Citizens for Responsible Government

CHAPEL HILL -- A pro-development group has formed to influence this year's Town Council election.Citizens for Responsible Government grew out of a contentious process in which the council denied developer Carol Ann Zinn's application to build 58 luxury condos east of Meadowmont near the Durham County line.We need political leadership that has a more balanced approach to managing growth and is more proactive in securing a broader tax base," said UNC political scientist Georg Vanberg, a CFRG founder. Del Snow

It is curious that this CFRG group seems shy about their identities. But the same could be said about the commenters here - that, besides Fred and Del, it's not clear who's who.  Svaraj might be Jim Svara, but "his" profile lists his last name as sva and first as raj. Could use a little more transparency all around, especially when questioning  identities and motives of others.

It's interesting that the "profits-first" activists are now standing behind many of the policies they have traditionally criticized. It is a testament to the progressive policy making of the past 10-15 years that a pro-business group now finds it essential to espouse such things as "investing in infrastructure", "promoting responsible, sustainable, well-designed growth that protects our environment", "encouraging public transportation and measurable improvements in alternative transportation systems for biking, pedestrians and greenways", etc.  This is proof that a progressive, community-wide agenda continues to be endorsed by a majority of citizens. The "profits-first" activists now apparently feel that they cannot go public without co-opting many of the very policies that they ran against in the past. That means we are making real progress. 

I just studied their website, cfrg.org.  I think that their goals are fine, though nothing that hasn't been debated profusely for the last two decades.  These are goals that have been supported by Chapel Hill candidates of all types, from the most progressive through the most (Chapel Hill) conservative.  I know about 1/3 of the people on the steering committee -- good people who care about our trown.  I don't understand comments above that the group is hiding its identity; it committee members are boldly listed.

There were no names on the web site when I first visited and commented.I'm hoping this new group (are they actually a PAC?) will use THIS forum to express themselves directly.  I've got an open mind- but I don't tend to trust people who hire PR firms to represent their political views.  Why is it necessary to "package" your views to make them palatable to the progressive community?Using progressive language during a campaign doesn't necessarily translate into progressive action when in office.  I can think of at least one good example of this on the national stage.  (and don't spend too much time on my identity- I'm no one you know, trust me.) 

As a CFRG steering committee member, I invite you to recognize that many of us are and have for many years been advocates for affordable housing, downtown revitalization, and non-residential development that serves Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Orange Co.  A look at the CFRG web site shows that rather than having a narrow interest, we petitioned the Mayor and Council to expand the new Community Visioning Task Force from a small group to one large enough to include the diversity of residents and needs of Chapel Hill.  We are happy they agreed and expanded that group.  As a professional city planner (and former Planning Board Chair), I would encourage anyone with an interest in the future social and economic health and well being of Chapel Hill to participate fully in the Sustainable Community Visioning Task Force process.  Rather than a Comprehensive Plan review and update, Mayor Foy and the Council have established a more focused process to consider and recommend to the Council for its consideration the quantity, location, and design that future growth in Chapel Hill might take.  If our goal is to promote (1) reduction of private vehicle trips and the expansion of the transit system, (2) a wider range of retail choices and opportunities in Chapel Hill, and (3) privately funded affordable housing, difficult and complex issues must be considered.  This Task Force activity is not a pro growth or stop growth debate. And, it is certainly not an ideological debate about capitalism.  It is a method to examine how well we are doing in achieving the goals of the 2000 Comprehensive Plan and an assessment of how to achieve those goals in the most positive fashion.   Scott Radway

"for many years been advocates for affordable housing"I've lived here for 15 years (renting- gasp!) - where is all of this "affordable housing" everyone seems to constantly "advocate for?"Really- where is it?  And what IS affordable housing in Chapel Hill?Is there a definition that everyone agrees on?  Do you have to be a family of four with school age children to qualify?If someone would like to start another thread and discuss this, it might be helpful for the working class singles and couples living in the hundreds of aging rental units all over the county-- duplexes, multifamily apartment structures, mobile homes and yes, even the occasional barn loft.What gives?  The lovely brochures displayed on Ms. Rivers' agency website feature huge (green!) homes (from many of the same developers mentioned above)-- homes that will NEVER be within my reach.  They're being marketed to people who will be moving here from some place else.  And the character of our towns is changing- we wonder why.Will these newly arrived people in their large green houses care about what is happening near campus or on Franklin Street?  Will they support our local artists or the world famous (and dying) Chapel Hill music scene?  Will our artists and musicians hang around--- or move on? (many already have.)We can't cry about how Chapel Hill is losing its "cool" then continue to develop Cary-style neighborhoods.Maybe there are  lovely, little, affordable new homes that working people can afford out there somewhere- that I'm not aware of? I've searched online- and been all over the city looking-- but affordable around here still seems to translate as properties that are 25-30 years old and in great need of renovation.  When "redevelopment" or renovation happens-- the bread and butter of this PAC, it seems-- affordability disappears.Has there been a net gain or a net loss of "affordable housing" in the past 15 years?  Anybody know?  (and we're back to what IS affordable?) To me, affordable is what people can comfortably afford to pay-- on the salaries received in the area.  What working class people are paid.Develop that! (and to Fred Black- you SHOULD run for office.  I don't always agree with you, but I think you would be a valuable addition.  But on the "you're jumping to conclusions" response- I disagree.  I think this is about a kind of development that will change the town(s) in ways that- while good for the developers-- will not be good for the MAJORITY of the people who live here.  I don't claim to have the answers, but there must be other ways to develop without building more huge housing clusters and expensive condos on every available piece of land. But perhaps that type of gentrification is inevitable.  Just don't expect that all the creative types that make Chapel Hill and Carrboro so charming will hang around to entertain you.)

Mark, your concise assessments of the affordable housing conundrum will come in very handy for local candidates in the coming months.  The question comes up every time, often taking the form of a challenge: "What will you do...?" and those who dare to shrug their shoulders need a foundation for listing the myriad factors in play.  Contradictions abound; equations are meaningless in the face of loopholes and the simple fact that so many people still can't afford the lower priced homes. 

The trouble with a name like CFRG is that it is what is called a "motherhood statement."  Just as everyone supports motherhood (after all, it got us where we are today), everyone really supports responsible government.  Who wouldn't?  The proof will be in the pudding, and what they ultimately show they are really advocating for.  They do not sound 100% altruistic to me, but of course they need not be.  One issue will be whether they really are as objective as their name suggests.  It seems quite apparent that they have goals above and beyond what they list on their website, and it is somewhat disingenuous of them not to list some of them, such as "make money for our local developers and real estate businesses."  Not that there's anything wrong with that.  But it's conspicuous by its absence.

but not conspicuous.