While foraging for something for dinner one night last week, Don and I realized we were one ingredient short for anything we wanted to make. Not wanting to be so environmentally unfriendly as to drive to the grocery store for just one item, one of us got the idea of going by bike. After all, Chapel Hill had recently received an award as a bicycle-friendly community. Though it was rush hour, we knew a back way to Food Lion, so we pumped up our bike tires and took off up Piney Mountain Road. Emphasis on the “up.”

First, bicycling is harder than it looks.

Second, why any town with the word “Hill” in it could be considered for a bike-friendly award is a mystery.

Be that as it may, many intrepid people bike regularly, including Town Council members Matt Czajkowski and Ed Harrison. And at Monday night’s meeting, council had to consider a change in the number of bicycle parking spaces that commercial properties are required to have.

But as the last item on the agenda, it didn’t come before council until about 11 p.m. There was tension in the smile of town planner J.B. Culpeper as she made the presentation; her demeanor said, Just approve the changes we recommend, and we can all go home and get some sleep.

Fortunately, Town Council members doggedly kept their focus on taking care of business. I give them a lot of credit. The fun parts were over; the audience had gone home. Many of them had to get up in seven or eight hours to start their day jobs. Who could blame them if they didn’t see whether one bike parking space per six residential units was sufficient in an apartment complex, as the Planning Department recommended, or one space for every two units was better, as the Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee had recommended.

They hashed it out, even the non-bikers, considering whether bike riders would park their bikes inside their apartments or leave them locked up in the town-mandated bike racks, whether quality of parking space (i.e., were the spaces protected from rain and sun?) would make a difference in the amount they were used, and whether the number of spaces was calculated to consider only apartment residents or visitors.

Jim Ward made a couple of good points: If we’re trying to create a bike-friendly environment, we need to plan for people to use their bikes, and that includes providing places to park them. And, strategically, wouldn’t it be better to ask a developer to provide more spaces and reduce the number later if the need weren’t there, rather than to require fewer spaces and have to ask for more later?

When it came time to vote, the Planning Department’s recommendation only had five ayes (Gene Pease was absent), and it needed six to pass on a first reading. It will come back for a second reading at a later date.
– Nancy Oates

A skeptic by nature, I couldn’t believe that sidewalks in town are 5 feet wide. I paced off 5 feet on the living room rug, and was even more certain that the figure in the ordinance must be a typo. So I dug out the tape measure, and Don and I hiked to the nearest sidewalk in our neighborhood, on Piney Mountain Road.

Five feet wide, almost to the inch. I hate being wrong. But having invested this much time and effort in the matter, we got in the car and drove to North Graham Street to case the block between Rosemary and Whitaker streets.

As soon as we turned onto the block, we could see exactly why residents of the east side of North Graham were so exercised about the prospect of a sidewalk. The houses on that block have postage-stamp-size front yards. Although I didn’t get out and measure, I eyeballed that some of the houses were no more than 20 feet back from the edge of the street. Lopping off 8 feet for a 5-foot sidewalk and 3-foot grassy buffer would bring passersby within a handshake of the front porch.

In New York, people who occupy ground-floor apartments live with their blinds drawn round the clock to protect their privacy from pedestrians walking by. It’s not that pedestrians are particularly nosy, but it’s human nature, when you pass an open window, to look in. Install a sidewalk, and the residents of North Graham Street would not only lose their land, they’d lose their privacy as well.

A resident who presented a petition to council bearing 39 signatures in favor of the sidewalk flashed a photo of cars parked on both sides of the street with another car trying to squeeze through. Certainly that would be a dangerous situation for pedestrians. But the side of North Graham Street proposed for the sidewalk has a “No Parking” sign posted on it, and it doesn’t show that it is limited to certain hours. No cars were parked on the street during the middle of the day, although one car was parked in someone’s front yard (which I believe violates town ordinance). Put in the sidewalk, and there goes that parking space.

The fairest way to resolve the issue would seem to be to leave the decision solely in the hands of the people who own the dozen or so houses on that side of that particular block. Even if they are absentee landlords, a sidewalk would affect the quality of life of whoever lives in the house, and that, ultimately, affects the value of the property.

A sidewalk on this block? Council should walk away from this one.
– Nancy Oates

To segue into it a council discussion on where to build sidewalks, Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt read a proclamation – would someone please buy the town’s video caption writer a dictionary? – supporting National Walk to School Day, which is Oct. 6, one day in National Walk to School Month. Beside him was a prototypical family of four, the two elementary school-age girls clearly not happy at being used as props. While the father beamed, the mother glowered; one child hid herself behind her sister and her face behind a book the entire time, while the other girl scowled darkly. That set the stage for the discussion on sidewalks that followed.

To decide how to spend the money designated for streets and sidewalks that came in through the sale of $20 million in bonds last week, the town created a list of possible places to add sidewalks. The town will then use a rating system to prioritize its projects. Several residents came out in last night’s rain to plea for sidewalks in their neighborhoods, many due to the number of students who would not be able to walk to school safely without sidewalks. Residents lobbied for sidewalks along a section of Ephesus Church Road that involved a blind curve; a section along Mount Carmel Church Road from Mallard Court to U.S. 15-501; and one block of North Graham Street between Rosemary and Whitaker streets.

A curious twist came from a handful of residents who spoke out against the North Graham sidewalks, using the argument that residents have lived there for generations without sidewalks and didn’t want them now.

Matt Czajkowski voiced the question that must have been on many minds when he asked why the opposition. (No one came to the mike to answer.)

We were left to wonder, was it the extra responsibility of keeping sidewalks clear? If someone slips on an icy sidewalk that the property owner has not shoveled, the property owner can be sued. Or is it backlash against Greenbridge, with residents resentful about having to cede two-and-a-half feet of their property to more gentrification?

While he had the floor, Czajkowski made a plea to town staff to coordinate roadwork projects with DOT, OWASA and others who have the authority to tear up roadways. He has seen the town lay a cobblestone crosswalk at the intersection of Burning Tree Drive and N.C. 54, only to have the state Department of Transportation rip it out and pave it over. (Our taxes paid for both.) He also watched as the town added curbs and gutters in his neighborhood, only to have a crew working on stormwater management remove sections of the new work. (Beginning to see why our taxes are so high?)

Kleinschmidt and Jim Ward backed Czajkowski.

The prioritized list of sidewalks comes back to council for approval Nov. 22, at which time one group in Northside will leave unhappy.
– Nancy Oates

I wanted to learn more about tonight’s Town Council business meeting and the Consent Agenda item concerning Percent for Art allocations (still not sure why my tax dollars have to go to fund town art projects, but then there’s a lot of Town Council actions that don’t make the least bit of sense). So I went to the webpage for the Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission, the committee that makes recommendations to the council about how to spend the money.

I was struck by how out-of-date the page was. You’d think that the page would have been updated since the end of June, especially seeing as how the town’s website just received the Savvy Award, a national citation bestowed by the City-County Communications and Marketing Association. But apparently not. Here we are in late September and the Public Arts Commission still lists as panel members five folks whose terms ended June 30. There also are seven unfilled spots on the panel. That’s from an allegedly 16-member panel (which from the website looks to have 19 members – even when you don’t count council member Sally Greene and arts czar Jeffrey York, there seems to be 17 seats on the panel).

But besides the illogic of the commission’s page, the town received that Savvy Award for better serving the community “with excellent communication and improved transparency.” The award judges were interested in the “use of color, logos, watermarks and other design elements.”
Now, displaying inaccurate pages doesn’t strike me as transparent — the info is just plain wrong. The town touts its team of “Web stewards who continuously work to maintain and improve the website,” but those folks seem to have been MIA for the last three months.

Then again, maybe the fault lies with the award judges, who are described in a town news release as part of “the leading national organization and professional group for government communicators.” Maybe they were more interested in colors, logos, watermarks and other design elements than in how informative and up-to-date a website is. Maybe the award was given in recognition of the website’s flash rather than its substance. Maybe Chapel Hill was the only town represented in its category.

Improvement to the website is listed as a top priority for the council. That august body could start by simply updating its pages. Might even help to re-allocate some of that Percent for Art money to make sure the site is accurate. Definitely would be a better use of those funds.

–Don Evans

One of the more poignant moments at a Town Council business meeting came a week ago Wednesday at the council’s season premiere, as it were. When it came time for council members to make announcements, Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt talked about N.C. Pride Day, saying that he would be riding in the parade and had been asked to speak. At the close of his announcement, he mumbled something about LGBT – that’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender, for those who don’t leave their own world much. But that was the only clue as to what N.C. was to be proud of that day.

In New York, people celebrate Gay Pride Day. In North Carolina, marketing folks have erased the “gay” part from its name. Though our liberal enclave is fine with N.C. Pride celebrants spending their tourist dollars at Chapel Hill hotels and restaurants, the parade and rally are in Durham.

What plucked at my heart was the mayor’s demeanor during his announcement. Our normally glib mayor seemed a little unsure of himself and definitely self-conscious. Here he was, mayor of a town that has a reputation as a refuge for liberals, a town that made national news by electing an openly gay mayor, a town with some voters who feel self-righteous in earning their “liberal” badge by voting for someone solely because he is gay, and yet he seemed reluctant to mention his role in a gay celebration. I got the sense he would feel less hesitancy if he were a warlock announcing Pagan Pride Day, which was last weekend.

In no other context are people judged by whom they become romantically involved with – except, perhaps, for a woman in an abusive relationship, and people think, “She must have done something to set him off,” or “Why doesn’t she leave him?” In no other situation does other people’s opinion of the person who sets your heart afire interfere with your advancing up the career ladder, serving in the military, being elected to public office or raising a child.

To understand Kleinschmidt’s hesitancy, walk in tomorrow’s N.C. Pride Parade, and do it without carrying a sign, “I’m not gay; I just want to see what life is like for you people.” Just walk, and pay attention to how you feel when people might think that you are one of “them.”

I still disagree with many of Kleinschmidt’s decisions as mayor. But I am beginning to get an inkling of what he’s made of to get where he is today.
– Nancy Oates

At last Wednesday’s Town Council meeting, viewers received a tutorial on municipal bonds, tax-exempt vs. Build America Bonds.

At last night’s meeting, we learned about continuing care communities. And for those who had not been heretofore aware, it was a real eye-opener to learn how much it can cost to live out one’s golden years.

Last night Carol Woods made a concept plan review presentation to lay out its plans for an expansion to Building 1, an apartment building on the 61-building campus, that would add 18 apartments, recreation space and an art studio. By slipping in a lower level on the same grade as the parking lot, the planned addition would eliminate what is now something of a climb from the parking lot to Building 1.

Overall, the council members’ initial reactions seemed to be approving. They liked that Carol Woods was building up not out, reducing sprawl, as it were, and including green features.

Matt Czajkowski brought up the idea of affordability. If Carol Woods were not a nonprofit, regulations would require a certain number of the 18 new units to be affordable.

Pat Sprigg, CEO of Carol Woods, explained that its residents aren’t buying real estate, they are buying a contract for care. The larger, more expensive units subsidize the smaller, less expensive ones. And since it opened in 1979, Carol Woods has never kicked out a resident who has outlived his or her assets.

For those who are not already familiar with the cost of aging, either through experiences with parents or through firsthand experiences in retirement, the figures that Sprigg bandied about were sobering. Forget about trying to live on Social Security – assuming that is even available by the time many of us retire. Each of us is going to need a nest egg of several hundred thousand dollars.

Donna Bell ended the meeting by underscoring the importance of Chapel Hill having pockets of affordable housing for seniors to be able to control their costs. But housing is only one factor. The main expense of aging comes in the form of medical and skilled nursing care, the extra help we will need as our bodies break down and we can’t do even basic daily living tasks. And don’t expect those costs to go down, even with President Obama’s health-care reform.
– Nancy Oates

Who do the executives at Lowe’s know that the executives at Altridge Group don’t?

On the agenda for public hearing at the Town Council meeting tonight is the request by Lowe’s Home Care Center (what the rest of us would call a home improvement center, so as not to confuse it with a big-box nursing home) for a modification of its special use permit. Lowe’s wants to sacrifice 113 parking spaces to expand its outdoor display area.

The Lowe’s parking lot melds with that of Border’s Books next door and a park-and-ride lot fronting U.S. 15-501, and I’ve never been out there when every single parking space has been taken, even when the ever-popular “How to lay tile” workshop coincides with a Harry Potter book release party. But we won’t know what the neighbors think of the idea until tonight.

What caught my attention as I was looking over the documents was that the special use permit modification application breezed through the review process in one month. The Planning Board, reviewed and approved it Aug. 3; the Transportation Board, Aug. 12; the Community Design Commission, Aug. 18; and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, Aug. 24. And here it is, slated for public hearing on Sept. 20.

Compare that to Altridge Group, a husband-and-wife real estate development team who bought the former Delta Zeta sorority house at 420 Hillsborough St. that had been vacant and on the market for years. Altridge planned to re-purpose what had been bedrooms on the lower-level into small offices that could be rented on a short- or long-term basis by solo practitioners, start-ups and other small businesses. The larger gathering spaces and kitchen on the upper level could be rented out for catered dinners, parties and business meetings. The property already had a parking lot sufficient for the size of the building, and Altridge would need to disturb no additional surface area. Other than sprucing up the interior, the building was ready to go.

The only barrier is that Altridge is seeking a modification of the special use permit that allowed a sorority to be built in a residential area. Altridge needs a modification so that it can charge rent to entities other than the university. Word from the town is that the process would take at least a year and a half. And when Altridge began building a stone retaining wall to keep the soil from washing onto the sidewalk during the rainy season, the town halted the work.

I asked Phil Mason of the Planning Department staff why such a seemingly simple matter would take a year and a half. He said that going before all the numerous review boards was a very time-consuming process and couldn’t possibly get through any faster. And besides, Mason said, the property is in the middle of a residential area, an inappropriate area for a business.

Altridge isn’t asking for a reduction in parking; all it wants is to extend its client base beyond the university. I doubt the students in the large apartment complexes nearby care whether Altridge’s clients pay with a state check or private funds. It would be nice to see the property in use and, more importantly, bringing in additional tax revenue.
– Nancy Oates

Save the date – Oct. 27. Town Council is set for a brawl, by the previews we saw at Wednesday’s council meeting.

The agenda listed Adjustments to the Voter-Owned Election program among the discussion items for Wednesday’s meeting. The town enacted the VOE program two years ago to encourage people who have more drive than money to run for public office. Candidates who choose to participate – the program is voluntary – must abide by a cap on what they spend on their campaigns. In return, the town provides funding for the campaign. Candidates who want to participate in the VOE program also must collect a minimum number of qualifying contributions of between $5 and $20. In 2009, that threshold was 75 for council candidates and 150 for mayoral candidates. The ordinance requires that the figures for the number of contributions, maximum seed fund and other limits be adjusted in even-numbered years to reflect the change in the Consumer Price Index and meet State Board of Elections guidelines.

In 2009, the first year of the program, council member Penny Rich and Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt participated.

Rich opened the discussion Wednesday by objecting to the increase in the minimum number of contributions, saying that even the original numbers were too high. She wanted a chance for participants to give feedback on what was a pilot program. Sally Greene and Jim Ward admitted that the original figures had been chosen arbitrarily but once chosen, there was no way of going back.

Then Matt Czajkowski spoke up, once again shining light into corners some wish would remain dark. He said a discussion of VOE should address the issue of PACs. Though he kept his words neutral and mentioned no names, only one PAC had reared its ugly head in last year’s election.

A few days before the 2009 election, with the mayoral race between Czajkowski and Kleinschmidt in a dead heat and Kleinschmidt almost at his spending cap, former council member Cam Hill started a PAC and anonymously sent out campaign literature bearing erroneous information in an attempt to smear Czajkowski. The amount Hill spent through his PAC blasted through the VOE spending limits for Kleinschmidt, but because the money came from a PAC, it was legal for Kleinschmidt’s campaign to accept the help. Although he had several opportunities to repudiate Hill’s actions, Kleinschmidt instead defended the legality of Hill’s scheme.

Kleinschmidt’s temper flared when Czajkowski brought up the topic. Ward then rushed to the mayor’s defense, sniping that he wished people sitting on the dais were there through funding from taxes rather than through “their friends’ deep pockets.” It was a cheap shot that showed a side of himself we can only hope he now regrets.

Czajkowski is right that PACs create a gaping hole in the intent of the VOE program and make a mockery of it.

Kleinschmidt insisted that PACs have been present in past elections. Rich said PACs don’t corrupt the VOE program.

Citizens have a chance to weigh in at the public hearing on Oct. 27. See you there.
– Nancy Oates