The N.C. Metropolitan Mayors Coalition has submitted its request for money from the federal and state governments for infrastructure projects. I’ve mapped the requests made for the town of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. No requests were made by Hillsborough.
See the raw Chapel Hill data here. See the full spreadsheet of requests here.
Also posted on my blog at http://dunnreporter.com/?p=441.
Issues:
Editor-in-Chief Select of The Daily Tar Heel
OrangePolitics is a not-for-profit website for discussing progressive perspectives on politics, planning, and public policy in Orange County, NC. Opinions are those of their authors. Learn more.
By using this site, you agree to our community guidelines. Inappropriate or disruptive behavior will result in moderation or eviction.
By contributing to OrangePolitics, you agree to license your contributions under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.
Comments
I think there is some
.....confusion at the county level on the matter of whether this Airport Authority is public or private. From:http://www.chapelhillnews.com/front/story/32331.html"But the airport authority may not fall under the same rules, he said. One of the purposes of the meeting Monday is to figure out if the 15-member panel is a private, public or quasi-public body and what rules would apply to it."
Interesting Question
Sounds interesting. I didn't know there was any question about that.
airport authority is public
under state law, the proposed airport authority is a political subdivision of the state, the same as what Orange County itself is. Chapel Hill, on the other hand, is a municipal corporation. The airport authority is subject to the open meetings, public records, public bidding, etc. statutes. The question appear to be what its status is under the Orange County zoning ordinance. Assuming the writer of the article knows what he/she is talking about, certain types of governmental applicants may be less regulated than private applicants. from the state lawhttp://www.ncleg.net/enactedlegislation/sessionlaws/html/2007-2008/sl2008-204.html:
I missed that.
Thank you. As far as I can tell, and as you say, "political subdivision" seems to have mostly to do with public records, employment law and fdairness in awarding of contracts. All of the zoning references I find seem linked to the status of "municipality".Reaching to your previous comments, are you saying that a municipality that is a political subdivision has no inherent zoning power? That it cannot annex or condemn unless the specific intent is written into the bill that creates it? I know Orange County has condemnation powers. Pretty sure Orange County cannot annex as for example Mebane has across county lines near Efland and as Chapel Hill has done in Durham County.If this is true. it seems odd to create a "county within a county" as it were, but I guess it could be called UNC county :)
minority oversight not the same as no oversight
It is NOT true that there is NO oversight from local elected officials, but it is true that there is local elected official oversight by less than a majority of the airport authority board.
You are right, Gerry. I
You are right, Gerry. I was being a bit hyperbolic. The point is that in the end, the Airport Authority could exercise eminent domain over the objection of every municipal and county elected official in Orange County. And that seems inappropriate to me. It is well within the legislature's power to do, but inappropriate nonetheless in my opinion.
Help me understand
Jerry, I have been reading the post above for a few days. For some reason, when ever I log on to OP I seem to come back to it. I am not a lawyer and I don’t consider myself an expert on rhetoric. I don’t understand what it says. I keep thinking maybe I have to draw a diagram but I haven’t yet. Is this what it means? Some (but less than half) of the members of the airport authority board are local officials or appointed by local officials.
Important distinction; and who should Authority serve?
(Responding at this point in an effort to find the closest point of relevance in this debate without ending up with a 1/2" wide post.) Re: these two statements: "I am certain that EVERY state in the USA would approve of the legality of taking property by eminent domain for the purpose of establishing airports. ..." and " A municipal airport is a governmental function and in all states would be a permissible use of eminent domain. "First: There's an important distinction between a commercial airport designed to serve a municipal area and many classes of users, including the general traveling public (RDU), and a "municipal" but primarily general aviation airport, owned and operated by an institution or a municipality, primarily serving private, non-commercial air traffic (IGX/HWA). The claim that "every state in the union" would approve taking land for an airport is more credible with respect to a commercial (or military) airport than regarding a general-aviation airport. Those smaller, "municipal" or institutional airports are almost always owned and operated by agencies other than the primary users - private plane owners and pilots. However, those users wield enormous, virtually pre-emptive political power, such that airport owners (including municipalities) ultimately can do little that private pilots and plane owners don't want them to do.Were we to reverse the condemnation scenario such that an airport owner wanted to "condemn" unprofitable airport land for other use (effectively the case in Carolina North - thus ending the de facto subsidy of a revenue-negative part of the University), we would see the users rallying enormous forces to forestall that closure. And indeed we have. In fact, this scenario has been repeated around the country; it is virtually impossible to close an airport that general aviation wants kept open.Which brings us to oversight: To be consistent with Constitutional values, government entities are given the power to impose eminent domain because they supposedly represent the people -- which means to me that an "authority" should be driven by elected officials. That's clearly not the case with the current configuration of the Airport Authority. Even if the entity of record seeking the new airport is a state university, and even if the majority membership is not overtly representing the interests of general aviation, it's disingenous to claim that the true purpose of the airport itself is anything other than to serve general aviation. Thus keeping citizen representation (in the form of elected officials) to minority status on the airport authority virtually guarantees private interests will have unchecked power to impose eminent domain if they so desire. Not so different from the Kelo situation, and touting (fantasy) contributions to local economy only underscores that.
I agree philosophically
I agree philosophically, but I believe the law says otherwise. North Carolina (and many other states) have long allowed utility companies, railroads and others - sometimes entirely private companies - to have the power of eminent domain so long as the result is something that is accessible and beneficial to the public (qv an 1837 NC Supreme Ct case called Raleigh & Gaston Railroad v. Davis).The Raleigh&Gaston RR case is interesting in that the court held that Eminent Domain was appropriate because the railroad was open to the public (in the sense that anyone could buy a ticket). I think the courts would view a general aviation airport the same way.Also, interestingly, the Raleigh and Gaston RR case is notable because it directly addresses the question raised earlier about the NC Constitution. The court held that the NC Constitution does recognize both the state's right of Eminent Domain and the right of the condemned property owner to fair compensation even though that phrase does not appear in the documen.
local governments were appointed
Mark beat me to the punch. In addition to NC (and many other states) allowing private companies to condemn for a public purpose, North Carolina local governments have not even always been elected. Most COUNTY school boards were appointed by the General Assembly until 1968. The Governor (after consulting with local legislators) appointed justices of the peace for each county until the civil war. They sat together as the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions, which in fact was an administrative body that ran county government and appointed the Sheriff. (many counties still call their local county officials "judges", Texas I think included) In fact, the Governor was appointed by the general assembly until just before the Civil War. it was not until after the civil war that county governments began to be elective, and even that was suspended for much of post reconstruction. I'm just expressing my legal opinion and adding some history. Philosophical and personal prefence may be much different
Private Rights of Eminent Domain
I know I can't out-do Gerry when it comes to NC governmental trivia, but it perhaps bears pointing out that even private individuals can exercise Eminent Domain in limited circumstances (such as to gain access to a land-locked parcel for the purpose of extracting timber or minerals). My point in mentioning it is that NC has a long and deep history of delegating Em. Dom. power for purposes that many of us would view as being private purposes.
Definition of public
The Raleigh&Gaston RR case is interesting in that the court held
that Eminent Domain was appropriate because the railroad was open to
the public (in the sense that anyone could buy a ticket). I think the
courts would view a general aviation airport the same way.There's a difference. Tickets to ride a railroad are available to everyone within a very large range of income - plausibly the entire general public excluding only those below the poverty line (and even then . . . ). In contrast, one can't just buy a ticket to ride on a private plane; and if you can, the airport in question becomes a commercial airport. Thus the population of those for whom you would say the general aviation airport is "open for use" is limited to the very small number who have the money to buy and maintain a plane, and their passengers (who presumably aren't just "walk-ins," although that has been known to happen, most often at commercial airports). And anticipating the comparison between a general aviation airport and a rail freight line that's not open to passenger trains but nonetheless serves the common weal: there's still a difference because general aviation doesn't usually function to carry freight - and, again, if it does in any large enough sense to compare to rail freight (FedEx, etc.), you have moved back into the realm of a commercial airport.
You know by General Statute
The airport authority does not have the power of annexation.
Then what
.......is the difference between the definition of the airport authority as a municipality in S1925 and the municipality defined here:http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/pdf/BySection/Chapter_160A/GS_160A-49.pdf
to begin with
To start with, the word "municipality" is never used in SB1925, so the fact that municipalities have annexation authority has nothing to do with SB1925 or any airport authority anyway.
What Bill are you reading?
I am reading the ratified one:http://www.statesurge.com/bills/380883-s1925-north-carolinaArticles 1 through 7 of chapter 63 of the General Statutes define a city, town or counties (municipalities) ability to create an airport. Sure sounds like a municipality to me. (emphasis below is mine), "§ 116-274. General powers.(a) An authority created under this Article has all powers that a city or county has under Articles 1 through 7 of Chapter 63 of the General Statutes and, in regard to financing capital expenditures and operations, shall have such powers as are delegated to or conferred upon the constituent institutions or the University of North Carolina Health Care System. Notwithstanding other provisions of law, both regulations adopted by an authority under this Article and development regulations adopted by a county or municipality under Article 18 of Chapter 153A or Article 19 of Chapter 160A of the General Statutes shall be applicable to land owned by and the approaches to land owned by an authority created under this Article. In the event the regulations conflict, the more restrictive regulation applies.(b) In addition to the powers granted by subsection (a) of this section, an authority created under this Article has the following powers:………….adnausiumIf you dig a little furtherhttp://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/Statutes/StatutesTOC.pl?Chapter=0063Read GS 63-3:§ 63-3. Counties authorized to establish airports.The governing body of any county in this State is hereby authorized to acquire, establish, construct, own, control, lease, equip, improve, maintain, operate, and regulate airports or landing fields for the use of airplanes and other aircraft within or without the limits of such counties, and may use for such purpose or purposes any property suitable therefor that is now or may at any time hereafter be owned or controlled by such county. (1929, c. 87, s. 3.)Read GS 63-5:§ 63-5. Airport declared public purpose; eminent domain.Any lands acquired, owned, controlled, or occupied by such cities, towns, and/or counties, for the purposes enumerated in G.S. 63-2, 63-3 and 63-4, shall and are hereby declared to be acquired, owned, controlled and occupied for a public purpose, and such cities, towns and/or counties shall have the right to acquire property for such purpose or purposes under the power of eminent domain as and for a public purpose. (1929, c. 87, s. 5.)Read GS 63-6§ 63-6. Acquisition of sites; appropriation of moneys.Private property needed by a city, town and/or county for an airport or landing field may be acquired by gift or devise or shall be acquired by purchase if the city, town and/or county is or are able to agree with the owners on the terms thereof, and otherwise by condemnation, in the manner provided by Chapter 40A. The purchase price, or award for property acquired for an airport or landing field may be paid for by appropriation of moneys available therefor, or wholly or partly from the proceeds of the sale of bonds of the city, town and/or county, as the governing body and/or bodies of such city, town and/or county shall determine. (1929, c. 87, s. 6; 1981, c. 919, s. 7.)
I'm reading the one I wrote
teblake says:
I'm reading the one I wrote.You kept insisting that the airport authority has the power to annex. I said It didn't. To prove your case, you then cited a bunch of statutes that said it has the power to condemn. It does. Condemnation and annexation are two different things entirely. Annexation is territorial jursidiction. Condemnation is ownership of property without the consent of the owner. The authority can operate an airport only in Orange County by virtue of a clause in the legislation.
I am insisting nothing
....of the sort. I was asking what a statue like this means when it says "........acquire, establish, construct, own, control, lease, equip, improve, maintain, operate, and regulate airports or landing fields for the use of airplanes and other aircraft within or without the limits of such counties, and may use for such purpose or purposes any property suitable therefor.....My assertion is that this language *sounds like* the power to annex. But I do not know.BTW You wrote this mess? Shame on you. You should be working to fix the broken, arcane eminent domain and annexation laws in this state, not using them to frighten people and take their land at the whim of the powerful and privileged.
specific controls over the general
the specific language of the statute that the airport must be in Orange County controls over the general law that political subdivisions may condemn:
Thank you
That is what I asked way back there somewhere
give me a break
I should state the role of nonpartisan legislative central staff. It's like the city manager form of government. I work for all, and write what they ask for, just like the city manager works for all members of the council.
Why Bother Gerry?
Mr. Blake has followed the same pattern in his attacks on you, George C, Mayor mark, and me. Nobody knows anything but him, it appears, and rather than try to learn he would rather get personal and go negative.I have yet to find a single thing he has been part of for the betterment of our community, especially in comparison to so many others here. The sad fact is that those who don't know what they don't know --- and don't attempt to learn --- can be just flat dangerous!
Don't
get stuck on stupid again Fred.
Fine and dandy
....and I appreciate your long service. It just seems sometimes that the notion of progessive politics stops at the town border. I still say you should have listened to the mocking birds while you were writing it though. From your blog :) May 15, 2008email just in: "All Staff:There are two very aggressive mockingbirds that have a nest in a tree on the east side of the Legislative building. They are responsible for numerous attacks on humans in the last several days. The police department has taped off a buffer zone around the nest area. Please do not enter this taped off area. If you do you are subject to being vigorously assaulted by these two protective parents. Use caution.General Assembly Police Department."
Purpose of Blogging
The whole purpose of this and other public blogs is to create knowledge and understanding of complex issues that most of us don't have the time to research and learn about independently. It's a real turnoff when those efforts to learn turn into personal attacks.
Terry
If you are referring to my "you should be ashamed" comment, I was mistaken. When Gerry said "I'm reading the one I wrote." it seemed as if Gerry was taking credit for authoring this legislation for the university. His second post indicates he was just the scribe. My appolgies Gerry.
Tony
Your response to Gerry was part of it. But so are the interactions between you and Fred. To be clear though, I've appreciated the probing nature of your questions on this issue. I know more about eminent domain as a result of your doggedness. However, I think you and others may still be missing the impact the financial drivers in UNC's push for the airport authority. I observed a similar conflict with the widening of Columbia St. For UNC that was a financial issue. For the town of Chapel Hill it was a neighborhood protection issue (I think). I'm not sure the compromise design will ultimately meet UNC's needs. If it doesn't they will look for another major artery entry to the medical complex. That probably won't make anyone happy. I worry that we will end up with some similar kind of compromise on the airport issue--ok on the surface but not addressing the deeper needs of the university.I realize that others don't care for the deeper needs of the university. I do since they employ me but also because I believe they serve an important role in the social, technical, and health status of the rest of the state. We need better mechanisms for resolving these conflicts of interest.
There may be another way...
"I observed a similar conflict with the widening of Columbia St. For UNC
that was a financial issue. For the town of Chapel Hill it was a
neighborhood protection issue (I think). I'm not sure the compromise
design will ultimately meet UNC's needs. If it doesn't they will look
for another major artery entry to the medical complex. That probably
won't make anyone happy." Terri,Regarding the issue of access to the Medical Center you may be right but I think UNC is looking (as is Duke) to provide more and more of their outpatient medical care in satellite facilities such as the Imaging Center UNC is proposing at the intersection of NC54 and Finley Road. I think having such outlying facilities is much more attractive to many people since you can get in and out so easily and I forsee more and more of these facilities sprouting up in the future. If this is indeed the case it may relieve some of the anticipated increase in vehicular traffic on Manning and South Columbia.
apology accepted
accepted
Thanks Anita. We are in
Thanks Anita. We are in the Metro Coalition for historical reasons. The coalition started as a public transportation coalition and therefore included a couple of very small towns - Carrboro and Boone. At present, Boone and Carrboro are by far the smallest towns in the coalition and the coalition's rules are such that towns as small as ours actually can't join. But that policy is under review, so I guess we shall see . . . Incidentally, further up in this thread someone asked re: Hillsborough. They are not in this coalition because of the size requirement.
Sinking power lines?
After our share of hurricanes, ice storms, and predatory thunderstorms, I'm wondering whether a project to sink power lines would come under the heading of municipal infrastructure. The power grid certainly consitutes infrastructure, but their management is not in the hands of town or county government. What would it take?
generally speaking
.....buried power lines do not pass the cost/benefit test. The advantage of protection is greatly reduced because any power outage tends to be much longer when it involved buried lines. http://www.eei.org/industry_issues/energy_infrastructure/distribution/UndergroundReport.pdfOf course if an existing tunnel is used, the equation changes.
existing tunnel?
In many areas, I'd be willing to bet that T-W cable lines and maybe even phone lines are already buried. Does that constitute an "existing tunnel" or is there a more exact definition or more specific re: power line requirements? (Was aware that buried lines have problems all their own - but curious about "infrastructure" issue as it might apply.)
No, sorry
.....there are buried cables for telecommunications but often this is incompatible with power (interference issues). One notable exception is fibre optics which are sometimes wrapped around buried power cables. In general low voltage stuff is much cheaper to bury and incompatible with high voltage.Gas pipelines are buried as well....IMO buried lines make more sense closer to the coast where storm damage is more frequent and more widespread. Hopefully a hurricane Fran level of impact to this area is a once-in-a-lifetime event.Speaking of fibre optics.....I would like to see high speed internet access extended (both wireline and wireless) and made much cheaper/competitive. I see the digital divide happening and think it is important to bridge it as soon as possible.
Agree on internet
Would be brilliant addition to infrastructure to provide town/county-wide access (although I have the uncomfortable nagging thought that we have become even more specifically and narrowly dependent on the net for communication as we got on gas-driven vehicles for transport). Re: "Hopefully a hurricane Fran level of impact to this area is a once-in-a-lifetime event." You do know that's a classic FLW (famous last words) comment! I found the ice storm just as difficult, and those aren't so infrequent; and the outages we have from sub-Fran-level storms are still debilitating to the area, even if we're not on the coast. But I take your point(s).
RE: Fiber Optics
Forgive me if someone has already commented on this...
This Town of Chapel list has the following:
Project: Municipal Fiber Network
Description: Installation of a fiber network to connect municipal facilities, transit services, and create a backbone for connecting to local schools.
$678,000
Its my guess that this money would help fund a fiber loop and associated hardware for a project to replace the traffic signal system in Chapel Hill and Carrboro. That system is pressently coper wire. A new system would have multiple strands of fiber. One strand for signals and another for data. So every building within a short distance of a traffic light could hypothetically be connected to this backbone.
Last year the Town of Chapel Hill put in $500,000 towards this project with the NC DOT. It was scheduled, back then, to be completed by 2011.
The big question is, Will average citizens and businesses be able to take advantage of this publicly owned resource in ways besides municipal facilities, transit, and schools?
A really good question
Certainly the fibre is capable of carrying far more than the traffic light signals, full motion video and control commands. Even beyond the school system demand there is plenty of room for public access. The question is will the intermediate nodes be capable of accepting a wireless signal and/or "spokes" from other fibre and will the backend permit connection to the internet.I am certain there are security concerns, but those concerns are certainly addressable. Inquiring minds........
Ready to go proposals
Since this is a proposal that is ready to go, you should contact the town and ask for the policy that will be guiding the use of the fiber. When the tech committee recommended this project several years ago, we had every intention that the fiber should be segmented into private and public uses.
Negotiating the bandwidth
As with any network connected to the Internet there is a cop at the spigot. Meaning some company, or consortium, controls the connection from one network to all the rest of them. UNC-Chapel Hill, Orange County, and the Chapel Hill Carrboro School system all use NCREN to "connect to each other, the Internet, state government, and national research networks, like Internet2 and National LambdaRail." Even some Towns in North Carolina use their services. Such as the City of Winston Salem and the non-profit WinstonNet.
The Town of Chapel Hill and the Town of Carrboro need to begin negotiating peering agreements and connections to NCREN or something similar. Otherwise its just a Local Area Network with local data only.
I would think
.....there would be commercial connections to at&t (Bell South) and Time Warner as well as to NCREN. Local businesses could provide cheap or free commercial access through their Wi-Fi networks. With the NCREN connection it would be possible to provide service to public buildings and link in EMS, fire & police dispatch to the new county E911 facility.The first thing that would need to happen is to figure out who is going to be the "traffic cop" and who is going to make the cash outlay for the NE's and facilities that comprise edge access and the PoPs.
I do understand
....the FLW phenomenon. That's why we have a generator and at least two sources of heat/hot water/refrigeration/cooking and communication :) I would be interested to hear what your specific concerns are about the internet and dependencies. Are your concerns technical (e.g. survivability) or social (e.g. isolation and lack of human contact) I see definite puts and takes from a social perspective, but the internet was designed to be survivable from the ground up.BTW, WRT to budgets and spending, There is an interesting budget/income/tax analysis on a per county basis here:http://www.ncacc.org/taxcalculator/select.html#I would be interested to know what conclusions people draw from comparing Orange County to other counties from a budget perspective?
S. Columbia improvements relations to the airport proposal
First a process question: Many of the posts are out of chronological order. Do others see the same phenomenon or is there a problem with my browser? What's happening?The comparison of the improvements to South Columbia to the proposed airport do show that the political system works as it should. I would expect that that leaders of UNC Health Care would want to make it as easy as possible for patients and visitors to reach the hospitals. They have proposed twelve lanes from the hospitals to the bypass: Four on S. Columbia, four on Manning, and four on the new proposed road near Mason Farm Rd. But it's OK for them to want this, for they are serving their constituents, patients and visitors as well as their financial well-being, to make access to our hospitals as easy as possible, especially in the ever-growing competition among local med centers.Someone has to balance their desires against the desires of the people who live near our hospitals, and the someone in this case in the CH Town Council. What is interesting to note is that it was Chancellor Hooker and his executive Elson Floyd who agreed to the compromise, not the leaders of the med school and hospitals. Chancellor Hooker saw both sides there, as does Chancellor Thorp (see below) pertaining to the airport proposal.Terri, you wrote above "I realize that others don't care for the deeper needs of the university. I do since they employ me but also because I believe they serve an important role in the social, technical, and health status of the rest of the state." Terri, I have given my career to UNC, mostly to its med school, and I do understand and care that UNC has the deeper needs and the state-wide role to which you refer. I have served on many many committees that have addressed these issues. However that does not mean that I will support UNC's desires obediently. When UNC's or UNC Health Care's administration proposes a road, an airport, or some other major project, its state-wide benefit must be balanced against any local negative impact, as we see with both examples in this thread.I don't know how the airport proposal will play out. I do believe that UNC has to do a better job justifying it, for it does have negative local consequences. I am heartened by recent comments by Chancellor Thorp that he agrees that the county commissioners have the authority to make its land-use decisions, and (my words now) that may include denying the airport. The county commissioners in the airport case, like the CH Town Council in the S. Columbia case, will be the deciders.
Who decides what the deeper needs are?
Yes, and I think the other question is this: What are UNC's actual needs (as opposed to the Board of Trustees' desires or the deisres of the hospital's governing board)? I understand that the folks who are currently in charge of the hospital have a certain point of view on a project like S. Columbia St., but I do not assume that they are necessarily objectively correct about what the best solution is - either for the local community or for the people of North Carolina in general.In other words, who should decide what the "deeper needs of the university" are? I realize that the General Assembly has put that responsibility into the hands of the Board of Trustees, but that does not mean that we should blindly accept either the NCGA's or the UNC BOT's judgment on the issues.In fact, I choose not to defer blindly to their judgment precisely because I care so much about UNC.
Balance
I absolutely agree with that Joe. "When UNC's or UNC Health Care's administration proposes a road, an
airport, or some other major project, its state-wide benefit must be
balanced against any local negative impact." But in many of the discussions on the airport and CN, I don't hear some members of the community recognizing the role this community serves for the rest of the state. We've had a lot of growth over the past decade so there is a large part of the community that has never experienced the way we can balance state and local needs. I take the selection of Holden Thorp as a positive sign from the BOT that they want to improve relationships too.
The entire retail/business
The entire retail/business area of Chapel Hill only has 1.5 MB Net access available because Ma Bell won't put in any more access boxes. This is a travesty. This needs to be addressed ASAP.
Pages