First Look at Chapel Hill Candidates

Interesting write up Dan. I appreciate that you are willing to share your biases with us. As moderator did you filter questions or did you ask everything that was submitted? Before the form began, did you inform the audience that incumbents cannot comment on issues that have already come before Council but haven't yet been voted on (such as the question about Larkspur road connectivity)?

Incumbents and challengers alike should not comment on quasi-judicial matters that will come before the board in order to main objectivity. But most matters that come before the BOA and the TOC are not quasi-judicial and therefore a fair game for questions and answers.

An example of a quasi-judicial question would be: Do you support issuing permits for Habitat's proposed development on Sunrise Road? Other questions are fair game, such as: Do you support more construction projects carried out by non-profit affordable housing organizations?

These two questions have a similar tone, but one is specifically about the issuance of a particular permit, while the other is a more philosophical question.

Let me jump in and say that Dan's characterization of the night is right on target, in my opinion. Whatever his biases may be, his descriptions accurately portray what I saw and heard.
As for the school board, I think all three of the candidates carried themselves well and would be good advocates for the district.

Dan Coleman states:

"Robin Cutson may be hoping that Mayor Kevin Foy does not participate in many more forums with the Council candidates. Taking a page from the anti-tax right, she blamed high property tax rates for the problem of housing affordability. Not so, countered Foy, pointing out that, for a $200k house, the Chapel Hill tax amounts to “only $1000” ($1160 actually)."

First, the "anti-tax right" consists of many elderly people on fixed incomes and moderate income people including town workers who do actually own houses in Chapel Hill and would like to be able to continue to afford them----it appears Mr. Coleman would like to silence these people by making them feel guilty or ashamed for not being wealthy by terming them "anti-tax right."

Second--taxes also include all fees such as stormwater utility fees and fees are increasing.

Third, Mr. Coleman failed to report that when Mayor Foy stood before the audience and told them their taxes weren't high there were audible rumblings of disagreement. Others in the audience spoke with me afterwards to say they were concerned about rising taxes and fees and appreciated my speaking out on this issue.

Mr. Coleman also states:
"Addressing affordable housing again, Cutson advocated for a living wage for UNC workers, a noble goal but not one the town council can readily address."

What Mr.Coleman failed to report is that I also pointed out that the Town was failing to adequately pay its workers----pay compression is a problem along with miserly cost of living increases and public transit workers who work split shifts not even logging in eight hours in a day.

This year the Town gave Town employees a moderate pay increase but then raised the cost of their health insurance to "save" money in the budget. But the Town did increase funding for the public arts commission from $125,000 a year to $150,000 a year. Why should town employees worry about their pay when they have public art. . .Let them eat cake.

Terri, you aptly thanked Mr. Coleman for sharing his “biases” with us. You also asked if Mr. Coleman, as moderator, filtered questions or “did he ask everything that was submitted?” Yes he did filter and no he did not ask every question sent up---to be fair he would not have had time to ask every question. However after the forum was officially over and candidates were still seated but invited to remain seated or mingle a woman from the audience did ask why her question was not asked –when Mr. Rutherfurd suggested she should go ahead and ask it, Coleman responded in a very angry voice that Mr. Rutherfurd was being rude and unfair to all the other candidates. Two people commented on it afterwards and stated they felt Mr. Coleman's tone of voice and vehemence was a little over the top and rude in and of itself.

With that said, I also want to add that the forum was great! I appreciated the opportunity to answer questions and meet a lot of really wonderful citizens and members of the Orange County Democratic Women.

I'm curious, did anyone say that Larkspur SHOULD be connected (sure kiss of death!)?
I find the Larkspur situation so interesting. Can someone clarify for me: Was Larkspur clearly designed to be connected to Eubanks?
I don't live in the Larkspur neighborhood, and would need to research this further, but it occurs to me (without knowing all the details, again) that prohibiting through-trucks from using Old Larkspur Way could keep the neighborhood connected and safe.
How could this controversy arise in such a new neighborhood? What went wrong here?

Dan's stated above that Jason Baker's "call on UNC to build 8000 residences at Carolina North rather than the planned 1800" was "an intriguing idea but one that needs fleshing out to be comprehensible"

In fact that idea has been well discussed here, see
http://orangepolitics.org/2005/07/a-concept-plan-for-carolina-north/
It is the Village Project that originally called on upping the number of residences from 1800 to 8000:
http://www.thevillageproject.com/
http://www.thevillageproject.com/CarolinaNorthConceptPlan.pdf (3.75mb .pdf)
also see
http://www.dailytarheel.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/06/30/42c31b0017511

"I find the Larkspur situation so interesting. Can someone clarify for me: Was Larkspur clearly designed to be connected to Eubanks?"

Mary, I was on the CH T-Board when the Larkspur project was approved. It was designed to be connected to whatever was built to the north and to connect to Eubanks, but not necessarily a direct connection - just a connection. The T-Board recommended approval based on a connection and the Town Council also approved it with a stub-out to be eventually connected.

"How could this controversy arise in such a new neighborhood? What went wrong here?"

Mary, it has nothing to do with the age of the neighborhood. No neighborhood that has limited access wants to be connected. It is the cul-de-sac syndrome. That is essentially how Kevin Foy described it on Thursday at the forum. The neighborhoods enjoy their privacy and want to retain it by not being connected. If every neighborhood does it then you essentially become a community of super-sized cul-de-sacs. And if the Council allows Larkspur to retain their "semi-segregation" from the rest of CH then how do they say no to the next request, and the next, and so on?

Instead of dropping out of CH (gee, they just joined us in January) the Larkspur residents should be working with transportation planners to engineer a through street with the appropriate traffic-calming (such as traffic islands, round-a-bouts, speed tables) to insure that any through traffic occurs at a safe speed. The developer of Chapel Watch Village (the project to the north of Larkspur) even offered to build traffic calming measures into the street when he builds their project but the Larkspur residents seem to want their super-sized cul-de-sac.

George C--why is connectivity such a mantra of New Urbanists? We have a lot of cul-de-sacs in this town. Is the plan to eventually do away with more than just those in Larkspur? From an ecological perspective, it seems like cul-de-sacs provide more open space for wildlife and children.

Okay, I'm back from Texas. The Orange County Democratic Women is a registered PAC with the board of elections closely allied with the county party. It has only been with the last two years that the state party has supported the organization of Democratic Women" groups and so there wasn't an OCDW until August of 2003. That's why these are our first forums. The only requirements for membership are to be a registered democrat and pay a $15 membership fee. We even have a few male members. We meet every 1st Thursday of the month, and there is always a "program", usually a forum or discussion of topics of interest to our membership. Beverly Perdue is a member of our group, as is Laurin Easthom, Ellie Kinnaird, and, of course, yours truly.

Octobers' program was intended to be a Carrboro candidates forum, and for November, I think we're going to have local constitutional scholars from Duke and UNC talk about the role of the supreme court and the potential implications of the addition of two strict constructionist judges.

Anybody that's interested can e-mail me katrinaATkatrinryan.com

Oh, and BTW, my little discussions with the membership after the forum would indicate that both Jason and Robin have more support than Dan's column would lead you to believe.

Jason states" The road was recently designed, and as such was designed to be a winding entrance to a residential neighborhood. I don't think we should be retrofitting recent construction to offset traffic from major arteries."

Jason, you should do your homework and check the records. That road was designed and the plans for Larkspur were approved based on the road being connected to whatever development went in on the north. This wasn't the Town Council simply saying 'let's see what neighborhood we can run a road through tonight' This road was on the plans as a through-street from the beginning. The fact that the Larkspur residents didn't bother to check (and I find it hard to believe that someone buying a $500K+ house doesn't check) is not the Town's problem - it's theirs.

Terri, having through-streets in addition to the major arterials is important for traffic management. You don't want all of the short trips to be out on the major arterials. And why should the school buses and the transit buses have to make a long trip around when they could go through the neighborhoods where the riders are? If the professional transportation planners (who presumably spend several years learning their trade) think that connections such as are being proposed are the way to go why are people so quick to dismiss their judgment? The definition below of local streets is from the indicated website. Notice that local streets are supposed to keep high speed traffic off the local roads - that's were the traffic-calming measures come in.

"Creating Quality Places - Successful Communities by Design"
http://www.qualityplaces.marc.org/3_print.htm

Local Streets: Quality local streets are an integral part of a larger network of routes designed to provide access to homes, shops and businesses, and to keep local traffic off major arterials and high-speed, through-traffic off local roads.

BTW, I'm not a New Urbanist. I just believe that if every neighborhood gets to decide what it wants, irrespective of any long-range Town plans, then you will eventually simply have a federation of neighborhoods - not a community. And when that happens we should just pass out a checklist in January and ask each neighborhood what services it would like to contract for from the Town in the coming fiscal year: police protection, fire protection, public schools, garbage collection, recycling, water, sewer. etc.

Terri, I think that there is a big difference between neighborhood conservation or even neighborhood protection and neighborhood isolation. BTW, if you're in favor of the cul-de-sac approach how do you feel about not-connecting the Sunrise Habitat project to the adjoing neighborhoods? Is this any different?

Terri,

You are absolutely correct that cul-de-sacs provide more open space for wildlife and children (and SAFER play areas for children). And studies have shown that children with access to cul-de-sacs play outdoors more often.

And I recently read an article wherein it was stated that many principles of "new urbanism" were appropriate for young singles and childless couples but NOT good for families with children. So if we really care about our children as a community then we need to stop pushing urban growth patterns that aren't geared towards children.

BTW at the forum Mayor Foy stated that cul-de-sacs were pleasant for those that had them but didn't promote connectivity and that people who fought to protect them were being "selfish." It seems that research is showing that they aren't being selfish---they are fighting to preserve a good environment for their children.

I suspect the real push for connectivity boils down to a push for public transit--which is always accompanied by a push for more dense urban development because public transit only works in densely populated areas. In short, it's a way to cater to developers and overdevelopment under the guise of environmentalsim and promoting "connectivity." New lingo, same old developer/politician game--see a nice Town, turn it into a city--see a city, turn it into a bigger city. City becomes overcrowded and too expensive to live in, families with children leave for smaller towns and suburbs. . .and eventually the developers follow and once again the process is repeated.

Eleanor Howe, chair of the Transportation Board was quoted in the Chapel Hill News last Sunday as saying, "Everyone wants to live on a cul-de-sac, no one wants a road." Funny thing is, Ms. Howe lives high on a hill at the end of a cul-de-sac. What a hypocrite!

Regarding the Larkspur connector, I'll tell you what went wrong: In a memo dated, June 2005, town staff admitted that they "forgot" to require the developer to post a sign stating the potential for future cut through. A sign was just posted in July 2005. The problem is, 47 houses had already been sold. I bought my lot and house in Sept 2002 and the real estate company selling the property (The Home Team) said that the second access point to Larkspur would be the Butterfield Ct extension which would extend back to Weaver Dairy Road. Several of my neighbors have said they got the same story from the real estate company. The real estate company had an obligation to seek out this connector information and disclose it. They did not and town staff didn't help at all by forgetting the signage requirement of the developer. In fact, if you read through Resolution A to Approve Larkspur on Feb. 25, 2002, this northern connection is not even mentioned. This has become such a big issue for Larkspur because we were surprised by this connector after we bought our homes.

The other thing that is going wrong is that Chapel Hill is trying to apply the prinicipal of connectivity blindlly. Here are the facts. The Town Staff admit in a memo dated August 2005 that one of the reasons for the connector is to offload arterial traffic (from Eubanks, MLK and Homestead). In anticapation of Carolina North access point at th end of Weaver Dairy and the recent buildout of the Town Operations Center off Eubanks, I think the Town would like to have a road built from free (by the developers) to handle the congestion problem they know is coming (see Regional Transportation Plan 2030 Deficiencies Map, figure 18). It isn't fair to use a neighborhood road that was design to "local road" standards and load it up beyond it's planned capacity of 1000-1500 daily trips. This is exactly what will happen over the next 5-10 years if the road is opened with unrestricted access.

There is no way for the Town to stop the UPS trucks from driving through Larkspur on their way to deliveries in Chapel Hill - other than to post a police car there all day. (The UPS Distribution site driveway will align perfectly with Chapel Watch Village's main entrance.)

Neighborhood connectivity is a good principle when you are connecting 2 neighborhoods to each other. This is a case where you are connecting a neighborhood to a commercially zoned arterial street. There is a big difference.

Thanks for the kind words Katrina! From the number of people approaching me to state they liked what I was saying, I too felt Coleman's assessment was inaccurate.

I also felt that Jason Baker did very well and is a strong candidate.

And once again, thanks Katrina, for assisting to put together a great forum!

Cheers, Robin

Amy Chute states "I bought my lot and house in Sept 2002 and the real estate company selling the property (The Home Team) said that the second access point to Larkspur would be the Butterfield Ct extension which would extend back to Weaver Dairy Road. Several of my neighbors have said they got the same story from the real estate company. The real estate company had an obligation to seek out this connector information and disclose it."

Well Amy, why don't you go after the real estate company that provided you with false or incorrect information? Of course, in NC the real estate agents, unless you contract with a buyer's broker, always represent the seller so you might have a tough time getting any satisfaction. Unfortunately, buying real estate is almost always a "buyer beware" situation.

"I think the Town would like to have a road built from free (by the developers) to handle the congestion problem they know is coming (see Regional Transportation Plan 2030 Deficiencies Map, figure 18)."

I think you're right. The Town would like the developers to provide roads for the added residents that their developments bring in - as well as provide funds for the other resources that are utilized. I think this is in keeping with an "adequate facilities" mentality that prevents developers from profiting at the expense of the current taxpayers.

"It isn't fair to use a neighborhood road that was design to “local road” standards and load it up beyond it's planned capacity of 1000-1500 daily trips. This is exactly what will happen over the next 5-10 years if the road is opened with unrestricted access."

I presume from this last statement that you have a degree in regional transportation planning which allows you to predict what is going to happen over the next 5-10 years if the road is connected. If not, you might want to tell us how you can so accurately predict the outcome without any prior training.

"There is no way for the Town to stop the UPS trucks from driving through Larkspur on their way to deliveries in Chapel Hill - other than to post a police car there all day. (The UPS Distribution site driveway will align perfectly with Chapel Watch Village's main entrance.)"

Yes, there is a way to prevent UPS trucks from using Larkspur as a cut-through. It's called 'traffic-calming' and involves things like: (1) making one or more 90-degree turns which require a driver to slow down (or stop if you put in stop signs at a 3-way intersection); (2) putting in traffic islands such as in the Oaks; (3) putting in speed table crosswalks. And since the developer of Chapel Watch Village can do this for very little cost at this stage of construction it won't cost the Town to do it.

And finally "Eleanor Howe, chair of the Transportation Board was quoted in the Chapel Hill News last Sunday as saying, “Everyone wants to live on a cul-de-sac, no one wants a road.” Funny thing is, Ms. Howe lives high on a hill at the end of a cul-de-sac. What a hypocrite!"

Don't start calling people you don't know a hypocrite. Eleanor Howe has spent hundreds of hours working for free for the Land Trust and serving on Town advisory boards. Without knowing anything about you Ms. Chute, I feel that I can safely say that Ms. Howe has given a lot more of herself to the community of Chapel Hill than you have.

George,

I asked the question about cul-de-sacs in order to learn why Chapel Hill transportation afficionados are against them (after so many years of approving them all around town). Sometimes it feels like the towns change theories without ever letting people outside the inner circle know why. That leads to people coming up with their own theories and then no one can talk to each other (commonly called problem solving). That seems to be where we are now with connector roads and density. Not only can there be no problem solving because everyone is working on a different problem (theoretical perspectives on maximized traffic flow vs child safety vs community cohesiveness), the animosity in the discussion makes it virtually impossible for anyone to back down. There is no opportunity to learn from one another and come to some kind of acceptable resolution or understanding.

To me there are competing perspectives even among town officials and staff. On one hand there is a desire for open space and neighborhood conservation. Cul-de-sacs certain achieve both of those goals better than thruways do. On the other hand there is a desire for reducing congestion through optimized flor. Something all environmentalists and commuters should advocate for. I don't know which perspective is "right."

Terri, thanks for a very thoughtful response. I agree that it would be more helpful if there was a greater dialogue. Unfortunately, it usually only begins to occur when a situation like this pops up. People are sometimes oblivious to what happens around them until it threatens to impact them and then they start to get involved.

The plan for the Larkspur connector would not displace that much greenspace. The difference might be that the kids can't play in the street but this neighborhood is fortunate that they have a shared community space and they have yards. I'm not sure that roads were ever meant to be playgrounds.

Another aspect of this that seems to have been lost to the discussion: the connector can be made with all of the necessary traffic calming to insure that the thru traffic is reasonable and safe. If it turns out that the transportation engineers were wrong and the traffic does becomes onerous, the road can be closed to normal vehicular traffic by use of emergency bollards. It is easier to close the road in a situation like that, where the data is in and verifiable, than to 'reopen' a road that wasn't ever there. I believe emergency bollards should be used as a last resort: if I'm having a heart attack every second counts and I wouldn't want an emergency responder to have to stop their vehicle, get out, unlock the bollard, and get back in. But then again, I'm at the age where I have to worry about such things.

George,

One more question so that I can follow this ongoing debate with some degree of understanding. Why weren't the traffic calming measures designed into the road if the plans designated it as a connector road from the beginning? Also, how does public works feel about these connector road designs--any problem getting their trucks around in neighborhoods built along such a design?

Terri,
I'm not going to pretend to be the expert on this. People who are seriously interested can talk with David Bonk or Kumar Nepalli in Town Planning and Engineering. But I can see several advantages of waiting to put the traffic calming in when you go to connect the road: (1) the traffic engineers have a better idea at that time of what kind of traffic needs to be 'calmed' (i.e., truck versus auto, etc.) and of the existing and projected traffic flows and numbers; and (2) the residents can actually have input on the type of traffic calming used (traffic islands vs roundabouts vs speed tables vs speed bumps or a combination thereof).
Obviously you design the traffic calming to allow public works and emergency vehicles to readily (albeit slowly) use it; i.e., the radii have to be appropriate to let trucks (including fire trucks) pass but ideally they are designed to let them pass SLOWLY. But at least the firemen don't have to jump out to unlock emergency bollards! That is why I believe this connector could be designed to be unattractive to UPS trucks (or other such users) looking for a shorter route.

There seems to be a lot of discussion of Dan's take on the forum, and I weighed in earlier supporting his viewpoint. Let me add a few things in order:

The big winner has to be Bill Thorpe. Many Chapel Hillians are unfamiliar with Thorpe's previous two terms on the Council.
I agree with this on the basis that Bill Thorpe did just what Dan said. I don't know if I will vote for him, but he did let the public know who he was and that he would be an advocate for the less fortunate.

Will Raymond, who has made his mark primarily as a diligent and effective critic, came across as affable, knowledgeable, and very into it.
I was impressed with Will and liked his answers, I am looking forward to going back and reading more of his opinions, but I am leaning his way this election.

Walker Rutherford has been discounted so far because of his inexperience and the “R” for Republican label he wears. It was surprising to find his answers pretty consistent with those of other candidates, particularly his disdain for Wal-Mart style big box.
I liked Walker's common man approach and I find it hard to believe he is a Republican. Just as I was once registered without party affiliation, perhaps Walker has yet to flush out where his true loyalties are compared to where his parent's or community's loyalties are. However, my own bias is towards candidates with more ties to the community. I could see voting for someone like Walker (if he loses the R tag, another of my biases) a few years down the road. Just my take.

Laurin Easthom had the poise of a candidate who's been campaigning for several months already...She made a strong case for supporting a downtown Children's Museum as a draw for families, grandparents, and visitors.
I liked the Children's Museum idea, which was a little out of left field and which she didn't have the time to expand upon, but what an interesting concept for Chapel Hill, we drive to the Durham museum often and were members until recently.

Mark Kleinschmidt was thus able to provide some of the most thoughtful answers, particularly his evocative description of the difference between “good” growth and “bad” growth.
Mark is a solid candidate, a sure bet.

The other incumbent in the race, Ed Harrison came across as rambling even with a 90 second time limit for answers.
I don't know Ed, nothing against Ed, but I agree. I can't remember any point he made.

Jason Baker, like Rutherford, needs to show voters something to overcome his lack of experience.
If Jason had focused his answer on growth around the Village Project and Carolina North, this might have been enough to rise above the crowd on one of the questions. As it was, I liked Jason's answers, but wasn't excited by them.

Robin Cutson may be hoping that Mayor Kevin Foy does not participate in many more forums with the Council candidates.
Dan took up five paragraphs for Robin. What he didn't cover was one of the major POINTS I thought Robin scored - water availability and usage. This is where my ignorance of OWASA issues arises - if we are near the limit of our water usage, then it would seem we are near the limit of growth. This is a topic I would love to see addressed in more depth by the candidates. Robin seems like an advocate you would want on your side, precisely because she is so over the top. My biggest problem is wading through the pages of political statements to see if I agree with her on everything, or even most things.

Robert,

I would encourage you to ask Robin to explain why she feels we are running out of water at the next public forum. As you note, she is so wordy I have a hard time weeding out her basis for the statement. Under OWASA's current planning model, we have sufficient water supply locally (University Lake and Cane Creek) to support the expected growth of the two towns and UNC through 2030. With the additional storage at the quarry on Hwy 54, we are covered through 2050. After that, all things remaining constant, we would have to tap into our allocation of Jordan Lake.

Thanks Terri,
I will ask that question, but I am sure that Robin will weigh in here (or is it way in Dan? I always thought it was weigh in, but grammar is not my strongpoint).

Dan,
Two things. Nothing wrong with lending extra space to an argument over issues. I mentioned the length to point out that perhaps you DID spend more energy dissecting Robin than the others.

I did want to point out that Robin made a strong statement that we were running out of water and that we couldn't continue to grow because of it. If that is right, it should be THE MAJOR focus of debate, not traffic. If it is wrong, it should be dismissed either by other candidates or in an article such as the one you wrote.

You are absolutely correct that cul-de-sacs provide more open space for wildlife and children (and SAFER play areas for children). And studies have shown that children with access to cul-de-sacs play outdoors more often.

And I recently read an article wherein it was stated that many principles of “new urbanism” were appropriate for young singles and childless couples but NOT good for families with children. So if we really care about our children as a community then we need to stop pushing urban growth patterns that aren't geared towards children.

If there is any data available to support these claims, I'd be interested to see it.

To my knowledge, there has been one detailed study completed on neighborhood travel completed in NC, and it compares Southern Village and Lake Hogan Farms, and focuses solely on residents in single-family homes.

It is available here, but probably only visible to those who can access the electronic journals via the UNC library or another public library using NCLive.
http://trisonline.bts.gov/detail.cfm?ANNUMBER=01001215&STARTROW=1&CFID=2...

A few key points- the first is that both Southern Village and Lake Hogan Farms have significantly larger household sizes (read:more children) than the region at large. This suggests that in the market in general, both locations are more kid-friendly than the average Triangle neighborhood.

The second is that households in both neighborhoods made roughly the same number of trips per day.

The third is that in Southern Village, among single-family home dwellers, the AUTO trip generation rate was lower than the Lake Hogan Farms dwellers by 1.6 trips per day (out of roughly 8 trips per day total).

A brief snippet of the paper by Asad Khattak and Daniel Rodriguez:

"neo-traditional neighborhood households substitute alternative modes for driving trips, i.e., the automobile trip generation rate for the neo-traditional neighborhood was significantly lower (by 1.6 trips per day per household) than the conventional neighborhood, as hypothesized, after controlling for other factors as well as self-selection. In addition, our empirical evidence suggests that households in neo-traditional neighborhood have:

• Higher share of alternative modes—on average only 78.4% of the trips were by personal vehicle,
compared with 89.9% in the conventional neighborhood;
• Fewer vehicle miles traveled—on average 14.7 fewer miles per day, consistent with shorter trips;
• Lower external trips—on average 1.8 fewer external trips per day; and
• Higher internal capture—21.4% of total trips produced, compared with 5.3% in the conventional
neighborhood."-
Travel Behavior in Neo-Traditional Neighborhood Developments: A Case Study in USA, p.497 in Transportation Research. Part A: Policy and Practice-Vol 39, Issue 6

Patrick --

in the specific case of Larkspur if they do not put in an automobile road but instead bicycle/pedestrian trails and emergency access only they CAN RETAIN MORE greenery... I don't know if that counts as "greenspace" but for Larkspur they will have to clear more trees and field than if they left it without a car connection.

The sign issue in Larkspur is horrible. Even now the sign is very small and off to the side but more than half the houses were sold without the signage warning of the road to come.

Finally, with GeorgeC in mind in general I disagree with creating the need for taxpayers to pay for traffic calming when it might be feasible without creating the road to require traffic calming.

On a minor point, Eubanks road and the future development sit right across from the Town operations center and the UNC park n ride lot.
Mass transit gains NOTHING by connecting the road. More frequent bus runs on Eubanks and MLK would be better than diverting buses through residential streets. although I concede I am not a traffic engineer.. I do not live in Larkspur by the way.

Helena,
You stated "Finally, with GeorgeC in mind in general I disagree with creating the need for taxpayers to pay for traffic calming when it might be feasible without creating the road to require traffic calming."

I'm not quite sure of what you were saying but if you were saying that the Town shouldn't pay for traffic calming, I agree. The developer of Chapel Watch offered to incorporate traffic calming measures in the connection and, at this stage, before the road is in place, those measures will add little cost even to his budget.

Just a quick note --

Surprisingly, the forum wasn't publicized over the UNC Young Democrats listserve (which has had close ties to the Orange County Democratic Women's organization when Elizabeth Self was involved) despite it being a great opportunity for YD women (and men!) to get to know the candidates' position (or get to know some of the issues in the first place!) Several of us -- including myself -- didn't find out about it until the next day in The Daily Tar Heel.

Also, I did hear from several people who thought the way that Dan responded to Walker was a little abrasive. Maybe a more mediated response of simply reclaiming the floor would have been more appropriate?

Dan, or anyone else who was present at the forum,
What were your impressions of the school board candidates? I haven't read any useful feedback yet...

Just small point re: Larkspur. Phil Post, representing developer of Chapel Watch Village stated a couple of things. #1-- they would not provide traffic calming in Larkspur, that's up to Larkspur (and I guess they would petition the Town) #2--more trees, vegetation, and more of a general buffer would be created in the area between the neigbhorhoods if a cut-through road was not made. #3--he and the developer were fine without putting a road through. It doesn't matter to them, doesn't make or break their project.

Laurin,
Regarding your three points:

"Phil Post, representing developer of Chapel Watch Village stated a couple of things. #1– they would not provide traffic calming in Larkspur, that's up to Larkspur (and I guess they would petition the Town)"

Phil Post did say they would be willing to provide traffic calming on the connector road in Chapel Watch Village before it enters Larkspur, which would provide the needed effect - and with no cost to the Town!

"#2–more trees, vegetation, and more of a general buffer would be created in the area between the neighborhoods if a cut-through road was not made."

Part of the road would also be passing through an existing, cleared easement which would minimize the number of trees that need to be removed

"#3–he and the developer were fine without putting a road through. It doesn't matter to them, doesn't make or break their project."

Of course, the developer would be fine not spending any more money than he has too but that doesn't mean what he wants is best for the community.

Ruby,

You said earlier "To answer that you should probably go ask a New Urbanist. I haven't met many in Chapel Hill (a few in Carrboro, though)." What do you call the redevelopment plans for downtown Chapel Hill? The public space emphasis? The desire for walkability/public transportation? The emphasis on connectivity? Seems to me that everything the Chapel Hill Council is doing is quite well aligned with New Urbanism. What am I missing?

George,
Regarding your point referenced #3--"...that doesn't mean what he (the developer) wants is best for the community..." My question is, what IS best for the community here? The staff said the cut-through is necessary to relieve stress from the arterial roads (MLK Blvd.). Is it best for the community, in this case a dense neighborhood filled with children, to relieve the stress of traffic on a highway (Hwy 86)? Should a cut-through road through a neighborhood road be created just to relieve stress from a highway? I contend not. If I were absolutely convinced that public transit HAD to use this road, that the school buses HAD to use this road, and that this road served as a NECESSARY connector from one point to the next, then I might think differently. Yet this potential road would serve no other purpose than to create a nice cut-through, and that is it. And BOTH neighborhoods, Larkspur and Chapel Watch Village, would suffer.

I was definitely not trying to “grandstand” as Dan put it, but instead was eager to hear what Peggy had to say. I figured if something was that important, the candidates might have wanted to respond. Unfortunately, I was unable to politely ask my fellow candidates if hearing another question would be agreeable before I was cut off. If anyone was offended by my actions, I sincerely apologize. In regards to Dan's suggested overly harsh reaction, he did come up afterwards and apologize; which I appreciated. I also realize that predicting that I will come in dead last simply because I am a Republican could be a preconception shared by a number of people. However, I hope it isn't one that prevents people from getting to know me and asking me their questions personally.

Robert- Thank you for your honest and thoughtful post, as well as considering voting for me. I hope that I can demonstrate to you and many others that I do not wear my “R” on my sleeve and am by no means your “typical republican”. I will say however that my views are my own. I have not lived in Mobile since eighth grade and my mother would be one of the first to tell you that we disagree on a number political issues.

In regards to my “lack of experience,” I feel that I have exactly the kind of experience that would complement the Council. For starters, having studied business and being involved with Liquidia Technologies from its formation, gave me a great perspective for the goals, values, and fundamentals of businesses. Secondly, my experience with various student organizations (ex: student government and general project management) will translate very well to the wide range of activities required of a Council member. In regards to the legislative process, I served as the parliamentarian of Student Congress for about a year and a half, served as my fraternity's parliamentarian for a year, worked in DC for a summer as a Congressional intern, and experienced writing bills and resolutions through my participation with the North Carolina Student Legislature. Lastly, while I've been a homeowner for only a few months, I continue to integrate myself with the community and have enjoyed doing so.

Just because Jason and I are young does not mean that we lack experience and perspective that could significantly benefit the council. I hope that one, if not both, of us get a chance to prove this in the near future.

As Laurin has pointed out, transportation decisions are by necessity contextual in nature.

Considering the location of Larkspur, the known and anticipated development North along Eubanks and South beyond Homestead, the real possibility that within less than a decade the pressure on MLK/Weaver Dairy/Eubanks due to UNC/North will far exceed UNC's projections and, finally, no driving need to support additional services (school buses, required connectivity, transit system), it seems that "connectivity" for connectivity's sake is counterproductive.

Laurin states "The staff said the cut-through is necessary to relieve stress from the arterial roads (MLK Blvd.). Is it best for the community, in this case a dense neighborhood filled with children, to relieve the stress of traffic on a highway (Hwy 86)? Should a cut-through road through a neighborhood road be created just to relieve stress from a highway? I contend not. If I were absolutely convinced that public transit HAD to use this road, that the school buses HAD to use this road, and that this road served as a NECESSARY connector from one point to the next, then I might think differently. Yet this potential road would serve no other purpose than to create a nice cut-through, and that is it. And BOTH neighborhoods, Larkspur and Chapel Watch Village, would suffer."

So Laurin proposes to send the school buses out onto a busy highway rather than have them drive through a neighborhood. Oh, I'm sorry, that will be the school buses carrying the children from Chapel Watch Village that have to go out on the busy highway. After all, the school bus for Larkspur can simply loop through their neighborhood and then go out on Weaver Dairy Rd. extension and down to Homestead. They don't have to go out onto MLK Blvd. Are you telling us that the Larkspur residents don't drive through other neighborhoods as they make their way around Chapel Hill? Of course they do. We all do. They just want their neighborhood to be different - to not have to share the roads with the rest of the community. Well, being part of the community is what's it's all about - or at least it should be. I'm sorry Laurin but this smacks of NIMBYism to me.

And WillR, since you were at the showing of THE END OF SUBURBIA last evening, and since there is a need for connectivity (as both the Town transportation planners and the majority of the Chapel Hill Transportation Board have argued [Laurin was a minority, dissenting vote]) I find your position puzzling. Would you prefer that the school bus for Chapel Watch have to use the main arterial?

And Laurin and WillR, what's the role of transportation planners in town planning if you think they don't know what they're talking about?

And finally,to both Laurin and WillR and anyone else who opposes this connector, what is the argument against making the connection, with all of the appropriate traffic calming measures, and then, if traffic does become an issue to close the connector to vehicular traffic using emergency bollards. I don't see how one can oppose this solution unless the traffic issue is just a smokescreen to protect Larkspur's cul-de-sac way of life. WillR, you seem to like to rely on a lot of data. If the transportation planners say this kind of road system works, and there is NO DATA saying that it won't, why not try it before making the final, irrevocable decision? And don't say cost, because making the connector won't cost the Town anything (the traffic calming on the CW site will be by the developer) and the costs of putting in emergency bollars, IF they are needed later to close the connection, is minimal.

This thread started out looking at candidates but seems to focus a lot on connectivity but I guess that's OK because at least 2-3 of the CH Council candidates have chimed in.
In case anyone is wondering why I advocate for trying the connector before making a decision, I have some first-hand experience. First, several years ago the TC "connected" my neighborhood (Chandlers Green) to Silver Creek/Springcrest. The same argument being made by the Larkspur residents was also made by the CG residents: people would cut through the neighborhoods to avoid the intersection of Weaver Dairy/Erwin roads and also to avoid the high school traffic on Weaver Dairy. Well, the Council also provided traffic calming and if there is any cut-through traffic, it is negligible.

Second, when I moved here 16 years ago my street was a "cul-de-sac" (of sorts). It was stubbed out. There were no signs telling me that the road might be connected but it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the fact that there wasn't a house on the end of this "cul-de-sac" probably meant something. Well, that road is still stubbed out. Why wasn't it ever built out? Because a developer bought it and didn't need to. That developer was the CCH School Board and they built ECHHS. And the neighborhood was initially opposed to that project because of (1) traffic (2) noise (3) parking. Well, I think I can safely say that the neighborhood now enjoys having the high school as a neighbor but if their initial fears had controlled the day, it might not be there today.

As I stated earlier, there is an option to try this connector and, if it doesn't work to then close it. If traffic is REALLY the issue the neighborhood should be willing to give this option a try if they really do want to be part of the community.

Transportation Board voted 4 to 3 on to connect the road from Larkspur to Eubanks. The "dissenting" board members feel so strongly about their position that they are presenting a minority opinion to the council when the council hears this item.

Laurin states "Transportation Board voted 4 to 3 on to connect the road from Larkspur to Eubanks. The “dissenting” board members feel so strongly about their position that they are presenting a minority opinion to the council when the council hears this item."

It should also be noted that the Chair of the Transportation Board, who has publicly stated that she favors the connection, was absent that evening or the vote would have been 5 to 3 in favor of connectivity.

Laurin, what is your response to my question (below) which I asked in my earlier post?
"And finally,to both Laurin and WillR and anyone else who opposes this connector, what is the argument against making the connection, with all of the appropriate traffic calming measures, and then, if traffic does become an issue to close the connector to vehicular traffic using emergency bollards"

George, I think EMOTION is the big argument against connectivity! This reminds me so much of the fight to connect Autumn Drive to Stratford--- some residents in Carrboro are still seething about this physically blocked connector road which would have provided residents more direct access to Homestead Rd. The fear was that 'everyone' would start using the connecting route as a cut through.
As much as I believe that planners SHOULD publicize their connecting plans in new neighborhoods and SHOULD go through with connector roads, I don't think the Larkspur connection is strategically important enough to fight over.
Give Larkspur another connection onto Weaver Dairy (the Butterfield Ct. extension which would extend back to Weaver Dairy Road) and be done with this one---- and don't let this happen again!
What we should be focusing on NOW is letting the public know NOW what the future of Weaver Dairy Extension is!!! I predict Weaver Dairy Extension will prove to be the fight of the century!!!
George, what purpose is Weaver Dairy Ext. supposed to serve? Was it built to connect to a road that will eventually come out of Carolina North or was it built to be a 25 mph neighborhood road with eventual traffic calming measures put in place? IT WOULD BE GOOD IF CITIZENS UNDERSTAND SOONER RATHER THAN LATER WHAT PURPOSE THIS EXTENSION SERVES!

GeorgeC -

I don't think a comparison of connecting springcrest to chandler's green is comparable to connecting weaver dairy to Eubanks road.

If Chandlers Green was going to have a carolina north campus with thousands of parking spaces right next to it than I guarantee people would start driving through spring crest to get to caro north. But even that comparison is not severe enough.

On Eubanks road you will have the town operations center and other commercial space and the landfill and where weaver dairy hits homestead you MAY have an entrance to carolina north. I'm sure if you built carolina north next to chandlers green and built the town operations center right next to springcrest you would get lots of traffic between these neighborhoods if they connected through to get to each place.

Finally, the arguments for the connection are circular: we need a connection to relieve traffic pressure but don't worry there won't be enough traffic for the residents to worry about...huh?

Chapel watch can easily hop aboard mass transit that already serves the Eubanks park n ride to get to town or UNC. My impression is that having very heavily used lines at high speeds e.g. Eubanks park n ride and MLK route is better for transit than having slow routes through residentials.

so far the school district has said they don't need this connection and the school buses for this area are 1.7 miles from seawell, smith and chapel hill high. they already go the safest most direct route as it is..

I have yet to hear a need for this connection for mass transit either.

Finally, (GeorgeC) I respect the town planners but often people most familiar with the neighborhood know some tidbits that town staff may not. And residents can have useful input to the Town.

I know many of the elected officials get bored to tears hearing neighborhoods asking for traffic calming. It is a guarantee that if these roads connect people will go before some future council begging for traffic calming. Why create this in the first place. The school has stated they don't need this connection.

Has mass transit made any argument for it? It would be hard to imagine. Most residents of Larkspur are within a few hundred feet of a potential bus stop on weaver dairy extension, and the same will be true of chapel watch village at Eubanks...

It would seem keeping mass transit on Eubanks, MLK and Weaver dairy (and the extension) is better than going through larkspur.

GeorgeC, you bring up some great points and questions.

You asked previously

I presume from this last statement that you have a degree in regional transportation planning which allows you to predict what is going to happen over the next 5-10 years if the road is connected. If not, you might want to tell us how you can so accurately predict the outcome without any prior training.

You're an OP reader GeorgeC. You know I've been pushing to expand the use of rapidly evolving collaborative/community-based information systems to spur participation in governance. Why open up the process if I only plan to reject the citizenry's input?

My campaign's "tagline" is Tapping into Chapel Hill's talent, innovation and creativity.. That certainly doesn't exclude or diminish our wonderful staffs input but it would be presumptuous to reflexively dismiss citizen input because they aren't "experts" in a particular domain. Our community overflows with talent, intelligence and enthusiasm. To reject their input out-of-hand is not only a bit elitist but also ridiculously wasteful. Our citizens, many of them "experts" (like Dr. Ron) , are quite capable of professionally investigating and reporting on issues that affect them.

Back to Larkspur. I didn't know jack about Larkspur until residents started appearing before Council. Some were quite emotional, some made arguments that sounded NIMBYistic but quite a few presented analysis that seemed to make a convincing case for not having a connector in this one neighborhood.

I don't recall hearing a general call to ban connectivity in all neighborhoods.

Based on what I know of that area, based on the expected developments in that corridor, based on the projected traffic flows, our staffs projection of additional car trips per day seemed awfully low. I used to drive by Larkspur daily. It's difficult to see how existing and future conditions weren't accounted for - including the Larkspur "straight away" - in the staffs report. Even if I was just a sideline observer in all this, these "lay persons" seemed to have reasonable arguments.

Why not try the traffic calming measures first and them pull them out if they don't work? In this specific case, it seems wasteful to build something anticipating nuking it. Additionally, I believe the Larkspurians are worried that when the countermeasures fail that drivers from outside their neighborhoods will protest the removal of a, by then, established stubborn traffic pattern. And, of course, the natural habitat would already have been destroyed.

Yes, GeorgeC, I know the retort that if we let one student chew gum, we'll have to let all the students chew gum. Connectivity is an established goal of our community but "connectivity for connectivitys sake" is bad policy. We should certainly have the flexibility to adapt to specific circumstances - such as those presented to the Council by concerned Larkspurians.

Finally,

And Laurin and WillR, what's the role of transportation planners in town planning if you think they don't know what they're talking about?

That's a fairly extreme extrapolation. I'm questioning of the analysis of our planners in one instance - Larkspur. Does their low number of projected additional car trips and the expected typical usages of that connector (throughway vs. neighborhood connector vs dragway) jibe with the rest of the data?

We have great staff and, as a citizen and as a Councilmember, I expect to continue to receive clear, convincing and professional counsel. But it shouldn't be puzzling that I'm willing to accept outside input. I would hope that is what you would expect from a leader - to listen, to weigh and to act on all the relevant input before them.

helena states "I know many of the elected officials get bored to tears hearing neighborhoods asking for traffic calming. It is a guarantee that if these roads connect people will go before some future council begging for traffic calming. Why create this in the first place. The school has stated they don't need this connection."

helena, I'm not aware that the school board has ever taken that position. As a matter of fact, Pam Hemminger, a School Board member and liaison to the CH Transportation Board, in an e-mail to the Transportation Board, stated "the School Board expressed their concern for a connector road to aid in the school bus route through the neighborhoods. Not having a connector would really cause the school bus a problem."

And, as I've said repeatedly, the developer has expressed a willingness to build traffic calming into the Chapel Watch Village project which should provide the necessary calming effect. And if it doesn't work, then close the connection. But don't dismiss the idea based on what you think might happen and that might never happen. We don't have the luxury of not keeping all of our options open.

I think Mary Rabinowitz is right: emotion is driving this argument and, I believe, more specifically - fear of the unknown.

I believe Steve Scroggs sent an email saying the school doesn't need the connector.

I don't think the school board has officially nor would they vote on this as a board.

The area is almost built out and the school buses already go in and out of larkspur with construction debris everywhere and dumpsters in the neighborhood so it will only get easier not harder for school buses. (also butterfield court stub out to weaver dairy remains another possible entrance in the future.)

Back to mass transit.... Is there an argument that would suggest this connection helps mass transit?

Oh and by the way (I like Hemminger) but I know what goes on with the school buses to Larkspur better than she does. The only problem the school buses have to this area is that there were not enough of them given the LARGE NUMBER OF CHILDREN that the school board did not anticipate. They had to add buses to this general neighborhood - Larkspur, parkside, vineyard square and Northwoods - a lot of kids..