YACNM*

Was not at the Sch. of Gov. meeting, but there are comments on it in the other thread on CN.

Was at the NRG meeting until 8:10 and would like to know what came up in questions following the memorable "Can we trust the University?" question.

“Can we trust the University?”

Just as big a question is, can we trust our town council members? One in particular has been so toxic and belligerent on the subject that I doubt we'll reach ANY consensus with UNC as long as he's representing us. His recent "guest column" in one of the local papers was little more than a diatribe of sarcastic digs at Moeser and everyone else involved.

It's high time our council members quit acting like George Bush and at least learn to talk to those they may not agree with. As far as I'm concerned, we should get rid of these knee-jerk naysayers in the upcoming election and elect people who are willing to show an open and collaborative spirit when it comes to partnering with the University on Carolina North.

Like it or not, it's going to happen. I say, let's be a part of making it great, instead of continuously trying to heave wrenches in the cogs of progress.

Moeser is despised within the University substructure.
regarding Carolina North: folks, we are more than
8 years away from ANY ground-breaking. you know
how Chapel Hill is....Meadowmont took 10 years.
soothsaying: MLK will be a toll road. most highly
prized icon will be the unlimited MLK pass card.

Chancellor Moeser has certainly gained some respect among the
faculy and staff recently by obtaining substantial raises for
them this year.

john of sparta

CN construction may happen sooner than you think, especially the new law school. The recent signs of structural failure at one of the law school's buildings means they may have to act considerably faster than previously thought. If the council holds them up for too long, the University may end up turning to the legislature for help to get a new law school up and running.

To "john of Sparta," whoever you are, when you say "Moeser is despised within the University substructure," is this from a survey or just your take? "Despised" moves well beyond the lack of fondness staff and faculty tend to hold for a president/chancellor. Are they organizing to have him move on? Are they actively working to undermine his leadership? Just what does all this mean?

Ruby - In answer to your question "...where did you get the idea the Council is not listening to the University? They have participated in UNC's LAC process and many other hoops..." I was referring to Cam Hill's editorial in last month's CH herald where he recommends siting CN on the Mason Farms tract. Anyone who has been part of the discussion in the last ten years knows that the property is in a flood plain and was ruled out early on by all parties concerned. Certainly Mr. Hill would have known that, especially since he was a member of the LAC committee ( a very silent member, by the way, who could easily have voiced his opinions during any of the committee meetings). I can only conclude, then, that his speaking out now is just an obvious way to try and get votes. Funny how quickly we forget how UNforthcoming he was in the way he got the nice house he now lives in.

There's a report at WRAL.com titled "Rising Costs Are Slowing UNC Renovations"

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1776941/

I think the report raises the question as to how the University intends to fund its proposed development for CN if it is having so much difficulty in funding the renovations it has already identified and planned.

But what really concerns me in this report is its last paragraph: "A priority at UNC-Chapel Hill is to make sure all dorms are equipped with sprinklers for fire protection. Right now, just more than half of on-campus student rooms have them."

Shouldn't this fact be reason enough for UNC-CH's Administration and Board of Trustees to make a public commitment to ensuring the safety of their students and staff before they spend any money on a proposed expansion? Does there need to be a major tragedy before the University declares safety to be its primary concern? I wonder how they explain to parents that their children have a 50-50 chance of being in a 'safe' dorm.

George, I think they are more likely to complain about being in a non-air conditioned dorm. Note also that they have no problem placing their kids in non-sprinkler off-campus housing.

Fred, I'm sure you're right: the students would probably complain more about the lack of air-conditioning. And if students choose to live off-campus they then have to assume responsibility for their own safety. But if students choose to live on campus I believe it is the University's responsibility to do everything in its power to insure the safety of its students when they live in University housing. I wonder whether students or their parents know, when the students get their dorm assignments, whether a particular dorm is sprinklered.

The housing page has info on the various facilities and they are directed to
http://www.fac.unc.edu/FacilityInfo/index.asp
where you can see what each dorm has or lacks.

Back in the mid-90s when our daughter was at UNC there was the graduation morning fire that resulted in sprinklers being placed in Greek houses. I don't remember the dorms being part of the conversation. I know our daughter's dorm didn't have them, not did it have AC, and nor did it have something to get old dads up to the third floor to move her "stuff" in and out several times a year.

The Phi Gam fire that killed five people in 1996,
followed by several fires in the Morrison dormitory that
thankfully had no casulties, coupled with several tragic
dorm fires at other universities
e.g., Seton Hall, that received major national publicity,
did sensitize UNC and student parents to the sprinkler issue.
The admissions department received many questions about sprinklers in dorms, and sprinklers became major decision criteria for housing selection. Unfortunately memories
can be short, so the issue has somewhat extinguished (bad pun).

But even then, UNC was inconsistent. In about 1998, while
the horror of the fires was fresh, the UNC administration fought the annexation by Chapel Hill of the last 10
pct of the Mason Farm property that was not within
the city limits. This property
includes the buildings and land of the Faculty-Staff-Recreation
Association. Arguing in a letter
to the mayor and council, the UNC administration
wrote that they saw no benefit to the annexation.
It took a phone call to the junior UNC administrator
who was to present the UNC response to the
annexation to remind him/them that improved fire protection for UNC properties WAS an important benefit.

Normally, annexation
opponents argue that their taxes will go up, but for UNC,
this was not the case. I saw no valid argument against
this annexation, and neither did any other member
of the council, for we voted unanimously to annex the property.

Will,

I cannot imagine that the Innovation Center will require fire equipment that is any more specialized than that which now serves the main campus. There are plenty of laboratories on the main campus that handle hazardous materials, as there are on any major university campus.

Regarding the Greenbridge and Lot #5 developments, I assume that both of these will be built with sprinkler systems. I'm guessing that if you ask Chief Jones he will tell you that the likelihood of needing a long-reach fire truck on an adequately sprinklered building is negligible. And the Town Mgr. and Planning Staff do check with the Fire Department regarding the fire safety of new buildings and the ability to provide adequate response.

A perfect example of this is Tac 51, the 2003 Ford/Snuffer that was purchased jointly by UNC Hospital and The University of North Carolina for the Chapel Hill Fire Department that is capable of operating in the various parking decks.

Will,

What are the 'calamities' we might face with CN or the high-rise buildings downtown that we don't already face with the main campus and its high-rise buildings?