Tonight the Chapel Hill Town Council will hold public hearings on Greenbridge and University Village, will review some concept plans which I know nothing about, and then will hear a petition from the Planning Board about the process for updating the Comprehensive Plan... about which I have something to say. (Here's tonight's Council agenda.)Greenbridge is the radical plan for what I think would be the tallest building in Orange County - though I doubt that height record will stand for long. We have discussed this proposal here on OP. There are many complex issues involved, but I think most people's opinions on it comes down to two things:1. Whether you are invested in a transit-friendly future Chapel Hill that allows for some growth but no sprawl, and2. Whether you believe the developers claims about the environmental benefits (and financial feasibility) of their green-building approach.There have also been concerns about the economic and cultural impact of Greenbridge on Northside. While I am extremely sympathetic to these questions, I just don't know how to answer them. Perhaps the Council should have included the block south of Rosemary in the Northside NCD? There's just not much that can be done about this at this point in the process. And I also think there will be some benefits of living near this development and the amenities it will offer.University Village is the latest project by Meadowmont developer Roger Perry. He proposes to tear down the existing University Inn motel on NC 54 and create a mixed-use development with 238,904 2 of residential space, 120,214 ft2 of office, 58,487 ft2 of retail, and a 70,000 2 hotel. Now you probably know that I am not inclined toward agreement with Mr. Perry. But as I mentioned during our Planning Board review, I actually think this is a pretty good site plan. It certainly blows Meadowmont's design out of the water, but it also goes further by orienting itself toward the planned transit station as well as the street, and enhancing the pedestrian network of the Glen Lennox area. There's no doubt it will clog traffic up around that section of 54, but it could also have some beneficial effects by putting so many residences and jobs close to transit and each other.Finally, I want to talk a little about this petition from the Planning Board. It's not available from the town web site, but you can download it from OP here (MS Word, 75k). Over the past year, the Town has woven a tangled little web around the Comprehensive Plan. When it was written in 2000, it recommended revising the plan in 5 years. At last year's Council retreat, it was decided that the Planning Board should coordinate an effort (by the staff) to collect input from other boards and the public about what the type and scale of changes to the plan should be. As we undertook this process, the Board found that while some parts of the plan needed only minor updating, other essential parts either needed a serious overhaul or simply didn't exist. We came to the conclusion that the CP re-write should be significant in scope, and that it should begin with public input and developing a community vision for the future of the Town. However, the Council decided on a different approach, which basically involved the staff revising a few chapters at a time and then the Planning Board reviewing them as they went along. The Planning Board bristled at having to execute a process which was counter to our recommendation. (We went through a similar problem with Neighborhood Conservation Districts, which is was amicably resolved at our meeting last night through the creative work of town staff.) We have had several additional discussions with the planning staff and with our Council liaison Sally Greene to figure out how to proceed. Ultimately we settled on a compromise solution, which we are presenting to the Council tonight thanks entirely to the hard work of Planning Board Vice Chair George Cianciolo (author of the memo which you can only get here at OP and at Town Hall in person tonight).Also, this weekend the Council has their 2007 retreat, during which they generally set priorities for the year. Get your comments in while you can...
Issues:
Comments
And more... Granted I
And more...
Granted I haven't been around that long but between tonight and last month's public hearing I think this is the most people, from the widest area of town, that I have ever heard speak in support of a Chapel Hill development.
And Will thinks it's too
And Will thinks it's too big.
Thus concludes public commentary.
To be specific, it's too
To be specific, it's too tall for the location.
Further, tying the new zoning modification that sets a precedent for 135' and 4.0 ratio development along the "Rosemary Renaissance" corridor that we'll have to abide by to Greensbridge is maybe good political strategy but stinks as policy.
Tom, you know the difference between modifying the zoning ordinance and granting a SUP - the latter is particular to a project and represents a stronger bargaining position for positive changes.
Essentially, approving TC-3 as part of the Greenbridge process stinks.
The last point I was trying to make was "Where's the NCD process for Downtown?" We've have a slew of development projects sliding through a process well-tuned for those in the "in crowd" - developers, staff, Council, affordable housing advocates.
How many citizens know the dramatic shift TC-3 is bringing? Why aren't we doing a better job pulling people into the process instead of designing a "comfy" exclusionary process.
Tom, how much time did the
Tom, how much time did the planning board spend discussing the vertical profile of Lot #5 and Greenbridge? From the notes I have it seems TC-3 slid quickly on through....
Will, What would you suggest
Will,
What would you suggest the town do differently to engage more people that it is not doing right now?
We spent two meetings
We spent two meetings discussing the various issues surrounding Greenbridge.
Use various technologies to
Use various technologies to show these projects to-scale within their end-context.
Many more "worker-friendly" meetings at each stage on the changing face of Downtown. Seek out members of our community that "normally" wouldn't engage in the process. Pro actively provide information "early and often".
We publish the pretty pictures the development crew provides - have staff provide context and critique and get the delta, if there is one (think Church St. promenade for Lot #5), out there...
There's a lot of "rah rah" going on with some of our elected folk - lots of pro - I'm not seeing or hearing a lot of con. "It's all good." Is it really "all good"? They're going to pass a modification to the zoning with hardly a debate but that darn 4' bus strip - oh my gosh....
We're setting the groundwork for an upheaval in Downtown's profile comparable to UNC's recent %40+ build-out.
UNC did a better job (partially because they had to, partially because they're working on community outreach) of communicating the scale and breadth of change.
Whoa? Some props from Bill Thorpe....
It's easy to say we should
It's easy to say we should seek out members of our community that normally wouldn't engage in the process and I would hope anyone agrees with that sentiment, but how do you do it? I don't think more meetings is the answer, we have no shortage of meetings. It's easy to talk about but how do you do it?
Bill Strom is spreading
Bill Strom is spreading fairy dust. He knows that I never said all of Downtown was going TC-3. But if we do it for one plat, why we wouldn't do it elsewhere?
We open the door. Can't believe that twist Bill.
And much of the discussion
And much of the discussion at the Planning Board was around the height, especially of the proposed building envelope of to proposed new zone. In fact, I think we had a split vote on that issue, so it definitely got attention.
I want to applaud the Council, staff, the public speakers, and even the developers for staying up so late to get this important work done. It wouldn't have to be quite so late if the Mayor was a little more strict with the 3-minute limit on speakers, though...
You're on the Planning
You're on the Planning Board. You're board has discussed further outreach and making plans more "evergreen". I've listed several ideas (I didn't even go into better record keeping, televised proceedings, etc.)
So, as a member of a very key board, how would you bring more folks into the process?
The Planing Board
The Planing Board recommended a serious public process to review and revise the Town's Comprehensive Plan, but the Council shot it down.
And I wouldn't take Bill Thorpe too seriously on the subject of Greenbridge...
Look, now they're admitting
Look, now they're admitting they didn't want to create a new district just for Greenbridge, they wanted one more generic for other projects.
It appears you discussed this special zone vs. a zone that could be applied at comparable lots. I know if I was a big building developer Downtown I'd sue Town to go TC-3 if they withheld it...
Sure it won't be plopped along the creek, it'll be plopped all along Rosemary and Franklin.
What grounds would Council use to reject other applicants that were, say, %75 as worthy ("green", "affordable", etc.)
Yeah, Bill appears to think
Yeah, Bill appears to think I was his opponent ;-)
Kleinschmidt is discussing
Kleinschmidt is discussing how little relationship this project has with Northside. It creates a very clear barrier where Northside stops and "downtown" begins. I agree with him that this isn't necessarily bad, but it also irks me that just feet away from this, the Northside streets won't have sidewalks to help them access this grand pedestrian-oriented development.
Looks like Greenbridge is
Looks like Greenbridge is passing 8-1, with Bill Thorpe opposing.
Big surprise. Now for the
Big surprise. Now for the consequences....
With a last minute amendment
With a last minute amendment dedicating payment-in-lieu of recreation to Pine Knolls and Northside community centers, Bill Thorpe went along making the final SUP vote unanimously in favor.
And now the Council forges on with their business...
I guess I'm the only one
I guess I'm the only one still watching. Since about midnight, the TV switches to CSPAN2 programming and then back to the Council meeting.
There are other important issues on the agenda, y'know. ;-) http://townhall.townofchapelhill.org/agendas/2007/02/26/
Meeting adjourned. If
Meeting adjourned. If there's anyone left reading, good night!
haha I made it to the end!!!
haha I made it to the end!!! It was funny how it kept switching between Aaron Nelson and CSPAN.
Before coming to Chapel Hill
Before coming to Chapel Hill in 1976 I lived in downtown St Louis. A couple of years later I went back to visit my old neighbors and everyone was gone--replaced through urban development. In downtown Atlanta in preparation for the Olympics, people living in the projects around the redevelopment area were moved out to make sure the world didn't see their poverty. Before moving back to Chapel Hill in the late 1990s, I lived in downtown Norfolk. In a very few years it went from total urban blight to total redevelopment.
In each of these instances, I've wondered where the people who lived in those downtowns went when their homes were 'improved' through economic development. Where will those few long-time residents in Northside who have managed to hold onto their homes go when their property taxes skyrocket upwards yet again thanks to this rezoning? Where will they go?
It simply amazes me that a Council that has so adamantly endorsed the concept of 'neighborhood conservation'; that faced down so much wrath over renaming Airport Road in their desire to honor MLK; and who goes to such length to support walkability would agree to this rezoning.
Approve neighborhood conservation districts but then rezone around the area to ensure the final death knell of the traditional residents living in the neighborhood. Require recreation funds to ensure new neighbors have nice parks. Make the area more walkable for people who can afford to buy $350,000 to $1 million condos. The contradictions surrounding this project, especially the rezoning aspects of it, are rampant. Sustainability is about more than LEED certification and energy efficiency.
Er... I think maybe you're
Er... I think maybe you're overreacting a bit. All the Council did was let people decide what to do with their own property.
Chris, there was a bit of
Chris, there was a bit of hand-waving going on last night.
Council modified the zoning ordinance - essentially changing both the law and dynamic of future Downtown development - using a precipitous process. Tying TC-3 to arguably one of the best projects (except for its scale AT THAT LOCATION) to ever come before them was bad public policy.
For a town that supposedly likes to be transparent, open and build consensus - it was a repudiation.
Led by Bill Strom, the Council's tenor has change dramatically. It's all tactics, smoothing the way for what they want instead of building a bridge of understanding in the wider community.
A sad way to do the peoples business.
Council expanded the height limits from 90' to 120' without real debate or discussion. Council more than doubled the land-use ratio: 1.97 to 4.0. And they did that for all projects wanting TC-3 classification.
Worse, as Bill Thorpe echoed, they then went ahead and granted a SUP to build to 135' - 45' above the previous zoning limit.
All this without true community discussion. All this without being absolutely clear on their intent.
To suggest that other developers won't use last night's precedent - as Bill Strom did - is absolutely disingenuous.
The leadership of Chapel Hill needs to create a conversation with the wider community on what our Downtown should look like...to present a coordinated view of their vision for wider review. Instead, we have a piecemeal approach guaranteed to create a poor outcome. What a shame for our Town.
One other kind of historical note on the process.
My first experience of Sally Greene came years ago when she would appear before the then Council to comment on OI-4 and neighborhood conservation. Her counsel then was "shared vision" - building a consensus around our common heritage - foreseeing the consequences of our Council's current decisions.
Of all the votes last night, hers, in light of that earlier Sally, made the least sense. Why the tactical subterfuge? Why the rush?
Will in your recent
Will in your recent discourse you have been particularly critical of Bill, Sally, and Cam (particularly your December column) even though a super majority of the Council has approved everything you've gone after them for.
Most observers know the three of them happen to be up for reelection, so I think it's time for you, 'Mr. Transparency,' to show some of your own. Are you running for office this fall? Is that why you're being particularly negative toward that trio? Come clean so that everyone can at least know what your true motives are. I know you won't play coy with this question since you like openness.
Tom, to echo your call for
Tom, to echo your call for transparency, are you carrying water for any of these possible candidates?
To your question, I worked to elect Sally, Cam and Bill as their opposition to the RLCs was clear and strong. I also liked their campaign rhetoric on neighborhood conservation, environment, social justice, CITIZEN participation, etc.
So, why those three?
Bill, Sally and Cam were on the Lot #5 negotiation team - they bear a greater degree of responsibility for the good and bad aspects of the current outcome.
I've voted for every sitting Council member at one time or another - so you could ask why I'm not equally disappointed in their recent votes. Hey, I am but these were the guys I came to the ball with... And, after years of watching the too and fro, I've come to understand who will stand firm for their convictions (or not).
In spite of my criticism of Sally and Cam's decisions on Lot #5, their quick acceptance of BUNDLING far reaching zoning changes with project approvals, there's many issues before the Town I look forward to working with them on (heck, Cam, Jim and I just served on the Parking Task Force).
They've always been clear and cordial in our disagreements - I appreciate their open passion for what they believe in...
So, long answer to why those three - they were the point people (?) for RAM Development. Through their leadership - right or wrong - Chapel Hill is firmly on a course of bigger, broader, taller and, as I've been clear, lesser.
Tom, its interesting how you always like to cast motives in a political light - that there's no way someone could take a stand like I have if there wasn't some kind of political benefit. It's such a "player" attitude. Is it a reflection of the company you keep maybe?
As far as my "political" future and my positions on issues - if I had any "political" sense would I give Council's partner RAM Development a hard time, be a "freelance" watchdog of the Carolina North juggernaut, criticize Greenbridge's height, take on county districting, speak out against the popular Sally/Cam/Bill?
Want to understand my motives? You don't have to parse my words or try to reflect my actions in the mirror of political expediency or future political benefit - just read my 'blog CitizenWill.
Here's the link.
"Council expanded the height
"Council expanded the height limits from 90′ to 120′ without real debate or discussion....Council expanded the height limits from 90′ to 120′ without real debate or discussion."
Will,
How much discussion is enough? This process has been ongoing for several months. You've taken the time to attend meetings and make your views known and I applaud you for that. And a large majority (I figure at least 3:1) of the people speaking out at the public forums spoke in favor of the projects. The problem isn't the process - it is that too many citizens can't be bothered to get involved until the final moments (if they even get involved at all) and then they complain that they haven't been notified, they weren't aware, the process is too fast, etc.
If you want to criticize someone you should be criticizing the apathetic citizens who can't find time to attend a single one of the numerous advisory board or Council meetings or can't find the time to send a quick e-mail to their Council members. Don't lay this on the Council - this process has been more than transparent for anyone who wanted to participate. Unless the horse who you can at least drag to the water, you can't drag citizens to the meetings and force them to be interested or to be involved.
Your criticism would seem more sincere if you offered a legitimate solution to increasing citizen involvement (and how you will measure that).
Previous message should read
Previous message should read "Unlike the horse..." Not "Unless the horse..."
Yeah, citizen participation
Yeah, citizen participation is a tough nut George, I offered a few examples of improving communication above (more at my site - both from the 2005 campaign - where it was a major plank - to today).
I believe it's the responsibility of leadership to go the extra mile to involve citizens.
You say
Maybe it's the engineer and entrepreneur in me but I'd say these are a symptom of a problem. When you run a company, and you want to be successful, you put customer service first. Blaming the end-user, in this case the citizenry of Chapel Hill, doesn't seem productive.
You help lead an important, maybe the most important, board in our community. What can we do, besides driving folks further out of the process, to repair what I see as a customer service issue?
As far as bundling TC-3 with Greenbridge's approval, that wasn't clear to me though I've been playing a little bit of catch up this month. Council could've issue a SUP covering the height increase without setting a new legal standard for heights.
Doesn't it trouble you to mix policy changes with project approvals?
Excuse my brusqueness, but we, the citizens of Chapel Hill, did NOT have a clear conversation on BUNDLED zoning changes that will set the skyline for decades to come.
What I've seen in the last year is a change in tactics by Council. The "process" is broken. Broadening the conversation - ala the NCD process - suggested but ignored.
Let me end with a suggestion for your board George.
Why not ask Gordon and company to put the 3D Chapel Hill model to use. Let's start requiring 3D models for all the projects - Hillsborough 425, Greenbridge, Lot #5, East 54, Walgren's, etc. - coming before you. Other jurisdictions do.
Then lets put those models out there for folks to see.
GoogleEarth lets you visualize the scale, placement, shadow throw, etc. Why not start with that?
Why? Because, sans balloons, the difference between 90' and 135' or 75' no setback or filling a dip (ala Shortbread) vs. capturing a highpoint (ala Greenbridge) can be hard to visualize.
We're doing our citizens a disservice by not using the tools easily and freely available to create an honest appraisal of the change before us.
Why not get the Planning Board to lead on this George?
Let me clarify. Doesn't it
Let me clarify. Doesn't it trouble you to conflate two separate discussions - a change in zoning law - and an approval of a particular project - into the same hearing process?
TC-3 sets a standard we're going to have to live with separate from Greenbridge's approval. Same could be said of BUNDLING policy/approval with the other projects before Council.
You know "good for the goose"... Of course, Council loved the "greenness" and affordable FAMILY housing of Greenbridge - but not enough to emulate it at Lot #5 ('"do as I say, not as I do...").
Will- Yes, I absolutely will
Will-
Yes, I absolutely will support Bill Strom, Cam Hill, and Sally Greene this fall if they run. I would support Jim Ward too.
There I answered your question, too bad you didn't answer mine. I gave you a yes or no answer, why won't you give me one?
Tom, is that support - as
Tom, is that support - as sending a check - or is that manage their campaigns , etc. ?
I've answered your question.
In Dec. column I spoke of the 3 Council members that shepherded the Lot #5 proposal through the negotiation process to what I've clearly said was a bad result. I've gone into specific detail of why I think it was a bad result - something you could read here and elsewhere. I also explained why my disappointment in Cam, Sally and Bill's role in that outcome was sharpened.
So, to be clear, my only motivation was to try to get a better outcome on Lot #5 (and Wallace Deck - you do remember that part of the project?).
No further calculus involving political posturing or what I might or might not do this year.
But you know that - as your comments are more about "framing" than anything else... Again, a strange lens to view the world through but if that's your way, so be it...
To the question, 'are you
To the question, 'are you running this year,' there is only one answer: yes or no. You obviously aren't going to give that answer and that's fine, people can take from it what they will.
I honestly don't know what Bill, Sally, and Cam's plans are yet so I don't know what role I will be playing in their campaigns.
It really saddens me to be having this dialogue with you Will because I thought you were going to make a great Council member. But your manner has just become so strident and negative I don't think you would do anything but antagonize people. And from what's been coming up in my inbox the last week and a half a good chunk of the rest of the people who supported you the last time feel the same way, even if they're not going to come out and say it on OP.
Anyway time to agree to disagree, I don't think there's much value for the OP community in this exchange continuing.
Will, I think that bundling
Will,
I think that bundling TC-3 with Greenbridge's approval was entirely appropriate because it allowed citizens to see exactly what the physical magnitude of such TC-3 zoned projects might be. If you talked about the zoning alone many citizens might not have a good idea of what a 120- (or 135) ft building might look like but with the accompanying project application they got to see the scale of such a building (remember though, the SUP approves, site design, not elevations so the "look" of the building might still change).
You state: "When you run a company, and you want to be successful, you put customer service first. Blaming the end-user, in this case the citizenry of Chapel Hill, doesn't seem productive."
Will, I'm not blaming the end user other than to say that if there is a problem, that's where the problem might lie. However, I myself don't think there is a problem. I think that this process was fairly-vetted and fairly acted upon. You're the one who feels that there is a problem and judging from the speakers at the public hearings you're in the minority. I think you need to ask yourself: if this process is as drastically flawed as you seem to think it is, why are you one of the few that sees it that way?
"if this process is as
"if this process is as drastically flawed as you seem to think it is, why are you one of the few that sees it that way?"
Good question George.
I experience Downtown in a personal fashion - a daily interaction for 6 years - a decades long relationship. I built (using GE) a model to see the scale of these projects in relation to the neighboring structures. I reviewed not only the physical impacts but the wider social and economic ones. I think I put some good thought into why bundling a %33 or %50 zoning change was bad policy. I challenged myself to think of alternatives - and to tried to publicly sketch out another way of doing business. Before jumping up before the Council, I tried to intervene quietly, pro-actively.
For all that, I'm stuck in the minority.
I'm working over at Weaver St. today. Since 10ish this morning I've spoken to a number of folks that are surprised by the outcome (maybe as many that have stuffed Tom's email box ;-) ). I was struck in each case by how little information they had of the process, the discussion and the possible collateral outcomes.
Why didn't they challenge our leadership? I don't presume to know.
I do know this, time will tell. Why don't we check in on the progress of this grand "Rosemary Renaissance" each year to see if we've achieved our goals? Why don't we report on the real costs and the real benefits and reweigh our commitment to the "bigger is better" agenda?
Tom, thanks for the
Tom, thanks for the critique. Maybe you can share the contents of the emails with the names redacted to help seal my political fate.
Snarkily (which is different than "strident and negative" - got to love that "framing"),
Will
Will states: "Why didn't
Will states: "Why didn't they challenge our leadership? I don't presume to know."
Maybe it's because they didn't feel it needed challenging. Or maybe it's because they didn't have the time or interest. Maybe.., maybe..
We'll never know why, nor will the Council. Council members' decisions are based on (1) the information provided to them, (2) the information they collect on their own, (3) citizen input, and (4) their best interpretation on how to put the first 3 together to work best for the community. Unfortunately, factor number 3 is the one they probably have the least control over.
Will, I appreciate your interest and passion. But if you're not getting the answer you want perhaps it's because you're asking the wrong question. May be you should be asking why so few others share your interest and passion or why, amongst those that do, your opinion is held by such a small minority.
George, I'd like to think
George, I'd like to think there's a #5 wedged in there - something to do with their internal vision of Town, the potential of the place, the heritage - a kind of assessment of the "soul" of Town, to use a word thrown around last night, and whether the process and goals of these projects will nurture the "heart".
I know that Council struggles with these issues - that thoughtful Sally and Chapel Hill's own Cam have balanced the various competing issues and taken their own counsel in reaching a decision.
I reviewed, as best as possible, the facts as published (or recorded) and discovered another narrative than theirs - one that generated an apparent minority opinion.
Time (and money) will tell if their assessment was more appropriate in reaching what I think our common goals are or not.
As usual, you've given me some good material to chew over George, I do appreciate it.
George, I'm interested in
George,
I'm interested in knowing upon what basis you are assuming Will's position are held by such a small minority. Number of posts here? Number of speakers in front of council? Number of long-time Northside residents who continue to live in the neighborhood and who have voiced public support for the project? I truly hope you know something I don't know about council's efforts to reach out directly to the impacted neighborhood.
Tom, I really think that you
Tom, I really think that you calling Will antagonistic is ironic given your attacks and tone here in this very thread. The man is also able to reserve his decision about candidacy until later -- you can't take for granted that everyone can be a slick political creature and calculate odds about which way the winds will blow. Or change the topic of a thread to suit your own agenda.
However, I do have to disagree with Will on this particular issue. There's been talk for years about infill vs sprawl, and this decision by the Council fits in very consistently with the idea of infill, regardless of how much input there was on this specific project.
Terri, I'm assuming that
Terri,
I'm assuming that Will's position is held by a small minority based on the number of people who have taken the time to come to the various public hearings or advisory board meetings and speak out in opposition, or to write to the newspapers expressing their doubts. It certainly is not a statistically-sound sampling but unfortunately, it is all we have. It might be more representative to put every major decision in Chapel Hill to a vote by the entire community but it certainly isn't practical. Thus we elect 9 officials to make those decisions for us and , as I stated above, one of their sources of information is what the citizens tell them. I can't say with certainty that Will's position is that of the minority but you and he can say with even less certainty that it's not. I'm just sorry that more people don't put the time and energy into getting involved that Will does.
Terri, I'm assuming that
Terri,
I'm assuming that Will's position is held by a small minority based on the number of people who have taken the time to come to the various public hearings or advisory board meetings and speak out in opposition, or to write to the newspapers expressing their doubts. It certainly is not a statistically-sound sampling but unfortunately, it is all we have. It might be more representative to put every major decision in Chapel Hill to a vote by the entire community but it certainly isn't practical. Thus we elect 9 officials to make those decisions for us and , as I stated above, one of their sources of information is what the citizens tell them. I can't say with certainty that Will's position is that of the minority but you and he can say with even less certainty that it's not. I'm just sorry that more people don't put the time and energy into getting involved that Will does.
George, When have we ever
George,
When have we ever heard from the minority populations in this community en masse? We've known minority children are failing in our schools at very high rates for more than 20 years, but the only meeting I've been to where there was a good turnout was held at Hargraves Center. We know Rogers Rd residents are upset about the landfill, but how many of those neighbors have shown up at local government meetings?
Delores Bailey often speaks for the Northside neighbors and what I've heard her say on Greenbridge is that development in that area is inevitable and these developers are being generous. That's a great endorsement for the individuals but not a position of overwhelming support for their project. My point is and has been that sometimes our elected officials need to be a bit more proactive about collecting citizen input.
Chris--I agree that this project is well aligned with infill vs sprawl. On the other hand, it is not well aligned with the policy of neighborhood conservation. Nor do I think it is well aligned with the walkability policy given the population of individuals who will be able to afford to live in these units.
Terri, Same question that
Terri,
Same question that went to Will: what should our elected officials do to be more proactive about collecting citizen input? I think it's a great ideal but the devil of course is in the details
Maybe next time there is an issue like this you could organize people to go door to door in the neighborhood affected and explain what's going on and how they can give input.
Terri, I agree with you that
Terri,
I agree with you that the situation is not ideal. But I also think that this is a Town Council that works hard and has made many efforts on the part of neighborhoods such as Northside. For instance, it created the Northside NCD with design guidelines, it put a police substation in Northside and it has tried hard to improve walkability in the community. Interestingly, this latter effort met with mixed support: some of the residents wanted more sidewalks while others opposed them in front of their homes because they didn't want to lose yard. Even when the town offered to use street to create sidewalk some residents were concerned that sidewalks provided a space for loiterers.
IMHO, Greenbridge will not kill Northside. If Northside dies it will be because the community let it die - both the community as defined by Northside and the community-at-large. For Northside to survive we need to fix it's problems (drug-dealing, lighting, walkability, etc) and to build upon what's good. I think this Council has been very active in tryng to do its part. If the residents of Northside can't or won't come out to speak about their concerns then it will be more important than ever to have strong leaders like Delores speak for them. But until more residents begin to speak out the voices of the neighborhoods' leaders are primarily what the Council has to go by.
George, Apparently we have a
George,
Apparently we have a different idea of what will kill Northside. I think it will die when the traditional residents of the community can no longer afford to live there. But it's a good discussion that should have taken place before rezoning was adopted. Is neighborhood conservation simply a product of constraints on what can be built on properties within the neighborhood or is there something more qualitative like continuity of residence, history, shared culture?
Terri, I don't think we're
Terri,
I don't think we're in disagreement. I agree that we have to make sure that the traditional residents can afford (and want to) live there. But I don't think Greenbridge changes that. After all, it's highly unlikely that residents of Greenbridge will be comfortable having drug dealers operating two blocks away. So perhaps they will join forces with the Northside residents to tackle that problem. And perhaps the residents of Greenbridge will want to have a grocery store and pharmacy nearby, and that isn't necessarily a bad thing for Northside (although the affordability of such retail establishments will continue to be an issue). Having more people can downtown can benefit Northside, but only if the community-at-large remains vigilant in making that happen.
George, I suggest you make a
George,
I suggest you make a call to the Orange County tax assessor and learn how tax assessments are made and the impact that Rosemary Village has already had on the traditional residents of Northside. I've spoken with them and reported what I was told but apparently I have not adequately or believeably conveyed the financial impact of new luxury residences on existing low-income residences.
Terri, I don't doubt the
Terri,
I don't doubt the inequity you've pointed out. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't build on West Rosemary Street. Rather, it suggests we need to come up with a more equitable way of assessing property values.
Properties contained within
Properties contained within the Land Trust are not assessed the same so there has already been some attention to this issue. However, is it reasonable to think that all small houses can be owned by the Land Trust? And haven't we recently been hearing about additional funds being needed to help with maintenance for Land Trust properties?
Another way to keep housing affordable is to ensure a more equitable mix of low, middle and luxury priced housing and to not put the lower priced housing in the Land Trust so that it functions to help average out assessed values and provides comparables that are truly comparable.
I've heard that this type of discussion is taking place in the inclusionary zoning committee meetings. I just wish the discussion had reached policy level prior to the rezoning for Greenbridge.
Pages