Carrboro Considers Annexation

Joe,

You write that there's more to it, but then you basically elaborate on how state law allows towns to do it, not on how the towns have a moral right (you used the word "fair") to annex neighborhoods that don't want it.

If you think that homeowners and even real estate agents describe pending annexation at closing, you think differently than I.

And what if they did? England licensed colonies in North America on the premise that it could later assert more direct control. When it tried to do so, were the Americans unjustified in opposing it? Or Ireland unjustified in rebelling at the moment in 1916 when Britain demanded war contributions for which Ireland cared naught? Or American Indians for fighting against agreements signed by a few individuals under duress on their behalf? I do not believe that the carving up of a map by political entity of another should denude residents of self-determination.

In the past few days I have rebutted the list of justifications that you and others have cited. I'm certainly willing to debate those, but I won't cede the debate just because state law enables forced annexation.

Budget & Taxes addendum

In case there are any questions about what Carrboro would do with increased revenues, here's one thought.

The single greatest budgetary failure of Mike Nelson's nine-year tenure as mayor has been his failure to negotiate joint development with Chapel Hill's new public works station. Mark K. is on record on OP (Carrboro thread, May 2004): "I'm sure though it was never a situation that Chapel Hill refused to allow Carrboro to use the facility."

I don't know how urgently Carrboro needs a new public works station. But I'm quite sure that although it would have cost a lot to share Chapel Hill's, it will cost millions more than that to construct a separate one.

Jeff, I didn't use the word "fair". I quoted
Ed Vickery's use of the word. I do believe
that people who choose to center their
lives on a town but also choose to live
just outside the town in part to avoid its
taxes should be prepared eventually to pay
for the services they receive from the town
when they are annexed. And yes they
do receive town services. If you live
outside CH but spend your work day,
shopping and recreation time within CH,
you certainly use town services. If you
walk down Franklin Street and throw a
pice of trash in a trash can, who
picks up the trash? If you have a
car accident, who comes to your aid?
When you drive on the town roads, who
does their maintenance?

As far as your comment about homeowners
and real estate agents describing annexation
differently, I react this way.
Real estate agents are salemen; they
will say only those things that will
help close the deal unless
required by law -- as consumers, we
all know this. Many times in my tenure
on the council, people came to the
podium and justified some stand by the
phrase "my realtor said it was true" when
it was in fact not, and
while we were all sympathetic, we knew
that caveat emptor does apply.

There is one thing that I will never
understand. For most people their home
is easily their largest financial and personal investment. Yet they do so
little research before they buy. People
will spend many hours researching a car purchase but not enough hours researching
a home purchase, a purchase that costs
15 or 20 times as much. Just like the
buyer wouldn't buy a home without having
it checked for termites or the condition
of the roof or
HVAC, he or she should make
a phone call to the town planning dept
to find out what the plans for his future
house and lot are. As I read and listen
to the arguments by people against
this annexation, what I see is many
people trying to rationalize why they
didn't do their research at the time
they made their purchase.

As far as
people disagreeing with the values of
the current Carrboro Alderman, they
are entitled to their opinions of course,
and to express these opions,
but I fail to see the relevance to the
annexation.
Many of us dislike
President Bush and disagree with his
values, but he is still our president,
and we can express our opinion of
him at election time. The same applies
to Mayor Nelson and the aldermen.

If the present citizens of Carrboro knew all of the annexation facts, I think that they might vote against it. The annexation area, Area B in particular, doesn't fit with the Town of Carrboro, and annexing it would contradict the stated values of the town. The Carrboro “Vision” posted on the town web site is all about a walkable downtown, bike paths, and connectivity. The only practical way to get from my neighborhood (Fox Meadow) to downtown is to get in the car and drive for fifteen minutes. There are no bike paths, sidewalks, or bus stops anywhere near us, and there are none planned. Any such services would have to traverse parts of Chapel Hill to get to us.

The character of Area B is radically different from downtown Carrboro, and even from the rest of Carrboro and from Area A. Our population density is 1.88 persons per acre, under the “urban standards requirement” of 2.3. Traffic is so light that kids safely play in the street. There are deer in my yard every day. I have to use a flashlight to walk from my driveway to my front door at night. At the informational meeting, there were so many comments about seeing the stars at night that Roy Williford dryly commented “I'm not hearing much support for streetlights”.

Carrboro is a fine town, but we don't live there. We all realize that annexation is inevitable, but it's premature for our area. Please wait until the town grows enough to actually connect with us.

I hope the Aldermen will take a drive down Tallyho Trail before they vote on the annexation.

Are Areas A and B contiguous to other incorporated areas of Carrboro? I went to the landfill the other day and it seems like there's a lot of 'country' still remaining between Homestead Road and Eubanks.

So, accordingJoe C's logic--only people who pay taxes to a town should use that town's services. And by shopping, driving, working in a town one uses those services. Therefore ONLY people who pay taxes in particular towns should shop or work there. uh huh. THAT'LL be good for the tax bases.

I'll remeber that the next time I need a back-pack or hiking boots. I can only shop at the Trail Shop--NOT Towsnend Bertram--becasue I live and pay taxes in CHAPEL HILL not CARRBORO. Guess I need to quit my job over at Southern States. Thank goodness the salon where I get my hair cut is in Chapel Hill. But I'll never be able to eat another meal at Provence---bummer. But WAIT! The people who OWN Provence live on my street--so they willhave to move their restaruant to Chapel Hill! Yippeee!

But where does catalog shopping fit in with all of this? PLEASE EXPLAIN!

melanie

Aproximately 40% of the people who live in this area commute outside the area to work, mainly RTP. I imagine Morrisville could make the argument that it should annex us--that we live in Chapel Hill in order to be in close proximity to its economic engine that makes this area a good place to live.

How far away does someone have to live from town before they aren't "enjoying the benefits of Chapel Hill for free", and should not have to pay "your fair share.” (Ed Vickery). What about me enjoying the benefits of Raleigh's museums or Orange County's dairy farms?

We can take this analogy even further. There is a thread on this board regarding development in North Chatham County in which the discussion starter, Rickie White, made this statement:
“The Chatham County political scene's decay means more than most of us want to admit. We've depended upon that large forested county to stay large, unpopulated, and forested so that we can uphold our own quality of life in southern Orange County. Part of the allure of living in the western edge of the Triangle here is that we can go north, south, or west and hit farmland and rivers and general pastoral ambiance and breathe. That's all about to change in a big way now that the Chatham board of commissioners is firmly under the control of uber-pro-development forces. “ (Rickie White, Props to Chatham Residents, OP Discussion Board)

Maybe Chatham County should be annexing Chapel Hill since we benefit from their rural character.

You're going to have to use a better argument than Ed Vickery's to convince me about why areas that don't want to be annexed should be.

Joe C wrote: "As I read and listen to the arguments by people against this annexation, what I see is many people trying to rationalize why they didn't do their research at the time they made their purchase." It's hard to research something you don't know exists. It sounds like you are gently calling us stupid when I would argue that we are simply uninformed enough to be stupid. ;)

Throughout this argument I feel there has been an underlying prejudice against rural/suburban lifestyle choices. And it's not the first time the dichotomy has framed the discussions on this forum (merger especially). In this particular discussion, I hear urban dwellers claiming that rural/suburban dwellers make use of urban amenities but are unwilling to pay for them. Yet don't urban dwellers depend on us for water, food, and outdoor recreation? Why can't we just trade off amenities without the accusations? Other lifestyles seem to deserve adamant protection on this forum, but not a rural lifestyle. Can one only be an environmentalist by living in a high density area?

One more question for those who are so supportive of annexation without the support of the community being annexed, what's the difference between annexation and taking via eminent domain?

Joe C wrote: “As I read and listen to the arguments by people against this annexation, what I see is many people trying to rationalize why they didn't do their research at the time they made their purchase.”

Can we agree that this same comment should apply to those who purchased homes around Horace Williams Airport long after it was built and now want the airport closed?

I think those people need to accept responsibility for their choices if you're expecting the residents of Rogers Road area to do so. At least people could see the airport! I agree with Terri, it's hard to research something you don't even know exists.

Lest I get labeled as pro-airport , neo-conservative, a religious fanatic, or soemthing else , my comment is not a statement of my personal opinon about the airport. I am just trying to point out a inconsistency --on the one hand, many of the same members of this forum who are arguing "let the buyer beware " on the annexation question don't hold the same opinion when it comes to the Airport or other town issues.

I think we should call it what it is--the Town of Carrboro, and yes Chapel Hill, and yes, other towns too, generally annex areas for the purposes of revenue growth. I think the town would have a more productive dialogue with those residents if they would engage in some straight talk, rather than hide behind ordinances, high-minded "you're not paying for the quality of life you get" rhetoric, or "you should have known" finger pointing.

D'OH! I'll "remember" of course. I really miss the preview function...

Joe,

You quoted the word "fair" to support your position. So you did "use" it.

People who work and/or shop in Chapel Hill-Carrboro are supporting their economies. The overwhelming majority of people who work/shop from outside are not from proposed annexation areas. Also, it's almost vindictive to annex those few in the name of the many that can never be annexed.

And look at one of Chapel Hill's next big projects -- a controversial downtown development that will lower the ratio of parking:commerce (or so it's hoped). People living miles away can't be excited about paying more taxes to focus on downtown development that makes it less accessible.

Here's a story about someone who did do some research about at least some of the surrounding planning. Since that particular home purchase, the areas later annexed by Carrboro for Winmore have been substantially rezoned, and Carrboro has pushed hard to make traffic arteries out of winding residential 25-mph streets. So much for advance research.

Which is exactly why local self-determination in this case should trump anything else. What's more, these residents are even scheduled to be ineligible for the next election. So your invitation for them to participate in democracy ex-post-facto will have to be postponed.

Instead of the homeowners of "rationalizing" their position, I'd say it's annexation's supporters doing the rationalizing. For all the freedoms and civil liberties that the dominant political culture around here is supposed to support, it now retreats to legalistic circular logic in referencing a 1987 "agreement" that few people signed, and even those with presumably little choice.

The Chapel Hill Alternative

Two metaphors. (If the metaphors are to be criticized, perhaps something more original would be good, not just the circular logic that it's O.K. to annex, because a long time ago the towns reminded people that state law allows it and at the time those people acknowledged the state law.)

If I referred to two dominant powers carving up a map with no recourse for the indigenous populations to change their destinies, would you first think of Chapel Hill and Carrboro?

If seventeen years ago your parents committed you to a marriage, and in your childhood you agreed, but now you wanted to choose someone else, should you be able to do that?

While I am generally reluctant to resort to repetition after a point has been made, Jeff's persistence in using the '17 year old marriage' analogy in describing the Joint Planning Agreement seems to indicate that he either chose not to read -- or simply ignore -- the body of some of the posts above dealing with this issue, resulting in a conclusion that is misleading, at best.

This analogy asserts that the Joint Planning Agreement -- the central document governing land-use planning in southern Orange County -- was cooked up like a roast going into a Ronco rotisserie: "Just Set it and Forget It", leaving transition area residents at its mercy for seventeen years. As has been stated above, this is simply not the case. The JPA has been reviewed, amended and reaffirmed on several occasions: Originally operationalized in 1987, Amended in 1998 to incorporate the provisions of the Small Area Plan for the Northern Transition Area, the rezoning of the Winmore tracts in 2001, and annexation provisions reaffirmed in 2003. At each of these occasions, (excepting the Winmore rezoning which required action by Carrboro and Orange County) action was required by all three jurisdictions --most notably the Board of County Commissioners, acting as the direct representatives of citizens outside the incorporated municipal boundaries.

Again, at each of these milestones, citizens had the opportunity to petition the Commissioners to change the agreement, decline the Amendments or decline to reaffirm its provisions. In each case, again, acting as the direct agents of their constituents, the county commissioners chose to uphold, and reaffirm the agreement. As such, the idea that folks in the transition area have been 'trapped' in this marriage, with no opportunity for recourse or redress, just doesn't hold water.

Cheers,
Alex

"Again, at each of these milestones, citizens had the opportunity to petition the Commissioners to change the agreement."

Alex, one of the milestones you mentioned was in 2003, last year. I do not believe that if only these residents had asked for a change last year, they could've gotten it, and that somehow one year later it's suddenly too late.

It also seems of little import if the county-wide Board of Commissioners handed over a slice of a map, especially when state law says the County can't obstruct annexation anyway, that it's not even the County's to hand over.

If this is your strongest hand, your case is essentially one of might makes right.

Jeff-
"And look at one of Chapel Hill's next big projects – a controversial downtown development that will lower the ratio of parking:commerce (or so it's hoped). People living miles away can't be excited about paying more taxes to focus on downtown development that makes it less accessible."

I assume you're talking about the redevelopment efforts for parking lots 2 and 5. If so, both premises are incorrect. The Council Committee on Lots 2 & 5 made a committment long ago, before even the consultant was hired, to replace existing parking and to ensure that the new developments were provided with additional parking in accordance with future use. Therefore in fact 1) the parking to commerce ratio is not being lowered and 2) it is not "hoped" that it will be.

Dear Representatives and Senators,

On the Carrboro Town attorney's statements on the Winmore Development and the lawsuit against Carrboro, I will defer all comments to Mr. Brian Voyce, the private citizen that sued Carrboro.

On the offensive artwork, Mr. Brough simply has not conveyed all the facts to you. He claims the artwork was merely on display, and then removed. News accounts clearly indicate that the art was on display in the building (one states in the Boardroom), and after public outrage, Mayor Nelson insisted on placing it in his office, and defended his position. See the picture below. Notice that Mr. Brough did not convey this to you.

A picture is worth a thousand words, so what does this say to each of you on the ability of Carrboro leadership to represent our values? Would you want this for your family? It makes me think Carrboro leadership needs a fence around it to protect everyone else from it.

Political leadership that holds these ideals, does not represent our values, and I think the majority of your constituents would agree. When people are treated as property, as Carrboro now treats us, indeed it is a very short path to injustice, and history is full of such examples. Again, I site Carrboro's handling of the Winmore deployment, choosing to crush our elected representatives, and then publicly mocking us by suggesting voluntary annexation into Carrboro so they could represent us. I am not against annexation, but I need to know that the city that's annexing my home will serve and protect my interests.

There are very few opportunities where legislators can so easily reach out, and do what they know to be, the right thing. Again, we ask you to help protect our values, stop Carrboro leadership from annexing our neighborhoods, and allow us to continue with our path of self-determination through voluntary annexation in Chapel Hill. Please intervene, and save our neighborhoods from extremists in Carrboro.

Thank you for your time.

Best regards,

Mark Gill

Huh?

Mr. Gill,

I feel the way in which the art you speak of was handled speaks very highly of the "ability of Carrboro leadership to represent our values." While I agree with those arguing against involuntary annexation, I do endorse your rationale against it. I do not believe elected officials should be serving as art censors by determining what is or is not acceptable for public display. That which you find as acceptable may be offensive to others---where do you draw the line? Clearly your values do not honor multiple perspectives. Tolerance, Mr. Gill, tolerance.

Mark K., If you say that existing public parking capacity will be maintained and that new parking will be added for the new CH Lots 2&5 developments, I believe you. I'm still skeptical whether the added parking capacity would actually be adequate to the new developments, but I certainly haven't studied this, and I'm sure that you have thoroughly. So I'll trust your judgment on the parking capacity -- really -- and hold my skepticism on this one unless I ever take the time to learn a lot of the details. Thanks.

The solution... merge the towns.

Electoral Consequences.

Carrboro officials are trying to avoid the electoral consequences by scheduling annexation to be completed right after the 2005 elections. I'm sure someone could produce an argument that it's logistical, etc. But really, this annexation has been plotted for 17 years, so it should not be necessary to schedule it right after an election.

How about waiting to vote on it until the next BOA, 2005-07, with a BOE vote in early 2006 regarding a proposed annexation date around November 1, 2007? (If there has to be a motion at all.)

Oops!
I was in error in my earlier post in asserting that the Orange County Board of Commissioners were required to sign off on the rezoning of the properties associated with the Winmore development.

The first question sure to be asked, is who brought to bear, or 'caught' me in this: The answer is, that my own review of my own posts, and the record, revealed that I was in error--No more, No less. As such, I offer the following clarification:

The facts of the matter are that the property owners requested, and were granted, voluntary annexation into the Town of Carrboro. Subsequent to annexation, the Town of Carrboro was the sole authority (with a courtesy review by the County Board of Commissioners) to determine zoning. The property owners submitted a voluntary rezoning application using the Village-Mixed-Use provisions of the Carrboro Land Use Ordinance .

The result was the Winmore application that, while controversial in many quarters, was determined by staff, Carrboro's Advisory Boards, and the Board of Aldermen, to be consistent with the principles outlined in the Small Area Plan.

As an alternative to standard -high -- income, sprawling subdivision patterns, Advisory Boards and the Board of Aldermen found that the applicants brought forward a plan including true mixed-use, an affordability component, and measures for preservation of the Bolin Creek corridor.

The Town's review of this development, and ensuing demands, will ensure that Carrboro values--affordability , as an essental element of social justice--, and sustainability, as a general principle -- will be a necessary component of this, any new development.

Did we get it right in our review, and the ultimate outcome? I think so.

Did I get the characterization of how it all came about wrong on my previous post? Incontrovertibly. Sorry, gang.
But the final result has, in my view, been positive.

I live in the NTA and have just read this thread.
A few things...
When I bought my house about 4 years ago, my real estate agent did tell me that Carrboro would annex me in the future.
Well, the future sure got here fast!!
Quite honestly, I don't mind paying more taxes to live where I live.
What I do mind is that Carrboro's tax rate is higher than Chapel Hill's. I mind that Carrboro has less to offer my family, but costs more to be a part of.
I would and could feel a lot better about annexation by Carrboro, if Carrboro could quickly find a way to keep its tax structure and rates the same as Chapel Hill's.
I also hope that the alderman realize that when annexed I won't be lobbying to spend Carrboro's money to make downtown more artsy and healthy.
Like so many of my neighbors, I rarely venture into Carrboro and supporting expensive amenities for the downtown is just not something that matters to me. Spend my money on the poor.
And, yes, it's all about money. Sadly, Carrboro cannot support its vision. Annexation or no annexation, the Carrboro vision will die. The vision concentrates too many resources on the so-called ‘hip' Carrboro haves: a crowd I sometimes perceive as lacking acceptance of people who chose a balanced approach to life.

While this forum is not the equivalent of face to face discussion, I find it somewhat troubling that non-supporters of annexation were accused of being freeloaders, uninformed consumers (rightly so in my case), etc. but then when legitimate questions were asked of the friends of annexation, those individuals either disappeared or chose to ignore the questions.

Questions for pro-annexers:

1. What's the difference between buying/not knowing/complaining about annexation and buying/complaining about the airport?
http://orangepolitics.org/2004/09/carrboro-considers-annexation/#comment...

2. What's the difference between suburban dwellers using city resources and urban dwellers using rural resources?
http://orangepolitics.org/2004/09/carrboro-considers-annexation/#comment...

3. Why annex an area that doesn't fit with the high-density, urban plan Carrboro has been promoting for itself?
http://orangepolitics.org/2004/09/carrboro-considers-annexation/#comment...

Terri, I don't know that I can answer your questions, but in regards to number 3, today's Chapel Hill Herald says that most of those neighborhoods were actually built according to Carrboro zoning regulations. So, then, one could argue those areas do fit quite well with Carrboro.

Here's the relevant snippet from their editorial:
"Ever since its [refers to the joint planning agreement] signing, it's been understood that the neighborhoods at issue would one day become part of Carrboro.

"Indeed, with only two exceptions-Fox Meadow and the Highlands-these neighborhoods were developed in full accordance with Carrboro's land-use regulations and under the town's close supervision.

"This last fact, by the way, undercuts the claims of some annexation opponents who say they have no connection with Carrboro and would derive no benefit from their association with the town. Their neighborhoods exist in their present form largely because the town and its Board of Aldermen willed it to be so. Whether they recognize it or not, they've already received town services. "

I'm not suggesting I'm a "friend of annexation," as I'm not sure where I stand, though I have to say the resistance to it from folks who would be annexed willingly by Chapel Hill baffles me.

This was another part of their editorial that seemed pretty reasonable to me:

"The town's annexation push accords with the well-settled policies of both the state and this community. For 45 years, state law has held that towns and cities, not counties, should control urban development and provide urban services. ... What's at stake here is a community's right and authority to shape and control its long-term development. That, not the emotions of the moment, is what should dictate the legislature's decision to stay out of the argument."

Here's the link:
http://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/chhedits/57-543868.html

I'll take #2: The difference is that everyone in the county is paying county taxes, regardless of whether they live in (and are also taxed by) a municipality.

Ditto Joan on #3.

Is "building according to code" the same as fitting into a high density urban model? The neighborhoods under current discussion live way too far from town to walk? The town isn't planning to put in sidewalks or bike paths from N Greensboro down to Eubanks on old 86. Are these neighbors zoned for mixed use?

From what I can tell on the map there are other areas between the town limits and these two neighborhoods. The map I saw was very small, so I may be mistaken, but it doesn't look like these areas are contiguous to current city limits.

Point taken about the county taxes Ruby.

Terri, my answer to number 1 is that
there is no difference.

I agree with Ruby on number 2.

Mark Chilton: "I mean what raw material do we force the Highlands to export to Carrboro?"

Cash, in taxes. It's a modern world. And Carrboro's intent seems to leave the exploited disenfranchised for one cycle.

European imperialism did not always involve massacres and slavery. Much of it was about economic exploitation. (And the Europeans always found local collaborators.)

Terri, number one is a good question. (What's the difference between buying/not knowing/complaining about annexation and buying/complaining about the airport?)

I was recently discussing the annexation issue with a friend who is moving to an older neighborhood in Carrboro.

"How should these people have known about the Joint Planning Agreement when they bought their homes?" she asked.

"Good question," I said. "But let me ask you this: Can either of your new neighbors build an additional house on their lots?"

"No," she said.

"How do you know?" I asked.

"Because I called the planning department and asked," she explained.

I am not saying that this little tale holds all the answers, but it seems like it is worth considering.

Unlike some folks on this thread, I think this issue is complex.

It is notable that my friend is moving to an older neighborhood that does not have private covenants. She (and others) might not have called the planning department if it had been a newer neighborhood where infill is typically prohibited by restrictive covenants.

And we should note that most of those who moved to Annexation Areas A and B were moving to new neighborhoods. However, they were also moving to developments that were advertised at the time as "COUNTY TAXES AND CHAPEL HILL/CARRBORO SCHOOLS." to quote the 1998 promotional information on the Highlands North as archived on the Triangle MLS, to pick but one example.

On the one hand, you can see how people would take the statement "COUNTY TAXES" at face value, but on the other, the ad kind of begs the question - How can it be county taxes but city schools? And of course their is a good answer that does not have to do with annexation. But it seems like ads of this nature would bring the question of the municipal boundaries up in some buyers' minds.

There are LOTS of areas that have county taxes and city schools... and not just outside Carrboro. I have friends who live south of town off of Old Lystra--they have county taxes. They pay the extra school tax. County taxes/city schools is not an unusual arrangement.

People OUGHT tpo check, however. There are 10 acres of undeveloped land right behind my house. We called the planning dept to findout what it was zoned before we purchased it. It's zoned one house/acre. I'll have no issue if it gets developed--at one house per/acre. IF, however, someone tries to get it zoned for higher density, I'll be fighting. Yup, I'll be one of those awful NIMBY's. Because, you see, I DID do my research!

I have to say--I have little sympathy for the folks who fuss about the airport. It WAS there first. I am glad they made the flying club move. Anyone else notice there hasn't been an accident since?

I'm still waiting for Joe C. to tell me whether I should quit my job at Southern States--since I reside in Chapel Hill--and if I'm supposed to quit shopping at Carrborro stores since I don't pay taxes to Carrboro (guess sales taxes don't count...)

Mark--thanks for acknowledging the complexity of this situation. I was the first to post on this thread due to the confusion of a single neighborhood trying to adjust to two different zoning authorities. After learning more, I've become concerned over the concept of annexation. The process for how it should occur and which municipality can take what is very clear. But how novice or (like me) ignorant home buyers become aware of the process/possibility is still problematic. I agree that the county taxes/CHCCS district is a red flag--except for those of us who don't have kids and could care less which school district we live in.

If buyer ignorance is taken off the table, there are still some problematic aspects to annexation. But to reduce those problems, educating home buyers of the possibilities seems like a proactive way in which the town could avoid future controversies. Helping those neighborhoods that are split between zoning authorities could be rolled into the same education program. If I wanted to propose such an education program, where should I start--planning and zoning, one of the advisory boards, or the BOA?

Mark Ch.,

But even people in the Highlands, after they moved there, watched Carrboro RE-zone the space next door. So much for checking in advance.

Jeff

And Mark, I don't think that means that you no longer object to usurous payday lenders, since they not only advertise but also charge their fees up front, no call to the Planning Department required.

If anyone would like to know more about the location, zoning districts, etc. of the developments under consideration, Carrboro provides GIS maps and tools at:
http://gis02.ci.carrboro.nc.us/website/zone/viewer.htm?ActiveLayer=14. To find the developments, I made Apartments and Subdivisions visible from the right hand menu and then clicked on the i (information) tool and clicked that onto the area of the map I wanted to know about.

To answer my own question from earlier, the developments under consideration are contiguous to other developments, specifically Lake Hogan Farms and Winmore. However, the new areas are quite a big more densely populated than surrounding developments.

In my effort to educate myself about what being annexed by Carrboro could mean to me, I went searching for a document that might explain how the NTA figures into Carrboro's future. Though I found nothing that specifically addresses annexation and existing neighborhoods in the NTA, I did find 'Carrboro Vision 2020' http://www.townofcarrboro.org/pzi/PDFs/Vision2020.pdf Pages 27 through 35 are highly entertaining but will make even the best of women yearn for gas station food and baseball games on TV...
Seriously, is there something I can read that explains how Carrboro's vision relates to me out here? I feel so out of the loop...or was it hoola hoop...

Carrboro doesn't seem to retain it's Mill Village history or working class culture after 2010, do they Mary? Wonder where all those folks will go when town is taken over by yuppies? (That's the same question I asked myself about the inner city folks in St. Louis once that area was gentrified.)

A vote tonight would say it all…
I just re-read Joan's ‘relevant snippets' from Sunday's CHH editorial and, sadly, the point of view sounds just like master talk: ‘you are in my jurisdiction…you use my services for free…your objections are unjustified…'
Who needs dialogue? I should just be obedient.
Does Carrboro remember what dialogue is: joining many points of view for a more complete vision of the world???
Can Carrboro hear me? The area I live in doesn't have a natural affinity for Carrboro despite some jurisdictional line that was drawn down a historically black neighborhood years ago. Just look at my access road into Carrboro: Estes Drive Ext.—hardly user friendly.
But facts are facts. Beat me with your ‘facticity'.
On a more positive note, I can console myself with the knowledge that soon I will have a voice in Carrboro's vision (after Winmore was pushed through), and I can help make biker bars, shooting ranges, fast food chains and gangsta clubs part of futuristic Carr Town North.
Seriously, Carrboro, how about a little PR? Make me believe that you care about me. Make me believe that the diversity you seek is not just cosmetic. Make me believe that you appreciate my edge. Make me believe that you welcome people who shop at Walmart, that it is ok to dislike Weaver Street… that you embrace people who don't share your 2020 Vision…
Just please don't tell me that you only want me because you need my money for an oppressive vision.

Does anyone know if the annexation vote will happen at the hearing tonight, or at a later date? Will there be a single vote for both Areas "A" and "B", or two separate votes?