Terri Buckner's blog

In 2013, a couple of European psychologists reviewed the literature in an attempt to define the term “quality of life.” Their conclusion was that it “turn[s] out to be an ambiguous and elusive concept.”

In an editorial in the Chapel Hill News, Travis Crayton and Molly DeMarco claimed “Many of us might have originally chosen to live in Chapel Hill/Carrboro because of the high quality of life, exemplified by a vibrant student life, arts and music scene, and abundance of unique, local businesses.”

CHALT members have staked out their desire to “Protect the quality of life in Chapel Hill’s residential neighborhoods, where we live and raise our children.”

Social science researchers learn in introductory methodology courses to define their terms up front. So I am asking you to share your thoughts. What does ‘quality of life’ mean to you? We know there isn’t a “right” answer, but that doesn’t mean we can’t come to a local consensus. If we can construct a shared definition, perhaps it will make conversations about solutions more inclusive, or at least less divisive.

On Tuesday evening, the Board of County Commissioners will hold a public hearing on recycling. There has been a change in the way the law is being interpreted which makes the current fee system questionable. Currently the county is divided into 3 sections. Some of the rural community pays for 2 of the 3R fees (availability and convenience centers) and the portion of the rural community that gets curbside collection on recycling pays for those same 2 + an additional fee of $38 for collections. A new funding source is needed for the curbside collections portion of the fee (a service that effects about 13,000 residents).

The county is considering 3 options to get around this legal issue. 1) go to a solid waste authority (like OWASA) that would be a separate operational and financial unit, 2) create 3 solid waste tax districts, or 3) eliminate curbside collection for neighborhoods outside of a city limit.

The Orange County Board of Commissioners will place a 1/4 cent sales tax on the ballot this November. Revenues generated from the tax, which is expected to raise $2.3M annually, will be allocated for economic development (42.5%), repairing older school buildings (42.5%), public safety (15%). The tax will not be applied to food or pharmaceuticals.

Of the $977,500 expected to be raised for economic development, the county manager has proposed that 30% ($293,500) go to building infrastructure within the economic development zones and 15% ($146,625) go to a small business loan fund such as the one Carrboro initiated many years ago. I haven't seen anything designating the use for the remaining $439,875 (55%) other than a report in the CH Herald about the need to offer incentives.

When we go to polls in November, we will not be voting just for the new sales tax, but also for this allocation plan. Can you support it? Does this plan signal a new day to you?

Questions that I'm interested in having discussed are is 30% enough to build the needed infrastructure in less than 10 years? How should the other 55% be spent (I am totally opposed to incentives)?