WCHL Chapel Hill Candidate Forum

Finally - some common sense.

I do support Matt, but I've got to say that this is a very strong statement for Mark (who I like and have voted for in the past). It's reasoned and policy focused. You got my attention.

In the 15 years that I have lived here, I have seen the "Great divide" on the Council and heard the criticism of mayors and council members. As there have only been three mayors in 15 years, just who are you referencing? You are for Mark and opposed to Matt, I get that, but once again your generalized criticism misses the mark if you seriously think he is not committed to sound planning and development.  If you also believe that there is only one route that we can take, or just one "action theory" to achieve our dreams as a community, then I will disagree.  We need people who can think independently and vote without concerns about what their coalition does.  Study Council voted for the last eight years to see what I mean.

Jeff, when you ran for school board, I supported you whole heartedly for the same reason I am supporting Matt for mayor. Both of you were critical of sitting bodies who make decisions in the absence of any data. In other words, you both oppose making decisions based on ideology alone. The theories I've heard Matt question are those based on development. The theory guiding Chapel Hill's planning decisions are based on a theory of high-density, controlled growth inside the urban boundary to protect the environment. We have examples of how that theory has been implemented in Meadowmont, Southern Village, and the as yet unfinished Hwy 54 and Greenbridge. Two other theories have also been applied to acknowledge that in addition to protecting the environment we also need to protect neighborhoods (NCDs) and we need to increase our commercial tax base (mixed-use development).  Are these theories working to achieve their desired outcomes? There's a NCD for Northside, but has it protected Northside? The evidence of it working would be long-term owners staying in their homes. Is that happening? My perception is that the NCDs for the wealthy, predominantly white neighborhoods of Greenwood, etc. are achieving the intended purposes. But I see evidence that it's backfired on Northside, probably because, in that instance, the two theories of neighborhood protection and high density urban development are in conflict.Then let's look at mixed use development. Has it successfully shifted any of the tax burden from residential to commercial? I think not, but if you can show me otherwise, I'm more than willing to listen.These are the kinds of analysis I want policy makers to be using before they perpetuate the implementation of theories. That's why I am supporting Matt. He's the only one I hear asking the questions. 

Asking to consider what some others don't want to bother with matters to me. Trying to clarify the vision is also important. From his site:"For the last eight years, the Town Council has pursued a growth policy that has been driven by a commitment to “mixed use” projects including high-end condominiums, office space and a small amount of retail. The notion is that people “live, work and play” within each “mixed use” project. We now have two major “mixed use” projects that have been in place for over a decade – Southern Village and Meadowmont – and the theory hasn’t worked the way it was anticipated. Few residents of these developments actually work in them, and the retail areas are generally perceived to be struggling. Despite this, the Council has continued to approve – indeed encourage – more of the same. During my time on the Town Council, I have tried over and over again to simply get the question of whether “mixed use” as we have defined it is working or not – with virtually no success. This is a perfect example of the insularity of the Town Council – and its unwillingness to even examine the evidence from existing developments."

This can only help Mark1) still siphoning off votes2) backlash

The situation is the same at the Carrboro early voting site.

This is the last thing I would have expected to see in this race. 

I first met Kevin Wolff 4 years ago when I was working a voting precinct for Ed Harrison and Mr. Wolff was there handing out literature as well.  Over several hours (some of it quite slow) we chatted a bit.  He seemed like a nice enough fellow although his positions were such that I could never see myself voting for him.  We met briefly on several occasions in the last 4 years and exchanged pleasantries and he always seemed a reasonable fellow.  We even chatted a bit after the first candidates' forum when I told him and his campaign manager why I thought his positions and ideas on Chapel Hill Transit were wrong.  Again, he seemed pleasant enough.  His actions of late however seem to be be based on a lack of tolerance that has rarely (in my experience) been so blatant in a public election in Chapel Hill although there have certainly been examples elsewhere in the US.  We can only hope that this represents the last of his failed efforts as a candidate for public office.