Preservation vs. "Sustainable Growth"

I know, I'm starting to act like a velvet hammer, but, well, there are some college towns that haven't shied away from the idea of preserving really nice tracts of land, in perpetuity.

I'd be interested to hear from all the masses from UNC and the towns who visited Madison last summer. Did you visit the Shoreline Preserve and the U Wis Arboretum? That's nearly 2000 acres of land in Madison.

Check out the mission statement for the preservation of the preserve!

I think it's time we all stop feeling like there's nothing we can do to refocus UNC on offering Carrboro and Chapel Hill a very different and sustainable endowment for the future: the preservation of the Horace Williams Tract, permanently.

An article with, I think, some solid models for preservation, as opposed to "sustainable growth."

Issues: 

Comments

This thread reminds me of how indebted I feel to Duke University for the recreational and conservation opportunities it provides to me, to Orange and Durham County and surrounding residents, through the Duke Forest properties. In all the time I have lived here I have found the opportunities provided by Duke Forest a major attraction to the area. I must also add that I have no official or unofficial attachment to Duke. Also to continue my praise of Duke, I have just revisited Duke Gardens with my 6 year old daughter, not that I'd completely forgotten what a wonderful place it is, but seeing it with her reminded me how its beauty and tranquility can be life enriching.

Jim Rabinowitz

Hey I think Carolina North is completely unnecessary and even a waste of a beautiful piece of property that is the Horace Williams Tract. I think it should all be preserved for its a amazing place.

As someone who moved here about 3 years ago from Chicago, I find the casualness with which people bulldoze forests down here completely heart-wrenching. Chicago is pretty much built out to the last square inch.

The areas surrounding Carrboro are beautiful, yet every time I turn around, there is more destruction. Winmore: Who needed it? The construction on Old 86 just north of Dairyland: who needed that? the school going in on Eubanks: no doubt "needed" because too many subdivisions were built in the past. (Who's paying for that, by the way? I'll bet it's us, rather than the developers! Has anybody considered how this route-- which I commute on-- will be impacted by slow, smelly school buses? I didn't think so).

And Carolina North.I suspect the UNC looks at all the greedy developers lining their pockets at EVERYBODY's expense and figures why shouldn't they, as well? I think they should look to Duke's example. They should exercise vision and see the TRUE value of the forest they technically "own". They should build Carolina North, if they feel they must, but keep it as close to the same "footprint" as the Horace Williams Airport as humanly possible. That would still constitute a lot of land, and everybody would be happy.

I think Carrboro should institute a permanent ban on the "development" of any lands not currently developed. Such an action would protect not only our lands, but our general qaulity of life.

As someone who moved here about 3 years ago from Chicago, I find the casualness with which people bulldoze forests down here completely heart-wrenching. Chicago is pretty much built out to the last square inch.

The areas surrounding Carrboro are beautiful, yet every time I turn around, there is more destruction. Winmore: Who needed it? The construction on Old 86 just north of Dairyland: who needed that? the school going in on Eubanks: no doubt "needed" because too many subdivisions were built in the past. (Who's paying for that, by the way? I'll bet it's us, rather than the developers! Has anybody considered how this route-- which I commute on-- will be impacted by slow, smelly school buses? I didn't think so).

And Carolina North.I suspect the UNC looks at all the greedy developers lining their pockets at EVERYBODY's expense and figures why shouldn't they, as well? I think they should look to Duke's example. They should exercise vision and see the TRUE value of the forest they technically "own". They should build Carolina North, if they feel they must, but keep it as close to the same "footprint" as the Horace Williams Airport as humanly possible. That would still constitute a lot of land, and everybody would be happy.

I think Carrboro should institute a permanent ban on the "development" of any lands not currently developed. Such an action would protect not only our lands, but our general qaulity of life.

Tom:

I might gently suggest that the people who "needed" Winmore or "need" the new construction are people like yourself who recently moved to the area.

I include myself in that group as well, as I'm a transplant to this area, as are a great number of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Triangle residents.

One attitude I find interesting is people who move here from somewhere else and then immediately want to make that harder for others by putting a moratorium on development.

Tom,
One of the tough issues faced by UNC's Leadership Advisory Committee last year was the question of how large the foot print of Carolina North should be. The towns advocated for 25% of the site, approximately the size of the airport and other existing uses, with the rest preserved in perpetuity. The university agreed to the 25% as the limit for the first 50 years but not necessarily for longer.

I understand your sentiments Chris and have felt the same way. But from my perspective, growth is reducing the quality of life in this community. The schools are being forced to make radical budget cuts in order to pay for building new schools. OWASA is raising rates in order to pay for growth. Carrboro taxes are going up in order to build the new fire station. Chapel Hill and Orange County are asking Chatham County for financial contributions to build a new park.

We're in a positive feedback loop. Growth does not pay for itself, even at OWASA despite their efforts. As population grows (and goes elsewhere to start businesses or work), the cost of living here is becoming prohibitive and we are losing the essence of this community with increased homelessness, less cultural diversity, more pollution, gardens in parks instead of in backyards, schools that are eliminating after-school programs, science teachers, and counselors.

rom Bill McKibben:
"For most of human history, the two birds More and Better roosted on the same branch. You could toss one stone and hope to hit them both. That's why the centuries since Adam Smith launched modern economics with his book The Wealth of Nations have been so single-mindedly devoted to the dogged pursuit of maximum economic production. Smith's core ideas—that individuals pursuing their own interests in a market society end up making each other richer; and that increasing efficiency, usually by increasing scale, is the key to increasing wealth—have indisputably worked. They've produced more More than he could ever have imagined. They've built the unprecedented prosperity and ease that distinguish the lives of most of the people reading these words. It is no wonder and no accident that Smith's ideas still dominate our politics, our outlook, even our personalities.

But the distinguishing feature of our moment is this: Better has flown a few trees over to make her nest. And that changes everything. Now, with the stone of your life or your society gripped in your hand, you have to choose. It's More or Better."

What Chris said is true - if people didn't move here so much, there would be way less market for all this new development. That's a huge part of the issue, and it does often seem to be those same folks who come here and then never want to see the community change from the day they arrived.

On the other hand, I've lived here since I was 2 years old, and I welcome Chapel Hill's thoughtful, planned evolution into a larger and hopefully more sustainable community.

Terri:

I agree that growth has overwhelmed the Triangle, especially Chapel Hill and Wake County.

I ended up moving to Durham so I could get more for my housing dollar. I'm guessing if you took my house in Durham and dropped it onto High Street or Ashe Street it would go up 2x in value.

If you dropped it into Chapel Hill it would get torn down and something 2.5x as big would be built.

I wonder if there isn't a difference in perception between people that have been here a long time and people who have just arrived. What I mean is that if you've been here a long time you remember when Chapel Hill (and especially Carrboro) were cheap places to live, which helped sustain a sort of bohemian air to the places. I also remember much less traffic and Chapel Hill seeming like a ghost town in the summer.

However, if you just moved here from Washington, DC or San Jose or Boston, I'm sure

a) it seems much less crowded with better traffic

b) your housing dollar goes much further.

I realize this has gotten off topic from the idea of preserving the Horace Williams track.

I personally think the tipping point for Chapel Hill from affordable college town to expensive college town that also serves as bedroom community happened when I-40 opened from Chapel Hill to RTP. That made Chapel Hill as viable a bedroom community for RTP workers as Cary or Raleigh.

I agree Chris--on the difference of perception and on the role of I-40. But I don't really think this is off-topic. Steve wants to preserve Horace Williams because he values the open space and the off-track trails (probably other reasons too). I want to preserve the culture and social values that have always been part of the small town (once village) persona of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. I think the two are mirror images of one another.

Back in the 1970s there was a lot of talk about population growth and its impact on the environment. The Tragedy of the Commons is a classic from back the, followed by the Limits of Growth. That perspective on growth--the carrying capacity of the physical space and the social and cultural impacts when resources become scarce--seems to be particularly relevant to Orange County these days.

My support for the upcoming elections will go to those candidates who are willing to address this issue head on. We need to look at the underlying causes of the problems we face instead of just masking the problems with sexy programmatic veneers.

"I might gently suggest that the people who “needed” Winmore or “need” the new construction are people like yourself who recently moved to the area."

I accept your gentle chide, but I moved to NC for job reasons; not by "choice", and moved to Carrboro to a 12-13 year old house because I thought the town was beautiful; far prettier than Chapel Hill. I feel its rapid degradation is a legitimate gripe, even for a newcomer like me.

"The university agreed to the 25% as the limit for the first 50 years but not necessarily for longer."

If so, that answers my objection to Carolina North. Unless there are nasty "devils in the details". The Inverness plan someone linked to here, on the face of it, looks reasonable.

"The schools are being forced to make radical budget cuts in order to pay for building new schools."

Just so. Some communities charge impact taxes on developers...

"I agree that growth has overwhelmed the Triangle, especially Chapel Hill and Wake County.....I ended up moving to Durham so I could get more for my housing dollar."

Durham is lovely, but my needs also include excellent public schools. Durham has growth problems, too. Look at all the unnecessary development along Erwin Road. Don't even get started on Chatham county-- that unfortunate county has bee the subject of several "The Independent" articles.

I think Tom's and Chris' replies underscore the very need for preservation of the HWT and other open spaces.

Folks are not going to stop moving to the area. With 10,000 homes being built in Chatham county people are moving from Raleigh, the Northeast and Florida in greater numbers than ever.

My challenge to local leadership is simply this: practice sustainable growth somewhere other than the HWT and other open spaces and insist that new developers include schools in sustainable-growth oriented neighborhoods.

While I'm aware that tons of effort went into the 25% containment of Carolina North, there's nothing binding about the LAC. UNC could clear an additional 100 acres late one evening and that would be that. Also, I am concerned that the towns are figuring this land into their own models of sustainable growth, and it would be nice to hear the council, aldermen, and school board respond here.

"Sustainable growth" implies providing for the the increase in population, right? More schools, more housing, wider roads, etc. Without "Preserve" stamped somewhere on the HWT, I am convinced that the towns will consider these lands as potential backfill for living space - far beyond the 250 acres.

And while it is not up to the towns to tell UNC what to do, during this interval of planning I believe a formal preservation initiative can and should be supported by local leadership and the people. Roads cannot be built to access Carolina North without approval from Carrboro and Chapel Hill. Infrastructure cannot be built without approval and transportation corridors cannot connect to existing routes without approval. Zoning is also in the hands of the towns.

As Dick McCoy, head of the Lakeshore Preserve in Madison, Wisonsin put it in a note to me recently, " The Alumni Assn. also wanted a piece of the land for senior citizen housing, etc. Crazy, it seemed to many, but the idea was far advanced when we stopped it. That land is also incorporated into the Preserve now."

Ideas far advanced can be stopped and replaced by more sensible ones. McCoy's note also emphasizes that without the distincition of "Preserve" the land is just assumed to be a commodity over which to haggle - "give us a school there and we'll give you a road here."

It's noteworthy that Lakeshore Preserve is in the domain of and branded by the University of Wisconsin. That university was not forced to preserve anything, but it was heavily influenced by Madison, UW faculty and the people who respected that land deeply enough to fight to restore and maintain it.

I think the major hurdle here is to keep this issue simmering on the front burner and, after the final round of public forums at UNC, launch an official campaign to preserve the 75% that is not planned for disruption in Carolina North's first phase.

I endorse "squonk" comments 100%. It would be great to get a formal, contractual agreement to preserve the 75%. And I still see no reason why we can't simply say "no" to development on new tracts in Carrboro as a whole.

From pretty much the beginning of the LAC process UNC was firm about a legally binding commitment to preserve any of HWA - they wouldn't do it.

UNC BOT member Perry, with lead Evans, made it clear that UNC wanted the "flexibility" to do whatever they wanted with "their" property. For all the enviro-hype around CN, Evans once again, at the recent community meeting, made it clear that verifiable "green" development was not in the cards (CN wasn't going to be an experiment in "green").

Of course, HWA isn't "their" property. It is the property of all the citizens of NC. Contrary to Evans and companies assertions, CN isn't an investment in UNC-CH's future, it is an investment in our local community's, State's, and, yes, University's future. There's been some good coming out of the LAC process. Unfortunately, moving UNC's leadership from an attitude of "it's our property to do with as we see fit" to one that sees HWA's development and PRESERVATION as a truly collaborative necessity has not been one success.

Or, as Chancellor Moeser put it to James Carnahan, "the university's mission cannot be defined in terms of those challenges."

I whole-heartily endorse the idea of preserving as much land as possible and mitigating the effects of growth on schools, transportation, etc. However, I don't recall anyone who posted in this thread addressing the issue of taxes. The costs of maintaining our schools (maintenance; teacher salaries, etc), fire and police protection, waste collection/disposal, etc. will all continue to go up whether anyone else moves into the area or not. And these increases obviously have a greater impact on our lower income residents, those who we often call upon to keep our towns running. Not all these increases in taxes are driven by expansion of services since inflationary costs often seem to rise faster in the public sector. If the increased growth in our towns is not covering the increased demand for services then that is a problem that needs to be addressed. But if the increased costs of providing our municipal services are out-pacing our increases in the tax bases we need to be thinking about what kind of growth we are willing to accept. Our growth has often been heavily weighted on the residential side which may not provide the most cost-effective form of tax revenue for the communities involved. As land becomes increasingly more scarce, what is the best usage that will provide some form of long-term financial stability?

Thanks to Terri for the McKibben quote and for bringing up the phrases "carrying capacity" and "limits to growth," the one most likely implying the other.

It would be helpful to have a broad discussion of what our carrying capacity might be. Carrying capacity is, of course, an uncertain term. Our carrying capacity may be somewhat different if we have a landfill in Orange County or if we ship our waste elsewhere. Carrying capacity depends on whether the OWASA water supply limits our growth or if it does not.

We have water forecasts from OWASA and school forecasts from SAPFO. The carbon reduction efforts could be cast in terms of atmospheric capacity. We could also frame in capacity terms the lower limit to which we are willing to go in terms of housing diversity.

A fleshed out notion of carrying capacity may not limit growth entirely but it could change the pace of growth. Consider the oldest redwood tree, at 2200 years. Is the forest or the redwood itself any the worse for that slow pace of growth? If it had grown to its size in just a few decades, might the forest have felt the silvan equivalent of what residential growth is doing to Wake County?

BTW, McKibben is wrong to suggest to that Better only recently fled its perch next to More. To take one example, there's a reason there were 25,000 strikes in the U.S. between 1880 and 1905. It's because the Few by grasping for More were taking Better from the Many.

One small clue as to why it is so difficult to make a transition to a more "preservative" and "sustainable" economy can be found in the thread on cultivating local businesses. It is apparent from the majority of posts that there is a deep-seated fear and anxiety about foregoing the big-business component of our economy and relying more on local resources and creativity. It seems that we have become dependent on the corporate macro-economy to the extent that we are fearful and hesitant to supplant it. We will never be able to resist the status quo economic forces represented by Carolina North and other ham-fisted large development projects unless we are willing to commit to a self-reliant community-based local economy.

I agree that the entirety of the Horace Williams tract should be preserved in perpetuity.

I would also argue that sustainable "green" growth is still growth.

I think one interesting question for the university, and one that I have not heard debated, is that if UNC truly does feel HWT is their "endowment for the future", is Carolina North really what they want to spend it on? Do they NEED this development or just want it because they think it will buffer the coifers or shoot UNC up the rankings. I think it's a want and not a need and that, preservation aside, it is not the highest and best use of this land for UNC or the community.

If CN comes to be, which I do not concede that it will, I would be willing to bet that in the not too distant future someone at UNC, perhaps a new chancellor, a new leadership, will look at Carolina North, call it a mistake, and realize there is no way to get Horace's land back. Once it's paved, it's gone forever.

UNC can buffer its coifers and climb the rankings without Carolina North, but not without a little courage.

GeorgeC, ever increasing taxes doesn't have to be an essential part of our future. First, look at the hit we're taking on Lot #5 and the additional tax-payer funded upgrades Greenbridge, East54, etc. will necessitate. Smarter choices mean smaller taxes.

The "rah rah" growth folks seem to treat our local citizenry like a golden goose that they can squeeze harder and harder for the bucks to fund their agenda. Their type of "sustainability" (million dollar condos, the creation of a gateless gated community) is only possible because they can subsidize their partnerships with our community's cash (in a sense, stealing from Joe Citizen to pay Cash-n-Carry Casey).

As far as "preservation", with the slick passage of TC-3 zoning, the soon to be reversal on its "non" use, the explosion of further bigger/taller is better, we're going to lose our Dowtown's historic human-scale ambiance. Yeah, the value of the existing skyline, to some extent, is in the eye of the beholder. I think preserving the organically-evolved sensibility of West and East Ends (with maybe a few tweaks) is well worth it - obviously the folks pushing an ersatz program of sustainability don't.

Maybe we can talk about preservation beyond the natural habitat of CN. What's the night sky or the ability to hear the chirp of the crickets worth?

I'm not talking about election year tree preservation gambits ( look how far will Strom and company go to manage homeowners' property when they can't commit to applying the same kind of rules for the Town or for their mega-development buddies) but an assessment of what puts the charm in charming Chapel Hill and taking steps, even if it's just recognizing the value of its components, to preserve it.

I take your point, Mark - there are important issues.

We're told that the environment and global warming is a huge issue. I can't imagine our community would be out of vogue by preserving a substantial forest and natural area in this day and age.

For this reason I believe it's critical to remain focused on the forest and see it from the ground up - a natural sanctuary full of wildlife that need not, by its very nature, be part of whatever socio-economic bandaids we presume we, as humans, understand how to incorporate (inflict?).

The only economic forces at work in the HWT are the ones we choose to enable. I have no doubt that as a preserve or as the Horace Williams Arboretum there would be an economic benefit to Carrboro and Chapel Hill, but, in a way, that brings the land onto a table of calculation.

The fact is that hundreds of us walk, run, ride, and enjoy this forest and it has given a great deal to us - in terms of community natural areas, wilderness sanctuary, and interaction with all sorts of wildlife. Prior to our morning run yesterday from Wilson park, I arrived to see 4 large bucks standing in a little island of trees by the parking lot. We all see lots of deer, many of them dead beside the road. Some would have us believe this is over-population. I think that's being confused with loss of habitat.

When I got out of the car, those guys kicked it up and headed into the forest...and, back there, we often round corners in the trail to see them standing no more than 10 feet away, just looking at us...trusting us. Fawns will be taking their first steps out there in the next couple of weeks.

WillR,
"Smarter choices mean smaller taxes."
I agree to an extent. We may be able to slow down the tax increases but I'm not sure we can eliminate them as long as both the federal and state governments continue to dump more and more of the social services they have provided onto the local municipalities. And there will continue to be cost increases that are beyond the control of our local officials (e.g., fuel, cost of goods). And yes, we can begin making choices now that can shield us from some of these increases in the future but change doesn't happen overnight but lately it would seem that our growth does. I think as Chris Chapman pointed out, there are residents who would be content to say "no more growth" now that they have their piece of the pie. And there are certainly residents who appreciate that growth can be good as long as it is smart. What has not been adequately defined in our communities, I think, is how much growth is appropriate and what defines smart growth. Building consensus on these issues will be critical to all of us over the next several years.

squonk, preserving key areas of HWT preserves off-site assets like Bolin Creek, established natural corridors for wildlife, etc.

I was challenged on this point by one of UNC's consultants at one of the recent CN outreach meetings. "Why did I think UNC is responsible for mitigating off-site impacts?"

They didn't think off-site would be affected, anyway, so why the worry? Of course, if I worked on a project that ignored key watercourses that led off-site or the impact of thousands of standing cars shedding pollutants on impermeable surfaces or noise and light pollution, I also might question the concern.

I suggested a gedanken. What if the CN's footprint raised downwind temperatures 5-8 degrees (heat island)? That's a pretty subtle impact (especially if you forgo monitoring for it [see Jack Evan's statement on 'green experiments']).

Further, what if there's a simple, cheap, in fact probably no cost (if done a design time) approach to mitigating that impact, say reducing it to 1 degree? Is UNC obligated to do that? Unfortunately, my example kind of lost them ;-).

From day one of the LAC process, I've called for a much broader assessment and commitment to monitoring both on and off site consequences of CN's development so we can understand what we're losing (not preserving) to balance against what we're gaining.

BTW, on the "what we're gaining front". Evans and company still are not interested in sharpening up their economic benefits story. The original analysis was beyond flawed, deliberately vague and completely unmeasurable. The good taxpaying folks of NC are about to plunk down a bazillion dollars for UNC's CN effort - it would be nice to have a real report on ROI.

Why haven't they had the Kenan-Flagler folks put together a business plan so that we can try to understand if the loss is worth the gain?

“Smarter choices mean smaller taxes.”

I would say that Carrboro needs more commercial development, but let it be SMART commercial development. 5th Season took some underused existing space and put a store in. It looks like the old lumber shed near Open Eye will have something new put in-- I don't know what is planned for that lot. In contrast, more subdivisions WILL mean more need for schools and other services. It isn't a simple equation.

As for CH's lot 5-- I do not believe putting some tall buildings on Franklin street is some kind of sin. I think development in existing spaces is the best kind. Speaking again as a relative newcomer, Franklin st. IS kind of dowdy. It does not have the vitality of, say, Weaver st (when they are allowing dancing on the lawn, that is). It is regretable that the lot 5 plan has run into technical problems-- and Chapel Hill residents will end up paying for these difficulties. Maybe they should pull the plug.

What level of growth is appropriate for Carrboro? Haven't we already achieved the status of highest population density of any town in NC?

GeorgeC, a simple example from the defunct Tech Board.

We knew with the TOC coming on line that if we did business the same old way folks would be shuttling back and forth over greater distances. Greater distance, greater fuel costs. We suggested preparing for that issue by providing better communication links, like video conferencing, so you could move information instead of people. What happened in the 3 years since? Nada.

Another topical example. We could work with the OC to produce bio-fuels at the landfill and use them to offset commercial fuel costs. Two years in, still no movement.

As far as social services, look at the Town's budget. We're spending more to paint and carpet Townhall than providing supplementary assistance for services. Nuts.

The majority of Council turned away from direct citizen involvement on the budget (an independent review of the books and projections is usually considered good business).

I firmly believe we can not only stop raising taxes but that we have an opportunity to reduce them if only we have political leadership and plan to do so. Sure, it might take 4-5 years to get out from under the umbrella of mistakes already made but we can do it.

Every time we talk about Carolina North, I am left with the sad, sinking feeling that we will be left with this, sooner or later. There seems to be no vision within the University that this could be something really SPECIAL and that it is their LAST chance to build something completely unique inside Chapel Hill.

"Every time we talk about Carolina North, I am left with the sad, sinking feeling that we will be left with this, sooner or later."

I think that is the most likely outcome, which is why we should raise our voices now. It beats giving up hope. Why is it that Duke seems to do so much better about environmental issues? Could we appeal to the alumni? People seem to be all into school rivalries with regards to trivialities, like sports down here (no offense to those who take sports seriously!).

I appreciate the enthusiasm on behalf of preservation and you can find that echoed in the CN public forums: http://research.unc.edu/cn/april_comments.php

There are some upcoming events to attend and be active in:

1. Carolina North Public Forum. Tuesday, May 29, 2007 at 3:30 and 5:30 p.m. (School of Government, room 2603).

(I note on UNC's website that " Local residents, faculty, staff, and students are invited to participate." Those of you who attended last month's meeting probably question just how much participation was actually allowed. And now the students are gone for the summer. I appreciate UNC's invitation to attend and to participate and will focus more on the latter during May's event.)

2. Saturday, June 2nd, National Trails Day celebration in Carrboro - details to come. I won't call this a rally, but plans are afoot to systematically gather information and support towards a preservation initiative (ie, Press Releases, Surveys, Petitions, etc.)

3. Monday, June 4th, Neighborhoods for Responsible Growth, CURB, CARR and Sierra Club: community forum on Carolina North at
Chapel Hill Town Hall, 7:30 p.m. This is a debriefing of the CN meetings, with recommendations.

Also, I was told at the last forum that the pond on the HWT was wetlands but hadn't been declared as such. Today I discovered that it is squarely in the US Fish & Wildlife Wetlands Data Base. I've asked for clarification from UNC's environmental consultant, Biohabitats, Inc. What's a wetland when it's in a database but isn't "declared" as wetlands?

I go back to U Wisconsin's Lakeshore Preserve Mission Statement and can imagine that many of us share the sentiment that drives it.

The Preserve is as essential to the university as its lecture halls, laboratories, and playing fields. It contributes to a powerful sense of place and fosters an ethic of stewardship to promote mutually beneficial relationships between humans and the rest of nature.

I believe there are many at UNC who share this sentiment, but feel they have no voice to express it. I'd like to bridge the gap.

Steve "squonk" Hoge

Jim- UNC has also provided for trails and most of them will be available for at least 50 years according to current plans for CN.

Ruby- While it's easy to blame new residents for complaining about the growth that allowed them to move here, I doubt it's that simple. Speaking as a new resident (from a western Chicago suburb with about the same cost of living as CH), I enjoyed the 'space' that existed 6 years ago when we moved in. I don't 'enjoy' seeing it developed but there's no other way- and I have met some great people who have since moved in. Landowners and developer want to make money (I would too), the towns encourage it and the demand is there. What is troubling to me is not the growth but growth outpacing the ability of the towns (and county) to support it.

Terri and Dan- I agree, maybe it's the current capacity, however it's defined, that should determine the rate of growth.

Will- Biofuels, yes! There is movement, it's just too darn slow.

John- CN is supposed to be carbon neutral. LEED standards are supposed to be used in building design. There is a plan to promote bike/ped mobility.

The only part of Carolina North that is proposed to be built in Carrboro is the First School. First School will expand the footprint of Seawell Elementary.

After seeing Chapel Hill, Carrboro and the Triangle develop over these nearly 30 years (almost 20 years living here), I'm still struck by how, even in the supposedly over-planned Chapel Hill, development progresses not in some kind of rationale unfolding to a common vision but in fits-n-starts more likely to be dictated by the rules of historic California's 49's than a commitment to make our communities more sustainable over the long haul.

Projects arise from the mist and can sideswipe even the most observant neighborhoods. Take the Weaver Dairy Rd. Ext. neighborhood. I work with someone who recently moved into that area after months of searching to find a home. They settled on a house backing up on the woods fronting MLK. No one mentioned RAM's plans to develop their "backyard" even though the concept plans were in play. He asked me how such an out-of-character development had progressed so far without a public uprising. I told him the pace and scale of development in Chapel Hill, especially in his area, was making difficult for residents to keep up on critical, even monumental, changes. Worse, the current process - an over reliance on a static comprehensive plan, an unwillingness to engage neighborhoods in a way that might derail some of our leaderships' desires to implement a sustainability facade - is broken with no fix (ala the evergreen approach the Planning Board suggested a few months back) in sight.

Same case for Downtown. The "rah rah, growth at any cost" folks on Council, instead of stepping back, using the new kinds of visualization tools available to educate folks on their concept of Chapel Hill 2010, have actually made it more difficult - with their combined approvals, mid-Winter modifications, etc. - for the average citizen to keep up. Heck, it's like Strom and company, in an attempt to nurture their density dharma and squelch potential derailment of their pet projects, have ripped the pages out of UNC's pre-LAC development play book.

Exhibit one, the growing list of folks shocked by the "quiet" approval of TC-3 120'/double density zoning.

Yes, I've found, as Chris' comments suggest, the longer you lived here the more extreme some of the changes seem but, I believe, this is more of a function of knowing local history - like remembering the huge PUBLIC debate over the 90' limit - contrasted with the gamesmanship of TC-3's approval than any desire to keep Chapel Hill a pretty little 'berg trapped in a mental snow globe. I've heard the same kind of reactions on East54. Those folks that rode out the Meadowmont debates are more likely to be shocked by East54's trajectory than those who have recently joined our community.

A moratorium, then, as Del points out, is a necessary step not only to re-craft our community's concept of the Northern reaches of Town but also an opportunity to fix our current planning process in time to manage Council's Casey's Hillsborough425, Shortbread, the Walgreening of MLK and, of course, Carolina North.

This is off topic but the primary goal of First School is to integrate pre-K classes into K-5. Should a new Seawell School include First School prinicples, it will not significantly expand it's foot print. Some classrooms will be added, approximately 200 students will be added to the school- most at the pre-K level (Seawell has already had pre-K classes). Given the dispersed nature of Seawell- two main buildings, few pods and a number of trailers, the overall ground the school covers probably won't change (and may be reduced). The current plan is to use the pods and maybe most of the trailers for other district needs.

Numbers can be discussed infinitely...
I have often wondered about the human beings behind the HWT/CN decision maker facades. I wondered how vested they feel as residents, parents, spouses, etc. in Chapel Hill. As people, and not "suits," do they appreciate what so many of us seem to know intuitively-that we (as citizens of the world) cannot pave and develop forever without consequences? That committing to preservation would be moral leadership? That the legacy of their decisions, cloaked by their professional titles, will be one of derision? That even on what they would see on a practical level, at one point,the academia they want to lure here will choose to go somewhere else because quality of life-in every sense-will no longer be found here?
HWT/CN is a microscosm not of Chapel Hill, but of the world. We ALL have to acknowledge that our environment is critically ill and respond-by taking responsibility and making those seemingly hard decisions. The right thing, in this case, is committing to the 25% footprint and preserving the 75% in perpetuity. The exceptions-your project has to be green, mine doesn't-have to end and an acknowledgement of new realities has to begin-anything else is shameful.
As a 12 year transplant (as we ALL are-unless you are Native American), there will come a point where we will be built out, unless we start building higher and higher apartment buildings and turn into Manhattan-don't laugh, we are equal in square miles. Growth cannot really go on forever, smart or not.
There are alot of people who never post to OP-but read it religiously to keep their finger on the pulse of the community. I hope the humans in the suits, see themselves, take a breath, and resolve to react in a moral way.

A note to Chris-

"One attitude I find interesting is people who move here from somewhere else and then immediately want to make that harder for others by putting a moratorium on development. "

As someone who lobbied very hard for the moratorium in NW Chapel Hill, I would say that the point of the moratorium is to make it EASIER for everyone by stopping, taking a breath, and re-orienting planning in order to create a BETTER community. Plunging ahead, with no forethought about consequences, does not serve anyone. Don't worry,growth will continue, we're just hoping that it will be better designed fir the environment and community.

Del- I like a lot of what you write and I think the moratorium in north Chapel Hill is a good idea and will allow for the community to catch its collective breath and take a holistic look at growth in that part of town.

However, I must disagree with your characterization that building up means building like Manhattan. All of urban development is not American suburbs or New York City with nothing in between. Design affects density tremendously.

Very few people know that Venice, Italy, where only church steeples rise higher than 5-6 stories, and most buildings top out at or below 4 stories, has the same residential density as Manhattan. The two feel drastically different (and most people who visit both find Venice infinitely more pleasant, except during the height of summer tourist season) because of the radical differences in the design of travel pathways and buildings. New York's streets are engineered for car movement. Venice has "streets" as narrow as 4.5 feet wide.

My point is that there are LOTS of ways that communities can develop, urban density exists along a great continuum, and that Chapel Hill has many choices to work with along the spectrum.

"The only part of Carolina North that is proposed to be built in Carrboro is the First School. First School will expand the footprint of Seawell Elementary."

Thanks for stopping in, Mayor Chilton!

I don't know much about 1st School-- I hope its footprint is smallish?

Off Topic: my son starts K in September, hopefully in dual-language. I understand the schools are facing a huge budget crisis because Orange County doesn't want to raise taxes. I hope you are looking into this matter?

Del:

Let me be clear. I was not referring to a specific moratorium. I was just talking about the idea that someone would move here and then expect that development and growth wouldn't continue.

I do hope a substantial portion of the Horace Williams tract is preserved but from what I've read here that seems like it is going to take some convincing of UNC admins.

"My point is that there are LOTS of ways that communities can develop, urban density exists along a great continuum, and that Chapel Hill has many choices to work with along the spectrum."

Very well said. I have always had a casual interest in Urban planning. I wonder if there might be some better way to make our community's choice more-- explicit, transparent?

Certainly, it would be good for people to have some kind of easy access (web based) to PROPOSED projects (like the one near Weaver-Dairy/MLK) alluded to above.

Thank you Patrick-
Of course, I don't really think that it's CH or Manhattan and I respect the existence of the continuum of what is between them. But, do you think growth can go on forever or is there a point of build out both horizontal and vertical? Density can be an incredibly positive tool, but the point of it, as I see it, is to preserve some open space. If CH ends up increasing density by increasing the footprint alloted to density, what will be left?

Excellent point about human-scale density Patrick.

Tom, transparency doesn't grease the skids when you're trying to recast Town under a singular vision of what someone might want "at any cost". I understand that increased outreach and involvement by folks might lead to a Town distinctly different than I prefer. That said, I prefer a flexible, integrative and transparent approach - with all the talent Chapel Hillian's have that we can tap into I believe this will serve us well. Maybe the Northern Area Task Force can create a new kind of template for soliciting and USING public participation to craft a decent result.

Del, there are limits. It's kind of funny to see who is now talking about "carrying capacity". In 2003, some folks posting here had a fun old time dressing down Robin Cutson's single-mindedness on OWASA's water capacity and growth. I, as did a few other candidates, agreed with her basic premise - water will dictate growth. But so will traffic, environmental concerns, fiscal responsibility, etc.

Del, I like what you're group is doing but we need to start looking at development as a whole. Breaking neighborhoods up into "study areas" or individual "conservation districts" works as a piece but, as our Town nears its limits of growth, we absolutely need a paradigm beyond a "sum of the parts" and create a holistic process (i.e. growth deferred in one area is likely to pop up elsewhere; problems created on one site, say HWA, are going to leak off-site, possibly quite far off-site).

There are intrinsic limits to growth. I don't agree with folks that say Chapel Hill is obligated to grow to meet the regional needs of the Triangle - that road leads us inevitably towards compromising the charm out of Chapel Hill as we shave our principles down-and-down - replace tested, measurable approaches with trite "triple bottom" bull leavings.

You got to feel a bit queasy when catch phrases like "eyes on the street" do more to dictate growth patterns than solid data and common sense.

Chirs, you note:

I think the exchange on this topic in this forum emphasizes that we can move from hope to action, and that the UNC admins don't really have to be convinced of anything.

Theirs is a public institution.

If they built every square inch of the HWT but did not have access to their research pods, how successful would it be? What would that signal to our community.

I think it's ok for us to say, "well, no...let's try this instead."

The towns have considerable power here. The town officials most influential in this process are elected.

Here's a question for Jack Evans and the Carolina North team: Are infrastructure (roads, easements, plants, transport corridors, etc.), First School and one other proposed school "on UNC land, but not in Carrboro" part of the LAC's 250 acres?

The LAC is UNC's covenant with this community. How accurate are their estimates? The disruption of the road to Weaver Dairy Extension alone will devastate a considerable portion of the forest. I'm flatly against all three plans for because they all have a road connecting to the North. It's an obvious connection for build-out in the future.

And I think infrastructure should be counted in all of this. Bulldozers aren't very surgical - 3 years ago UNC ran a 6 inch fiber optic cable through a section of the forest and cut a 20 foot wide easement for it.

It's really up to us and the towns to press the planners of CN to be very rigorous, and this is something that they have not been at the forums. I understand that - it's a planning phase. The LAC, however, doesn't say much about compromise - a little of this here for a little more of that there.

Perhaps you've also seen UNC's poster for the Institute for the Environment to be located at CN. John Muir was a contributor of to U Wisconsin's Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, and they at one point planned to build a new center at what is now Lakeshore Preserve. Faculty and townsfolk rejected the idea. They still have a nice center.

It gets back to perception. As many have pointed out in this thread, all this land looks like to some people is a place that could easily handle a lot of buildings.

Imagine the potential of preserving this forest! If 75% (or 100%) of the HWT was gifted to the community and preserved I cannot imagine the majority of Carrboro and Chapel Hill citizens waking up to say, "Golly, sure wish UNC had put that research campus out there..."

Instead, 50 years from now, folks might be all the more appreciative of the fact that there was a sizeable cluster of trees not surrounded by an orange plastic sign that reads "Tree protection area."

Our towns leaders are in the enviable position to, with the aid of the citizenry, insist on a legacy that embraces a backyard wilderness beyond 50 years. Over time, I would fully expect the value of that forest to increase exponentially beyond anything anyone could ever build there.

Sorry Chris, looks like I'm a failure at Block-quoting.

You obviously said: "I do hope a substantial portion of the Horace Williams tract is preserved but from what I've read here that seems like it is going to take some convincing of UNC admins."

...and said all that other stuff...in the block quote, above...somewhere...

squonk, you stated
"The LAC is UNC's covenant with this community."
Unfortunately, I don't think that is true. The Leadership Advisory Committee was appointed by the Chancellor to draft a set of guiding principles for his and the University's use in planning CN. It was understood at the beginning that neither the University nor any of the local governments were actually obligated to adhere to any of the principles endorsed by the LAC. We would, of course, hope that the Chancellor and his team would recognize the value of doing so but the Chancellor never committed (to the best of my knowledge) to anything other than receiving the LAC report and considering its recommendations. There were certain guiding principles (or lack thereof) on such issues as housing where the University representatives and the representatives from the various municipalities could not agree and thus those issues remain very much up in the air.

squonk,
Sorry for the attribution. I guess you were actually quoting Chris in that large block of material.

no...those are my words...I messed up all that quote blocking stuff... Sorry George (and, again, Chris).

but I believe that the heart of the LAC is a covenant, a promise. It's well-intentioned and its fulcrum is trust. That's not to say that the relationship between the towns, folk, and university is without friction - one reason to remain vigilant.

As a civic document, the LAC could use some teeth.

The LAC is NOT a covenant, nor was it intended to be. I think this very point is one of the reasons that the tows initially were not excited about participating.

I think there should be a moratorium on increasing the reach of the state-run school system to include toddlers.

Of course, the building will be LEED certified.

This specific use designated for CN further shows that we need to be focusing on What at least as much as How. A pre-K school to me is a sign of societal mental illness. So are university labs working on bio-weaponry. I have a very difficult time skipping past the lack of information on what types of activity there will be at CN to focus on how the development and building will be done. There is no holistic vision that reflects the reality of what the future will require of us.

Carolina North is a convent? No? That explains why we don't have a solemn agreement between the members of the community to act together in harmony with the precepts of the gospel...

Unfortunately, as UNC continues to roll out their "vision" of CN the divergence between the promise of the LAC process - clarity, measurable responsibility, understanding - is being undercut by Evans' / Moeser's comments. It appears Moeser's administratrion plans to cherry pick the elements they wanted from day one that they've embedded in the three presented options. They refuse to update and sharpen the CN "business plan" (from which we might discern the taxpayers ROI). Instead of clarity, vagueness reigns on what and how much will be sited at CN.

The one "known" unknown is the BOT date. So many other elements - even the absolutely simplest - are not resolved.

"A pre-K school to me is a sign of societal mental illness. "

Please explain; Are you speaking in general or in particular?

"So are university labs working on bio-weaponry."

Are they? I guess it would depend on exactly what they are doing, but I'd have to say, I think the world has plenty of weapons.

Children are healthiest when they are out in the community learning from real life, outside and exploring nature, and - especially for young children - able to spend time with family.

Putting pre-K children into an institution reflects a misunderstanding of human health, creativity, and potential.

Maybe someone could tell me why institutionalizing young children is the best way to "educate" them.

Pages

 

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.

Creative Commons License

 
Zircon - This is a contributing Drupal Theme
Design by WeebPal.