Bad start to be good neighbor

The plan to move the IFC homeless shelter from West Rosemary Street to Homestead Road got off on the wrong foot. With its process of crafting a Good Neighbor Policy, it continues to try to dance with two left feet. At tonight’s Town Council meeting, IFC will give a report on progress of the GNP thus far.

When word first got out in 2008 that the IFC planned to move its men’s homeless shelter to Homestead Road, near other social service and rehabilitative housing facilities, nearby property owners wanted their objections heard. IFC pitched the project as a transitional housing facility, not an emergency shelter, and dubbed it “Community House.”

When property owners who would be the closest neighbors to Community House pressed for details, IFC let it slip that there would in fact be 17 emergency beds available nightly, and additional beds for “white flag” nights that make up about two-thirds of the nights per year.

When it looked like Town Council might seriously consider property owners’ request that the emergency beds be removed, IFC threatened to walk away from the deal and keep the men’s shelter on West Rosemary Street, in the shadow of the upscale 140 West Franklin project that was struggling to sell its units. Council approved the Homestead Road shelter.

When property owners asked for assurance that the problems that have plagued the West Rosemary Street shelter would not impinge on neighborhoods near the new site, IFC agreed to craft a Good Neighbor Policy that included input from the community to be affected most.

But it didn’t. ABetterSite.org, a well-organized group in opposition to the emergency beds component of the project, was not welcome at the table. Although IFC contends that the GNP meetings are open, IFC would not allow more than one supporter of ABetterSite.org to attend. Not just one supporter at a time – one supporter, period. Because the initial meetings were held over the summer, ABetterSite.org wanted to send a substitute representative to the meetings that the main representative could not attend, and to tape the meetings so that the main representative and other supporters of ABetterSite.org could be kept in the loop. IFC said no.

IFC packed the committee with supporters of the move to Homestead Road, including keeping the emergency beds. No one from the nearby neighborhoods with concerns about the impact of the emergency beds sits at the table.

How is the GNP going to be able to adequately address the concerns of neighbors who will be directly affected by the shelter? Will the GNP have any teeth? Or will it be like the Code of Ethics the council adopted for itself, one that failed to dissuade one council member from pushing through an ordinance change that would allow her to reap financial gain?
– Nancy Oates

by on September 26, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Homeless Shelter
Posted by Nancy Oates on September 26, 2011

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2011/09/26/bad-start-to-be-good-neighbor/

A rainy night in Northside

Chapel Hill voters, you did me proud. On a rainy night in a transitional neighborhood with the Yankees on TV clinching the American League East title, you turned out in droves to meet the candidates for Town Council and mayor. You filled Hargraves Center parking lot and every marginally legal parking space along North Roberson and side streets. Were it not for the weather and shorter days, you probably would have taken up every bike rack, too, which would have made a nice contrast to the preponderance of shiny SUVs.

Last night’s candidate forum was jointly hosted by the Sierra Club and the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, a combination that discouraged candidates from talking out of both sides of their mouth. Not that some didn’t try. From listening to the responses of some of the incumbents about whether they supported OWASA’s request to stake a larger claim on Jordan Lake water allocation rights, you’d have thought the council agreed unanimously to OWASA’s plan earlier this spring, when Matt Czajkowski was the only one of last night’s panel who actually voted for it.

The joint sponsorship attempted to depolarize the labeling in years past of candidates being either pro-environment or pro-economy. The forum questions – long and poorly punctuated – recognized that people can want to tread lightly on the Earth in very expensive shoes.

All of the candidates for Town Council participated, as did two of the three mayoral candidates (Kevin Wolff was a no-show). The incumbents unleashed no surprises, though the strengthening alliance between Czajkowski and Mark Kleinschmidt showed itself at times. Kleinschmidt repeatedly talked beyond his time limit, which irked moderator Mark Schulz of The Chapel Hill News no end.
The challengers offered some refreshing breaths of fresh thinking. They had different degrees of political savvy. This election in particular it will be important to pay attention to what candidates say and do, rather than how polished they sound. Council candidate Carl Schuler actually used some of his 45 seconds to cogitate before speaking.

All but mayoral candidate Tim Sookram supported the 1/4-cent sales tax increase on the ballot in November. No one wanted to mess with the rural buffer, though council candidate Jason Baker joined Kleinschmidt in saying he’d consider creating a buffer on the south end of town that borders Chatham County.

The brief time to respond to each question afforded candidates little time for much more than sound bites, but the audience did get a flavor of the different mindsets each candidate brings. Good decisions rarely come from pat answers. You’ll have a few more chances to listen to the candidates at the following forums:

Monday, Oct. 3, 7:30-9 p.m., Council Chamber, Town Hall
Tuesday, Oct. 18, 3-4:30 p.m., Carol Woods auditorium; council candidates only
Tuesday, Oct. 25, 3-4:30 p.m., Carol Woods auditorium; mayoral candidates only
– Nancy Oates

by on September 22, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Northside
Posted by Nancy Oates on September 22, 2011

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2011/09/22/a-rainy-night-in-northside/

Candidate forum

Candidates for Town Council will gather at 7 o’clock tonight at Hargraves Center to tell you about themselves and what they stand for and answer questions. It will be one of only a few opportunities to compare and contrast their positions.

Segregation of the political sort is alive and well in Chapel Hill. Though the Town Council election is nonpartisan, the Orange County Democrats, for instance, invited only candidates who are registered Democrats to participate in its candidate forum.

We need to elect people to Town Council who keep the best interests of town residents top of mind, regardless of whether the candidate has registered with a political party or is unaffiliated. Tonight’s forum is a chance for voters to invest a couple hours of time to make their own decisions on who will best represent them. And Hargraves Center offers free parking in its parking lot, so don’t use the downtown parking problem as an excuse.

I hope to see you there. Hargraves Center, 216 N. Roberson St., a block north of West Rosemary Street, between Mitchell Lane and North Graham Street. Use Greenbridge as a landmark.

— Nancy Oates

by on September 21, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Elections
Posted by Nancy Oates on September 21, 2011

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2011/09/21/candidate-forum/

Dawson Place

I’m sorry that family matters will prevent me from watching tonight’s public hearing live. I’ll have to catch it in reruns; it promises to be a good one.

One of the items on the manageably small agenda is the closing of Dawson Place, an alley between 331 and 337 W. Rosemary St. (337 is the former Breadman’s site) that allows access to parking and deliveries for several Franklin Street businesses, including Mediterranean Deli and DB Sutton. Rescinding the right-of-way would enable the owner of the two side-by-side properties to proceed with the special use permit process to build Shortbread Lofts, a 76-unit condo building originally proposed in January 2006.

A large residential building, once tenanted, would be a boon to nearby businesses, and so far no one is making any noise against the development. But at least one adjacent property owner, David Rudolf, who owns 312-20 W. Franklin St., buildings that include offices and Crunkleton Bar, wants to make sure that a new right-of-way is constructed before the existing one closes.

Rudolf is right to insist. Developers can make all sorts of promises, but the road to the parking and delivery area should not be paved with good intentions.

A case in point: Some years back a woman who owned several acres on Coolidge Street decided to sell a large portion of the land adjacent to her home. She spent time and money working with an engineer to create a development plan of single-family homes and a community playground that would fit in with the neighborhood in which she lived. She sold the land to a developer contingent upon his following the plan she had laid out.

No sooner had the deal closed than the developer resold the land to another developer, who was not obligated to follow the plan. That developer stuffed the property full of as many duplexes as the zoning allowed without having to go through a special use permit process. The woman who owned the land to begin with now must spend her golden years living in the midst of a student-housing ghetto.

Shortbread Lofts has been five years in the making as it is. A lot could happen between the time the town approves rescinding the right-of-way and a new one being established. Asking for the new access to be built and approved as a right-of-way before changing Dawson Place’s status seems a reasonable request.
— Nancy Oates

by on September 19, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Business, Downtown Chapel Hill
Posted by Nancy Oates on September 19, 2011

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2011/09/19/dawson-place/

Get to know campus

Stop reading this and get back to work, so you can leave before 3 p.m. today and get to Morehead Planetarium in time for the first in a series of specialized tours of campus. This afternoon, UNC historic preservationist Wendy Hillis takes you on a walk around campus to point out architectural features that you’ve seen but maybe not paid attention to.

Don has been on the Black and Blue tour and highly recommends it. You’ll learn things about the relationship between blacks and UNC over the centuries that go way beyond the statue of Silent Sam. If the other tours are half as good, they are worth braving a chilly drizzle.

Tours start at 3 p.m. at the UNC Visitors Center inside Morehead Planetarium, 250 E. Franklin St. Here is the fall tour schedule:

Sept. 16: architecture, led by Wendy Hillis, UNC historic preservationist

Sept. 23: “Black and Blue” tour of UNC’s historical landmarks in context of UNC’s racial history, led by Tim McMillan, adjunct assistant professor in the African and Afro-American studies department

Sept. 30: cemetery tour, led by Stephen Rich, Chapel Hill Preservation Society

Oct. 7: Coker Arboretum, led by natural science educator, N.C. Botanical Garden

Oct. 14: Carolina classic historical tour, led by Missy Julian-Fox, Visitors’ Center director

Oct. 28: The Noble Grove: A Walking Tour of Trees, led by Tom Bythell, UNC campus forest manager with Jill Coleman, UNC landscape architect

Nov. 4: sustainability tour, led by Cindy Shea, director of the UNC Sustainability Office, and UNC student EcoReps

Nov. 18: archaeology tour, led by Meg Kassabaum, research assistant, Research Labs of Archaeology

Dec. 2: architecture, led by Wendy Hillis, UNC historic preservationist

UNC Visitors’ Center contact: Missy Julian Fox, (919) 962-1630, mjfox@unc.edu.
– Nancy Oates

by on September 16, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Uncategorized
Posted by Nancy Oates on September 16, 2011

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2011/09/16/get-to-know-campus/

Behave — or else

Town Council set the bar high last night – its meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m., a relief to all who slogged through those meetings last fiscal year that ran over into the next day. Mayor pro tem Jim Ward, conducting the meeting in the absence of Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt who was ill, all but picked up the agenda sheet and looked on the other side to see whether he’d missed something before he adjourned the meeting before those of us watching from home as dinner theater reached the dessert course.

Discussion of the proposed ban on cell phones while driving took up the most time. After town attorney Ralph Karpinos explained that he wasn’t sure a town ordinance would hold up on state roads, the public comment portion began. Three people from UNC’s Gillings School of Global Public Health made a presentation that showed, among other data, that hands-free cell phones are more distracting to a driver than having a blood alcohol level of 0.10. Former council member Joe Capowski spoke out in favor of a ban, and two town residents, while wanting drivers to abstain from using cell phones, thought the ban was not practical or enforceable. One noted that a similar ban in New York had not stopped people from talking on the phone while driving.

All council members agreed that cell phone use while driving was dangerous. Gene Pease was the first to speak out against Chapel Hill passing an ordinance against it. The state needed to act first, he said. Donna Bell pointed out that any distraction can cause an accident, so banning cell phones while driving wouldn’t guarantee safe streets. Matt Czajkowski asked about the cost of implementing the ban, including town legal fees after someone inevitably files a lawsuit that there is no certainty the town would win.

Penny Rich wanted the last word, but after her speech, Laurin Easthom spoke up.

“Where will it end?” Easthom asked. People do lots of things they shouldn’t do, but they have to take personal responsibility for themselves, she said.

I could have cried I was so happy to hear a council member advocating for personal responsibility.
From the comments, it looked like the council would vote 5-3 against the ban (with Ward, Greene and Rich for the ordinance). But when it came time to raise their right hands, council voted 6-2 to have Karpinos draw up a draft ordinance. Easthom and Pease stood their ground.

The matter is not a done deal. The public and police will have a chance to weigh in once the draft ordinance has been drawn up.
– Nancy Oates

by on September 13, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Uncategorized
Posted by Nancy Oates on September 13, 2011

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2011/09/13/behave-or-else/

Council kickoff

One year for Christmas my children got me a bumper sticker that read, “Hang up and drive,” so tired were they of hearing me mutter that phrase to other drivers making airhead moves while talking on the phone. In April, Penny Rich proposed a ban on cell phone use while driving on town roads. (The town has no jurisdiction over state roads, which includes many of the main drags through town.) Council decided to wait to see what state legislators would do with similar bills on their agenda. But the state didn’t take any action.

Now former mayor pro tem Joe Capowski is pushing for the issue to be taken up by the town. Capowski witnessed a pedestrian hit by a car whose driver may or may not have been on the phone. (Capowski said she was; the driver and her lawyer say he’s wrong.)

Much as we would love to see “Hang up and drive” become a reality, we sadly must agree with the Chapel Hill police chief who said such a law would be unenforceable. Still, we’re looking forward to a public comment period to see whether anyone driving an SUV supports a ban.

Also on tap for tonight’s season opener:

 The town received a $13,062 grant that would cover 80 percent of the cost of putting recyclable receptacles downtown. The town must kick in an additional $2,613. We’re pleased that the town might take this small step to live its purported values, especially at such a bargain price. No indication of how many recycling containers the $15,675 program will afford.

 In April, council approved total-body-wrap ads on buses, turning buses into mobile billboards using all colors and fonts, unlike the sign ordinance council passed that won’t allow store logos or colors. The town is asking for a budget increase of $110,054 to wrap the buses and expects to receive $150,000 in revenue from advertisers.

 Town staff are recommending that an ordinance be changed to allow the Ronald McDonald House to expand beyond 40 families. No upper limit has been set in the draft ordinance up for review.

 Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt will submit a petition objecting to “Defense of Marriage” bills in the state House and Senate that would amend the state constitution to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying. Marriage between different-sex couples doesn’t seem to have worked out particularly well, and the government trying to protect same-sex couples from committing similar follies seems intrusive and patronizing. Lobbyists representing the interests of divorce lawyers should be able to halt those bills forthwith.
– Nancy Oates

by on September 12, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Uncategorized
Posted by Nancy Oates on September 12, 2011

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2011/09/12/council-kickoff/

Hate crimes

Is there any reason the U.S. House and Senate Republican leadership’s treatment of President Obama should not be considered a hate crime?
The good ol’ white boys who control the GOP in Washington have done their best to thwart Obama at every turn during the president’s term. And they have declared their primary focus to be to ensure that Obama is not re-elected – the economy can flounder, the debt crisis fester, an injuriously unfair tax structure remain in place to the detriment of the country’s future, and health care costs soar. But their actions continue to target the president.
They remind me of the gang of white teenagers who recently waylaid a black man in Mississippi and beat him to death, chanting “White power!” as they kicked him senseless and then drove a truck over his body.
At times the GOP leadership’s response to Obama’s reasonable actions resembles such a mugging. Nothing Obama can do or say is acceptable to those who call themselves leaders. The GOP archons have even refused to agree to proposals that they initially made weeks before the president comes around to their side.
So why is Obama such a target for these disrespectful white men? Can it be that they refuse to allow a black man to tell them what to do? When a president asks to address Congress on an important issue, even the opposition during the time of Bill Clinton was respectful enough to acquiesce to the request. But Obama’s desire to address congress on a job-creation initiative was rudely rebuffed by the Speaker of the House, rebuffed on no better grounds than that Congress didn’t have the time.
I’m afraid that some powerful white folks in our country are not ready to take direction from a black man. And that’s a shame, because President Obama certainly has better ideas than what is coming out of the GOP leadership for setting the nation on a better course. If Mitch McConnell, John Boehner and Eric Cantor would spend half as much time working to steer the nation on a better course than they spend trying to thwart Obama at every turn, we might just make some meaningful progress.
Little did I suspect as I celebrated Obama’s historic election to the highest office in the land that a bunch of elected white bigots would dedicate their energy and time to tearing him down – to the detriment of us all.
–Don Evans

by on September 8, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics
Posted by Don Evans on September 8, 2011

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2011/09/08/hate-crimes/

Transit report

Looks like Chapel Hill Transit is spending its Christmas money or maybe leftover TARP funds set to expire. According to a report in chapelboro.com, the town is shelling out $200,000 — perhaps as much as $300,000, depending on which source you believe — to a consulting firm to determine whether the Eubanks Road Park-n-Ride has sufficient capacity to accommodate growth in the northern corridor, and if not, how to expand.

I’ve always been a fan of hearing the advice of someone who knows what they’re doing before making a big investment, but I also believe in getting good value for my money. To assess whether taxpayers are getting good value for the $200,000 of our money the town is spending, let’s do an armchair assessment.

First, comparables. The town paid $42,460 for a consulting firm to determine whether its Land Use Management Ordinance meshed with the town’s stated vision. At first glance, the price seemed high. But then I realized I wouldn’t read the LUMO tome cover to cover and pay attention to the ramifications of its rules for less than $35,000; the remaining $7,460 is a good price for a 22-page report.

Next, the firm: who it is and what it will do. VHB is nationally recognized planning, design and engineering firm that “move[s] projects forward,” according to its website. It has 800 employees spread out over 18 offices up and down the East Coast, including one in Raleigh.

For $200,000, the firm will conduct a “feasibility study.” Here’s how I think it breaks down:

$500 to visit the park-n-ride lot at its peak-use hour, see how full it gets and ask commuters where else they could park if the lot were full;

$200 to print up surveys and set up a suggestion box to get input from users of the lot;

$500 to read the 10-year plans for Chapel Hill and Hillsborough;

$800 for a couple hours to look over the data and determine whether the parking lot should expand up, down or out;

$1,000 to prepare a concise report, including photos and tables, to present recommendations;

$197,000 — give or take $100,000 — to pay for consultants’ time to make presentations, including supplementary PowerPoints, to advisory boards; respond to their suggestions; go back to the drawing board until all boards and town staff approve; then present final work to Town Council and hope council members “feel” it’s right and like the developer.

Yes, $200,000 to $300,000 is about right.
– Nancy Oates

by on September 6, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Parking, Roads
Posted by Nancy Oates on September 6, 2011

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2011/09/06/transit-report/

Redemption

On Wednesday, I learned from school system spokeswoman Stephanie Knott that the donation to Rashkis Elementary School that resulted from the retirement party Penny Rich catered amounted to $25, a check the school received from Rich on Aug. 26. That cast a worse pall over what started out as a well-intentioned party to honor a well-respected school principal.

In trying to find some redemption in this mess, I looked to Rich’s gesture of making a modest donation to a school. I matched it with a $25 check to Carrboro Elementary School, a school that has a high percentage of kids who receive free or reduced-price lunches. I dropped the donation off with the school’s receptionist yesterday and was met with that look of delight tinged with skepticism you get anytime you give someone free money (not that I do that very often).

Ever hopeful that Rich will be more transparent with her colleagues and constituents going forward, I’m encouraging all readers to join Penny Rich and me in helping low-income students with an enrichment experience. Please consider donating $25 to a public elementary school so that no child is left behind when the bus pulls out of the parking lot on a field trip.
– Nancy Oates

by on September 1, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Ethics
Posted by Nancy Oates on September 1, 2011

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2011/09/01/redemption/

« Older Posts
Newer Posts »