Trick or tweet

At Monday night’s Town Council meeting, when once again I heard the tremor in a grown man’s voice as he spoke at the podium in front of a ring of council members, a phalanx of staff, a smattering of people in the audience and a couple of TV cameras, it brought home to me how important some of these issues are to people. That they would step way beyond their comfort zone to address council in person, rather than just sending an email, writing a letter or leaving a voicemail message, underscores that what they have to say matters to them intensely. They want to be heard.

But what are Penny Rich and Donna Bell doing instead of listening to these constituents? Rich and Bell are tweeting snide remarks to their friends.

Not only does slipping your friends digital notes written at the third-grade reading level instead of paying attention to the work taxpayers are paying you to do show an astounding lack of leadership, it’s just plain rude.

I’m not sold on “being on the twitter,” as an old-time baseball player-turned-announcer calls it, mainly because I have yet to see a tweet that is anything other than snide remarks and mean gossip that tweeters don’t have the courage to say to their target’s face.

I would like to think that our elected leaders are above that sort of thing, and the Code of Ethics council approved agrees with me. There’s an entire section devoted to “Acting With Integrity”:

“Behaving consistently and with respect toward everyone with whom they interact” … “Exhibiting trustworthiness” … “Living as if they are on duty as Council members regardless of where they are or what they are doing” … “Using their best independent judgment to pursue the common good as they see it” … “refraining from seeking or receiving information about quasi-judicial matters outside of the quasi-judicial proceedings themselves” … “Presenting their opinions to all in a reasonable, forthright and consistent manner” … “Treating other Council members and the public with respect and honoring the opinions of others even when the Council members disagree with those opinions” … “Not reaching conclusions on issues until all sides have been heard” … “Showing respect for their offices and not behaving in ways that reflect badly on those offices” …

How does tweeting snarky insults about the topics under discussion or the people presenting and discussing them fit in with any of those tenets?
– Nancy Oates

Speed meeting

Last night’s Town Council meeting was one for the record books – three public hearings, completed in 1 hour and 18 minutes. But the agenda items – food trucks, expansion of a building and parking lots at Carol Woods, and a proposed amendment of stormwater management rules for new development – posed little controversy. All members were present, except Gene Pease; no explanation for his absence.

First up: regulations to allow food trucks. After meeting with people who have a stake in one side or the other of the issue, the Planning Department came up with a new set of regulations to address concerns. For instance, food trucks would be allowed on downtown property only when competing brick-and-mortar establishments were closed; elsewhere, food trucks could be open for business only when nearby restaurants were open. A half-time police officer would be hired to enforce the rules. One speaker urged planning for extra enforcement by the Board of Health to make sure food truck operators follow the same food-handling standards as restaurants.

One sticking point came up when Kristen Smith of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce said that downtown merchants were opposed to food trucks. No one seemed to know the Downtown Partnership’s official stance, but Smith raised the concern that legalities prevented the town from requiring that every food truck be affiliated with an Orange County restaurant. Local restaurateurs feared that on UNC game days – the restaurant equivalent of the day after Thanksgiving to retailers – food trucks would drive in from neighboring counties and drain business from Chapel Hill eateries. Unless that can be worked out, Smith said, the Chamber is opposed to food trucks.

Next: a special use permit application for an expansion that would add 18 apartments to an existing three-story building at Carol Woods, make access to the building more convenient from the parking lot and expand overflow parking for residents who have two cars or a boat(!). But management is asking for a reprieve from the bicycle parking regulation, to cut the required 92 spaces down to four, with the provision that if residents want more bike spaces, they’ll ask for them. Ed Harrison brought up the point that residents may not have need of bike parking, but once the Weaver Dairy Road improvements are done, staff may want to bike to work. And residents might not be as aggressive lobbying for staff requests.

Both issues – food trucks and the Carol Woods SUP – return to council Nov. 21.
– Nancy Oates

Political signs: Refresher course

Nancy and I went out Wednesday to put up political signs for our preferred candidates. We also righted signs for other candidates we would not vote for that had fallen over. Putting up signs is always hard work, a lot of walking, dodging cars when crossing streets and making sure the signs we put up don’t interfere with those that others have worked hard to put up.

So I was surprised to see today as I drove around that in places where there were several signs on Wednesday there were none – except for those of two candidates.

At the corner of Piney Mountain Road and MLK Boulevard there was a new Lee Storrow sign, but the signs for three other Town Council candidates that were there on Wednesday were gone. The Storrow sign had not been there on Wednesday. Hmmm.

At the corner of Estes Drive and East Franklin Street where the Kangaroo gas station sits and where there were candidate signs on Wednesday, someone had placed a Kevin Wolff sign but the other candidate signs were laid on the ground nearby in a nice little pile – someone had removed them and left them off to the side so no one could read them.

At the corner of MLK and Hillsborough, all Town Council candidates had been removed, except for Donna Bell and Jason Baker, and one for Storrow had been added.

Do the Storrow and Wolff helpers need a refresher course in state law about campaign signs? No one can remove a campaign sign from a public right-of-way except workers for that specific campaign. Removing other candidate signs, especially so that your favorite candidate has a clear ground, is illegal. Plain and simple. And should not be tolerated by any candidate.

Storrow and Wolff should remind their zealous helpers that they cannot legally take down signs they may not agree with. And if it was not helpers for those campaigns who took down the signs, then we have some rogue elements in this bastion of democracy who don’t seem to like freedom of expression and would prefer that their own point of view be unquestioned and uncontested. Sad that that sort of behavior seems to come out during every election season.

–Don Evans

Two-faced

The hypocrisy can pile up only so far before it starts impeding progress.

Take this In-the-Pockets-of-Developers misdirection on Tuesday at the election forum co-sponsored by Neighbors for Responsible Growth: The moderator ominously asked Matt Czajkowski, Jon DeHart and Laney Dale whether they had taken campaign contributions from developers. As if this were the McCarthy hearings and answering yes would be tantamount to treason.

The moderator chose to ignore the fact that candidate Donna Bell has done the same thing – taken a contribution from developer Roger Perry. I can only assume the moderator ignored that because Bell has the Sierra Club endorsement and it would look bad for that organization to endorse candidates who take money from developers. Only the NRG folks want to make it look like candidates who do so do not toe the environmental line in Chapel Hill.

What a crock!

The Chapel Hill Town Council has for 30 years or more been pretty pro-development — about as pro-development as you can get without actually grabbing a shovel and a hard-hat. The council has approved project after project, some with more modifications than others, but if it gets proposed in Chapel Hill, it gets built – unless the developer is Carol Ann Zinn, but that’s another story.

Despite that clear record of supporting development, when election time comes around, some candidates drone along with the Sierra Club mantra of saving the environment as a cynical way to get votes. Just look at the Green Belt if you need proof of that – or the lack of a green belt. After any election, the council members go back to scrambling all over themselves to approve the next development.

This environmental hypocrisy is why we have such god-awful developments as East 54, Chapel Hill North, Chapelridge, Charterwood and the Coming-Soon-to-a-Southern-Village-Backyard-Near-You-Because-Roger-Perry-Says-So Obey Creek.

Perry hands out a few donations to council members every election. To attack one council member for accepting the money while ignoring another council member who accepted similar money is two-faced. Any political organization that touts itself as “preserving quality of life in Chapel Hill” ought to understand that such a hypocritical stance also affects the quality of life for all of us and does nothing to move the community forward together.
–Don Evans

$5 friends

You might measure your Facebook friends by the dozens and Twitter followers in the hundreds. But you won’t know who really has your back until you have to find 83 people registered to vote in Chapel Hill willing to pay you between $5 and $20 to see you qualify for free money from the Voter Owned Election program.

Jason Baker sent out a tweet recently pleading for money. His 35-day report, filed on time, shows only seven Chapel Hill residents so far – and that includes Penny Rich and her husband – contributing a combined total of $100. Baker contributed $658.32 in in-kind donations to his own campaign, including $200 in toner.

Donna Bell similarly is struggling to come up with her VOE numbers. She filed her 35-day financial report before the deadline, but she was able to round up only 25 Chapel Hill residents to ante up to support her. Penny Rich, Rich’s husband and Rich’s mother made up three of the 25. Bell has quite a bit more money than Baker, in part because, though Bell has been talking about her plans to fund her campaign through VOE money since she filed to run, she did not officially declare her intention to accept VOE funding until Aug. 22. Therefore, more of her initial donations – almost all from out of town or out of state – could be categorized as seed money. Five donors on Bell’s list – four from out of town or out of state – donated more than the $20 maximum. The VOE ordinance required her to either return the overage to her donors or donate the excess to the VOE coffers. She chose the latter.

And this from the raised eyebrow department: At a candidates forum Tuesday night, an audience member asked three candidates whether they had accepted money from developers. But the questioner did not ask Donna Bell, who has accepted money from developer Roger Perry for her campaign. Who would have guessed that Donna Bell would be the candidate in developers’ pockets?
– Nancy Oates

Trust

It boiled down to trust, the discussion of whether to close Dawson Place, the alley that connects West Rosemary Street to the back of a row of businesses facing West Franklin Street.

The developers of Shortbread Lofts, a mixed-use building that came before Town Council as a concept plan in early 2006, need the Dawson Place right-of-way closed in order to connect adjacent parcels of land to create a plot large enough for their project. They do not want to proceed to the special use permit application phase without assurances that the Town Council will agree to revoke right-of-way and ultimately close the alley. The developers want to know how much space they have to work with before sinking about $100,000 into the SUP process. And who could blame them for their skepticism after the way council treated the developer of Aydan Court?

The Franklin Street businesses are pushing back. Though the developers have agreed to build a new access way before closing Dawson Place, the business owners are troubled by what they see as vague promises and a seeming reluctance on the part of the developers to sit down face-to-face with the business owners to work out details. People are more likely to stay accountable if they give their word while looking the other person in the eye.

One of the developers white-knuckled a public apology to the business owners at last night’s council meeting for any prior miscommunication and had gone in to Mediterranean Deli to meet with that business owner briefly.

Council members were divided. Although the language of the resolution looked innocuous, the lawyers on the dais were a little uneasy, and the distrust between the developers and business owners was palpable. The right-of-way issue was only the first of many that would come up during a lengthy construction process of a large building. And things could get ugly if each party were lying in wait for the other to make a wrong move.

Town attorney Ralph Karpinos assured members that voting for the resolution as worded wouldn’t mean they were committed to approving Shortbread Lofts. He agreed to come up with more comprehensive wording but asked for the matter to come back in two weeks. That would give him time to wordsmith and, more important, give the disputants time to sit down face-to-face and work out their issues and build some trust.

The matter returns to council Oct. 26, a special Wednesday meeting.
– Nancy Oates

Occupy Chapel Hill

Occupy Wall Street has come to Chapel Hill. On Sunday, a diverse crowd of about 100 people sat in the sun in front of the Post Office on East Franklin Street, making plans for how best to support the Occupy Wall Street movement. Operating under the same restrictions as the New York gathering, Occupy Chapel Hill organizers used no microphones to address the crowd. Unlike its New York counterpart, Occupy Chapel Hill had no police presence. The crowd seemed enthusiastic but not riotous. They were breaking up into small, manageable groups to better discuss strategy when I left.

The agenda for tonight’s Town Council meeting lists nothing particularly contentious. Council members may get home at a decent hour tonight. Council will rule on the closing of the Dawson Place right-of-way, but correspondence indicates that the lawyers for both sides have reached an agreement to close the right-of-way, providing certain conditions are met.

The town may consider scheduling a hearing about changing the town’s towing ordinance. A point that would benefit consumers would be to make tow operators accept credit cards and checks instead of demanding cash to retrieve a vehicle. Benefiting the tow operators would be to make it a criminal offense for vehicle retrievers to cancel the check or credit card payment after getting their car back. The only ominous note was that tow operators noted their fees had not been adjusted in several years. Expect that to change.

In the matter of board appointments, there seems to be healthy competition for seats on the Parks & Rec and the Transportation boards. Council members can choose from among six applicants for the two open spots on the Transportation Board and from among nine applicants for the lone seat open on the Parks & Rec Board.

Council must also appoint a liaison to the Community Policing Advisory Committee. Expect Penny Rich to volunteer as she has previously singled that committee out as the “important” one of the town’s 19 boards and committees.
– Nancy Oates

Death file

My mom died last week. She did not take her last flight, meet her final deadline, leave her mortal coils behind; she was not promoted to Heaven or beamed to a new galaxy; nor did the Angel of Silence claim victory over her. She wanted her obituary to say simply that she died. I know this because she wrote it in her death file.

While she was alive, the death file sounded ominous and kind of morbid. But it included all sorts of practical stuff: where the safe deposit box keys were, lists of passwords and an inventory of bank accounts, brokerage accounts and insurance policies. As things came up over the years, she wrote down what she wanted and put it in the death file. She included a list of people she wanted us to call so that they would learn she had died before reading it in the newspaper. We knew what music, hymns and Bible verses were meaningful to her that we might use in her funeral service. Maybe she just didn’t want her four strong-willed children, who rarely agree on anything, to fight once she wasn’t around to intercede.

At the end of her life, some of the information in the death file, in her own handwriting, proved invaluable for decisions she couldn’t make. We knew specifics of what she considered an acceptable quality of life, what she considered unacceptable and under what conditions she wanted to discontinue treatment for her leukemia.

I chide Don about his plan for extended illness in old age. He says he’s just going to walk off into the woods, sit down under a tree and wait to die. But from what I’ve seen of the aging process, the will to stay alive causes us to readjust our parameters as our world shrinks. When the time comes that Don might want to head off into the woods, he may not recognize it. Is he really counting on me to point him in the right direction and slap him on the rear to get him going?

He’d be better off starting a death file.
– Nancy Oates

Sell-out crowd for Chapel Hill 2020

George Cianciolo reports on the Chapel Hill 2020 kickoff:

The first meeting of Chapel Hill 2020, the process designed to develop a new Comprehensive Plan for Chapel Hill, kicked off this evening at East Chapel Hill High School. It started with an open house from 5 to 6 p.m., followed by introductory remarks by Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt and a description of the process to be used by the facilitator, Matt Leighninger, and then brief remarks by town manager Roger Stancil and the two Chapel Hill 2020 co-chairs, Rosemary Waldorf and George Cianciolo. The attendees, seated in groups at approximately 30 tables, then spent an hour getting to know one another and sharing their thoughts regarding what should go into a vision statement and what key theme areas should be considered for focusing on as the process evolves. The last 20 minutes included a brief summation by Matt Leighninger and a brief description by representatives from six of the tables of some of the ideas that had emerged from their discussions. The discussions at each of the tables were facilitated by either one of our Leadership Team members, 18 individuals who had been recruited by Rosemary or George to be facilitators throughout the entire process, town staffpersons who also had undergone the same facilitation training as the Leadership Team or facilitators from the School of Government.

I think I speak for everyone involved (the initiating team that began this process, the Outreach Committee that has worked hard to insure we get as many and as diverse a group of attendees as possible, the mayor, the town manager, the town staff and Rosemary and myself) when I say this first meeting was an outstanding success. At 7 p.m., fire chief Dan Jones counted the number of individuals seated at the tables and it was 378. Since some folks were there but standing, it would be safe to say we had 400+ attendees at this event – possibly a record for a public meeting for Chapel Hill. We also had representatives from Carrboro, the County Commission and the School Board, including the new superintendent. Was this first meeting problem free – No. Some folks quickly recognized that the number of people, the closeness of the tables and the acoustics of the East Chapel Hill High cafeteria area did not make for easy listening. Did they complain – No. In the spirit of roll-up-your-sleeves and get involved that we’re looking for in this process, they gathered their materials and went outside (thank goodness it wasn’t raining) and set up shop. We had about one-fifth of the group working outside.

It was a great start to what will be an 8-month process, but we have a long way to go. We asked everyone there to come back to our next meeting (Oct 6) with five family members, friends, colleagues or acquaintances in tow. Our challenge now, given the success of tonight, is to find a suitable venue for that meeting and to keep the excitement and enthusiasm going. But we will get it done, and we hope to see at least 2-3 times tonight’s crowd at that next meeting. During this interval we will be going through all the suggestions and ideas generated and shared tonight and drafting a vision plan and a set of key theme areas for the group to begin finalizing and prioritizing respectively. We hope to see you all there. But if you can’t come, you can still leave your comment(s) and share your thoughts on our blog at: www.2020buzz.org.
– George Cianciolo

A step toward peace

Congress could learn from this: At last night’s Town Council meeting, council members engaged in a gusty and at times contentious discussion, ultimately brokering a compromise between two opposing factions – Chris Moran, representing IFC, and Mark Peters, spokesman for ABetterSite.org.

Three meetings into crafting an effective Good Neighbor Policy for the shelter on Homestead Road, the process was going well for Moran, who had put together a group of 19 people, 18 of whom were likely to do his bidding. But ABetterSite.org still had not taken a seat at the table. And all on the council agreed that ABetterSite needed to be part of the Good Neighbor Policy process. The sticking point was whether the meetings could be recorded.

After town attorney Ralph Karpinos explained that nothing in the open meetings law prohibited a participant from making an audio recording of the meeting, Matt Czajkowski asked both Moran and Peters to come to the podium, and there they stood, close enough for the chips on their respective shoulders to touch. Czajkowski and Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt got Peters to commit to participating in the meetings, so long as he could record the meetings on his digital recording devices, and Moran to agree to ask the committee to revisit its objection to a formal recording of the meetings. Town Council candidate Carl Shuler, a GNP committee member, said he would make sure the committee reconsider the issue of recording meetings and would discuss Laurin Easthom’s suggestion of having a brief period of community input at the beginning or end of each meeting.

Council also directed Moran to balance out the committee by bringing in more representatives from the nearby neighborhoods. Moran worried that the committee could become unwieldy; perhaps he could reduce the number of IFC backers and replace them with people more directly affected by an emergency shelter in their midst.

This would be a good place to insert a commercial for tonight’s kickoff of Chapel Hill 2020. I’ll put aside my cynicism that even if the town visioning process does get the input of 10,000 residents, there’s no guarantee council will listen to them. Instead, I’ll remind readers that, just as with our “education” lottery, you have to play to win. If you want a voice in shaping the town you might very well still live in 20 years hence, come to the meeting at East Chapel Hill High School tonight and make your voice heard. Doors open at 5 p.m. for an open house, and the meeting runs from 6 to 8 p.m.
– Nancy Oates