Please consider contributing not more than $100 to our campaign to bring Will’s pragmatic, practical and fiscally prudent leadership to our Town Council.

Further information here.

Below is my formal announcement, more posts to follow:

Will Raymond Announces Run for Chapel Hill Town Council 2009

Chapel Hill, NC – July 17th, 2009

I am taking the next step in my eight year continuum of public service to Chapel Hill by announcing my candidacy for Town Council.

After listening to hundreds of my fellow citizens during the Sustainability Task Force’s nine recent public forums, it is clear that Chapel Hill’s residents want to move forward on a different path for the next decade.

Moving Chapel Hill forward will require common sense leadership that is innovative, experienced, tested and prepared to follow our citizens’ mandate to change course.

Successfully working with a variety of community organizations, advisory boards, the Town Council and Orange County Board of Commissioners in the past, I have taken on some of the thorniest, toughest and, occasionally, most controversial issues facing our community.

Listening to the community, gathering the best advice, with conviction and thoughtful fortitude, I have been unwavering in my support of reasonable growth policies, fiscal prudence, environmental protection and transparent government operations.

As my understanding of these challenges deepened, so has my sense of responsibility for making sure our community thrives when meeting them.

The next four years finds Chapel Hill at a crossroads. Addressing these four issues will be vital to our community’s sustainability:

• Beneficial Growth – I joined the Town’s Sustainability Task force to help build community consensus on measurably healthy growth.
  
  I know we must adopt balanced development policies that enrich all of our community. These policies must maintain our residents’ quality of life without sacrificing those bedrock principles that have made Chapel Hill shine. As existing projects like Greenbridge and East54 change the complexion of our community, and new projects like Carolina North and University Square come to fruition, we must better honor those values which have made Chapel Hill a sought after community.
  
• Fiscal Responsibility – I know we must strengthen our Town’s fiscal foundations so that we can meet not only the unique demands of the current economic downturn but prudently manage existing obligations. We need to implement a broad range of pragmatic policies, many previously suggested by our talented citizenry, to tighten our Town’s belt – to live within our residents’ means – while also seizing new opportunities to expand our pool of jobs and commercial tax base.
  
• Environmental and Neighborhood Protection – As a longtime resident, I know many citizens see enhancing and protecting Chapel Hill’s neighborhoods as inextricably linked to nurturing and defending our environment. Our Town’s growth goals, though, must be consistent with our environmental policy, with expected trade-offs clearly understood by our community.
  
• Public Participation – I know now is the time to build upon our improved relationship with the University and expand upon the commitment to make public participation central to managing the expansion of UNC onto Carolina North. Carolina North can be a stunning success if the burdens and benefits created are mutually understood and shared. Firming existing relationships, operating in good faith, we can make sure that financial, transit, environmental and social costs are not thrust upon residents’ overtaxed shoulders.
  

I have lived in the Chapel Hill area for two decades, the last 16 years a stones throw from UNC’s Carolina North. My wife, Ellie Reinhold, is a local artist and founding member of the wonderful Hillsborough Gallery of Arts cooperative. We currently live along Mt. Bolus, one of the older (and quite delightful) neighborhoods close to downtown, with our twelve year-old son Elijah.

Ellie, Elijah and I have deep roots in this community. We chose this exciting, diverse, vibrant, forward – looking community to make our home at a time when a couple of modest means could get their foot in the door.

Professionally, the last 21 years I have been a successful chief information officer of thriving startups, a technical manager in RTP, an independent software developer and an entrepreneur.

Negotiating decades of technology boom and busts, I know growing a sustainable business concern owes as much to building a strong, independent, flexible, respected workforce as to watching dollars and cents. We need that understanding to pervade our Town’s operations.

Over the last 8 years I have served our community in a variety of roles:

• Technology Committee – The Council adopted recommendations based on non-governmental examples to annually save tens of thousands of dollars. I championed the Wi-Fi/fiber optic network initiatives to serve economic development and to bridge the digital divide. I also worked to integrate cost saving “open software” into our Town’s operations.
  
• Horace-Williams Citizen Committee (2006) – Along with former Council members Julie McClintock and Joe Capowski, I drafted the committees’ response to Chancellor Moeser’s proposal. I also suggested a number of environmental guidelines which eventually made their way into 2009’s Carolina North development agreement.
  
• Downtown Parking Task Force – Part of revitalizing Downtown is improving access. Along with Council member Jim Ward, local Chamber of Commerce Director Aaron Nelson, representatives of downtown businesses, the University and other concerned citizens, I helped develop a set of measurable, cost effective recommendations for improving Downtown parking – including free parking, courtesy enforcement reminders instead of tickets and better signage.
  
• Sustainability Task Force – I worked to expand participation and increase diversity on the task force so that the final recommendations build upon the broadest possible consensus of what Chapel Hill should look like these next 10 years.
  
• Friends of Lincoln Arts Center – I helped rescue Chapel Hill’s only hands-on arts program and brought attention to the dearth of affordable, community-based hands-on arts opportunities in Chapel Hill.
  

Beyond these groups, I participated as an involved citizen in the Town’s Budget Advisory group, Orange County’s transfer site selection process, the County’s decision to create election districts, the University’s Leadership Advisory Committee and other initiatives with direct impact on our community’s well-being.

Through hard work, due diligence and dogged persistence, I have already helped improve Chapel Hill and seen many of my suggestions integrated into the fabric of our Town and County.

As a member of the Town Council, on behalf of our whole community, I will continue to bring my strong work ethic and proven public service commitment to shepherd our Town through some trying but eventually rewarding times in a way that validates and bolsters our Town’s progressive reputation.

As your representative, I pledge to continue to listen to and cultivate all of the diverse viewpoints which are a hallmark of this community, to work diligently on those key issues to ensure our Town’s viability and to make sure that the door opens wide – and stays open – for folks, like Ellie, Elijah and I, who choose to not only live here but grow and prosper here.

Contact:
Will Raymond, Candidate 2009 Chapel Hill Town Council
willraymond.org
209 Mt. Bolus Rd.
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
919-360-9939
campaign@willraymond.org

Complaints are like canaries in the coal mine alerting you to developing negative conditions – many organizations, though, would rather kill the canary than respond to their plaint.

In 2005, then Town Manager Cal Horton, made sure that the candidates for office were tied into Council’s information stream. This included citizen mail, status reports, early agenda items and advisory board work product.

After the 2005 election, I asked Council to make this information available to the wider public. In spite of professing an interest in transparent governance, the majority of Council decided not to expose our residents to citizen complaints or alert folks early to developing policy problems.

The Chapel Hill Police Department reports that last night’s Halloween bash, attended by 82,000 folks, went fairly well – at least based on the numbers:

Simple Affray(4),Assault on a Female (1),Simple Assault(2),Drunk and Disruptive(3),Assault on an EMS(1),Disorderly Conduct(1),Assault on an LEO(2),Resist and Delay(3),Failure to Disperse(1).

Orange County Emergency Medical Services responded to thirty-one calls and eight people were transported to UNC Hospitals. Twenty-one of the calls were related to intoxication.

Sounds good but not everyone was happy about our Town’s effectiveness:

The control on our street, NORTH STREET off Hillsborough tonight was ridiculous! By 10PM, the street was filled with cars that didn’t belong here. I spoke with the “traffic control” people and they said “…nobody told us anything…”. They let anyone down the street to park who asked them to, they had no cones until they found some up near Rosemary Street, and had no clue what they were supposed to do. This is the most ridiculous traffic control during Halloween I have ever seen. Someone at the Town needs to take control of this Halloween disaster and protect the neighborhoods from the thousands who invade the Town each year.

There is no reason to spend this much tax money on an event and NOT
protect the people who live here!

Now, we could look at this an isolated complaint, be comfortable with the overall numbers and not investigate any further OR we could look at this as an opportunity to do better next year.

If elected, whether it is Halloween traffic on North Street or a citizen being verbally abused by staff or an unwillingness to drag a dead deer off a residents front lawn for disposal, I will not ignore complaints.

Instead, I will look at each as an opportunity to do better.

I’m baffled by the Indy’s comments on my and Mike Kelley’s candidacies.

I’m mystified by your endorsement of Indy editor Jennifer Strom’s husband Bill Strom, incumbents Sally Greene and Cam Hill, all who voted to build extensively into the Booker Creek resource conservation district.

I’m perplexed. I haven’t called for environmentally insensitive development on Booker Creek let alone authorized it.

And I’m disappointed. How do you chastise Chapel Hill School Board candidate Mike Kelley’s attendance record given his personal circumstances? Beyond insensitive, it was ill-informed.

Where was the balanced investigative journalism we have come to expect from the Indy?

I used to give the Indy’s endorsements automatic credence. Any readers who do so this year will be misled.

I’ve written here and here why I think the Indy missed the boat on my candidacy.

As far as Mike, here’s what happened February, 2006 (N&O)

Police charged an elderly driver they say injured a mother and daughter selling Girl Scout cookies when she backed into a troop’s cookie booth outside a grocery store over the weekend.

Chapel Hill police charged Thelma McBride Holloway, 77, of 105 Elizabeth St., Chapel Hill, with failure to reduce speed to avoid collision.

Holloway was backing her 1991 Lincoln out of a parking spot Saturday afternoon in front of the Harris Teeter at University Mall when her foot slipped off the brake and onto the accelerator, according to a police report.

The car ran up the sidewalk and hit Elise Michelle Hoffman, 44, and her daughter Anne Katherine Kelley, 11. Both were taken to UNC Hospitals. The hospital would not release their conditions Monday afternoon.

On Sunday, Lt. Leo Vereen said the accident broke both of Hoffman’s legs, and Anne’s collar bone and one of her legs.

Hoffman and Anne are the wife and daughter of Mike Kelley, a member of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education.

Since reading the Indy’s strange comments on Mike I’ve had some time to talk to folks I know and trust about his candidacy. Overwhelmingly they say he’s meticulous, has responded to folks concerns and, even with a family tragedy, discharged his responsibilities in full.

Here’s what one of his opponents, and Indy endorsee, Jamezetta Bedford, said on the Indy’s website:

…I feel compelled to disagree with the statement that Mike Kelley’s job “has prevented him from attending many forums and activities beyond his basic duties.” Each board member volunteers to serve as liaison to two or three school improvement teams (SITs) and various district committees. Some are scheduled during the work day, some in the early morning and some in the evening. We divide them up at our first December meeting each year based upon the interests and schedules of our board members.

Mike has faithfully attended the SIT meetings most months (board members are only expected to attend once a semester) and has served on our technology advisory group, one of the health advisory committees, as well as liaison to the Special Needs Advisory Council this past year. I would not want a board composed of only retired or unemployed members. By the way, our board will receive an award next week from the NC School Boards Association to recognize that all of our members completed at least 12 hours of board development training this past year, again showing the investment of time each makes to this service.

I like her point about a balance board with more than “retired or unemployed members”.

There are many more statements of support here.

Here’s what UNC Law professor Eric Muller said Are the Indy’s Endorsements Heartless or Worthless? It’s One or the Other over on his ‘blog Is That Legal?.

Bill Strom, at the recent Democrat Candidate Forum, used a quote attributed to Daniel Patrick Moynihan to try to make some point “…you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.”

Maybe he could share that quote with the Indy’s editor (and his wife) Jennifer Strom.

The Indy is free to express an opinion but it shouldn’t ignore the facts – which, in my case, I did the opposite of what their endorsed candidates did and in Mike’s, that he had an obvious and completely understandable reason for his actions.

The Indy found fault with my style of dissent. I’m a big guy, have a deep voice and am passionate about my well-researched issues. I believe I’m respectful in my appearances before Council (example). Folks have told me that I’m tough but fair. The Indy’s criticism, no matter how emotionally worded, is, in the end, subjective – their job, to shape opinion.

The Indy’s suggestion that I wanted to despoil Booker Creek further is not supported by either the facts or any reasonable inference (as I discuss here).

What inference could the Indy draw about the incumbents – Sally Greene’s, Cam Hill’s, Bill Strom’s – willingness to put development above the health of Booker Creek?

Well, no inference is required as the record clearly shows that all three were willing to contribute to Booker Creek’s ills for the sake of economic development.

I’ve attended many Council meetings over the last 6 1/2 years. Once there, I usually stay to learn about the issues before our Town. That’s why I know that Bill, Cam and Sally voted June 30th, 2004 to approve Eastern Federal’s 10 screen, 38,000 square foot, nearly 200 parking space theater directly adjacent to Booker Creek.

As noted in these minutes from Jan. 27th, 2003’s SUP (special use permit) approval that details this project’s variances:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council finds, in this particular case, that the following modifications satisfy public purposes to an equivalent or greater degree:

1. Modification of Subsection 13.11.1 and 5.5.2.1 to allow a minimum of 154,242 square feet of livability space.

2. Modification of Subsection 14.6.6 (a) to allow less than a five-foot landscaped strip between portions of the buildings and adjacent parking areas.

3. Modification of Subsection 14.6.7 to allow a minimum of 490 parking spaces.

4. Modification of Subsection 5.5.2.2 to allow impervious surface areas associated with this development to encumber 24% of the Resource Conservation District.

Said public purposes being (1) the provision of higher intensity infill development, (2) the promotion of greater pedestrian mobility, (3) the provision of increased landscaping in the parking lot, (4) the provision of less impervious surface area, and (5) the provision of improved quality with Best Management Practices.

The resource conservation district was established by Chapel Hill

To protect streams and to reduce the frequency and amount of flood damage to property, the Town enacted the Resource Conservation District (RCD) ordinance in 1984, with revisions in 2003. This ordinance and other measures taken to reduce flooding and flood damage, are necessary for the Town to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

RCD provisions severely limit or eliminate structures and development in areas likely to flood. These measures pertain in areas including FEMA’s 100-year Floodzones, (areas that have a 1% chance of flooding every year, or in other terms, properties that have a 26% chance of flooding within a 30-year period), as well as smaller streams which have not been rated by FEMA. RCDs also protect or improve the water quality of streams by reserving vegetated areas to slow and infiltrate stormwater runoff and to remove pollutants from runoff.

Yet, in this case, the incumbents Greene, Hill and Strom voted a rather large exception for a movie theater.

Now, you didn’t have to be at these meetings, as I was, to know about the series of votes these three made to build on Booker Creek. A simple Google will quickly turn up that fact.

Speaking of facts, why would the Indy try to extrapolate, without evidence, that I wanted to despoil Booker Creek further when three of the incumbents the Indy endorsed – Greene, Hill and Strom – actually voted several times to reduce critical RCD protections to build a 10 screen theater?

Maybe because the facts shouldn’t get in the way of a good story – and the story the Indy is selling is “don’t vote for Raymond in 2007″. The reasons were superfluous to the ends.

What about Jim Ward, who consistently voted against the proposal, as I recall, based on environmental concerns? The Indy thought he was too soft on the environment in 2003, but now he has “proven his meddle”.

Wonder if they considered Jim’s concern for Booker Creek as part of that proof?

More on the history of Eastern Federal’s development woes.

In 2005, the IndyWeek endorsed my candidacy, this year they didn’t.

Even though I had more experience serving on the Town’s Technology Board, Horace-William’s Citizen Committee and Downtown Parking Task Force, I didn’t expect a nod.

Why not?

Surely my work trying to save the Lincoln Arts Center aligned with the Indy’s charter to promote artistic opportunities for the whole spectrum of our community. I knew challenging the fiscal difficulties Council’s private-public Downtown project, a project whose cost had spiraled out of control from $500,000 to $8,500,000, would be unpopular – but right.

I fought for the Northside neighborhoods continued existence by questioning the assertion that neighborhood gentrification and loss of minority owned business wouldn’t accelerate because of the Greenbridge development. We’re already seeing the Northside dominoes tumble. Beyond extensively documenting the Rogers Road issue, I said Council had an obligation to make that community whole. On the environment, I called for stronger protections, measurable policies and our Town to “practice what we preach”.

Wasn’t this the kind of activism the Indy usually finds notable?

For all that, I knew I had no chance of an endorsement – inside the beltway politics would make sure I was bumped.

I was willing to accept that as a consequence of trying to do what Martin Luther King, Jr. counseled ( “there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it because conscience tells him it is right.” )

Chapel Hill’s current political clique is small and effective. I had questioned the Emperor’s wardrobe too many times. Those endorsements were dead in the water.

What I didn’t expect was the Indy to fabricate a criticism.

… his support for further development at Eastgate shopping center, which was built over Booker Creek in an environmentally sensitive conservation district.

This is the Indy, for gosh sakes. I’ve read it from its first story onward. It won the Spectator war based on solid, progressive journalism.

If they were going to knock me, why not use any of the many issues – advocacy on behalf of hands-on arts, bridging the digital divide, economic development, simple Downtown revitalization strategies, a new budget process, open governance or any of the others – I’ve brought before Council.

But saying I wanted to damage Booker Creek further?

That’s counter to what I’ve fought for these last 5 years.

A little homework would’ve easily shown my concern for our Town’s watercourses. My call for additional protections would be more than evident. In 2005, I made improving their lot a part of my platform, (supposedly reviewed by the then Indy endorsement team).

Heck, the Sierra Club even mentioned it in their endorsement 2 years ago as one of my strengths!

Will Raymond has been one of the most outspoken and effective citizen activists in Chapel Hill in recent years. We look forward to him using his talents to advocate for the environment as a member of Town Council. In particular we are excited about his initiatives to promote energy efficiency in town buildings. He will also work to protect lesser known creeks in the Chapel Hill area and to minimize the number of single occupancy vehicles causing air pollution and traffic congestion at Carolina North.

Nothing I wrote in the Indy questionnaire, on CitizenWill or even OrangePolitics could be construed as a call to build environmentally insensitive developments on Booker Creek.

Quite the opposite.

I’ve suggested that any redevelopment on that stretch of Booker Creek come with a strong requirement to strengthen protections.

Mark M.- Yes, I know Eastgate, in terms of the watershed, would be better off dredged up and buried (somewhere within the county one supposes). Sans that solution (and not wanting to disappoint all those folks pre-waiting Trader Joes arrival), what could be done to improve the watershed and increase the commercial potential of what’s currently a strip mall wasteland?

Would it be possible over time, for instance, to encourage redevelopment facing the creek and enhancing what has become a drainage ditch back to a more natural and inviting watercourse?

I did mention Eastgate in that questionnaire in context of what will arguably be the “greenest” development our Town has ever approved:

While I celebrated Greenbridge’s developer’s commitment to build a stunningly green (though less so now) development, I was one of a few citizens that questioned its location. Greenbridge at University Square, Conner Drive, Eastgate – no problem. Greenbridge adjacent to Northside – big problem.

Surely Greenbridge’s Tim Toben and crew, when faced with improving upon Booker Creek while developing a showcase “green” building, would take on the challenge.

Finally, I’d like to thank everyone that has dropped me a line expressing their surprise (and Fred for his OP comment).

Sure, I’m disappointed that the Indy stumbled here but I don’t plan to drop them from my weekly required reading.

If there’s been one surprise to me this year is that the incumbents, with the notable and appreciated exception of Jim Ward, have rejected their pre-election claim to run low cost campaigns. Worse, these are the same folks that have pontificated on voter-owned elections and the need for candidates from all economic strata.

Robert P., over on BlueNC posted this home-made video supporting John Edwards on his attempt to run on the issues instead of trying to buy an election result:

Friends of Affordable Housing is a non-partisan Political Action Committee that has been active in selective elections within Orange County during the last 10 year. The organization was first organized to support the Orange ballot for Affordable Housing Bond Money. The committee has also periodically sent questionnaires to candidates running for Orange County Commissioner and Chapel Hill Town Council.

Core members of the committee felt the residents of Chapel Hill should have the opportunity to know the positions of the various candidates running in 2007 for Chapel Hill Town Council. The Committee felt the relocation of the IFC, the transition to more attached multi-story housing, the opportunity for more affordable housing in Carolina North, and the possibility of selective use of “payment in lieu” of affordable housing units were issues of significant concern for Chapel Hill residents. The committee members are all long standing residents of Chapel Hill. The four review committee members have extensive executive committee experience in non-profit boards including the IFC, Habitat for Humanity, Dispute Settlement Center, YMCA and various Orange County boards including the Commissioners Committee on Affordable Housing. Committee members have also consulted with staff members of several of the Affordable Housing providers.

The NC Board of Elections has informed us that Friends of Affordable Housing does not have to register as a formal PAC for the 2007 election because we will not be raising money to support a specific candidate or issue.

They weren’t active in the 2005 race even though there was a slew of known affordable housing related issues before the Council.

Dear Candidate:

As you know, initiatives to increase the stock of all types of affordable housing in Chapel Hill have been an election issue for many years. In order to give Chapel Hill residents a better understanding of your position on this critical subject, Friends of Affordable Housing has developed a 7-item questionnaire asking you to address some of the current issues.

…

A review committee of the Friends of Affordable Housing will review your responses and may endorse specific candidates prior to the November election. Your comments will also be made available to the general public.

Thank you for your cooperation; we look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

The review committee: Natalie Ammarell, Rev. Richard Edens, Susan Harvin ,Richard Leber

They obviously understand that maintaining and expanding affordable housing opportunities will require even more attention of the new Council than the last two years.

Here are my answers to their questions.

Friends of Affordable Housing Questions for Chapel Hill Mayor and Town Council Candidates

1. Please describe your commitment to creation of affordable housing initiatives in Chapel Hill.

I’m dedicated to continuing our Town’s commitment to providing affordable housing in Chapel Hill.

We need to re-evaluate, though, our current initiatives, our capability to manage our affordable housing stock and to rebalance the types of housing we’re currently providing.

With that, we also need to adopt fiscal policy that helps folks keep the most affordable housing they have – their current homes. We’re already seeing a trend of long-term residents, after decades of contributing to our community, being “shown the door”.

Those just starting out, can’t even get their foot in the door without substantial incomes.

Finally, we need to make sure our Town’s growth policies align with our housing goals.

RAM Development, the Town’s private partner on the Lot #5 boondoggle, is proposing to replace the somewhat affordable apartments with hundreds of big-ticket condos. Developments that displace existing affordable housing stock, like Hillsborough 425, are part of Chapel Hill’s future.

We need to make sure, though, that we anticipate the consequences of those displacements.

2. Please give your opinion about the actions taken by Town Council in the last 4 years to increase the stock of affordable housing in Chapel Hill.

I commend the Council for their intent. I applaud their successes. But, we could’ve done better.

Too much in lieu money, not enough square footage. Necessary reform in managing our housing stock or being able to adapt to changing conditions left undone for too long. Opportunities like Roger Perry’s %30 offer at East 54 or Greenbridge’s Northside neighborhood in-fill proposal missed. Rebalancing the kind of housing we offer, not adequately addressed.

3. Given the current impasse with the County, what would you do as a Town Council member to proactively advance the effort to find a new site for the IFC Men’s Residential Facility?

a. Would you oppose locating the facility in certain parts of town (e.g., downtown; near Seymour Center)?

I would like to see the IFC split the food service and the shelter functions. As far as the Men’s Shelter, our Town – if a leadership vacuum exists at the county level – has a responsibility to manage this process. I believe the Town should work with the IFC, proactively, along four basic thrusts.

One, develop criteria that incorporates both the IFC’s requirements for just the shelter component and our Town’s goals for development, transit and neighborhood preservation.

Transit opportunities, accessibility to health and other social services are a few of the criteria I would suggest.

Two, once we have the mutually developed criteria, find the site that best suits our joint needs. Our community needs to be involved in both the development of relevant criteria and the selection of the site.

Locating on Homestead makes sense, especially over Eubanks or Millhouse but there might be better sites based on the decision matrix the IFC, other interested parties and the Town develops.

Three, our Town could provide some logistical support to the IFC in developing a task list to move the shelter.

The Chamber asked me if I’d support pulling the IFC’s lease on the existing shelter location. No way I did say that our Town should help develop a punch list of items with specific performance goals and a timeline to hold the IFC to – but taking a punitory tack is – in my estimation – a poor strategy.

Four, we need to bring our community into the process early, educate the public on the relevant issues and, proactively, publish a guide on how the Council will measure the success of this project. If Council affirms, as I believe we’ll be able to do, that the population at the Men’s Shelter will not increase criminal activity in surrounding neighborhoods, we should already be prepared to assess that activity and report back if reality matched our projections.

4. What new programs do you envision to increase the stock of affordable homes in Chapel Hill?

a. Do you think priority should be given to one type of affordable housing (e.g., transitional housing, special needs, rentals, small condo’s, larger owner occupied detached homes) over another?

We need to rebalance our housing stock based on a few criteria. First, what is the most diverse kind of stock we can reasonably manage using existing resources? Second, look at partnering on denser developments like Raleigh’s Carlton Place (I wrote about this development here: http://citizenwill.org/2007/03/21/raleighs-carlton-place-a-downtown-affordable-housing-commitment-worth-emulating/ ). Third, like Carlton Place, re-evaluate rental housing within our current mix.

b. What type of affordable housing should be built in Carolina North and on the Greene Tract?

I would like to see affordable housing developed on the Greene Tract that is akin to that of the Homestead Park neighborhoods. I would also like the housing to be on the eastern side of the tract to integrate into those neighborhoods, take advantage of existing and new amenities, be closer to existing transit, take advantage of new transit capabilities (depending on what happens at Carolina North) and avoid damaging some of the more ecologically sensitive areas.

The University has suggested that housing on Carolina North will be market driven. I would like to see a mix of units that parallels the stock that UNC commissions.

5. In the last year, Town Council has approved three mixed-use developments: 54 West, Greenbridge and Ram’s Lot 5. Under Chapel Hill’s Inclusionary housing policies these developments will generate almost 100 affordable one and two bedroom condo units. However, these units will not serve lower income families with children.

a. In your opinion, do current policies provide the types of affordable housing that are really needed? If not, what should be changed?

As you might be aware, I’ve been critical of the Town’s Lot #5 development for a number of reasons. The project is fiscally irresponsible, the original affordable housing stock was not family friendly, the affordable housing parking was off-site (second class citizens), the condo fees were steep and not capped, the condo units – especially the larger ones – will most probably server the student community, measurable energy efficiency and environmental standards were dropped, and on and on. You can read my web site – citizenwill.org – for a detailed discussion on these and other Lot #5 ills.

For all my criticism of the majority of the Council’s decision to take on this money pit, I am happy that Cam Hill did accept my recommendation to resize some of the affordable units to accommodate families. Will families find them inviting? I’m not sure.

Considering Lot #5’s location, I’m quite concerned that the Council never took my call to look at affordable living as well as affordable housing seriously. What is the cost of living in one of these units if you should be on the lowest economic rung of those that can purchase a unit? Will the economics of that location end up making this housing more transitional in nature than was originally anticipated?

The units at East54 strike me as being more family friendly. I was encouraged, at least until the Harris-Teeter moved, that a mix of services were within easy reach. I was discouraged though by the Landtrust’s assessment that these units would be transitional in nature. And, of course, continue to be concerned we couldn’t take advantage of the developers offer to build %30 affordable housing.

With Greenbridge, I believe our philosophy of integrative units, a good goal, interfered with an excellent opportunity to acquire more square footage. The rejection of the proposal to build family units within an existing adjacent neighborhood was disappointing. Our Town policy should be flexible enough to adapt to exceptional opportunities that don’t diverge greatly from our housing goals.

b. Can Chapel Hill’s Inclusionary housing policies be utilized to generate affordable rental housing? If you think so, please explain how such rental housing would be managed and maintained.

From my understanding, the existing inclusionary policies don’t align with encouraging development of rental housing. As the inclusionary zoning process continues, we need to make sure rental becomes more of an option.

6. Many affordable homes are “aging” and will require significant maintenance. Is it appropriate for public funds to be used for long-term maintenance? If so, what sources of funds should be used?

I’m interested in the proposal for a rotating loan fund to assist folks in maintaining their properties. This loan fund, if created, needs to come from monies outside the general fund. I would not support additional Town debt – via bonds or other mechanisms – to fund this loan program.

7. Do you think “payment in lieu” of affordable housing construction should be accepted from builders? If so, what guidelines should be used and how should these funds be used?

Over the last five years, my sense is the Council is accepting way too much in lieu monies over square footage. We’re asking developers to create housing. Housing built now will not only help relieve some of our current demand but also be cheaper than housing built 5, 10 , 20 years out.

If we ask for housing, we should get housing.

Delay is not our friend. Easy money also erodes are discipline. Square footage over in lieu money should be our guiding principle.

POLITICAL PARTY AND EXPERIENCE:

• 2005 Candidate for Town Council
• Town Advisory Boards: Horace-William’s Citizen Comm., Downtown Parking Task Force, Technology Board
• Other: Community Independent Expansion Comm. , Friends of Lincoln Arts Center

While I’ve collaborated with the Orange County Democratic Party for many years on GOTV efforts, been a poll sitter,
literature distributor and have supported local Democrats, usually with sweat equity, in their runs, I am an
independent voter.

Until the party realistically deals with state mandated torture, the two on-going wars, the shredding of the Constitution and begins to address key domestic issues such as health care and the increasing split between segments of our citizenry, I will remain unaffiliated.

CIVIC ACTIVITIES AND OTHER AFFILIATIONS:

- Member of Electronic Frontier Foundation

WHY SHOULD YOU BE ELECTED?

Chapel Hill is at a crossroads.

Do we want a diverse community that honors the contributions of our eldest residents, where young couples and working folks can get their foot in the door or is Chapel Hill reserved for those buying publicly underwritten million-dollar condos?

Good intentions have to be backed by sound fiscal policy and real public accountability.

Borrowing millions from the rainy day fund, engaging in a risky Downtown project whose cost has escalated $500,000 to $8.5 million, when our debt payment is tripling is not responsible.

I will work to return Chapel Hill’s sound foundation so all of us can flourish.

1) Please describe your vision for downtown Chapel Hill and assess the council’s current approach to revitalization.

We need to build on the uniqueness of our Downtown by preserving and improving its human-scale charm.

Let’s invest in simple, cost effective, traditional amenities over risky, costly investments with poorly understood and unmeasured returns.

Let’s start with a family friendly pocket park, decent bathrooms, a water fountain and repaired sidewalks. Simple “you are here” directories to assist visitors in finding public and commercial services would make Downtown more inviting.

Let’s take up the low and no-cost Downtown parking improvements the Downtown Parking Task force suggested instead of raising parking rates as Hill and Foy argued for.

The current revitalization effort is open-ended, too expensive – rising from $500K to $8.5M in one year with no end in sight – and puts all our development “eggs” in one basket. The incumbents have resisted efforts to set measurable goals and make timely reports of successes or failures.

If possible, we need to restart the process using measurable goals, an appropriate and fiscally sound commitment of public resources and an approach that doesn’t risk all for an unknown return.

2) Please describe your vision for Carolina North, noting any disagreements with the university’s announced plans.

For many years I have called on UNC to use its incredible research savvy to build a world-class campus pioneering the best in “green” technologies.

To conform to that vision, UNC had to design a campus that was transit-oriented, partially housed its workforce and worked within some serious self-imposed constraints – few parking spaces, a defined energy budget, minimum footprint, cohesive infrastructure, monitored off-site noise, water, air, light impacts.

To achieve these goals, UNC must build within an established master plan.

Further, building upon the successes of the University’s Carolina North Leadership Advisory Committee (LAC), I suggested we work to create a new, sustained framework for further dialog and negotiation. That framework should incorporate the diverse interests of our community within an open, transparent process to work through the next 15 years of issues.

Doing incremental build-outs, like the recently proposed Innovation Center, without a master plan or a framework for further discussion is untenable.

3) How would you respond to persistent complaints about panhandling?

As the only candidate who works Downtown, I’ve experienced the problems first-hand.

I’ve also seen a troubling shift in our community’s attitude – troublemakers all, seems one current perception. Worse, for a few citizens, the face of that population is always a minority one.

My observation? Aggressive panhandling has taken a backseat to the loutish, aggressive behavior. Concrete steps – focusing on those bad behaviors, policing the worst offenders – should come first. Structural changes – moving benches, increasing police presence in a few places, better lighting – should reduce this sometimes frightening Downtown backdrop.

Practical approaches like “Real Change from Spare Change”, will soon shift the economics of begging – reducing panhandlers’ revenue – while bolstering our other efforts to help the homeless.

Finally, the majority of the folks hanging out Downtown are not causing problems. Some are odd but harmless. Our Downtown policy must be focused, goals-oriented – not broadly punitive if we are to succeed.

In its Comprehensive Plan, Chapel Hill is committed both to denser urban development and to protection of existing neighborhoods. Do you see any conflict between these goals and what do you feel is the best way to achieve them?

There are trade-offs, thus conflicts between the goals of high density and neighborhood protection.

To start, in any discussion of density we need to establish the limits of growth. I’ve been using the concept of “carrying capacity” as a guide.

Carrying capacity is a multi-dimensional evaluation of an ecosystems ability to maintain a particular population. In biology, this usually means water, food and habitat. In Town, we need to add, for instance, the ability for to maintain a diverse and healthy socio-economic balance within our community. We all can’t live in million dollar condos or pay an extra couple hundred bucks in taxes each year.

We don’t currently assess density to that level of detail. I believe we should at least start thinking within those terms as it will help us create a more sustainable outcome.

Another general problem with our comprehensive plan is that our process for upgrading our goals as our understanding improves is broken.

We need to implement a continuous review process, as suggested by the former chair of the Planning Board, to review our goals in light of achievements to-date, successes and failures. Not only do we need to be more nimble in managing our Town’s comprehensive plan, we need to be much more inclusive in drawing upon our community’s expertise.

Three recent omissions in our planning process provide examples of where we need to improve.

I’m not %100 sold on all the elements of the Northern Area Task force but believe it set an excellent framework for further work. One hole in that plan was the real gap between Estes and Downtown. We need to treat the MLK, Jr. corridor from I-40 to Downtown as a whole. Squeeze on one part of that corridor and the excess development will spread into other neighborhoods. We need a balanced approach that incorporates all the moving parts.

Our Town, until recently, has not done a very good job promoting dense development in some of the most appropriate locales in Town. One incumbent recently claimed “all roads lead to Downtown” but the truth is all the highest traffic bearing and transit-friendly corridors lead to Eastgate, Rams Plaza and University Mall.

These commercialized sectors already have sufficient living infrastructure – grocery stores, etc. – to support much higher levels of development.

These areas are accessible but somewhat isolated from the more traditional neighborhoods like Coker Hills. That isolation favors taller, denser developments removed a sufficient distance from our current residential areas so as not to adversely affect those traditional neighborhoods quality of life.

The call for density, I’m concerned, has blinded our current policy makers to other opportunities.
Finally, we cannot “dense” grow ourselves out of our troubles. I’ve been quite concerned by some of the incumbents relentless rhetoric on “dense is good”. Dense, especially beyond our community’s carrying capacity, could rob our community of its charm.

Worse, dense, inappropriately sited, can have wide ranging impacts on remote neighborhoods.

I believe the TC-3 zone, supposedly created for Greenbridge but really created to support the Council’s Lot #5 boondoggle, is a case in point. TC-3 raised allowable Downtown building heights to 120’ (from 90’) and doubled the density.

Contrary to what one of the incumbents claimed, once Council opened the door to taller, denser development for these two projects, they opened the door to similar development all along Rosemary St.

Besides diminishing the charm of Downtown, a string of dense development stretching from the Carrboro border to Columbia will create intense pressure on the Northside neighborhood. From what long time residents of those neighborhoods have told me, the neighborhood conservation district (NCD) was probably too late to save this traditionally blue collar neighborhood. These same folks see the blooming of dense Downtown development as the final straw.

A gentrified Northside, fronted on Rosemary St. by dense development, might be a nice place to live for the new folks but displacing existing folks – many who have lived their whole life in that neighborhood – is a steep price to pay.

Please describe at least three ways you feel the Town could do a better job protecting creeks and other environmentally sensitive habitats.

In the last year, we have had opportunities to show – by doing – a real concern for tree conservation, fuel reduction and energy efficiency. In each case, either the opportunity was missed or an expedient course charted. As Jim Ward pointed out this spring, our Town undercuts its environmental credibility when it practices “do as I say, not as I do”.

While we’ve done a fairly good job identifying broad areas of environmental concern, we should go the next step and survey champion species and unique habitats within our community.

Twenty-seven years of tromping the back ways of Chapel Hill has developed my appreciation for what a varied habitat our community encloses. Unfortunately, we’ve lost some pristine areas. Others, like Umstead Park, have diminished greatly but others – more secluded – remain.

My family loves Battle Park and has explored some of its less traveled avenues.

Fortunately, the Botanical Garden and local neighborhood has taken a leadership role in identifying that tracts unique attributes. As with Battle Park, there are some incredible natural specimens and habitats we need to recognize and protect in the out of the way areas of our Town.

Why worry about singular species or habitats? They are the harbingers of the whole ecosystems health. Their success or failure reflects our greater success or failure in protecting our environment.

Next, we need to identify all the remaining potential open space acquisitions within our boundaries and assess each ones environmental and conservation merits.

My family is blessed with a 10+ acre tract between Burlage and Mt. Bolus. This tract joins a flood plain and wetlands that protects one of the key sources of Bolin Creek. Draining the area bounded by South of Estes and East of MLK, Jr. the three creeks are still relatively pristine. Old cypress and mammoth red oaks dot the flat land. Laurel grows from some of the steepest banks and ravines in Town.

Maybe I’m a bit more sensitive to its preservation than other natural corridors within our community because I live on its margins but I believe that protecting this space – which doesn’t appear in our Town’s current acquisition plans – should be a priority.

To make sure we’re not missing other, similar, opportunities we need a continuous process of evaluation and a funding mechanism that will allow the Town to move quickly when spaces become available.

My third suggestion, which mirrors my more general call for a results-oriented approach to policy, is to improve our overall monitoring of our environment.

Like many issues, if you don’t look, you don’t see.

With Carolina North, I have asked UNC to consider off-site impacts air, water, noise and light pollution. I suggested that the Town, through the now defunct Horace-William’s Citizens Committee, set some goals and discuss some methodologies for evaluating success.

One example I liked to use was the impact of cars traversing the corridor from Carolina North to Main Campus on Bolin Creek. With the addition of 10,000-50,000 car trips per day on MLK, Jr. – adding to the long line of idling traffic we already see each work day afternoon – what is the impact on Bolin Creek at Hillsborough St.?

We don’t currently monitor water quality at that intersection with a frequency or to a quality that would help us set appropriate policy – and we should.

Our Town is being asked to take Lake Jordan’s protection to the next level. One element of that plan is to monitor nutrient and other flows from Town into that watershed. We resisted committing to this monitoring because it is not clear how effectively we can do so or what actions we would take if we discover a problem.

This, to me, is a defeatist proposition. First, we have an incredibly talented pool of professionals that live and work within Chapel Hill. I’m confident we could find a protocol that will help monitor our community’s contributions to Lake Jordan’s woes.

Beyond that, while I understand that currently environmental practices might not be able to help our community mediate the damage, it makes no sense, at least to me, not to try to assess our culpability.

Practice what we preach. We can’t close our eyes to the consequences of our growth decisions.

What suggestions do you have for better ways for the local governments in the Orange County area to work together?

Having reviewed the on-going discussions between the Town, the County, the staffs and leadership of each, I believe we’re overdue for a comprehensive survey of our common interests.

For instance, how do our parks and recreation plans align? What are our mutual goals on reducing homelessness, improving mental health services, managing our rural and urban zones? Where do we agree on waste management and our community’s commitment to environmental stewardship? How do we assess the inter-relationships between these issues?

And, most importantly, how do our independent actions create a shared success?

We’re addressing many of these issues within different “silos” of activity. As a citizen trying to tease out the details, it is not always obvious how particular activities within one silo are contributing to the success (or failure) in reaching the goals in another.

Where, then, do are common interest lie?

While our Town’s leadership and the staff and leadership meet somewhat frequently within various committees, joint working meetings by both are too rare. When called for, we need to take the time to thresh out the relevant issues – tete-a-tete – and get beyond divisive political rhetoric.

Take the Rogers Road mess. We should dedicate a joint meeting hashing out our mutual obligations to that community, sketch out a plan of action (with measurable goals – sorry to be a broken record on that) and then follow up – jointly – to make sure adequate progress is being made.

There are other improvements we could make but I’ll note only one more general issue: communication – specifically, managing the agendas and minutes between both groups.

Just as I’ve asked the Town to produce a complete agenda seven days prior to any substantive discussion, I would encourage the County to do the same.

Usually items under joint consideration are not so noted on each government’s web site. As with the agendas, relevant supporting documents are also not linked.

For common issues, it would be nice if the relevant materials – minutes, reports, etc. – were coordinated so that we can – jointly – be sure that we’re negotiating within the same context.

Finally, both could improve communication with the wider community on these joint issues.

4. All UNC actions up to now indicate the submission of a comprehensive Master Plan for the Horace Williams tract. How do you recommend that the Council deal with single application requests for that property?

The Innovation Center being developed on Horace-William’s tract is within a zone requiring a special use permit (SUP). Withholding approval of a SUP on grounds outside of those specified by law is problematic and should be avoided – especially in a situation where we want to build a framework for an honest, sustained, 15 year long, negotiation on Carolina North.

The University has said, for this one project, the business imperative requires an expedited process. I understand and sympathize with the pressure they must be feeling.

Even though the University considers this building as an adjunct to the Carolina North campus, I believe they should wait until three elements are completed:

First, the completion of a comprehensive master plan detailing, to some extent, the location of transit corridors, primary infrastructure, support services, open space, parking, buildings and permanently protected ecologies.

Second, the completion of the key transit, fiscal equity and environmental studies that will guide further negotiations on Carolina North.

I know the University is chafing at the delay inherent in finishing these studies but we need to establish some baseline expectations. These reports set the foundation for the creation of specific environmental, fiscal and transit goals.

As a sign of good faith, we must, with no further delay, be clear with the University on how we plan to use these reports to inform our further actions. How, specifically, do we plan to take these studies and move forward? What, specifically, are we trying to achieve? How, specifically, will we measure progress?

Third, the establishment of a new framework for sustained negotiations with our community. Having reviewed the last 25 years of Town-n-Gown relations, having been involved “up close and personal” for many years now, I’m convinced that for too long we’ve gone without an established framework for serious dialog.

Throughout the years, we generally treat each request individually instead as just another point within a continuum. As the University evolved, we had separate negotiations on the Horace-William’s Airport, main campus’ explosive growth (and the creation of the OI-4 zone), UNC Healthcare’s incredible spillover, South Columbia’s woes, etc.

Many of the same folks have been involved in each discrete effort yet, at least it appears to me, that some of the hard lessons hammered out in each phase – for various reasons, many times University-related – were not carried forward.

Our community is facing at least 15 years of continuous building at Carolina North. We need a flexible, adaptable, transparent and open framework for honest negotiations with the University. A framework where we build upon our successes, work to our mutual advantages and overcome the gaps created by the sometimes mutually exclusive charters.

Back to the Innovation Center, the University says their business partner is set to bolt. How do we get the University to “hold their horses” – to wait until these necessary elements are completed?

How, in this one particular situation, can the Town reduce the risk of the University losing out on what they think is an exceptional opportunity?

By, I believe, committing to a planning process with specific, performance-based, checkpoints and goals. We need to develop a plan of action that creates a predictable outcome for the University and its partner.

In other words, we need to layout what we expect and then follow through as the University jumps through each hoop.

I believe the University, and their new partner, will wait when they see we’re making a serious attempt to accommodate both our charters.