I was just contacted by PPP and asked about candidates and development issues. Was anyone else called?
Author
ldhintz
Moved to North Carolina in 1983 after finishing M.S. in ecology from University of Arizona.
About Us
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.
Community Guidelines
By using this site, you agree to our community guidelines. Inappropriate or disruptive behavior will result in moderation or eviction.
Content license
By contributing to OrangePolitics, you agree to license your contributions under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.
Zircon - This is a contributing Drupal Theme
Design by WeebPal.
Design by WeebPal.
Comments
Support Light Rail
Then you need to support the current line so you can expand it. From my understanding the numbers only justify the current route, not necessarily where someone thinks it should or should not go.
My little brother is not wealthy
My little brother is not wealthy. Don't make class assumptions, that is in poor taste. He is a coder and his car is a Yaris.
Deep breaths.
Compared to people who *need* public transport your brother has a good job, a bright future and is "wealthy". That's the point....I was joking about the lexus 'cause it sounded better than "should we take the LRT or the Prius".
Lol. Well your jokes distract
Lol. Well your jokes distract from meaningful dialouge and need to be addressed so no one gets a false impression about the points people are making. I belive it is important to call people on what I perceive as bad behavior, if the comment was was not intended that way, then my only criticism is stick to what you know. You are giving people a false impression about my little brother's living circumstance when you interject those assumptions. They may or may not make judgements about walkable mixed use transit oriented development as a result based on the assumptions you add or try to point out.
People live better when they don't have to get into a car and can walk to where they work, walk to their entertainment destinations, and walk to the grocery store. That is the only point I am making. Many people in Chapel Hill are much wealthier than my little brother, and many are much poorer, but they could all benefit from the lifestyle.
Ummmmm
All I can say is non sequitur.
what about the impervious surface
So now we are back to the fact that there are consequences to all development - some good, some bad. Why would anyone support the OVER 4 million square feet in impervious surface already apporoved when a large chunk of it is going to parking if it is basically unnecessary?
Seattle got it right when it opted to build a campus in an under-developed industrial area. Too bad Chapel Hill couldn't hold out for a similar use that would exponentially increase the tax base with very revenue positive development on The Edge site. Right off of I-40, 55 acres waiting to be a boon to Chapel Hill, and now, nore likely a huge liability/
We are building a walk-able,
We are building a walk-able, transit oriented, mixed use development in an under-developed area. That is what Ephesus Fordham is. I imagine the change will be no less drastic that South Lake Union. Greenbridge is a walkable, mixed use, transit oriented development that was placed on top of blight. 140 West is walkable transit oriented mixed use development on top of a parking lot (with all its spaces replaced).
People still need parking, my point is that they are not necessarily contributing to congestion. People will still get in there cars to drive out of town, but the goal is to reduce in town trips to as close to zero as possible. You can only do that with a vision that integrates all this planning with transit and public investment. That is what Council has been trying to accomplish.
OK....but
Bus service is not frequent enough, CHT is in financial difficulty and all the money is getting sucked up by LRT which goes nowhere near those places you mention. The lack of planning is just astounding.
The town is planning to make
The town is planning to make a sustainable transit plan, and fighting the light rail only makes traffic, connectivity, and walkability worse. The fact the link below exists proves there is no lack of planning, and the fact you don't know that is astounding.
http://www.townofchapelhill.org/town-hall/departments-services/chapel-hi...
And it isn't just about
And it isn't just about transit service. It is about building development that integrates all of these components. You have to build it, otherwise it will not come. Not building, or building the wrong projects, simply makes the problem worse. Everything is connected, it is an organic approach.
Yep their plan is to hire
Yep their plan is to hire more consultants, borrowing more money and raising taxes further. I hate to tell you but what is on that page is not a plan.
Your comments are just are
Your comments are just not accurate in a way that I can respond to. I don't think we can have a value added conversation.
nothing left to say
You know, Mark, George Bernard Shaw said " The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." I write this because Instead of informing each other, I am finding you to be an idealogue who is proving very frustrating.
1. No one mentioned "fiscal mismanagement" in the discussion of AAA ratings but you in an sad effort to lay that claim at my feet.
2. We are not building what you envision - if we were I would support it. When Weaver Crossing was reviewed at the CDC I pointed out that the Northern small area plan recommended high density development at this location. It is surrounded by a really supportive walkable environment with stores that support residents - 2 supermarkets, restaurants, cleaners, hair salons, movie theaters, hardware store, drug stores, banks, and more. But what did council approve on on 3+ acre lot? A two story mini strip mall, stand alone Walgreens all SURROUNDED by more parking. What a gateway entrance....the examples you cite are flawed. Downtown does not provide amenities for residents. The 140 West parking lot is running a deficit - by the Town's own admission.
In reply to Mr. Blake, you said "Diversity, liviability and community values are a seperate topic from an objective third party value of financial health." Financial health is intrinsic to to diversity, livability, and community. YOU brought up the bond rating as evidence of financial stability. Argue one way or the other.
The bottom line seems to be that you don't want to have any questions about anything that is currently happening and I am. If you think questioning is threatening, I find that sad..
Some apologies, some clarification
First I want to apologize if you sincerely believe I was trying to put words in your mouth and claim you said "fiscal mismanagement", that was not my intention, nor was I attributing that comment to you. I have heard candidates express this general sense that the town is in dire financial straits, and I was trying to point to an objective standard that should be relatively non-controversial (a AAA bond rating) to say that making such a claim, is irresponsible. I remain open to hearing your argument that the town is in trouble if you can point to an objective third party standard that claims the town, is, in fact, in dire financial straits. I don't think you are able to produce that data, therefore I stand by thd claim that saying the town is in financial trouble is irresponsible. The town is fine financially, and anyone who claims otherwise is making statements not based in fact.
Second, Downtown will provide amenities as population increases. We still need more market share for a full service grocery store. Everything you mention is a picture in time, you have to stand by certain values and visions, using the best information available, to promote a dense walkable community. The Council has made great strides in promoting walkable mixed use communities, and will continue to do so with community support. The fact that no CHALT candidate supports the light rail demonstrates they do not share a vision of a community where citizens can leave their cars parked for months on end without ever using them. People should be wholeheartedly supporting transit and additionally recognizing the Council acknowledges the current shortfalls of transit funding and is planning to address it in a meaningful way. The Council should be applauded for recognizing this and supporting transit. The reason transit funding is even an issue, is because the economy, in addition to the state and federal politics, have change. As a result, the assumptions that drive the funding model change. The Council hasn't neglected the transit system, the rug was pulled out from under them with the recession and the Republican NCGA.
If you aren't planning for sustainable mixed use transit oriented development, you are promoting policies that will exponentially drive property values up (because insufficient supply is added, R-1 doesn't cut it, and is auto-centric to boot), and will push lots of residents out (those that can't pay the high taxes). You have to plan for urban mixed used tranist oriented communities in appropriate places, while protecting neighborhoods and adding socio-economically diverse housing stocks. Bus Rapid Transit, bike and ped trails, light rail, and regular bus service, help keep everything balanced. You need all of it.
I am not agreeing with your
I am not agreeing with your numbers regarding impervious surface or parking by the way. My point is that by only focusing on those elements you are missing the bigger picture, which is how we plan to make Chapel Hill a well planned, walkable, connected, and socially just community. I am not arguing for unconstrained growth, or irresponsible growth, or even massive growth, I am arguing if you do it right the numbers are a distraction. It is about the vision. You can have 10,000,000 cars in Chapel Hill, but if they are like my little brother's Yaris in South Lake Union, the streets will be completely clear. He also lives right next to a Whole Foods and carries he groceries across the street to his apartment when he shops. Which is what the people at EF will have. Now we just need to find a way to get them some light rail (be it sooner or later), and make sure we create a sustainable fare free transit plan.
Now I know your brother is
Now I know your brother is rich. He shops at Whole Foods. LRT at EF, eh? Another 2 Billion. Pretty soon you are talking real money son.
Eventually the light rail
Eventually the light rail could go somewhere like Ephesus Fordham if people valued it. In short, CHALT does not understand the value of tranist oriented mix used planning. And I repeat my comment about my brother, he is not wealthy, and again you are being disrepectful and unproductive. Your jokes distract from meaningful dialouge.
OK I won't talk about "whole
OK I won't talk about "whole paycheck" anymore. You should also stop bringing your brother and his means into the conversation. It obviously upsets you and is completely out of context for Chapel Hill.
You are obviously out of touch with financial realities and struggles of those that are transit dependent. The fact is that many people who have no other option do not live across the street from Whole Foods, do not have a car that needs to be started every six months due to lack of use, nor are they "coders" at AMZN. Many are minimum wage employees. They take 2-3 busses to work often adding hours per day to their commute and the LRT sucks the funds needed to add buses and routes to make their lives better, not serve some yuppy definition of walkable communities.
Sheesh..
What does a AAA rating mean?
These kinds of reports focus more on the ability for the town to pay back debt rather than public service impacts. So, if the town were to default on a GO debt, for instance, would the tax base support debt repayment if the creditor stepped in, went to the front of the line, and used tax increases to recoup its loans? They are less interested in what service cuts would be made, nor are they that interested in what trade-offs would need to be made to accommodate larger debt payments each year. Nor are they interested in sustainable service planning like having a rationale capital improvement plan or having regular funds to maintain newly built capital assets. The focus is much more on can you repay these debts rather than how does debt issuance/service fit in with larger service needs and plans.
What an AAA rating means
An AAA rating is from private rating services and examines budgets, expected revenues, and ability to service the debt. It is the highest available rating available. The Local Government Commission (an arm of the State Treasurer) rigorously examines and has to approve all debt issuance, whether voter-approved general obligation debt or alternative financing that is being used to purchase new buses. Budgets and the projected tax base are examined. There are debt service schedules that show when principal and interest need to be repaid. Yes the bond debt has first claim on the budget. If there was actually a default or one about to occur the LGC could place a local government in receivership and administer the budget including tax levies. In the last 40 years only Princeville, a small 99% black town has had this happen and this was because of both corrupt management a a flood that decimated much of the tax base. As for the bus debt, there is no direct claim on town revenues but I suppose if not repaid the buses could be repossessed as they are probably pledged as collateral. Based on LGC approval of all this, I think the financial Armageddon talk I see is not well placed
AAA bond rating means?
All the AAA bond rating means is that Chapel Hill is expected to be able to make the payments. If Chapel Hill had to pay back the bond by raising taxes or cutting services to free up additional capital that would not affect the AAA rating. Median income of the population and high employment are taken into account, so that if a property tax increase were to be necessary, that funding wouldl provide the capital for bond payments.
oops sorry to post the same ideas twice -
Shouldn't the "reply" be under the post it is referring to?
If you know of a better third
If you know of a better third party metric for the financial health of a community, beside a AAA bond rating, I am open to hearing you argument. I am not aware of one that exists. The fact that that financial health has only come up as a major issue during election season, I think, is a better indicator of the purpose of the discussion. Election hyperbole. I never heard of any issues of overspending, insolvency, or financial mismanagement in Chapel Hill. The press would be all over it if it was the case.
Again, the bond rating
Again, the bond rating measures the ability to pay the debt. Chapel Hill has a very well off population. Also some of the highest taxes in the state. Bond ratings do not measure diversity of population, livability or community values, all of which are affected by high debt and taxes.
Tell the truth, you think money grows on trees don't you?
You didn't answer my question
You didn't answer my question, you are adding information unrelated to my point. Diversity, liviability and community values are a seperate topic from an objective third party value of financial health.
OK you obviously just do not
OK you obviously just do not get it. Raising taxes and property values (rents) to keep your bond rating (pay off debt) drives people who can't afford it out of our communities. So you end up with a rich enclave like Greenwich. I don't know about you but I value the diversity and believe the middle class is important. I also believe that police, firefighters, teachers and municipal workers should be able to afford to live in the community they work in. Those are my values and the dovetail directly with finance. I believe that this values are also the values of the community at large. Does that answer your question now Mark?
As I said before: Your
As I said before: Your comments are just not accurate in a way that I can respond to. I don't think we can have a value added conversation. Respectfully I don't believe you have a sincere desire to have a civil conversation. You just keep adding assumptions and information un-related to points. This will drive this conversation on forever in an unproductive way. I made the mistake thinking we could agree or disagree on points in a thoughtful way. I wish you all the best.
You simply can't hold up your
You simply can't hold up your end of the conversation Mark. Good luck.
Thanks! :)
Thanks! :)
PPP
From the poll, "42 percent of respondents say they are undecided on their first choice for Town Council and 52 percent say they have no clear second choice. 22 percent of those surveyed say they support challenger Nancy Oates as their first or second choice among CHTC candidates, followed by incumbents Jim Ward, 19 percent, Donna Bell, 18 percent, and Lee Storrow, 13 percent. Challengers David Schwartz, 11 percent, Jessica Anderson, nine percent, Michael Parker, eight percent, Adam Jones, five percent, and Paul Neebe, three percent, round out the crowded field." Since I'm not running this year, I'm enjoying looking from the sidelines. I suspect that one reason Maria Palmer won two years ago was due to her name recognition from her newspaper column and this may be why Nancy Oates scored highest on this poll. Seems like Lee, David, Jessica and Michael are all within the margin of error. Since voters can vote for 4 candidates and the survey only asked for the top two choices it leaves even more room for uncertainty for an election cycle which has just begun.
Touched a bit of a nerve there Terri
....don't take it personally Jerry & Jason are just upset that the LRT us unwinding. They are having a bad week.
A great week
Actually had a great week. Spent it in London and Cambridge with my son and his Carrboro resident fiancee who is in grad school there. Just back to the US. And it's actually Gerry not Jerry.
LRT
LRT for Charlotte is going very well and continues to be funding. I suspect that we will get back state funding for Orange/Durham LRT.
I suspect the cap will be
I suspect the cap will be removed. Funding is another issue.
'The fact that no CHALT
'The fact that no CHALT candidate supports the light rail demonstrates they do not share a vision of a community where citizens can leave their cars parked for months on end without ever using them."
Mark, I will just address this one preposterous claim and try to deal with the other aspects of your post that I disagree with tomorrow.
As far as I know, ALL of the CHALT candidates support transit. They support BRT and clean busses for the town. The LRT will serve the UNC and Duke students and employees. At this time, and perhaps at no time, will it help anyone get to RTP (I should star this so I remember to ask why?, why?, why? hasn't the town approved any office space that provides enough square footage for a corp looking to locate here? Then people WOULDN'T have to travel...) LRT will not help The Edge or Evolve residents get to UNC, but BRT would.
To a large extent though, this is diversionary. We were not talking about LRT and I'm not going to cooperate in changing the subject!
More tomorrow.
We are going to have to agree
We are going to have to agree to disagree. All we are going to do is throw data at one another all day, and see how long the other can last. Have a pleasant evening.
Pages