Mayor backs Planning Board

Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt addressed the Planning Board meeting last night to clear the air over the brouhaha ignited when former council member Penny Rich wrote an official letter in her role as an Orange County commissioner to Kleinschmidt asking him to fire Del Snow as chair of the Planning Board. His timing forced us to choose between $5 movie night at Southpoint and sitting in front of the computer to watch the live-stream of the board meeting.

Of course, we chose local politics. Fewer car chases but often more drama.

Kleinschmidt may have danced around what he called “an event” and “some tension” and “wrong-headed assumptions,” but he was unequivocal in stating that “the voices of individuals shall not be silenced because they belong to a board,” and that he endorses town advisory board members stating their title as board members when speaking to other commissions and advisory boards. “Don’t refrain from credentialing yourself,” he said. The title of Planning Board member is shorthand to let others know you know what you’re talking about, he said.

The relationship between the council and the Planning Board “is of the highest priority,” Kleinschmidt said. Although the council is the only body able to make policy for the town, the Planning Board has independent authority to approve development. “It’s an awesome power,” Kleinschmidt said.

Planning Board member Deborah Fulghieri cut to the chase: “Can a county commissioner tell our mayor what to do?” she asked.

“No,” Kleinschmidt said firmly. “The county board of commissioners can’t tell us what to do. Only the Legislature can.”

Kleinschmidt said that at its retreat over the weekend, council discussed realigning boards with the CH2020 categories but that the Planning Board didn’t need to worry about being changed.

Del Snow wrapped up the exchange by thanking the mayor for clearing up what had been a “distressing” situation. “I know you appreciate that the Planning Board is not a rubber-stamp board,” she said. He replied, “I’m pleased you’re not a rubber-stamp board.”

Meanwhile, up in Hillsborough, Rich, as a county commissioner, is considering increasing our taxes to, among other things, give herself and others on the county payroll a pay raise.
– Nancy Oates

by on February 6, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Council Members, County business
Tagged
Posted by Nancy Oates on February 6, 2013

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2013/02/06/mayor-backs-planning-board/

Transportation meeting tonight

I don’t envy Kumar Neppalli, Chapel Hill’s traffic engineer-in-chief. Estes Drive will get a new traffic light where Library Drive T’s into it. NCDOT will cover the costs. Neppalli will work out the logistics.

Everyone who has ever tried to turn east on Estes after leaving the library knows the risk of making that left turn without being able to see cars racing around the bend from the west. Even drivers making a right turn to head west along Estes face a long wait for a break in traffic. Cars pile up behind drivers waiting to turn, increasing the pressure to pull out into traffic.

A traffic light will make driving to the library less anxiety-provoking. However, as the new light will be maybe 50 yards from the heavily used (and sometimes abused) intersection of Estes and East Franklin Street, timing will be everything to prevent backups that would affect traffic along those two busy corridors. And that task falls to Neppalli.

Tonight at 7 in Council Chambers at Town Hall, Design CH2020 will host an hour-long meeting on transportation. The presentation by private consultants from Raleigh will discuss transportation concerns spurred by the development of the northeast corner of Estes Drive and MLK Jr. Boulevard. As the town has only three roads that handle cross-town traffic – Weaver Dairy Road to the north, Franklin Street to the south and Estes Drive in the center – a discussion of how people can get around in a town that is not particularly friendly to bicyclists, pedestrians and mass transit riders will be of interest to many people beyond the Central West Focus Area.

See you there.
– Nancy Oates

by on February 4, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in CH2020, Transportation
Tagged ,
Posted by Nancy Oates on February 4, 2013

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2013/02/04/transportation-meeting-tonight/

Park it where?

Never have I been so glad to work from home as after listening to the presentation on the state of the town’s transit system.

For an hour and a half last night, Chapel Hill Transit’s interim director, Brian Litchfield, waxed eloquent about where we are and where we’re going, bus-wise. Federal and state funding projections, ridership demand, cost of bus acquisition, operations, maintenance and replacement – he had it down.

What tripped him up was the town’s park-and-ride lots.

In August, UNC plans to begin charging for parking passes to its park-and-ride lots, forcing Chapel Hill to follow suit. Chapel Hill Transit plans to make UNC parking passes valid for town park-and-ride lots. If UNC sells more passes than it has parking spaces – which it will have to do to leverage the spaces, because not every pass holder will need a space on the same days and times as all the other pass holders – UNC pass holders can look for spaces in town park-and-ride lots. Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt was the first to object.

“UNC is selling hunting licenses, not parking passes,” he said.

Similarly, the town will oversell parking passes to patrons. Gene Pease let it be known that if he had paid $250 for an annual parking pass and all the spaces in the lot were taken, he would be sorely peeved and would rail at council members to solve the problem.

Not to worry, said Litchfield. Charging for parking spaces would reduce demand.

Huh? The demand for those parking spaces is not discretionary. People use them to get to work. Earlier in the evening, Southern Village developer D.R. Bryan petitioned council to add parking restrictions around Village Center to prevent commuters from parking in spaces designed to serve retail customers and catching the bus in the park-and-ride lot. If commuters now have to pay $250 a year to park where they can take a bus to work, they won’t simply stop going to work.

Litchfield said commuters would find alternatives. Maybe clogging I-40 by driving solo to RTP or Raleigh? Driving to University Mall and taking a city bus to campus? Tow truck operators will start drawing up contracts. Finding a neighborhood where on-street parking isn’t restricted and hiking to the nearest bus stop? We’ve heard from neighbors who complain about that practice, and council has added parking restrictions.

And that doesn’t take into consideration the employees UNC hospital and campus plan to add over the coming decades or the increased student enrollment, those students we don’t want living a walkable or bikable distance from campus.

Clearly, Chapel Hill Transit needs to work out some kinks, and quickly. You don’t want your surgeon leaving to plug her meter every two hours.
– Nancy Oates

by on January 29, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Budget, Parking, Transportation, UNC
Tagged
Posted by Nancy Oates on January 29, 2013

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2013/01/29/park-it-where-2/

And the answer is …

After last Wednesday’s marathon student-bashing that pushed a couple concept reviews off the agenda, tonight’s meeting portends to be something of a sleeper. Nothing nefarious slipped into the Consent Agenda – even the resolution to amend the town manager’s authority to enter into contracts turns out to extend the authority to department heads, not concentrate it in the hands of a Manager Who Would Be King. And the most controversial aspect of the American Board of Pediatrics’ special use permit application is a request to reduce the number of parking spaces.

If it weren’t for Del Snow and Janet Smith, you might as well stop reading right here.

Snow and Smith each bring forward petitions that deal with workforce rentals. First, the planning board, chaired by Snow, has petitioned the town for more tools with which to do its job. The petition prods the town to, among other things, engage with UNC to figure out in concrete, realistic terms the demand for off-campus student housing and to develop a long overdue workforce housing plan before all available parcels have been glitterated into high-priced rentals.

Smith took the lead on the Franklin-Rosemary Historic District’s request to have its own small area plan, separate from the MLK South area, which won’t convene a task force until 2014, long after council will have ruled on the Bicycle Apartments at Central Park’s request to build a 194-unit apartment building that would house 608 students. The town’s recommendation is to deny the historic district’s request.

Workforce rentals? Cue Sally Greene. It’s time for her to not just talk the talk but walk the walk. During her presentation to goose council members to appoint her to a seat on the dais, Greene boasted that she had answers to the problem of how to preserve affordable rentals. She’d talked to experts, she said, and she knew a way around the state’s prohibition against municipalities instituting rent control. Just give her a seat on council, she insinuated, and she’d let the town in on her secret solution.

Tune in tonight to find out whether Greene comes through with some answers or whether seven of the eight council members who voted for her last week got snookered again.
– Nancy Oates

by on January 28, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in CH2020, Council Members, Housing, Politics
Tagged , , ,
Posted by Nancy Oates on January 28, 2013

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2013/01/28/greene-piece/

Greene-lash

Laurin Easthom announced last night that she will not run for re-election in the fall. Oddly, she used her announcement as a twisted rationale for voting against a new voice on council. Her logic: A new voice on council would be good, just not now, and not until you’ve gone through the hazing process of an election.

Council caved 7-1 last night to put Sally Greene back on council, a surprising vote count given Donna Bell’s encouragement to applicants the week before and two other council members who believe re-seating Greene and closing the door to diversity would not be in the best interests of the community.

Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt tried to justify his vote for Greene by saying that a vote for her was not a vote against anyone else. But if you only have one vote, that’s exactly what it is. The message from seven of the council members was loud and clear: Don’t get uppity; you’re not one of us.

Greene is known for her withering tone of voice and disdain directed at colleagues on the dais who disagree with her. How many times have we seen a spark of enthusiasm for a new idea catch on among council members, only to have Greene squelch it with a classic put-down, and council members back off with a dejected “Mom won’t let us do that” expression.

Sadly, the light-heartedness and collegiality we saw on council after Penny Rich quit was all too brief. Innovation, new solutions, change, all will fall to “No way no how” Greene’s insistence on her own wealthy retiree vision of how Chapel Hill should be. I expect Easthom won’t be the only incumbent who decides not to run for re-election.

Kudos for the lone council member who had the backbone to vote for a new voice.
– Nancy Oates

by on January 24, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Council Members, Elections, Politics
Posted by Nancy Oates on January 24, 2013

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2013/01/24/greene-lash/

Driving us crazy

Terri Buckner works, walks and drives in Chapel Hill. Here’s her take on Chapel Hill drivers learning the rules of the road:

At last week’s Chapel Hill Town Council meeting, a resident petitioned the town to remove 3-way stops on Umstead Drive. His request launched a discussion about how many drivers don’t know what to do when they get to a 3-way or 4-way stop sign intersection. For the record, the first one to the intersection goes first, and if two or more cars arrive simultaneously, the one on the driver’s right goes first. If they are approaching from opposite directions, the car turning left has to yield to the car going straight. The discussion ended with a recommendation that education be provided rather than removing the stop signs. With the education on cell phones and now 3-way stops, it appears as if the town is morphing into the local drivers’ education program, so I have a few more challenges for them to undertake.

Right on Red: I’m sure everyone reading this blog knows that right on red means stop at a red light, and if no vehicles (cars, trucks, motorcycles or bicycles) are coming straight through the intersection, then you can turn right. But there are those in the community who believe that it means no stop is required, or that if a car is coming straight through, that car must slow down for the vehicle turning right on red. Wrong and wrong. As a daily pedestrian on Manning Drive, I can assure you that some of these individuals also believe their right turn takes precedence over pedestrians in the crosswalk. Wrong again.

Left lane: The right lane is for straight-through traffic, and the left lane is for passing or left turns. In fact, some people call the left lane the passing lane. The ordinance, Chapter_20/GS_20-146.html, lists four reasons for driving in the left lane: 1) passing another vehicle going in the same direction, 2) an obstruction in the right lane, 3) the road has three lanes or 4) the road is one way. Unfortunately, many drivers are living with the delusion that the left lane is for slow, straight-through traffic. I’ve often wondered whether there is something about the left lane that makes some drivers feel safer. They will speed up to get over to the left lane and then slow down to a crawl.

I have a few more, but I’ll save them for later. Wanna add any driving topics of your own?
– Terri Buckner

by on January 23, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Lifestyle, Roads, Transportation
Posted by Nancy Oates on January 23, 2013

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2013/01/23/driving-us-crazy/

Outgoing to be incoming?

Must you be an extrovert to lead? Experts at Kenan-Flagler Business School I’ve buttonholed say no. Some leaders excel at relationship building and charisma. Others lead with their analytical abilities and strategic thinking. Still others attract a following through their insights, innovation and entrepreneurship. You’ll find introverts in all three groups.

Politicians, on the other hand, have to excel at putting on a show, projecting their personality, feeling at home in the spotlight. Those skills can be learned, but in general, an introverted politician is an exhausted politician.

Leadership differs from showmanship. The opportunity for council members to appoint someone to join their ranks enables them to choose a voice that might be overlooked by voters used to being entertained. To make decisions in the best interests of the town as a whole requires council members to be cognizant of a wide range of viewpoints.

Watching the short presentations by the 11 applicants for the council seat, it was clear not all of them were comfortable with self-promotion, much less being judged on live TV. But in almost all of them, I heard a voice capable of bringing a new perspective to discussions. I saw the courage to espouse viewpoints sitting council members disagreed with.

When Toyota created the Prius, it bypassed established executives in the engineering division to head the project and brought in a young executive from a completely different arm who would not be biased by “we’ve always done it this way.” When Donna Bell was appointed to the Strom seat in 2009, her questions and votes occasionally surprised people, including Mark Kleinschmidt, who maybe was expecting his former campaign worker to blindly follow his lead.

Sally Greene, the only applicant to push beyond the allotted four minutes for her presentation last Monday night, said she had the confidence of voters. But so might many of the other applicants, if it were put to a vote. (Only one other applicant has run for office: Carl Schuler, a thoughtful, insightful man lacking in flamboyance.) Bell did not have the support of voters when she was appointed, but by the time the next election rolled around, she had earned it. Several of the applicants appear to have similar potential.

Council doesn’t need any more big personalities, bullies or belittlers. Council would do well to swell its ranks with someone who brings an open mind, insightful questions and a fresh perspective to discussions. The extroverts can have their turn in November.
– Nancy Oates

by on January 21, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Council Members, Elections, Politics
Tagged
Posted by Nancy Oates on January 21, 2013

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2013/01/21/outgoing-to-be-incoming/

Taking citizens hostage

Here’s what rural community advocate Bonnie Hauser has to say about Town Council’s proposal to annex some neighborhoods on the southern edge of town:

After a year of deliberation, the County’s Emergency Services Workgroup recommended forming a new fire service district in the area just south of town off Mount Carmel Church Road. The workgroup recommended that Chapel Hill provide fire protection in exchange for a fire tax. Had council members said yes, the town would have enjoyed a windfall of nearly $300,000 in tax revenue for services that it now provides for free. Rather than take the money and run, Town Council decided to explore annexation – using fire protection as the carrot.

Of course, annexation raises nearly a million dollars in town taxes – but there are offsetting costs for services and infrastructure for a community that has shown no interest in them. These neighborhoods handle their own sidewalks, streetlights and garbage collection and are quite happy with the responsive service from the county sheriff. They already pay for Chapel Hill-Carrboro schools. The annexation discussion wasn’t new. It’s just that the citizens weren’t interested. Maybe they didn’t see much benefit for the 49.5 cent tax increase.

Sound complicated? It is, but it doesn’t have to be. Here’s what’s going on.

The area in question is in the ETJ and part of a fire protection district known as the Southern Triangle. Today, fire protection service is provided by the North Chatham fire department with mutual aid from Chapel Hill. Mutual aid is a win-win where Chapel Hill and Chatham fire departments help each other out in the event of fire. Today, all the taxes go to North Chatham, even though in the northern part of the fire district, the Chapel Hill Fire Department is usually the first on the scene.

Except for the tax equity, the system worked fine until the N.C. Department of Insurance decided that the neighbors could no longer get credit for Chapel Hill’s response. In this northern area of the fire district, fire insurance premiums doubled or tripled, and some policies were cancelled.

So after a year of discussion among county leaders, the fire chiefs from Chapel Hill and North Chatham, and members of the community, the county asked council to create a new fire service district for the northern end of the district. Chapel Hill would control the tax rate.

There were no questions when town staff proposed a fire tax of 15 cents per $100 of property valuation, even though it’s double the fire tax paid to North Chatham. It works because the tax increase is offset by a reduction in homeowner’s insurance premiums. It’s a true win-win for the town, North Chatham, the county and residents. An unusual case of turf-free decision-making – until council members got their hands on it.

Nothing’s happened yet – and maybe council will see the light. After all, annexation is no longer their right, and it’s going to be difficult to make the case to the citizens. Bigger may be better, but after costs, maybe not so much. Plus, it’s all a distraction from pressing issues, including 2020, economic development and affordable housing. Let’s not forget the public service benefit of fixing fire protection and insurance for everyone – including the town.

Hopefully, council will quickly decide to take the money and run. Isn’t that better than holding the neighbors hostage?
— Bonnie Hauser

by on January 18, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in County business, Taxes
Tagged ,
Posted by Nancy Oates on January 18, 2013

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2013/01/18/taking-citizens-hostage/

Off to a fun start

No full moon Monday night. Nevertheless, two unusual discussions bookended the Town Council meeting.

Early on, council discussed a petition to remove stop signs from three all-way stop intersections where streets teed into Umstead Drive. The signs had been taken down during recent street construction along Umstead, and the petitioner cited that as a golden opportunity to get rid of them because they were annoying to drivers. Matt Czajkowski argued for restoring the signs as they were a tool to slow traffic to somewhere close to the speed limit. Various council members agreed that an all-way stop can be confusing for drivers not used to them. Czajkowski, however, had faith that Chapel Hill drivers could be educated on who goes first and who goes next, and Umstead Drive would be a perfect place to practice until they nailed it. The stop signs will be put back up.

The meeting closed with committee appointments – council did approve Julie McClintock for the vacant seat on the Central West steering committee. But no appointments were made to the Justice in Action Committee. The committee has only five members and had recruited four more, but only two names made it to the ballot, and neither prospective member lives in Chapel Hill at present. One lives in Carrboro and works in Chapel Hill; another had been a long-time resident but had recently moved to the ETJ.

In its first round of voting, council did not appoint any members to the committee because of the technicalities. Justice in Action is an ad hoc committee, thus council had never specified how many members it should have. So, technically, it does not have any vacancies, even though the committee could be more effective with more members.

Donna Bell was so incensed by the red tape – coming on top of the council not doing more to fill the Central West vacancy with a representative of low-income housing – that she had trouble gathering her words. But when she did, her message had impact, and before you knew it, Jim Ward was suggesting council fix the rules, not ignore them, and Laurin Easthom was positing that the potential members lived close enough to Chapel Hill as to be a part of the community. Lee Storrow asked that council members reconsider the vote. They did, and both applicants were appointed to the committee.

Bell then made a formal petition to make Justice in Action a formal committee. It was received and referred, and council adjourned shortly after 10 p.m.
– Nancy Oates

by on January 16, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Committees, Transportation
Posted by Nancy Oates on January 16, 2013

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2013/01/16/off-to-a-fun-start/

The contestants

You’ll want to tune in an hour earlier tonight to meet the applicants for the vacant seat on council and to hear the presentations any of them might make. Council will meet at 6 p.m. in its usual spot – council chambers in Town Hall – and the event will be broadcast on public television.

The field of 11 applicants comprises a wide range of skill sets, some new faces and some familiar – people who have spoken out on issues at council meetings, volunteered for advisory boards and effected change in various ways to improve Chapel Hill. The group represents diversity in age, race, ethnicity, profession and length of time living in Chapel Hill.

What is perhaps most satisfying is that they all seem to be applying voluntarily, unlike the process some years back of filling the seat left vacant after Bill Strom picked up and left for New York in the dead of night. At that time, the candidate slate felt as though someone had to rustle up some minorities and women to keep the slate from being all white men. Not that there was anything wrong with any of those white men. Very accomplished professionally and with the passion to serve, any one of them would have been an asset.

The slate you’ll meet tonight will make you proud. Sometimes an organization that makes an effort to increase its number of minorities or women leaves it to the target group to go out and recruit more of their own kind, rather than, as an organization, valuing diversity and making itself more attractive to diverse members. It’s to the town’s credit that the vacant council seat has attracted so many people so different from one another who want to invest themselves in making the town better.

Much to my dismay, however, the mayor has implied in interviews that he won’t consider voting for anyone other than the known quantity of Sally Greene. In the “life is like a box of chocolates” model, Mayor Kleinschmidt won’t take the risk that he might select the pineapple crème. He says he wants someone who can “hit the ground running.” Take a look at the resumes and well-written statements of the applicants, and you’ll find more than enough brainpower to absorb Robert’s Rules of Order and quickly learn council procedure.

Kleinschmidt’s real concern may be that he can’t guarantee how an unknown will vote. Especially with issues that will be decided by a slim margin, that’s when we want to hear a new viewpoint, someone who will ask questions that provoke council members to think about an issue in a new way. A one-year term presents an excellent opportunity to audition a new voice.

Find out more about all 11 applicants at: http://chapelhillpublic.novusagenda.com/Bluesheet.aspx?itemid=2068&meetingid=238.
– Nancy Oates

by on January 14, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Council Members
Tagged
Posted by Nancy Oates on January 14, 2013

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2013/01/14/the-contestants/

« Older Posts
Newer Posts »