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.

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.

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.

The Club declined to provide a copy of the Carrboro forum. If a Carrboro candidate requests one, I’ll be happy to push it up on the ‘net.

Unlike the Sierra Club forum, the environmental and social justice issues surrounding our neighbors out on Rogers Road (of which I have spoken about numerous times) got a fairly decent airing. The $8 million Downtown Development boondoggle merited one round.

The forum’s format, a round of answers with some opportunity for give-and-take, suited tonight’s questions. I hope the public and the local media take some time to mull over our responses.

There were a few surprises from the non-incumbents: Kevin Wolff bringing up voter-owned elections, Penny Rich suggesting punishing Downtown landlords who wouldn’t fill their storefronts, Matt Czajkowski’s excellent point that Chapel Hill has become introverted.

Of course, the incumbents tried to take credit for all the successes over the last four years while trying to dodge any responsibility or account for any of the mistakes.

Some of the successes – hiring an economic development officer, developing a strategic economic development plan, the Town’s new fiber network – were issues I brought forward first.

As far as surprises from the incumbents, I appreciated Mayor Foy’s complementary observation that I have an eye for efficiency.

Jim Ward’s bit of criticism (Incumbency Is Not Enough or Nineteen Seconds Is Too Long) about the 19 seconds I went over my time on one response provided some humor.

And Cam Hill, one of the negotiators on Lot #5, quoting a citizen outlay about $1 million short of the actual figure (CHN). I’ve been up since 6am and can understand a fumble -
hope fatigue explains his sloppy accounting.

The League graciously allowed me to assist them in posting tonight’s video on the web.

I’m preparing for upload now and expect the full video to be available by tomorrow evening (I’ll post a new article when it’s done).

Oh, and the Sierra Club has since declined my offer to post their forum on the Internet. They plan to do it themselves. I’ll keep an eye on their progress and will announce its availability.

Last Sunday, Chairman Bernadette Pelissier, Political Chair Loren Hintz and member Matthew Scheer interviewed me on behalf of the Sierra Club to determine if I qualified for an endorsement.

Questions spanned local zoning policy, a discussion of good and bad infill, personal commitment to environmental protection and Carolina North.

Folks that read CitizenWill already have a good idea about where I stand on many of these issues. Surprisingly some issues, like local waste management, the trash transfer station and Rogers Road community’s complaints, our storm water utility policy or in-town open space preservation didn’t make the list. Of course, you can only fit so much into a 45 minute interview.

I appreciate these members taking the time to review my thoughts on Carolina North, zoning policy, pragmatic carbon reduction strategies, transit, etc. (I tried to cram way too much into my answers and digressions).

The Chapel Hill forum takes place next Tuesday, September 25th, 7-9pm at the Chapel Hill Town Hall. The event will be broadcast on our local public access channel.

In 2005,  I did secure the local club’s enthusiastic endorsement. Here’s what they said two years ago:

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.

We strongly encourage Sierra Club members and any residents of Chapel Hill who care about the environment to support these four candidates in the November 8th election. They are the best hope for a Town Council that will always make reducing environmental impact a top priority as Chapel Hill grows bigger.

We’ll know by mid-October if the work I’ve done since – on Carolina North, as a member of the Horace-William’s Citizen Committee sub-committee on environment, tracking and publicizing the landfill/transfer site problems on Rogers Road – will secure an endorsement in 2007.

The questions are broad, open to interpretation and, on occasion, leading. How would you answer the Chamber’s questions?

In case the Director omits my business background, as he did in 2005, I worked for Northern Telecom for many years, winning a couple President’s Awards and a Chairman’s Award for Innovation (the first IT person to do so). I have been a CIO/CTO of a couple successful startups, including Reged.com which sold to FiServ for multi-millions of dollars. As an entrepreneur I was part of the crew that shepherded those companies to multi-million dollar revenues. I currently work for Tibco, an enterprise application integration company, specializing in XML technology and distributed Java application architectures.

Here is the questionnaire and my extended answers. You’ll note I wasn’t unsure at all:

4. Is increasing the commercial tax base in Chapel Hill an important priority for you?

YES

Even before my run for office in 2005 I was agitating for a Economic Development Officer to help develop strategic and tactical approaches to increasing our commercial tax base. Council finally hired an officer, now we need leadership with business acumen to make the best use of his services.

First, we need to make sure we look for economic development opportunities within the whole of Chapel Hill.

Downtown is important but some of the most exciting areas for growth continue to exist within the Eastgate/Conner Dr./University Mall/Chapel Hill North commercial centers.

Second, we need policies that embrace and plan for the future.

Carolina North is going to spur development along Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Our Town has suggested various zones for higher density development with that corridor. But the game plan the Town is using doesn’t adequately anticipate a world with $4 gallon gasoline, higher use of communications technology, the proliferation of cottage industry or micro-manufacturing.

In addition, we’re not positioned to leverage the incredibly attractive amenity the Town’s municipal network will offer within that corridor or the other %85 of Town within its easy reach.

We need to rework our vision of Chapel Hill ten, twenty, thirty years out.

Third, economic development cannot be limited to commercial development but needs to incorporate improvements in our job opportunities and mix.

We need an employment ladder within Chapel Hill. Current policy is fueling the stratification of our workforce – service workers, governmental staff separated by tens of rungs from the professional class. A healthy community is one that promotes variegated opportunities and a “way up”.

Fourth, we have to be prepared to seize opportunities as they become available and facilitate appropriate commercial growth with policies that protects Chapel Hill’s values without sacrificing the charm that makes Chapel Hill unique and attractive.

Some specifics?

Advertising the unique strengths – the striking demographics – of Chapel Hill would be a good start.

Working within those strengths, we need to make starting, maintaining and growing a business easier. That could start with a clear guide to doing business in Chapel Hill.

Some folks like to say doing business in Chapel Hill is Hell. Statistically, business in Chapel Hill continues to grow – look at the excitement over Trader Joes – yet the perception is that Chapel Hill doesn’t care if a Mom-n-Pop can’t get their foot in the door.

I understand. Over the years I’ve observed some very miserable outcomes that would explain a poor perception.

“Feel good” ordinances, like the recent call to force landlords to rent their Downtown properties within some time period, will not only fail but exacerbate the perception that Chapel Hill unfriendly.

Instead, impediments, like the privilege tax, need to be removed.

Fifth, we need to model our economic environment, create policy to improve opportunities, set goals and regularly measure progress. The market, to a great extent, needs to guide our hand in setting our strategies.

Finally, our policy must be “ evergreen”. Measurable goals and timely monitoring must be built into whatever new policies we adopt. We should retrofit existing policy so that our approach remains flexible and adaptable.

5. Do you support shortening the time it takes to have a project approved or denied in Chapel Hill if the quality of the development and level of citizen input remained high?

NO

Again, the Chamber is asking a rather broad question that demands a nuanced answer. Do I think we could improve our current planning process? Absolutely.

But reducing the regulatory time limits gives me pause.

Recent history informs my concern. Buried in the Greenbridge zoning hearings was the approval for a new Downtown commercial zone – TC-3 – which doubled the allowable density and increase heights %33 from 90’ to 120’. The bulk of the TC-3 approval process occurred late Fall and I’m not confident that our citizenry was well-informed.

After the fact, a number of citizens have contacted me because I was one of the lone dissenting voices. How did this happen? Where was the public discussion? A rapid process was no friend to our wider community.

Worse, accelerating the current arguably broken and over-taxed planning process will serve neither the developers nor our community well.

The best course of action is to correct our current process and put PREDICTABILITY back into it. The most common complaint I’ve heard about our current process is that the outcome is not PREDICTABLE.

If a project can’t be approved because it cannot be reworked to satisfy our community’s standards we should quickly and decisively tell a developer so.

6. Would you support creating a set of criteria for desirable development projects and then expediting the approval process for projects that meet those established objectives?

YES

It will take some time to create a predictable process that incorporates enough specifics that the Council can be confident that a developer has met the community’s expectations.

We are way behind in creating this predictable process. Once implemented, we need to continue Town Manager Roger Stancil’s work on improving the reporting process so that folks dealing with our Town’s approval procedures can easily track their progress end-to-end.

7. Will you vote to set a lease expiration date or a deadline for the Homeless Shelter to vacate the old municipal building downtown?

NO

Forcing the issue by pulling the lease is not an appropriate solution. Moving the homeless shelter has illuminated problems with high level communications and cooperation between our County and our Town. We need to meet often and more effectively so that issues like the homeless shelter can be equitably resolved.

8. Do you support land use regulations and regulatory practices that promote the construction of office, retail and workforce housing along transportation corridors?

YES

I’m not averse to development within our transit corridors but I am concerned that the corridors will become over-saturated, especially as transit policy and funding struggles to keep up. Further, there is a limit to growth, no matter what corridors we develop along. The measure of our community’s “carrying capacity” is an issue that should dominate our near term discussions on sustainability.

9. Do you generally support the concept of developing the Horace Williams Tract into a mixed use research park (Carolina North)?

YES

If by mixed-use the Chamber is describing development along the lines of that discussed with UNC’s Leadership Advisory Council – guided by the principles set for by the Horace-Williams Citizens Committee (of which I’m a former member) – and built to master concept plan within a zoning and development agreement process that allows our Town and the University to chart a winning course, yes.

An incremental buildout will not serve our University, our community or our State well.

I believe Carolina North could be the spur for incredible improvement within our community.

10. Do you think a healthy growing economy is an equally important component of community sustainability as environmental protection and social equity?

NO

What is more important, your left hand or your right foot? A healthy economy, which I don’t think is necessarily a rapidly growing economy, impacts our ability to work effectively on social equity and environmental issues.

What is a “healthy” economy though? Is it a local economy based on local businesses supporting the local community or is it a simple game of escalating sums?

Of course, the Chamber is trying to measure apples to oranges.

Would policies that ignore racist or sexist conditions – create or exacerbate societal iniquities – be acceptable as long as they promote a “healthy” economy?

Do we shave well-crafted regulations governing resource conservation and creek protection to encourage a big bucks out-of-Town retailer to relocate?

Is it acceptable to radically grow the mound of trash we plop down in the backyards of the Rogers Road community because a businesses profit profile will benefit highly?

I want to modify policy that acts as to dissuade business growth but I’m not willing to sacrifice the charm (soul?) of Chapel Hill to reap a whirlwind of a supposed economic windfall.

One last comment on “healthy”.

Chapel Hill is NOT an oasis. No matter how rich our community grows (current Council policy is definitely growing that demographic), macro-economic events are catching up with us.

The current Council’s spending is predicated on a growing property tax base. Forward projections are based on churn in the market that has rapidly diminished. Revenue inflows will not meet our Town’s inflating expenditures and the Council cannot continue to borrow from the reserves to keep our tax rate down.

We’ve waited way to long making structural changes in the way our Town spends it our money. Our Town has to learn to live within its means.

So, back to a healthy economy, we need policy to promote a sustainable local economy built and maintained by local folks that produce and buy within the community.

The modest, but sustained, healthy growth encouraged by those policies will keep Chapel Hill afloat, our community diverse and creative, during these already evolving nationally troubling economic times.

11. Will you vote to implement the additional recommendations made by the Chapel Hill Parking Committee within the first six months of your term?

YES

As a member of the Parking Task Force I will invert the Council’s current approach and work to implement the low/no cost practical and pragmatic recommendations made in their report.

Beyond that, I will continue to work to make parking cheap and attractive to both our citizens and visitors.

Increasing the cost – even by “two units” as one current Council member suggested – makes no sense especially when dozens of other recommendations languish.

I’m quite disappointed in the way this Task Force’s efforts were used by Council. The Task Force was quite clear on the suggested order of tasks – the consensus was that increasing costs was to be avoided yet that is not what one of our Council member liaison advertised.

Finally, though it was not incorporated in the Task Force recommendations, I will be bringing forward – as I did within the Task Force – the issue of predatory towing practices.

From what I’ve seen and heard, the windfall from towing folks – whether they’re visiting or not – has become so attractive that towing has become a booming business. I imagine not many folks will want to return to a community that tacitly supports $150 shakedowns.

12. Will you make economic development and redevelopment efforts a priority for you during your term in office?

YES

In 2005, on a similar Chamber survey, I said

As Chapel Hill transitions from Town to City we need to cultivate economic activity throughout Town. That starts with a creating a new EDC, doing a real survey of all business activity and creating a strategic plan for economic development that looks 5,10,20 years out.

We need to get creative and realize we can support innovative economic activity by supporting a municipally-sponsored broadband service. Besides advertising Chapel Hill as a Town on the (technology) rise, it attracts low impact businesses that employ our next generation of consumers.

Finally, we need to revisit some traditional amenities that have all but disappeared in Chapel Hill. Drinking fountains and attractive public restrooms are a good start. And to make Downtown family friendlier, I’m calling for a state-of-the-art, world-class, “mom, do we have to leave” play structure in a prominent Downtown location.

We have hired an Economic Development Officer who is busy creating an economic profile for our Town. He has suggested we invest in a true survey, conducted by specialists in local and regional economies, to get a better read on our Town’s prospects. I will support that effort and ask our staff to co-ordinate with University on both the assay and policy proposals.
The Town has ear-marked some monies to tag-along with the NC-DOT fiber networking project. This was the culmination of nearly 5 years of banging the drum to secure this investment in our Town’s future. I will press to create a community-based effort to plan for the economic, educational and social utilization of what has become a competitive asset for local municipalities.

Unfortunately, my proposal for “pocket parks” Downtown and throughout our community has languished. I will once again take up this issue and press to make our commercial sectors, whether Downtown or elsewhere, more family friendly.

13. Do you believe the town should provide incentives for its employees not to drive to work?

YES

More than incentives, the Town should continue its efforts to help employees car pool or take public transit.

Beyond that, we need to set measurable goals for Town-related trip miles and fuel usage. For the last few years, including making it a plank of my 2005 run for Council platform, I have asked our Council to set targets for miles and fuel usage. I’ve suggested using various incentives to promote staff innovation to wring the most from our fleet use. Instead the Town is still stuck at the platitude stage – CRED (carbon reduction) is good – not, let’s reduce fuel usage this year by %5.

Finally, we need to think strategically when approaching environmental sustainability issues like transit. The day of $4 a gallon gasoline is on the horizon, why have we not planned for this completely anticipatable event?

14. Do you support modifying the Town’s panhandling ordinance to be more restrictive of the locations where people may panhandle in the downtown?

NO

Punitory measures alone will not solve either the panhandling or the abusive loitering problems Downtown. Community-based policing, outreach and other practical measures should help reduce the problem.

This question, I imagine, is another Madison-like approach to a Chapel Hill issue. Madison’s “Reach Out” approach is attractive, helping to focus directly on the problem, using an appropriate toolset to address the multi-dimensional problems of a diverse Downtown population.

Adopting a 50’ limit around ATMs, though, is not appropriate. As others have noted, enforcing “aggressive panhandling” ordinances involves a subjective analysis. Blocking off hundreds of feet of Downtown’s sidewalks to activity that might or might not be actionable, even trying to determine the radius of actionable offenses, is problematic.

We need to police specific behaviors. The unruliness that goes on in-front of Ben & Jerry’s, for instance, rises to the level where policing seems appropriate.

Moving the bench, though, would better serve the end goal, reducing nuisance, than creating another ordinance which would be difficult to enforce equitably and, even if adequately enforceable, would just send folks through the County jail’s revolving door to end up back on our doorstep.

15. Do you think the Town needs to do more to make sure its committees and taskforces include more representation from the business community where there is currently very little?

YES

Both the Town and the Council need to make serving attractive. I have met citizens who wish to contribute to shaping policy and practice within our community who are dissuaded by the steep learning curve, the family unfriendly meeting times, difficulty in determining the charter and scope of our advisory boards. And then there is the reasonable concern, given recent history, that contributing dissenting opinions is a waste of time.

We need to mediate or remove some of the practical impediments to service. We need to use modern tools – email, web services, etc. – to broaden participation.

As I called for 5 years ago – worked for on the now defunct Technology Advisory Board – eventually approved of but not implemented by this current Council, the use of these tools can facilitate participation, increase transparency, capture the historical debate and welcome broader interaction with very little cost or effort on behalf of the Town.

And, as a Council member I will encourage dissent. We must know when our policy is creating problems.

16. List up to three specific things you would do to make Chapel Hill a better place to do business? (Please limit your response to 50 words or less. Responses over 50 words will not be published.)

• Remove structural impediments – like the privilege tax – while improving the process, especially leveraging the Internet, for starting and maintaining a business within our community.
• Make licensing and developing commercial opportunities predictable, manageable and appropriate.
• Use a market-based approach in developing a new, measurable, goal-based strategy for economic development.

This year the Chamber acknowledged the difficulty

We understand it is difficult to answer questions in a “yes, no, or unsure” format, however this method is useful in conveying your general policy perspectives to our members. The candidate interviews will allow you an opportunity to provide a more nuanced response. Please answer the survey questions as “Yes, No, or Unsure”.

Answers other than this will not be published.[emp:mine]

though, the real difficulty, I think, is in believing that it is “useful” to their constituency to get curtailed answers to some difficult questions.

Asked in 2005 what I would do if elected, I answered (beyond the 50 word limit):

As Chapel Hill transitions from Town to City we need to cultivate economic activity throughout Town. That starts with a creating a new EDC, doing a real survey of all business activity and creating a strategic plan for economic development that looks 5,10,20 years out.

We need to get creative and realize we can support innovative economic activity by supporting a municipally-sponsored broadband service. Besides advertising Chapel Hill as a Town on the (technology) rise, it attracts low impact businesses that employ our next generation of consumers.

Finally, we need to revisit some traditional amenities that have all but disappeared in Chapel Hill. Drinking fountains and attractive public restrooms are a good start. And to make Downtown family friendlier, I’m calling for a state-of-the-art, world-class, “mom, do we have to leave” play structure in a prominent Downtown location.

How did I do?

We have, finally, an economic development officer. The Council did, finally, set aside monies to tag-along with the NC-DOT on the municipal fiber network. But my call for pocket parks, Downtown and elsewhere, and restoration of traditional, welcoming amenities remains unheeded. That’s OK, I’ll add it to the stack of issues I’ll address when elected.