Carolina North presentation

The issue of Chapel Hill representation on the UNC-CH Board
of Trustees has some history worth reviewing.
In the early 1980s, there were none, zero, nada, nulla, nincs Chapel Hillians on the board, save the UNC student body president, an ex-officio appointment.

BOT members are appointed
by the governor and by the UNC System Board of Governors.
Therefore, a number of us activists made the pitch
to Governor Hunt that the BOT makes
decisions that impact the lives of Chapel Hill people,
both those directly connected with UNC and those not.
However, there is neither a political nor practical link
to us local citizens;
we don't elect the BOT members, and since they don't live
here, they don't experience the daily impacts,
good and bad, of their decisions.

Be careful what you wish for; you might get it.
In the last two decades, three people with CH ties were
appointed to the BOT and all became the board's chair: Anne
Cates, Richard "Stick" Williams and Roger Perry. All three are into pell-mell growth; Cates and Perry in the real estate business and Wiliams as an officer of
Duke Power and former chair of our Chamber of Commerce.
Stick's message to the town council for years was (he has since moved to Charlotte) was constant and crystal clear:
growth is good, growth is great, yeah for growth!
When UNC expanded the main campus southward across
Mason Farm Road into, among others, Mayor Ken Broun's
neighborhood, Ken was unable to persuade Stick to
stand against this expansion.

In September, 1994, the BOT unanimously passed
a resolution, including the vote of Anne Cates, to
purchase, BY CONDEMNATION IF NECESSARY, two homes
on Mason Farm Road, setting the stage for the
UNC southern march to the Bypass. Since that time,
the BOT has established the operational philosophy to
purchase any homes in the southern area as they come
onto the market. This is continuing.

Applying this to Carolina North, don't expect the
BOT to minimize the impact of CN for us local people.
That is neither their role nor their bias. Our protection
must come from our local elected officials. Cam Hill
was right on last Tuesday at the most recent CN meeting,
which I believe was very well chaired by Jack Evans,
when he (Cam) said that citizen input is primarily
yet to occur, and will be aired at the various public
hearing's in front of the councils about the development
proposals when they are submitted to the towns.

If we needed another reason to ensure HWA closes, the Independent has a story saying that AHEC will take delivery of two light D-jets in late 2009.

The shocker for me was that Chris Hudson, former lobbyist for AOPA said: "Those aircraft are not mission-appropriate for AHEC" and puts the purchase on Chancellor Moser. The Chancellor was not directly involved according to the UNC spokesperson.

Let's just hope Roger Perry doesn't decide to buy one of those D-Jets.

Anyone out there know when the legislature will give the official word on closing HWA? Surely after all that's been uncovered recently about unethical politics and Jim Black, they wouldn't decide to keep it open? Or would they?

Maybe I'm being obtuse and/or overly suspicious (still, again), but -- nevermind the appalling tax-supported expenditure for the not-one-but-two planes with national-not-local cruising range -- doesn't Moeser's action suggest that he really doesn't intend to close HWA? Why would he be buying such high-end equipment if not primarily for non-AHEC use, as the article suggests? Surely the difference in transit time between prop or turbo prop and jet from here to Wilmington or Charlotte isn't huge, and we KNOW that emergency transport is rarely the mission of the fleet of AHEC planes.

Is Moeser, himself, really prepared to go to RDU to commandeer one of these planes for his fund-raising junkets to wherever?

Heard at least one of these jets overhead and they are, it must be admitted, quieter on landing than some of the old AHEC planes, which may be part of the strategy ("see? they're quiet!") to deflect concern from the more substantive issues of safety, security, liability, and congestion.

Thank you, Indie, once again for having your radar up and running.

Also: Chris Hudson seems to have stepped down from AOPA in order to devote his energies to HWA. Somebody needs to insist on clarifying that comment about the "thousands" who want HWA kept open -- i.e., the "thousands" of pilot-"friends" who may or may not live in NC.

I figured that a phone call to AHEC might clarify the relationship between their program and the Chancellor's office. I know that the program got kicked off by UNC's Medical School

The program began in 1972 with three AHEC regions under a federal AHEC contract with the UNC-CH School of Medicine. In 1974, the North Carolina General Assembly approved and funded a plan by the UNC-CH School of Medicine to create a statewide network of nine AHEC regions. The plan called for the establishment of 300 new primary care medical residencies and the regular rotation of students to off-campus sites.

but wasn't quite sure whose chain of command it currently fell under (their website is not quite clear).

The AHEC administrative assistant that took my call told me the Director, Thomas Bacon, would have to answer my question and I'd have to wait until next week sometime to talk with him. She told me she knew the reporting relationship but couldn't tell me what it was (she asked if I was from the media, I told her I was a concerned citizen who wanted to get his facts straight).

Luckily, a quick call to Dean Roper did confirm that the reporting relationship went directly through that office.

Considering what has been reported of Roper's and Moeser's relationship, I imagine a fairly clear audit trail must exist for the purchase of these planes.

Anyone interested in getting the details behind the purchase could call Dean Roper at:

William L. Roper, MD, MPH
Dean, School of Medicine
Vice Chancellor for Medical Affairs
CEO, UNC Health Care System

Contact Information:
4030 Bondurant Hall
CB# 7000
Chapel Hill, NC 27599
(919) 966-4161

or maybe post a comment on his 'blog asking for a clarification.

Or you could call AHEC's Bacon next week to get the straight scoop:

Thomas J. Bacon, Program Director
Phone: 919-966-8981
Fax: 919-966-5830
Email: tom_bacon@med.unc.edu

Beyond the basic thrust of the Indy's report, I found this statement to be most troubling:

Moeser was not directly involved in purchasing the planes, says McFarland, the UNC spokesman, and the $2.8 million to buy them will not come from taxpayers.

"Using private funds, university-affiliated foundations intend to partner with the [UNC] health care system on the purchase," he says.

Why? Well, the same argument, that as long as private monies are under-writing a proposal the utility (or lack thereof) of it doesn't matter. Carolina North's cornerstone project is the private-public (private benefits,public properties) partnership creating the Innovation Center - are the citizens of Chapel Hill and our State in general going to fed a similar line?

I figured that a phone call to AHEC might clarify the relationship between their program and the Chancellor's office. I know that the program got kicked off by UNC's Medical School

The program began in 1972 with three AHEC regions under a federal AHEC contract with the UNC-CH School of Medicine. In 1974, the North Carolina General Assembly approved and funded a plan by the UNC-CH School of Medicine to create a statewide network of nine AHEC regions. The plan called for the establishment of 300 new primary care medical residencies and the regular rotation of students to off-campus sites.

but wasn't quite sure whose chain of command it currently fell under (their website is not quite clear).

The AHEC administrative assistant that took my call told me the Director, Thomas Bacon, would have to answer my question and I'd have to wait until next week sometime to talk with him. She told me she knew the reporting relationship but couldn't tell me what it was (she asked if I was from the media, I told her I was a concerned citizen who wanted to get his facts straight).

Luckily, a quick call to Dean Roper did confirm that the reporting relationship went directly through that office.

Considering what has been reported of Roper's and Moeser's relationship, I imagine a fairly clear audit trail must exist for the purchase of these planes.

Anyone interested in getting the details behind the purchase could call Dean Roper at:

William L. Roper, MD, MPH
Dean, School of Medicine
Vice Chancellor for Medical Affairs
CEO, UNC Health Care System

Contact Information:
4030 Bondurant Hall
CB# 7000
Chapel Hill, NC 27599
(919) 966-4161

or maybe post a comment on his 'blog asking for a clarification.

Or you could call AHEC's Bacon next week to get the straight scoop:

Thomas J. Bacon, Program Director
Phone: 919-966-8981
Fax: 919-966-5830
Email: tom_bacon@med.unc.edu

Beyond the basic thrust of the Indy's report, I found this statement to be most troubling:

Moeser was not directly involved in purchasing the planes, says McFarland, the UNC spokesman, and the $2.8 million to buy them will not come from taxpayers.

"Using private funds, university-affiliated foundations intend to partner with the [UNC] health care system on the purchase," he says.

Why? Well, the same argument, that as long as private monies are under-writing a proposal the utility (or lack thereof) of it doesn't matter could apply equally to other projects.

Carolina North's cornerstone project is the private-public (private benefits,public properties) partnership creating the Innovation Center - are the citizens of Chapel Hill and our State in general going to fed a similar line?

Woops, I obviously missed the point that the planes were purchased with private monies, which -- as Will rightly suggests -- is troubling in itself. (Thanks for the correction.)

I think we can count on the private-sector part of the private-public "cooperative" planning for CN to be the door through which all kinds of things will be able to creep in without much review. We're still hearing echoes of the argument that the airport will attract private money, and what could be more pertinent than private money spent on planes? Circular but notable.

Will, what is it that you're looking to find out re: Roper and Moeser? I'm under the impression that Roper was most vociferous about keeping AHEC and making CN a medical research park with working airport. Officially that put him at cross-purposes with Moeser's plan to relocate AHEC flight-service facilities, but in the process, I seem to remember it being alleged or even established that Roper and AHEC are effectively independent of Moeser and that Roper -- by dint of his position as head of AHEC -- effectively has (and maybe does indeed have) a direct relationship with the legislative committee, by-passing Moeser's authority.

Meanwhile, might be at least as relevant to find out about less formal lines of relationship, say, between Roper and Perry. (And surely Perry needs air transport for his work, no?)

Which brings me to a question for Tim: do you know what, specifically, is under consideration in the GA? My understanding is that Moeser is now theoretically free to set up RDU facilities and close the airport once AHEC planes are moved. Was the committee that heard that last-minute AOPA salvo charged with coming up with a specific measure to stop Moeser? I know it all happens behind closed doors, but at some point, doesn't something have to show up on a pending bill (e.g., budget)?

Read responses from AHEC and UNC officials on our web site at:
http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A158790

"Carolina North's cornerstone project is the private-public (private benefits,public properties) partnership creating the Innovation Center..."

The area selected for the center is clearly in a low- density industrial zone as designated by the FAA -- hardly suitable (or safe) for a bustling office center. In that same low-density zone is the 18,000 sq. ft. YMCA addition planned for the other side of MLK where hundreds of children will be playing every day.

IMHO, it borders on criminal negligence to even THINK of allowing any major construction in that immediate area until the airport goes away, for safety's sake if nothing else.

The big question is, when is someone from the town council going to have the courage to speak up and say so?

Priscilla,

In answer to your question above, I haven't heard a peep about what Hackney and his gang plan to do about closing HWA. Hopefully, the GA will give UNC the go-ahead to start construction of the new facility at RDU.

The recent publicity about Hackney's connections to private pilots and airplane owners should be reason enough for him to think long and hard for postponing its closure yet again.

As Fred pointed out, if you're dissatisfied with the current Council crew, there are alternatives.

I asked point blank if not one brick would be laid at the Innovation Center until HWA was closed. Jack Evans pretty much said that's not the case, though he did give an approximate timeline.

You can see what he said right here.

Evans was chosing his words extremely carefully. "There is a plan in place to do this ..." is not the same as "we are going to do this...." It comes out almost the same each time he answers that particular question.

It's possible he's trying to avoid phrasing that would further provoke the HWA friends; it's also possible he was trying to preserve wiggleroom because he knows some things are unpredictable, and some things are out of the planners' hands and perhaps even out of the BOT's hands. But my radar goes up when I hear anyone being that picky with wording. The timeline, too, was couched in hedgespeak.

Will be interesting to see which "bricks" get laid first, the ones at the Innovation center or the ones at RDU.

WillR,

I don't see the importance of the connection you seem to be making between the Innovation Center and the closing of the airport. I want to see the airport closed as much as anyone else and I think it should occur ASAP. And I think the University did itself a great disservice in worsening town/gown relationships when it began flying jets into the airport without both notifying and discussing the issue with town officials. But the Innovation Center is one building that will probably have a couple of hundred persons working in it and will potentially be sited even further from the runway than our town operations center was. I want to see the airport closed but I don't think connecting that event to the building of the Innovation Center has a logical basis to the argument. At least not one that I've heard presented yet.

George, since we don't know enough about the exact location and the design of the building (height, etc.) to say if it is skirting the edge or not, we'll have to leave that for later.

As Priscilla notes, it's a question of how many "bricks" are laid before the eventual closure. I don't want to make a big slippery slope, camel-nose-tent type judgment here based just on the Innovation Center (the fiscal details I'd love to hear more of) but we should look at the pattern that is developing around the latest discussions about HWA and Carolina North.

If not at the beginning, then when for setting a specific, measurable commitment to closure? Under what conditions, and to what extent, is development safe and prudent before HWA is closed? Will projects begin to ring HWA, "temporarily" of course, while negotiations on its movement continue? If so, how does that deform the whole CN concept?

We've already seen the CN concept transmute from premier research campus to overflow. And with the arm twisting that appears to be going on vis-a-vis the Law School, well, you might begin to wonder what, if any, the eventual core structural and philosophical values of this "campus larger than Hillsborough" will be.

George C.

Re your comment: "I want to see the airport closed but I don't think connecting that event to the building of the Innovation Center has a logical basis to the argument."

The FAA obviously had good reasons for establishing the no-build/low-density zones around the airport. Are we supposed to let the University just ignore them?

Do you also believe that construction of the 18,000 sq. ft. addition on the YMCA property (which is in fact even closer to the hazard zone than the proposed Innovations Center) should be allowed?

Tim,

The point I was trying to make (but not very directly I admit) is that the University has presented virtually no data yet on which (any) one can make a determination of the appropriateness of the Innovation Center for that site. If I understand you correctly, however, you believe that ANY development, within a particular FAA-defined radius, is inappropriate while the airport is operational. You may have a very valid point, but that seems to be an issue that needs to be addressed by Town officials, not the University. My impression is that your concerns are honest and sincere but I can't help but wonder: if the University had announced a ten-year delay in CN and had offered to let the Town continue to rent the space for the Operations Center at one dollar per year (and a savings of 42 million or so for the new Operations Center), how many citizens would be fretting about the safety of the Town employees that would be working there. The airport might be a valid and reasonable concern regarding any proposed development near it, but the use of that yardstick should be objective, equitable and proportionate.

George, hopefully we would use the 10 years to build our financial reserves in anticipation.... so not quite a $42 million savings, at least in "money is fungible" sense.

Yes Will, hopefully we would save our money and the savings would be less. But tell me Will, if the University had announced that CN wouldn't start for 10 years and the Town Operations could remain there for a dollar a year - do you think there would be a public outcry calling for the closure of the airport because it might endanger the Town Employees working there. Or if the University said it wasn't going to build CN and that it would allow the IFC to build their men's shelter there for a dollar a year, do you think there would be an outpouring of neighborhoods saying: no,no - build it near me; no, we want it, etc.). I've heard a lot of complaints about planes flying low over homes and the risks presented to the homeowners but I can't recall anyone complaining about the risk to the Town's employees that worked there. I sure hope someone can find a column indicating I'm wrong and that someone had expressed concern for those employees that worked for us citizens while in the line of danger. As much as I would like to see the airport close (after all, someone (perhaps Erskine coming from Charlotte?) flies in over my house at about 4-4:30 AM at least three times a week or more.

But to put things in MY perspective, I'm much more worried about yesterday's Associated Press release of a Columbia University's National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse study which reported that the percentage of teens who say they attend high schools with drug problems has increased from 44 percent to 61 percent since 2002 and the percentage in middle schools has increased from 19 percent to 31 percent. I'm less worried that a plane is going to crash into the YMCA and kill someone than I am about the children of this community having their lives destroyed by drugs, a situation which appears to becoming rampant in this country. To make matters worse, about six in 10 parents of teens at schools with a drug problem say they believe the goal of making that school drug free is unrealistic. At least the airport is an enemy we can see and that doesn't move around to quickly. There are lots of problems in this Town that need to be dealt with - I'm just not sure the airport is the highest on my list right now.

George C.

In response to your comment:

"I'm less worried that a plane is going to crash into the YMCA and kill someone than I am about the children of this community having their lives destroyed by drugs, a situation which appears to becoming rampant in this country."

So am I, but that doesn't mean I have to ignore the fact that childrens' safety could be at risk at a new YMCA if the airport continues to operate. It's not a matter of "either/or." Teens and drugs is a whole other issue, admittedly more important, but nonetheless, another issue.

George, I'm struck by how many of the folks - yourself, Priscilla, Fred, me - posting on this thread have a personal relationship to HWA. I've lived in its shadow for 15 years.

For many years I woke to the loud rumble of AHECs props. I've walked most of the property. Use to push my sons stroller, then carried him, then walked with him to visit the planes and pilots. Even today, when planes approach from the North and turn West to the runway their headlights sometimes light our back room.

Having experienced HWA's wrecks, having lived within spitting distance for all those years, having seen some questionable development spring up around its margins - for all that - I've always thought the danger was minimal compared to other daily risks - say traffic on MLK or I40 out to the Park. I am aware, as I'm sure you are, though unlikely as it is, how tragic an accident a plane plummeting into one of the schools, the Y or even the municipal complex (and, yes, folks have expressed concern about our staff) would be.

I'm no FAA expert, but from the reports I've read on HWA (some posted here), the flight lanes are pretty darn tight given the type of aircraft we're talking about. I'm sure Fred could help decompose the flight speed vs. craft type issues to maybe clarify the real vs. perceived dangers.

Beyond that risk, as minimal as it might seem, I'm concerned about the eventual cohesiveness of the CN project if development is approached piecemeal.

Jack has been quite clear to underscore the difference between UNC's "we plan to" and UNC's "we shall" (we plan to preserve %75..we won't promise to...).

I understand, the nature of CN is obviously in flux and it is tough to nail down the details of most developments when projected 10 or 20 years hence. Then again, UNC continues to leverage the good PR of a claimed cohesiveness and comprehensiveness in the design of CN.

I fully believe that such a design could be achieved by partial buildouts working to a common framework.

But is that what we'll get?

You were at the last meeting George. Do you recall that UNC's energy dude made a point about the co-gen facility being a necessary complement to any development at CN? The Innovation Center isn't one building, it appears, but a building plus some supporting infrastructure - maybe even an initial pass at an energy facility.

Simply, how far can UNC develop CN without closing HWA AND still achieve a supportable cohesiveness?

Finally, UNC, unlike many institutions, can take a long view of CN's development and work to a plan that promotes a sustainable, independent campus. Maybe they can pull off an incremental buildout, with HWA in place for some period, and still end up with a decent result.

Unfortunately, I've yet to see the kind of plan and design that gives me confidence in their current approach.

Which reminds me, next UNC community outreach is Tuesday, August 28, at 4:00 p.m. in room 2603 of the School of Government.

Will,
I don't believe CN could (or should) be built without closing the airport. At least, based on every design we been shown thus far. But I do believe that a single building, the Innovation Center, could be built without closing the airport. But could doesn't mean should and that decision, if made, will await the provision of much more information to all of those concerned.
While the Council might allow one building to proceed under existing zoning, I would be surprised if there would be any support for the "we'll build them one-at-a-time" approach which might result in something that looks like a planner's bad dream.
I guess we'll continue to get a little more information each monthas we we approach the October target for presenting their concept plan.

George wrote: "I've heard a lot of complaints about planes flying low over homes and the risks presented to the homeowners but I can't recall anyone complaining about the risk to the Town's employees that worked there. I sure hope someone can find a column indicating I'm wrong and that someone had expressed concern for those employees that worked for us citizens while in the line of danger."

I wrote such a column after the series of crash incidents and this plus the schools were discussed as part of the Airport Advisory Board agenda.

Don't have the time to find the column but it was written about and discussed.

Thanks Fred. It's good to know that these concerns were being noted and discussed, even if not solved.

GeorgeC, from a Planning Board/Council perspective, what, legally, would be the reason for not granting zoning permits for CN "piece-wise" build-out? OI-4 was supposed to manage growth based on comprehensive plans submitted through a particular design process. With HWA's current zoning, can you deny an application "just" because it doesn't fit the overview that UNC so far has presented?

I expect UNC wants to follow through with their comprehensive design but expediency, more than careful forethought, might end up driving the process.

Fred, I remember reading the AAB's minutes where our municipal staffs' safety was brought up - I'll try to put my fingers back on them.

I expect UNC wants to follow through with their comprehensive design but expediency, more than careful forethought, might end up driving the process. -- Will R.

While the Council might allow one building to proceed under existing zoning, I would be surprised if there would be any support for the “we'll build them one-at-a-time” approach which might result in something that looks like a planner's bad dream.
-- George C.

You guys are right on. This has been a long-time concern,
that CN will get developed piecemeal, as funds become
available, with much thought but little true action
relating to the overall design. It's not at all clear when
the CN roads, utilities, cogen plant, etc. will actually
get built. Certainly UNC won't build all the roads and
the utilities before the innovation center is done. Similarly,
the now defunct First School was a previous, ad hoc
building, was to be built quickly with minimal infrastructure
as its funds were to become available.

Every ad hoc building will constrain the future design of CN.
Every ad hoc building will mean that there are more
active employees at CN during the major infrastructure
phase, which means that CN, like some parts of the UNC campus, will become unpleasant places to work in high-construction areas.

We can't minimize that CN will be a fifteen-year
construction project, with its accompanying noise, dust,
traffic hassles, etc, to both its workers and its nearby
residents.

Does anyone else think it's odd that no one on the Town Council has had the courage to take a stand on this issue? In the long run, the town may not have the governmental clout to insist that the airport go away before any construction begins, but at least we could give it a shot.

Unfortunately, until one of our town leaders voices an opinion, it looks like we just don't care one way or the other.

J. Nicholls,

I'm not sure what you mean about no one on the Town Council taking a stand. The Council adopted as its policy the Horace Williams Citizens Committee (HWCC) Report. The members of the Council that were on the Chancellor's LAC (Leadership Advisory Committee), Strom and Hill, made the point on several occasions that the Town's policy was governed by the Council's acceptance of the HWCC Report as its official policy. Until such time as the University puts a Concept Plan or an application in front of them, the Council members probably don't see a lot of benefit from commenting on speculative issues.

George C.

"The Council adopted as its policy the Horace Williams Citizens Committee (HWCC) Report."

As far as I can see from re-reading the report, the only specific reference to the airport is one of the assumptions set forth at the beginning of the document: "The Horace Williams Airport will be closed by January 1, 2005..." Other than that I can find no mention of it.

Therefore, I think it is important for our council members to take a stand on whether they feel the airport's departure is necessary before any major construction in the area moves forward.

At this point, I hardly think this is simply a "speculative issue."

J. Nicholls,

I believe the Chancellor has officially stated that the airport will be closed. Now, of course, the State Legislature can override that decision but until that time I think the Council members have to take the Chancellor at his word (no snickering please).

WillR, you asked "With HWA's current zoning, can you deny an application “just” because it doesn't fit the overview that UNC so far has presented?"

My non-authoritative opinion is that Council cannot deny an application based on current zoning if it meets all of the requirements under our current ordinances. Joe Capowski, as a former Council member, can certainly answer this better than I. But my sense is that if the University were to indicate that it might take a piecemeal approach to the build-out at CN, the Council might chose to revisit the existing zoning even without a rezoning request from the University.

GeorgeC, my point on zoning exactly. I believe it deserves a revisit and something beyond OI-4. As far as the HWCC, it was prepared to do much more fleshing out of the principles - to delve deeper - when the Mayor and a majority of the Council pulled the plug.

I know that further discussion on HWA, as well as establishing metrics/scope for environmental issues, etc. were on the table (as I and others had already begun working on them).

So, J. Nicholls, we know that when presented with an opportunity to forge ahead - vis-a-vis further HWCC work - the Mayor and Council pulled the plug. Is it a surprise that "leadership" on this issue has been lacking?

What do you mean by a piecemeal approach to development? It SOUNDS like you expect them to develop a plan and then begin construction of the entire 250 acres at one time rather than developing a plan and then building 1-2 buildings at a time.

I for one think our Council has demonstrated just the right kind of "leadership" on this issue and it is good that they are not getting into speculation over things that they should not jump the gun on.

I hope that as a candidate for a Town Council seat, this is not the way you plan to conduct your campaign, as you should be above these kind of "cheap shots."

Terri,
I can't speak for any of the other posters, but I certainly wouldn't expect the University to build out all 250 acres at once. What I mean by my use of the term is that you want some consistency in adherence to the original plan. In a project this large there are always going to be modifications to the plan over time. We've already had three modifications to the plans for the main campus since it was approved under OI-4. What you don't want is to have 1-2 buildings built and then a request to change the overall plan; another 1-2 buildings built and then another request to change the overall plan; etc. You want to minimize the changes so that you don't lose the consistency and flow and overall feel that the original plan provided. But situations will change and thus change will be inevitable, and oftentimes for the better. The most important thing is that there be enough time to carefully consider any requested changes to insure that they are for the better. We ran into this situation with the 90-day time limit that the Town was working under for requested changes under OI-4.

Fred -

When DO you think it will be appropriate for members of our council to speak out on this issue? When UNC announces plans to begin construction with the airport question still in the balance?

I was a member of the HWCC from beginning to end, so I would like to make two comments.
First, to J. Nicholls-The statement at the beginning of the HWCC report that "The Airport will be closed by January 1, 2005," was considered an overarching principle. As far as we were concerned, there was nothing else to say because we felt that nothing could/should occur until that happened.

Secondly, to Will-Although it is true that the committee for the most part was willing to be a standing committee that would offer it services, when and if needed, to review any University proposals, the reality was that we had met and worked intensively for two years, produced a comprehensive report, and fulfilled our charge. I hardly think that that scenario qualifies as "pulling the plug."

"The most important thing is that there be enough time to carefully consider any requested changes to insure that they are for the better. We ran into this situation with the 90-day time limit that the Town was working under for requested changes under OI-4."

It's funny. Reading today's discussion it sounds like you all are really worried about the university trying to sneak in changes to the concept plan. But the statement above sounds more like you are worried about the parameters of the review process AS DETERMINED BY THE TOWN.

I know there have been many discussions about the need to revise OI-4. But doesn't that responsibility fall to the town?

Fred, here, last campaign and this one I've been as clear as I could be on where I'm coming from on CN. My praise and criticism of the project has been pointed and detailed. Do you think every one of the incumbents currently running have been as open on their thoughts on CN? Every agenda clear?

Del, I know that not all the HWCC membership wanted to continue - and after two years I can see why fatigue would set in - but the HWCC itself presented a plan of action for further fleshing out of not just the maybe more nebulous of principles within their guide but to chart new ground.

For instance, I believe that the work the environmental sub-committee was doing would've been of great assistance at this point in the process. Why? Some of the same themes have emerged - though unfocused - over the last 6 months.

The Mayor apologized for the precipitousness dismissing the HWCC. Given the HWCC's proposed plan of action, sufficient interested membership willing to move forward and the fairly obvious necessity to flesh out areas that hadn't been touched upon I'd say pulling the plug is an adequate characterization of what happened.

J. Nicholls: I think the Council understands that the situation you outline can't happen that way for the reasons Ruby indicated. "Speaking out" is something that they do when appropriate and as long as we are in the speculation phase, they are better off doing what the are doing. I think they would create more problems pre-judging istead of reacting to a proposal.

WillR: People in office don't have all of the freedom of action that you enjoy as a non-incumbent. Sure, incumbents have plenty of advantages, but they also have some constraints. Disagree, but I still think that you took a cheap shot.

Fred, J. Nicholls - I mentioned Cam's exchange with Jack Evans on another thread. You can watch what he said here (the meat of the exchange comes after the point Cam congratulates himself on how he helped shorten the whole LAC process).

Cam comments that the community conversation really begins when a concept plan is brought to the Town, is that the statement you are referencing?

Actually, Cam makes a couple points, including, ironically, that the work of the various committees was potentially being mischaracterised by UNC.

There were three incumbents at the meeting and each commented on various aspects of (or omissions to) the CN presentation.