If you had to decide between parking on a side street for free or paying $450 for a spot nearer the office, which would you choose?

I know what my decision would be. And I believe it’s the same as a bunch of UNC workers who seem to have chosen to park on the streets of Colonial Heights along Williams Circle and Bradley Road.

Mike Collins, a Colonial Heights resident, petitioned the Town Council on Monday night to have the town Traffic Engineering Department work with residents to see about regulating parking in the neighborhood. A residential parking permit program was put in place in a neighborhood right across the street from where Collins lives, but that only forced parkers to migrate to his streets.

Collins believes UNC workers are lining the streets with their cars in order to walk to their jobs at nearby university facilities. And that’s not surprising. The cost of a parking permit for a UNC worker is based on how much that worker earns, but it can be hefty — $457 a year for someone making between $25,000 and $50,000 a year. Make even more, and your parking permit can cost as much as $575 a year. In a tight economy, that might inspire some workers to park on a side street in order to make ends meet.

Collins told the council the parking narrows the street so much that a regular city bus at times has to squeeze through. The parked cars can obstruct a motorist’s view of oncoming traffic and, more importantly, pedestrians. There are no sidewalks in the neighborhood, so walking in the street is the rule. That is a danger that could end badly.

Collins worries that the problem will worsen as work on nearby Carolina North progresses.

More likely is that parking permits will push the problem down to unregulated streets in the Elkins Hills neighborhood. Because if I’m looking at saving $450 a year by strolling an extra block or two, I know I’d be getting out my walking shoes.

Then again, why doesn’t the town encourage the university to stop gouging its employees. I know, I know — it’s just part of a strategy by the university to encourage its workers to stop driving to work. But all that seems to be doing is dumping UNC’s parking problems on the town and making some neighborhoods more dangerous.
–Don Evans

Having been a public servant, I know firsthand how some members of the public (oftentimes lawyers) view the “servant” part literally and treat us accordingly. So I should have been better prepared for town attorney Ralph Karpinos’ disingenuous response to my e-mail.

Months ago, I sought an answer to a simple question: What would it cost the town to back out of the 140 West Franklin contract?

I asked that question in an e-mail to town manager Roger Stancil, Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt and Karpinos. The two lawyers — Kleinschmidt and Karpinos — did not respond. Stancil passed the request to his assistant who sent me links to 140 West Franklin documents from the previous Town Council meeting with a chipper “Hope this helps.”

I sent him an e-mail back, explaining that I’d already looked at those documents and they didn’t address the issue. I repeated my question. He ignored my reply and a follow-up e-mail.

On Monday, I sent another e-mail to Karpinos, again asking: “Do you know whether the town has to reimburse Ram Development for Ram’s investment in 140 West Franklin if the town backs out of the deal? Is there an escape clause for the town?”

Here is his response, verbatim: “This office is not in a position to respond to your question. You may wish to consult your own attorney for an opinion on this document. As noted on the page for the Town Attorney’s office on the Town’s website: The primary responsibility of the Town Attorney is the protection of the legal interests of the Town of Chapel Hill. The Town Attorney serves as general counsel to the Town and provides advice to the Mayor and Council, Town Boards and Commissions, Town Administration and Town Departments. The Town Attorney’s Office cannot give legal advice or provide legal representation to private citizens.”

I forwarded Karpinos’ e-mail to Kleinschmidt, asking him what his understanding of the town’s liability was in the 140 West Franklin project. Because I did not hear back from him that day, I buttonholed him after the Town Council meeting that night.

He was gracious and gave a very simple answer: The town can’t back out. It’s not a matter of money; once the town agrees to a development deal, it can’t simply change its mind. The deal will go through unless Ram does not meet its deadlines, and the General Assembly recently gave a blanket three-year extension to all special-use permits, due to the sour economy.

I was satisfied with his answer, and when I commented to him on Karpinos’ lack of people skills, Kleinschmidt gave a what-can-you-expect shrug and said, “He’s a lawyer.”

Then he hastened to add, “I’m a different kind of lawyer.”

— Nancy Oates

No tow truck operators showed up Monday night at the Town Council meeting. No vehicle owners with a burning desire to test their luck on private lots anywhere downtown. And no parking lot property owners.

The council’s scheduled public hearing on the town’s changes two years ago to the fees that can be charged for towing from private lots didn’t draw a single person who wanted to be heard. All the angst about predatory towing that surfaced two years ago, when 11 people aired their frustrations and some talked about the high costs of tow-truck maintenance, insurance for the trucks and storage spaces, was not in evidence.

On March 3, 2008, the council amended ordinances dealing with towing from private lots in some downtown areas. The council set maximum fees that may be charged at $100 for towing or removing a vehicle, $20 per day for the storage of a towed vehicle after the first 24 hours, and $50 to detach a vehicle from a tow truck if the vehicle’s owner or operator returns to the vehicle before it has been removed from the parking lot property.

The fees are reviewed each year at a public hearing during the first council business meeting in March. That means that if anyone has a problem with the rules, that’s the time to let the council know.

But the opportunity for critiquing the changes came and went with not a peep from the public.

“I don’t believe I have anybody who’s signed up to speak on this,” Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt said as he looked to the town clerk. After Kleinschmidt asked for comments or questions from council members, Jim Ward suggested that since there was no public comment, the council’s action must have improved the situation.
So Kleinschmidt closed the public hearing and the council moved on to other matters.

Anyone who has a complaint about predatory towing will just have to keep it in storage until next year’s public hearing.

–Don Evans

The Walgreens contingent of lawyers, designers and architects walked away from the Town Council meeting Monday night with broad smiles on their faces.

Who could blame them? The drug-store project proposed for the corner of Estes Drive and East Franklin Street looks classy, definitely upgrades a piece of property that has seen better days and got some concessions on a few key traffic issues — the median proposed for the South Estes side was eliminated, and the one on East Franklin was reduced from 4 feet wide to 3 feet wide.

And three council members – Harrison, Greene and Rich — praised the project. The council passed the special-use permit unanimously.

The evening just kept getting better for the Walgreens contingent. The council earlier had amended the Land Use Management Ordinance to include a new definition, “medical office,” and slightly altered the definition of “clinic.” You see, the LUMO amendment will affect Chapel Hill Center, the office complex that abuts the Walgreens property. The LUMO change opens the door for an influx of medical offices and clinics in the Center. And putting in a few doctor’s offices and clinics in that complex will only add to the flow of foot traffic through the doors of the Walgreens.

With the recent closing of Kerr Drug at University Mall, and the fact that there are even more medical offices and clinics nearby, well, the future looks quite rosy for Walgreens.

Even the further discussion of the nightmare known as the East Franklin-Estes intersection couldn’t dampen the mood. Bike loops at the traffic lights will come online when the townwide traffic light coordination enhancements kick in. At some point the state will widen Estes Drive. Close calls between vehicles and bikes will continue for a while.

But for the time being, the prospect of a Walgreens being built at that site is cause for celebration. The other improvements will come with time.

–Don Evans

By the end of June, Chapel Hill pedestrians can expect to make a trip to the islands — seven of them dotting main thoroughfares around town — and the federal government is footing most of the bill.

Years ago, the Town Council approved the construction of crosswalks or pedestrian islands to aid people crossing busy streets to get to or from bus stops. But when it came time to find the money to pay for them, the project kept sliding to the bottom of the town’s priority list. Pedestrian safety doesn’t rank nearly as high as having more room at the library.

Then Barak Obama got elected president, and funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act trickled down to Chapel Hill, through the auspices of the Department of Transportation. Trucks began unloading orange-and-white traffic barrels last week near the work sites. Here’s what the $380,000 price tag will buy:

– High-visibility black-and-white-striped crosswalks leading to and from a brick center island; crosswalks span Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard at the bus stops just north of Piney Mountain Road (in front of the Timber Hollow apartment complex) and just south of Piney Mountain (in front of the Shadowood apartment complex); an identical crosswalk-and-center-island combo will span MLK Jr. Boulevard south of Hillsborough Road near the Foster’s Market shopping center;

– High-visibility black-and-white-striped crosswalk without a center island, across Piney Mountain Road where it runs between the Timber Hollow and Shadowood complexes;

– Brick crosswalk and center island crossing MLK Jr. in front of Town Hall;

– High-visibility black-and-white-striped crosswalks with a brick center island, similar to those on MLK Jr. but spanning East Franklin Street; one will be east of Elizabeth Street, the other west of Couch Street.

But nothing is planned near the library. Pedestrians, enter at your own risk.

— Nancy Oates

In the next week or two, every household in the U.S. should receive in the mail a 2010 census form — that’s the plan, at least. The standard census form has nine questions that pertain to how many people live in the household and who they are — name, age, gender, race and ethnicity — then asks for a phone number, in case the Census Bureau has any questions about something on the form. Fill it out, mail it back, end of story.

Unless you’re one of the lucky ones to receive the American Community Survey.

The Census Bureau launched the ACS in 2005, even though it is billed as part of the 2010 census, randomly selecting a new sample of households every month since then to receive the long form that replaces what used to be known as “the long form.” If everyone who receives the ACS completes it and mails it back — which, by law, citizens are required to do — by the end of each year, the Census Bureau should have detailed information from about 20 percent of the total population. The data will be used to make decisions about where to build schools and roads and provide services to the elderly, among other decisions of how to distribute federal money.

But the questions on the ACS certainly give me pause. In among the questions asking about your home (What fuel do you use to heat it? Does it have flush toilets?) and citizenship status (What is the month, day and year of your birth? Are you a U.S. citizen?) are questions that, should the answers fall into the hands of an unscrupulous data entry clerk at the bureau, could cause trouble to the unsuspecting respondent. How much do you earn? What time do you leave for work? Amount of your annual insurance premium? Property taxes? Mortgage payment? Second mortgage? Do you have difficulty doing errands alone? Who takes care of your children?

The ACS does NOT ask for your Social Security number or any bank account numbers, nor does it send any questionnaire via e-mail. If you are contacted by e-mail, no matter how official looking, or are asked for your Social Security number, tax ID number or bank account numbers, you are being scammed. Don’t respond.

The official ACS form is scary enough.

— Nancy Oates

A couple of days ago, we received a water bill in the amount of $186.01 covering the 13,000 gallons of water OWASA claimed we had run through in the past 32 days, far more than the 3,000 to 4,000 gallons we normally use.

Immediately, we suspected Bill Strom.

But first we called OWASA. We explained to the customer service rep that we were bloggers, and perhaps because an image of the stereotypical blogger — sitting in the basement in his underwear, eating Cheetos and showering infrequently — came to mind, she agreed the amount might be a tad high. She pulled up our record and said she’d send a corrected bill. She said she’d had many calls similar to ours that day.

Sensing a conspiracy, we called OWASA’s public affairs administrator, Greg Feller, the next day. He handed us over to customer service manager Jane Showerman — she swears it’s her real name — who said the error was in our bill only. OWASA reads 20,000 meters a month, she wrote in a follow-up e-mail, and the error rate has been well below 1 percent.

Sometimes meter readers come back with a bad read, and OWASA sends them back out for a re-check, she said. “We get three or four we have to re-check in each cycle,” she said, but that’s out of 600 or 700 meters per cycle. Most errors are caught before the bill is sent out.

Last fall, OWASA inadvertently billed customers at the higher peak-season rate after summer ended. OWASA caught its own mistake when checking final bills of customers closing accounts. The utility issued a credit to the 500 or so customers who were overbilled. The error added about $20,000 to OWASA’s bank account prematurely.

So we’re awaiting our corrected bill, and as a precaution, just until we see what we really owe, we’re holding off taking showers.

— Nancy Oates

Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt has access to the town’s credit card for less than three months, and it’s already burning a hole in his pocket.

The man who confessed to relying on his personal credit card for daily living expenses seems quite enthusiastic about maxing out the town’s credit limit. He wants to push ahead on a $16 million library expansion even though the town doesn’t have the money to staff the library adequately – at least, not unless taxes are raised. And I believe the mayor sees that as a perfectly acceptable way to pay.

What the mayor is missing as he contemplates a spending spree is the bills that will all come due at about the same time. Let’s not forget that, in addition to paying for the library debt, the town also is on the hook for the environmental remediation costs related to 140 West Franklin, which would kick in this spring if Ram Development proceeds on its timeline of breaking ground in June. Then, perhaps as early as 2011, the town must make good on its $8 million commitment for underground parking at the site.

Someone on Town Council should pull Hizzoner aside and clue him in to the basics of balancing a checkbook. His dismissal of the notion of living within one’s means comes across as callous in light of the tough budget decisions many of his constituents are forced to make. Now is not the time for the town to “just put it on the card.” Kleinschmidt doesn’t seem willing to listen to Council Member Matt Czajkowski, who has shown an admirably clear head for finances.

Would someone on the council please step up and explain to the mayor that every dollar the town pays in interest on its debt is money that cannot go toward keeping other services we depend on up and running?
–Don Evans

Can anyone out there come up with one compelling reason to vote for the incumbent county commissioners this year?

I need some reassurance here, because I’m looking for a reason not to cast a blanket vote against the incumbents. I need to have faith in their ability to lead the county through what is shaping up as another very tough budget year.

I’ll give you an example of one of the things that has shaken my faith in the incumbents. The board members last year didn’t know the difference between “revenue neutral” and “tax neutral” when they scrambled to reassure taxpayers not to worry about those preposterous property tax revaluations that increased values by as much as 50 percent during some of the worst economic times we’ve seen in a generation. Yes, at a time when paying taxes got harder for a majority of Orange County residents, the board authorized what was in essence a tax hike.

To top that off, one commissioner got all mealy-mouthed when he had to explain what in the world the board members were thinking. “It’s revenue-neutral for the county, but it doesn’t mean it’s going to be revenue-neutral for the citizens,” a chagrined Barry Jacobs told one reporter. “I actually thought I was accomplishing something for people. Even by being revenue-neutral, the majority of people are going to have a tax increase, even though we said we didn’t want a tax increase. That doesn’t really address their concern adequately.”

The sort of economic savvy Jacobs displays is likely to bring about cuts in the operating hours for libraries, the animal shelter, senior centers and other county facilities and limits on the amount of services provided to residents most in need of assistance. Let’s not forget the new facilities, such as the central library in Hillsborough, that came online last year and the extra costs that will accompany them.

I would like to vote for an incumbent who was better at providing far-sighted leadership rather than handing out awkward apologies.

Jacobs will compete with Joal Hall Broun, the Carrboro alderman, and Joe Phelps, the former mayor of Hillsborough. God help Jacobs if he tries to run on his record. Even Commissioner Alice Gordon might want to think twice about running on her record, and she has no one running against her.

–Don Evans

Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt and Chris Moran, the executive director of the Inter-Faith Council for Social Services, sure make it sound as if the vote has already been cast on the new shelter planned for the corner of Homestead Road and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard.

Through the public hearings on the issue as well as zoning questions, Kleinschmidt has gone out of his way to remind folks that no decision has been made and that the hearings were for information only.

And then Hizzoner says at a meeting last week of the Community Leadership Collaboration that the shelter is taking shape off Homestead. And Moran was crowing about just how many men the shelter will be able to cram into the new facility. Well, that all seems a bit disingenuous. Nobody has passed a proposal yet. The IFC has not submitted plans yet. So why go out of your way to refer to it as if it had already been approved?

The IFC plans to hold community meetings in the coming weeks and is to file the permit application in the spring. How many of those community meetings are being held in the very neighborhood directly affected by the plans? Or are the meetings just a crude PR campaign to get support for the plans, kind of a way of getting everybody on board with this thing because “if it’s built off Homestead Road then it won’t go in my neighborhood.”

Seems as if the council has become very adept at cramming something down residents’ throats and then going out of its way to remind them of what they’ve been made to swallow. Either that or Mayor K has the sensitivity of Genghis Khan on bad day. At the very least, his appearance at the collaboration gathering is the clumsiest PR move the mayor’s office has ever tossed out at its residents. You’d think he could at least maintain the illusion of impartiality.
–Don Evans