INC NEWS - Letter: effort to "streamline" development process is misdirected (Herald-Sun)

[Melissa Rooney]

I totally agree, Pat. And thanks for pointing that out
to all of us.

1) Limiting the power of the PC wrt deferrals:
The PC is often THE place where important changes,
reflecting neighborhood concerns, are made; and the
PC’s ability to defer cases is often the only way to
make development teams respond to neighborhood
concerns. That's what happened with the Jordan at
Southpoint development. The PC deferred it twice
before the development team, themselves, withdrew
their rezoning application, after promising to talk
with neighbors and failing to do so (guess they
expected/hoped neighbors to get worn down).

2) As for "allow[ing] administrators to handle the
approval of most water and sewer extension agreements
on their own, without [requiring approval by]
council"
 The city council's ability to grant (or
withold) water/sewer extentions is what forced Jordan
at Southpoint's agreement to commit to the intention
of the conservation subdivision for which they'd
applied, including amendments under consideration. Had
administrators handled this on their own, such
progress (which is certainly in the best interest of
Durham) would not have been sought, much less made.

We also must not forget the recent case(s) of Durham
vs. Graham. Recall this development's year-long
sedimentation and erosion violations, the court
battle, the unsuccessful appeal, and the county’s vote
(this month, with only Becky and Ellen in opposition)
to forfeit collection of hundreds of thousands in
penalties. In light of this fiasco, the oversight of
gov't bodies (council, BOCC) seems even more
necessary.

Meanwhile, we’re still dealing with our former
planning director’s controversial and quite possibly
inappropriate independent decisions regarding the
Morreene Road Warehouse and extension of the Urban
Growth line.

3) And there's a third concern: Just why must we speed
annexations at the expense of county residents'
input?? Durham City lies within Durham County. Both
city AND county requirements should be met, regardless
of how fast annexation occurs. If these two are
redundant, then it should be that much easier to meet
both of them.

--Melissa





--- Pat Carstensen <pats1717 at hotmail.com> wrote:

> 
> There are 2 other proposed changes that are REALLY
> ugly:
> 
> * Authorize the city manager, rather than the City
> Council, to approve
> agreements where developers have to pay to extend
> utility lines to
> their projects. Such agreements now have to wait
> weeks to land on a
> council agenda, where they usually get
> rubber-stamped. Estimated time
> saved: 5-8 weeks.
> 
> Southpointe taught us that City Managers are not
> necessarily working in the interest of all citizens.
> 
> 
> * Limit the City-County Planning Commission's
> ability to defer a
> recommendation. This is not a frequent problem,
> Voorhees said, but the
> commission can withhold a decision on a particular
> project for three
> meetings, or 90 days. Estimated time savings: 1-3
> months.
> The infrequent uses of deferral are exactly those
> where a disadvantaged neighborhood is getting
> shafted.
> 
> > Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 13:27:16 -0400
> > From: bragin at nc.rr.com
> > To: randy at 27beverly.com
> > CC: inc-list at durhaminc.org
> > Subject: Re: INC NEWS - Letter: effort to
> "streamline" development process is misdirected
> (Herald-Sun)
> > 
> > "Many times development has been planned years in 
> > advance. You only notice or hear about it as it
> reaches the final stages 
> > prior to construction."
> > 
> > isn't that exactly the problem? Engagement in the
> development process, years before the bulldozers are
> even hired, is limited to those who have very
> specific stakes in the outcome. These are, for the
> most part, speculators, investors, developers,
> builders, real estate agents, bankers, and, to a
> lesser extent, trade workers. Their desired outcomes
> may or may not be the same as the community at
> large. Turning a profit under perhaps difficult
> economic conditions is, and should be, the primary
> goal of those groups. But building a sustainable
> community whose quality of life and economic value
> continues to grow over the next 5 decades or so is
> the community's goal, and quite frankly it should be
> the goal of our political leaders as well. 
> > 
> > All you need do is look at the bedroom communities
> in Phoenix or Las Vegas  over the past year to see
> what happens when development decisions are allowed
> to be driven exclusively by short-term profit
> margins rather than long-term sustainability and
> liveability concerns. We could end up either way in
> Durham, depending on some of the decisions that our
> elected officials take over the next couple of
> years.
> > 
> > And don't you think that a public policy that
> encourages farmers to keep their land in production
> makes a certain amount of sense? With food and fuel
> prices at all-time highs, minimizing our reliance on
> food produced 4,000 miles away or more seems like a
> good idea to me.
> > 
> > Barry Ragin
> >  
> > ---- RW Pickle <randy at 27beverly.com> wrote: 
> > 
> > =============
> > Don Moffitt said in his letter to the Herald:
> > 
> > "In places like New Jersey, where developable land
> is quickly
> > disappearing, as it is in Durham, the approval
> process can take several
> > years."
> > 
> > The development process, in NJ or here, does take
> several years. From
> > acquisition to design, it's not an overnight
> process.  Once it gets to the
> > Planning Commission, much time has gone by and
> preliminary work done. Even
> > for developers, time is money (just the interest
> on the finances deters
> > some development). Ultimately, when it gets drawn
> out longer, it just
> > costs the end users more. And in most cases, these
> are homeowners like
> > many of us.
> > 
> > There is no shortage of developable land here.
> Just get in your car and
> > drive north of town and turn off any of the side
> roads. You'll drive for
> > miles seeing land just waiting on a future use.
> Should it be kept as farm
> > land? Just ask the farmer who owns it. He can no
> longer make a living
> > growing much of anything... I suspect many of
> those who see the farm land
> > as something of beauty have never bought the tons
> of fertilizer, the
> > hundreds of gallons of diesel fuel (every week I
> set a personal new record
> > for this... last week it was $4.258/gal), all the
> equipment necessary to
> > even begin to grow something on a commercial
> scale, or paid the taxes on
> > hundreds of acres. And none of it is getting any
> cheaper. So what is to be
> > done with this beautiful piece of land holding the
> planet together? If you
> > can't make a living growing something on it, then
> about all that is left
> > to do is to develop it into something different.
> Hence, development
> > happens. It's like the glass bottle, the plastic
> cup, yesterdays
> > newspaper... recycle it into something different.
> And with land, there
> > just are not that many options.
> > 
> > Our region of the country is expected to grow by
> more than a million
> > people in the next 20 years. If there is not
> development, where do you
> > think these people will live, work, and play?
> Preparation for this influx
> > of new families has already started and will
> continue. Slowing anything
> > down at this point only brings what is going to
> happen to a crisis level
> > at some point down the road. And management by
> crisis is the wrong way to
> > do much of anything. Planning ahead for the future
> will always yield
> > better results. Development is a necessary evil
> for this region of our
> > country that has been blessed by good climate,
> good educational
> > facilities, and seemingly sheltered from the ills
> that plague other parts
> > of it.
> > 
> > Accepting the fact that we have to grow and
> develop land will lead to a
> > better planning process. Slowing it down will only
> postpone a crisis. You
> > don't have to look far to find one either.
> Fayetteville will have an
> > influx of 40,000 families this year alone (due to
> a shift in the
> > military). Just think about how hard it is to come
> up with that many
> > desirable homes to put all these families. And
> it's something you won't be
> > able to do overnight no matter how fast the
> development process is.
> > development isn't fast. Many times development has
> been planned years in
> > advance. You only notice or hear about it as it
> reaches the final stages
> > prior to construction. Only then does it seem like
> it all happens too
> > quickly.
> > 
> > RW Pickle
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > Letter: Process works fine
> > > Herald-Sun, 12 May 2008
> > >
> > > The effort to "streamline" the development
> process in
> > > Durham is well-intentioned and misdirected.
> Comparing
> > > the speed of project approval in Durham to that
> in
> > > Cary is using the wrong metric. In places like
> New
> > > Jersey, where developable land is quickly
> > > disappearing, as it is in Durham, the approval
> process
> > > can take several years. We're a lot faster than
> that.
> > >
> > 
> 
=== message truncated ===>
_______________________________________________
> INC-list mailing list
> INC-list at rtpnet.org
> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
> 



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ