Growth & Development

Here's a statement from Bill Thorpe clarifying his leadership in protecting neighborhoods on Town Council during the 1980's:

I am writing to clarify my role in Council votes over the Smith Center Special Use Permit. I believe that by providing voters with this background, they will understand that I have long been a strong advocate for the people and neighborhoods of Chapel Hill.

Here are the facts: In July 1980, I voted to approve the university's application for a special permit to construct the Dean Dome, having cast two prior opposing votes because of my concerns about the impact the development would have on the surrounding neighborhoods. These two 'no' votes were based on the legitimate objections raised by nearby residents about noise and traffic problems. I voted 'no' until the council secured noise buffers and more traffic controls. After securing those concessions, I voted yes - the vote alluded to by Mr. Davis.

During last week's Sierra Club forum in Carrboro, candidates were asked what they felt needed to be done to increase the stock of affordable housing in town. Each of the 4 candidates who addressed this question agreed that it is the most complex problem before the BOA.

Both Carrboro and Chapel Hill work from a version of inclusionary zoning that requires new developers to include affordable units along with their market priced units. In Carrboro developers who comply with the "small house ordinance" are given a density bonus to help them recover some of their lost opportunity. In Chapel Hill, developers can provide payment in lieu of compliance. New units developed through the Carrboro plan are deeded over to the Orange Community Housing and Land Trust as a means of ensuring they stay affordable. Buyers own the dwelling but not the land upon which the dwelling sits. Chapel Hill is currently clarifying the legal the language around their affordable housing options.

Guest Post by James Protzman

The idea of communitiy wi-fi is emerging as a potential local election issue -- and would seem to warrant broader public discussion as well.

Some say wi-fi should be a purely commercial undertaking left to the private sector. Others (like me, for example) see wireless connectivity as an increasingly critical part of community infrastructure -- similar to sidewalks, parks and public safety -- services that support the common good.

My view is simple: we cannot allow the issue of connectivity to become yet another element in the growing "digital divide." That is, no one should be disadvantaged for not having resources to buy high-speed access for their homes and families.

There are plenty of ways to think about this and many experiments going on around the country. Some of them are reported here . . . and I'm sure there are other good resources. If you know of any, please share them.