Chapel Hill Herald, Saturday September 10, 2005
Last Thursday night, the Orange County Democratic Women sponsored the first forum for Chapel Hill Town Council candidates. Despite scant publicity other than to OCDW members, the meeting room at the Southern Human Services Building was pretty full and a sharp audience provided plenty of good questions. I moderated the discussion.
Here is my impression of how well the candidates succeeded in furthering their campaigns
that night.
The big winner has to be Bill Thorpe. Many Chapel Hillians are unfamiliar with Thorpe's previous two terms on the Council.
He spoke forcefully and eloquently, tying his experience from two decades ago to today's concerns. Particularly effective was the reminder of his vote against approving the Dean Dome out of concern for its impact on a neighborhood that today is not much more than a memory. He assured voters that he would always look out for their interests.
Will Raymond, who has made his mark primarily as a diligent and effective critic, came across as affable, knowledgeable, and very into it. When a question on the budget came his way, he was like a kid in a candy shop.
“Thank you!†he exclaimed, his eyes lighting up. He rattled off a number of cost saving ideas he has developed, ranging from improved computer purchasing policy to better procurement for cell phone service.
Walker Rutherford has been discounted so far because of his inexperience and the “R†for Republican label he wears. It was surprising to find his answers pretty consistent with those of other candidates, particularly his disdain for Wal-Mart style big box.
Laurin Easthom had the poise of a candidate who's been campaigning for several months already. She showed off her transportation acumen by placing the question of road connectivity in the broader context of the overall transportation system. She made a strong case for supporting a downtown Children's Museum as a draw for families, grandparents, and visitors.
An incumbent has a big advantage in having spent 20 or so hours a week for the past four years thinking about the issues. Mark Kleinschmidt was thus able to provide some of the most thoughtful answers, particularly his evocative description of the difference between “good†growth and “bad†growth. He handily defended the council's record on property taxes and the diligence of its efforts to minimize tax increases.
The other incumbent in the race, Ed Harrison came across as rambling even with a 90 second time limit for answers.
Despite his insistence that transportation is his bread-and-butter issue (“I like to walk and bike,†said Ed), his answers were vague on a couple of questions on neighborhood road connectivity.
Jason Baker, like Rutherford, needs to show voters something to overcome his lack of experience. Although he spoke well, his answers were generally of the me-too variety. He did call on UNC to build 8000 residences at Carolina North rather than the planned 1800--an intriguing idea but one that needs fleshing out to be comprehensible
Robin Cutson may be hoping that Mayor Kevin Foy does not participate in many more forums with the Council candidates. Taking a page from the anti-tax right, she blamed high property tax rates for the problem of housing affordability. Not so, countered Foy, pointing out that, for a $200k house, the Chapel Hill tax amounts to “only $1000†($1160 actually).
In an interview Friday, Robert Dowling, director of Orange Community Housing & Land Trust, said “I agree [with Foy]… it's the $200k price that keeps them from home-ownership.†He pointed out that the average price for a new home is now well over $300k
Addressing affordable housing again, Cutson advocated for a living wage for UNC workers, a noble goal but not one the town council can readily address.
She overlooked that, even if you doubled the wages of UNC's lowest paid workers, they could not afford a home costing much more than $120k. Other than nonprofits like OCHLT and Habitat, who is building those in Chapel Hill?
Foy passed up the opportunity for another slam dunk here. He could have described how he, Bill Strom, and, more recently, Sally Greene have led the council to require more affordable housing from developers.
Mayor Foy comes in last in this analysis since, lacking a serious challenger, he hardly fits my criteria of needing to help his campaign. Nonetheless, it should be said that he was clear, articulate, passionate, informed, and very mayoral.
Issues:
Comments
Without getting too much
Without getting too much into a who-said-what-to-whom-when, actually, the transit service extension has been in the works for some months---I would not have agreed to the annexation without that commitment. We're just working out the kinks to ensure it's usable for the entire community (It's called 'problem-solving').
As a practical matter, 'de-annexation' wouldn't consolidate the planning districts---the Chapel Hill side would remain in their Planning jurisdiction, and the Carrboro side, Carrboro's. That's controlled by the Boundary agreement, and the Joint Planning Area land Use plan, in which the ordinances of the respective jurisdictions still apply.
On the water connection eligibility issues, Fred brought the problem up when we discussed these issues a couple of months ago, and Robert helped clarify what the hangup was. As I said, James is working on a solution. Part of the issue is to clarify exactly what funding sources are being used, and how restrictions on the funding sources used are preventing the work from getting done.
As to the jurisdictional (Carrboro/Chapel Hill) question, we have been cognizant of this recommendation in the plan since it's inception and agree with the fundamental concept of preserving the integrity of the neighborhood as a historical entity, and have set up a subcommittee (Joal and I---see Mary's suggestion above) to begin discussions with Chapel Hill. Chapel Hill was not willing to begin these discussions until they'd returned from their break, and could arrive at a formal course of action to begin the dialogue---Fair enough. The current state of affairs does not 'violate' the plan, as it's just that ---a plan---which is a series of recommendations, but an issue that has yet to be resolved. Frankly, I don't know what others have been told, but in my conversations with community leaders as well as with other friends who live there (shout out to George and Keith) , that, as a practical matter, folks really don't care about that issue per se. The real interest is in getting these services on line. That's the problem we're working.
And, finally, Yeah, let's talk about the SAP. Katrina, you have a lot of vague criticisms about density and growth in general, but I don't seem to be able to glean from this, exactly what your alternative notions are---If it's to jettison the basic concepts of mixed-use, and urban form, and return to the previous condition---Large homes on large lots sprawling to the Rural Buffer---which is, to essentially toss the fundamental concepts of the plan, and its operationalizing ordinances, let's hear it, and have that conversation.
Cheers,
Alex
Pages