold to a vision of the need for residential units affordable to those who earn modest incomes, council members can say no to developers who request a special use permit for something that doesn’t include a significant portion of modest-income housing. Council can say, “No, your proposal for high-end units doesn’t meet a need for the town; it doesn’t fit the demographic we want to attract.”

Strom has resisted entreaties by Bailey, Bassett and Robert Dowling, executive director of Community Home Trust, to preserve some of the units as affordable. Strom says he can’t make the numbers work, even though the numbers worked when he bought it, due to its near zero vacancy rate. The energy efficiency upgrades he is making are covered by the town’s WISE program, so he is still making a nice profit.

But Strom wants more than a profit – he wants to make a killing. His out-of-state investors want to make a killing, too, those investors who are paying him an investment management fee to deliver high returns. Strom makes a nice return if he collects fees for the $12 million fund to purchase Timber Hollow. He makes even more on $30 million his investors would pony up for him to increase the density, glitz up the place and jack up the rents.

Many other 30-year-old-plus apartment complexes are similarly vulnerable. Until council gets serious about affordable housing, Delores Bailey can’t send out any invitations.
– Nancy Oates

by on April 29, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Council Members, Economic development, Housing
Tagged ,
Posted by Nancy Oates on April 29, 2013

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2013/04/29/invite-them-where/

It’s only a slice

Don and I live simply. Because we are so focused on paying our high property taxes (purportedly the highest in the state), we rarely go out to dinner. But once in a while, we’ll pick up a pizza to go. Last night, Don called Tedesco’s, our favorite Italian joint, to place an order, but the line was disconnected. Yet another pizzeria went belly up. In a college town, no less.

The past couple of years have seen the demise of L’Incontro, in The Courtyard; Camos Bros., first in The Courtyard, then in Gateway Commons; Sal’s, in Eastgate; Franklin Street Pizza and Pasta, replaced by Tomato Jake’s, which closed within a year; and Pepper’s. All are independently owned, more or less local shops.

Mellow Mushroom, part of a small franchise, opened last month, though it doesn’t deliver. And the big chains – Papa John’s and Pizza Hut – are still going strong.

The closing of Tedesco’s means more than just one fewer place to get an excellent meal for good value. The Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, the town manager and Town Council all should pay attention and find out why yet another locally owned business couldn’t make a go of it in Chapel Hill. It may be due to Mark Marcopolis’ assumption: Chapel Hill’s tea party Democrats wouldn’t patronize a business that bore the same name as a tea party Raleigh Republican. (And if that’s the case, we’ve got more to worry about than a sluggish economy and high taxes.) But it may be the sign of an endemic problem of our own making.

A business-friendly atmosphere involves adequate signage, parking and a customer base open to newcomers. Council members are making baby steps to fix the first two. But other development decisions geared toward increasing property taxes steer our town to become dominated by wealthy retirees, a demographic less open to change than their younger counterparts. That increases the risk for any new business, tilting the balance toward chains that can absorb greater risk.

And that sets us on a path for the streets of Chapel Hill to look like The Streets of Southpoint.
– Nancy Oates

by on April 22, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Business, Economic development, Lifestyle, Taxes
Posted by Nancy Oates on April 22, 2013

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2013/04/22/its-only-a-slice/

Can we afford to be generous?

Raise your hand if you live in Governors Club and regularly ride the bus. Jim Ward fingered you at last Wednesday’s Town Council meeting during a discussion of whether the town should subsidize Chapel Hill residents who ride TTA commuter buses from the Eubanks Road park-and-ride.

Beginning Aug. 15, the town will charge $2 a day or $250 a year to park in the five public park-and-ride lots that used to be available at no cost. The town felt compelled to impose the fee because UNC will begin charging for its employee park-and-ride lots, which would increase the attractiveness of any free lots and nudge out non-UNC employees.

When park-and-ride fees came up at a previous meeting, council decided to ask TTA to chip in to offset the increased expense for commuters who were doing exactly what we wish more people were doing – using public transportation so fewer cars would clog I-40 and other major transit corridors. Interim transit director Brian Litchfield reported that the TTA “was not interested in paying parking pass fees at this time,” but might be open to paying a user fee for the privilege of picking up paying customers from the Eubanks Road lot. The TTA serves 16 municipalities, said TTA board of trustees member Ed Harrison, and likely does not want to set precedent by agreeing to pay for parking passes.

But until a deal is worked out, Mayor Kleinschmidt wanted to find a way to reward the few dozen Chapel Hill residents who board the TTA bus to Raleigh. Of the 71 TTA riders who board at Eubanks Road, 47 percent have Chapel Hill ZIP codes.

Those ZIP codes include Governors Club, Ward noted archly, and subsidizing parking passes for even 30 residents was a luxury the town couldn’t afford. He suggested TTA riders could avoid the fees by taking Chapel Hill Transit to Eubanks Road. Spoken like a man who has never had to walk to the bus stop, hope the bus is on time, ride to connect with another bus that goes to Eubanks Road, hope that bus is on time and stays on time all the way to its destination to connect with the TTA bus. That could add maybe an hour of commuting time each way.

Litchfield pointed out that some of those commuters receive a GoPass paid for by their employers, so wouldn’t personally feel the pinch of fees.

Matt Czajkowski wanted to know why TTA riders deserved subsidizing any more than Chapel Hill Transit riders. And rewarding people for staying off I-40 during rush hour benefits people beyond Chapel Hill, so why is Chapel Hill taking on sole financial responsibility?

Kleinschmidt objected to the term “subsidized.”

The exchange got heated, though not to the point that anyone pounded the table with a shoe.

In the end, council unanimously approved the new fees, and agreed that talks with TTA would continue at the staff level. For the time being, commuters in Governors Club will have to shell out $250 every year, just like everyone else.
– Nancy Oates

by on April 15, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Parking, Transportation
Tagged
Posted by Nancy Oates on April 15, 2013

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2013/04/15/can-we-afford-to-be-generous/

Time trial

Town Council meets next on Wednesday this week, so you’ve got a couple extra days to get your thoughts in order. You’ll need extra time to prepare to address council in the future, if council members adopt new council meeting procedures designed to shorten council meetings. Part of the proposal to trim the butt-in-seat time enforces the three-minute time limit for speakers, and if more than 15 people sign up to speak on one topic, the time limit is cut to two minutes each.

That plan should meet with cheers from people on the dais and in the audience alike. And before you start waving around your copy of the Constitution with the freedom of speech amendment underlined in red, sit down and take a deep breath of reality. When dozens of speakers line up to plead their position to council, after the first person for each side speaks, the rest can boil their comments down to: “Do it,” “Don’t do it,” “I agree,” and “What she said.”

Not all of us excel at public speaking, so a shorter speaking period reduces the discomfort of stuttering through prepared remarks while people in the audience stare at our behinds and the TV camera is set to look down our blouses.

Of course, council members need to hear our input on decisions they are poised to make. But when speaker after speaker trots to the podium to say the same thing that the dozen or two people ahead of them said, council members likely tune out after awhile. Admit it – once you’ve had your say, you do, too.

It may have been Mark Twain who apologized to a friend: “Sorry for the long letter; I didn’t have time to write a short one.” When you are speaking before council, think bullet points. If you need to flesh out your argument, do it in an email. Take some time to figure out your strongest arguments, and limit yourself to those points only. If someone has voiced your reasons already, say so once it’s your turn at the podium, then go back to your seat.

Council members will make better decisions if they aren’t exhausted and vaguely irritated by speakers repeating arguments already made and running the red light.

Think. Speak. Don’t repeat.
– Nancy Oates

by on April 8, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Council Members
Posted by Nancy Oates on April 8, 2013

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2013/04/08/time-trial/

A new day

This morning, RAM Development announced it planned to convert all 140 condominums at 140 West into workforce housing. RAM chairman Peter Cummings said the idea came to him like an epiphany as he was driving along West Rosemary Street one afternoon.

“I saw this bright light,” he said. “Maybe it was a sign from Heaven, or else the sun glinting off the windows of the empty apartments of Greenbridge. And I felt clarity. Chapel Hill doesn’t need any more half-million-dollar-plus condos. We need homes for the people who keep our downtown running – bartenders, wait staff and the officers who write tickets to people caught smoking on the sidewalks.”

Matt Czajkowski was quick to respond. “How does this fit with the CH2020 plan?” he asked. “If we support this, will the town get sued?”

Sally Greene added, “Whatever Matt says is fine by me; I’ll vote with him.”

Ed Harrison shook his head. “This is not how we do things in Durham.”

Donna Bell may have viewed the turn of events as a win for the town, or not. “So,” she began, then gave balanced arguments affirming all points of view.

Gene Pease furrowed his brow. “I’m struggling with this,” he said. “Let’s ask the planning board to weigh in, after we unseat Del Snow.”

Laurin Easthom recused herself because her husband’s law firm represented everyone involved.

Cummings’ leadership inspired Roger Perry, who proposed leaving the Obey Creek acreage undisturbed, except for offering space for a Witherspoon’s Roses franchise.

“I can make the numbers work by buying Bicycle Apartments and putting a Target there instead,” he said.

And wouldn’t it be wonderful if all this were true on April 2?
– Nancy Oates

by on April 1, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in 140 West, CH2020, Council Members, Downtown Chapel Hill, Housing, Lifestyle
Posted by Nancy Oates on April 1, 2013

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2013/04/01/a-new-day/

Transit takes a curve

Bonnie Hauser, speaking for “Smart Transit for Orange County” (http://smarttransitfororange.wordpress.com/) provides a transit update.

Just as the county is getting ready to start collecting its new half-cent transit tax, new questions are swirling about the plan and state and federal funding. It was predictable, and the politics are especially entertaining.

First state lawmakers signaled their disinterest in funding light rail projects, making state funding less likely than ever. (http://www.heraldsun.com/news/x941743957/Bell-sounds-out-GOP-leaders-on-transit). The Orange/Durham transit plan relies on the state to provide 25 percent of the funding.

It’s hard to tell for sure, but it appears possible that transit funds can be redirected to revamp our local transit system, whose hub-and-spoke design is not especially useful to riders who are not traveling to Duke or UNC. It’s a big change from the 2009 legislation that requires funds be used for regional transportation systems.

Triangle Transit Authority, which most stands to lose from a change in plans, isn’t buying it. At the March 14 Durham-Chapel Hill Work Group, TTA’s Patrick McDonough suggested that state funding problems will go away in a couple of election cycles. In the meantime, TTA will continue to apply half of Orange County’s transit funds to Light Rail Transit planning. That’s about $3.5 million out of $7 million a year. The latest estimate suggests it will cost $30 million just to plan light rail. At the same meeting, the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Chapel Hill transit planner David Bonk acknowledged that more funding delays are expected because the transportation plan doesn’t align to local land use plans.

To make matters worse, in walks John Pucher, a 40-year transportation veteran from Rutgers who’s on sabbatical at UNC. While Pucher, a Raleigh native, prefers to talk bikes and pedestrians, he had no trouble suggesting that TTA go back to the drawing board and develop a new plan for the Triangle.

According to Pucher, the plan is a misfit unlikely to get funding from the federal government. Projects from larger cities get a higher priority, and the feds are no longer favorable to LRT at all. Pucher does have a bias. In his current home state of New Jersey, the Camden LRT project bankrupted the state’s transit fund, leaving no funds for much-needed improvements to the dense NJ-NYC corridors. If Pucher is right, say good-bye to another 50 percent of the LRT funds.

Pucher’s greatest concern is that TTA’s plan is built around assumptions that are 20 years old. When the planning started, LRT was the buzz. Now, given the expense, lack of flexibility, risk and limited access, cities are abandoning LRT in favor of Bus Rapid Transit with a system of priority signaling and guideways that can be implemented at a fraction of the cost. According to Pucher, if we switch to BRT, a Triangle-wide transportation system can be put in place in three to five years.

“NO, NO, NO!” cry LRT advocates. “This is a political issue, not a modal choice.” A barrage of emails from Raleigh transportation manager Eric Lamb, environmental advocate Sig Hutchinson and others encouraged Pucher to limit his comments to cyclists and pedestrians — and ignore decades of personal and professional experience with LRT and other public transportation systems.

All Pucher wanted was a local symposium where experts could advance the discussion beyond the opinions of a couple of consultants. With a symposium, we can all become better informed on contemporary transit technology and economics — including more than 100 real BRT systems in operation today. He suggests that we avoid planning transportation systems based on developer or “image” interests, and that the TTA has not seriously looked at BRT. To Pucher, it’s not only about modal decisions. In his experience, an inclusive workshop is “precisely what is needed to get regional transit in the Triangle moving forward, and is crucial for generating support for funding and to get people to ride the system.” Given that funds aren’t coming any time soon, Pucher seems to be on the right track.

It’s discouraging that a topic as important as public transportation needs to rely on politics and censorship to stay on its ill-conceived path. Now that state and feds are unlikely to be forthcoming for our $1.4 billion LRT boondoggle, can local leaders find the courage needed to course correct?
— Bonnie Hauser

by on March 29, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in County business, Transportation
Tagged ,
Posted by Nancy Oates on March 29, 2013

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2013/03/29/transit-takes-a-curve/

Parking pickle

Town Council members spoke as one voice at Monday night’s meeting to make sure Chapel Hill taxpayers who want to park won’t be taken for a ride.

UNC will start charging employees for its park-and-ride lots come August, forcing Chapel Hill to keep pace. After all, if commuters have a choice between a $2-a-day lot and a free one, of course they’ll fill up the free one first. And because non-UNC employees don’t have the option of using a UNC lot even if they pay for the space, non-UNC commuters would be at a disadvantage, parking-wise.

The town operates four park-and-ride lots – Eubanks Road, Southern Village, Jones Ferry Road and Carrboro Plaza – accommodating a total of 1,238 spaces. (An additional hitch: The Carrboro Plaza spaces are leased from private owners who said they would not renew the town’s lease if the town charges for parking. Town staff have enlisted the help of Carrboro’s board of aldermen to resolve the conflict.)

Triangle Transit Authority buses also use the lots to pick up and drop off passengers commuting to Raleigh and Durham. Ed Harrison, who serves on the TTA board of trustees as well as the Transportation Advisory Committee and the Public Transit Committee, noted that the TTA was concerned that requiring its customers to pay for parking in the lots would discourage ridership. A robust discussion of who should pay for parking commenced.

If the town does not charge for parking, non-UNC commuters are punished. If the town does charge for parking, those who make the commitment to use mass transit are penalized. Cost-conscious commuters, already bearing the inconvenience of arranging their lives around bus schedules, would pay for both a bus ticket and a parking pass. Asking Chapel Hill residents who ride the TTA to leave their cars at home and take a town bus to the lot to catch a TTA bus would leach even more discretionary time from their lives. Should TTA customers and Chapel Hill taxpayers receive free parking passes? Mass transit riders save money on gas and potentially more expensive parking in their destination towns of Raleigh or Durham; should Chapel Hill taxpayers subsidize them?

All roads of logic led back to the fact that the TTA seemed to be the one entity getting a free ride. Interim transit director Brian Litchfield, who led the presentation, agreed to ask the TTA to make a contribution to the cost of operating the park-and-ride lots.

Council will take up the matter again at its next business meeting, April 10.
– Nancy Oates

by on March 27, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Parking, Transportation, UNC
Tagged ,
Posted by Nancy Oates on March 27, 2013

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2013/03/27/parking-pickle/

« Older Posts
Newer Posts »