INC NEWS - Let's give it a chance. Let's see what can be improved &work to make it better...

[Melissa Rooney]

Thanks Colin. I certainly now realize the
complications regarding a lawyer as a neighborhood
advocate.

Nonetheless, the neighbors/citizens of Durham need
someone, perhaps one who isn't a lawyer, to whom they
can be referred...someone to act as an intermediary
and educator between the citizens and the planning
department, developers, PC, BOCC and CC, (but
primarily the first two). My initial experience with
Jordan at Southpoint would have been belittling to the
point of giving up, if I were lacking in
self-confidence ;)

During the neighborhood meeting at which he made clear
I was not welcome b/c I didn't live within 1000 feet
of the development, the person representing the
developer (won't mention names int his email) actually
said with sarcasm:  "So you have an engineering degree
now, do you?" Meanwhile he continued to rebuff my
questions and smile at those neighbors who could
legally sign a protest petition, while committing to
nothing regarding their or my concerns.

When I contacted the planning department, the previous
planning director (i.e. NOT Steve Medlin) was very
belittling and unhelpful...to the point that I cc'd in
some gov't officials so they could see the response
that an inquiring citizen received with regard to
rural/suburban development questions/concerns.

Other concerned citizens and I were very fortunate to
have the help of a neighbor, who is the co-chair of my
neighborhood's community awareness committee as well
as a lawyer with experience in
real-estate/development. Then I had even more good
fortune in that I coincidentally hooked up with a
couple of people who have been voicing citizens'
concerns (via DOST, PC, BOCC and CC meetings/hearings)
for decades now. I don't think I'd have stuck with
things had I not met these very knowledgeable and
helpful people.

Most the time, neighbors/neighborhoods trust the
developers stated intent, getting no real committed
elements (in writing). And if they don't, they are
easily worn down by the process, particularly if the
development team asks for repeated deferrals, thereby
requiring neighbors to drive 'all the way to the city'
for numerous weeknight meetings. Of course, PC
deferrals are often the only way to get the
development team to truly talk to neighbors, but it
hardly guarantees that they will provide committed
elements addressing their concerns. (Though it is a
pain in the rear, I support the PC's authority to
request deferrals but I think that developers often
use these to try to wear down citizens so that they'll
go away, and in this way they cause their own costly
delays.)

While Ted Voorhees and Mayor Bell are pushing for
making customer service toward the developers easier
and more friendly, the citizens are continuing to get
the shaft. The planning process NEEDS a person who is
in CHARGE of CUSTOMER SERVICE for the CITIZEN (don't
mean to be yelling here, but wanted some emphasis on
the key words), as opposed to the developer. The
developer has lots of 'go-to' people, the citizen has
to fish for these and hope he gets someone who has the
time, patience, and motive to be helpful.

The PC, JCCPC and planning personnel have their hands
full as it is; they should not have to be the go-to
people for citizens as well. At the INC candidate
forum, Ellen Reckhow said she felt like she WAS the
neighborhood advocate. Ellen and the rest of the JCCPC
are gems in that they take the time to be responsive
and helpful to citizens. But this goes above and
beyond their job descriptions. We need someone whose
job description is exactly and only this.

I can tell you that my involvement in my own
hand-picked rural/suburban developments -- keeping up
with things, notifying neighborhoods so they know what
they MAY be concerned about, and communicating to them
what I know about how they can voice their concerns --
is easily a part time job. And there are a lot of
other developments out there I don't even know about
(and many that slipped under my radar, by which I am
deeply saddened -- the Hills at Southpoint, for
instance, are soon to be mostly treeless 'hills no
more.')

Now just my $1.10 .... smile...

Melissa





--- Colin Crossman <crc128 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Melissa-
> 
> What you seem to describe through your post is an
> educator or a 
> facilitator, rather than an advocate. If that is the
> intent, then what I 
> write below probably isn't relevant. When the person
> steps over from an 
> education role into an advisory or advocacy role,
> however, things will 
> become considerably more complicated, especially if
> the person is an 
> attorney. Though you point this out in some places,
> I don't believe that 
> you fully capture the extent of the problem.
> 
> In short, simple conflicts of interest can often be
> handled by simple 
> disclosure.
> 
> Conflicts of interests, between several clients,
> when the party with the 
> potential conflict is an attorney, paid by a third
> party who may be 
> adverse to one or more clients, is quite another.
> Attorneys are bound by 
> rules of professional conduct that regulate
> precisely these sorts of 
> problems. Specifically, RPC 1.7 (reprinted below)
> guides conflicts of 
> interest.
> 
> It is absolutely not clear that /legal/
> representation of a neighborhood 
> will pass muster on both (a) and all four points of
> (b) every time, and 
> yet the job responsibilities of the Neighborhood
> Advocate would likely 
> compel the employee to act in favor of one faction
> or another. Without 
> further study of the rules of professional conduct
> and the ethics 
> rulings, and potentially a formal blessing from the
> State Bar, I would 
> think that only a foolish attorney would consider
> this position - 
> especially where there are litigious and litigation
> capable neighbors 
> who may disagree with the representation filed on
> their behalf.
> 
> Also note, that though (b)(4) allows for informed
> consent, that is only 
> allowable if (b)(1) is also true, which may be
> problematic if there are 
> two factions that oppose interest.
> 
> If, on the other hand, the attorney is limited to
> providing information 
> - and not representation in front of a body - then
> it may not be a problem.
> 
> -Colin
> 
> 
>       Rule 1.7 Conflict of Interest: Current Clients
> 
> (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer
> shall not represent a 
> client if the representation involves a concurrent
> conflict of interest. 
> A concurrent conflict of interest exists if:
> 
> (1) the representation of one client will be
> directly adverse to another 
> client; or
> 
> (2) the representation of one or more clients may be
> materially limited 
> by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client,
> a former client, or 
> a third person, or by a personal interest of the
> lawyer.
> 
> (b) Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent
> conflict of interest 
> under paragraph (a), a lawyer may represent a client
> if:
> 
> (1) the lawyer reasonably believes 
>
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/nc/code/NC_CODE.HTM#Reasonable_belief>
> 
> that the lawyer will be able to provide competent
> and diligent 
> representation to each affected client;
> 
> (2) the representation is not prohibited by law;
> 
> (3) the representation does not involve the
> assertion of a claim by one 
> client against another client represented by the
> lawyer in the same 
> litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal 
>
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/nc/code/NC_CODE.HTM#Tribunal>;
> and
> 
> (4) each affected client gives informed consent 
>
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/nc/code/NC_CODE.HTM#Informed_consent>,
> 
> confirmed in writing 
>
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/nc/code/NC_CODE.HTM#Confirmed_in_writing>.
> 
> 
> Melissa Rooney wrote:
> > The Neighborhood Advocate needs to be present at
> the
> > meeting required between the developer and the
> > community. Those community residents present would
> be
> > the ones whose voices are heard, just like it is
> now.
> > Those with an NA or BOD would/should have a
> community
> > awareness committee (or other appointed person)
> who
> > would attend this meeting, but if they don't then
> the
> > NA can only go on the concerns of those who bother
> to
> > show up at the meeting. 
> >
> > At the meeting the NA can introduce him/herself
> and
> > make it clear that (s)he is here to help the
> > neighborhood with any questions or concerns they
> have.
> > (S)he might even suggest some potential
> > problems/concerns that the neighborhood may want
> to
> > think about in relation to the development plan
> before
> > them. This was done by a planning commissioner at
> last
> > week's meeting, when she warned neighbors that
> they
> > should check the development plan's rights of way,
> or
> > they may find that they lose a good portion of
> their
> > front yard to a new road.
> >
> > At this time, or say 1 -2 weeks later, the
> > neighborhood organization rep or simply the group
> of
> > neighbors present, can officially give the NA the
> > ability to speak on their behalf. Or they can
> simply
> > use the NA as a go-to person from who to get
> > information and assistance, and speak for
> themselves
> > at the upcoming PC and BOCC or CC meetings.
> Chances
> > are that, even with an NA, neighbors will need to
> > attend these meetings to show their sincere
> concerns
> > over whatever issues they have.
> >
> > Of course there may be several neighborhoods who
> are
> > concerned about the project, in which case they
> will
> > each need to give the NA official permission to
> speak
> > for them.
> >
> > Of course, the NA can still inform the PC,
> Planning
> > Dept, BOCC/CC of all neighbor/citizen groups'
> > concerns, without directly/officially 'speaking
> for
> > them.' And if there is a disagreement of
> neighbors,
> > the NA can present both sides of the coin. It's
> all
> > about communication and transparency.
> >
> > I don't think the NA needs to 'rank' with the PC
> or
> > the Planning Department. They just need to be the
> > voice and go-between for Durham citizens'
> concerns,
> > however many neighborhoods/groups/etc. are
> concerned.
> > This would mean that they would explain the
> process
> > and the stance/reasoning of the PC and Planning
> Dept.
> > to concerned citizens, and present those citizens'
> > concerns at both PC and BOCC/CC meetings. At the
> end
> > of the day, the process is what it is, and the PC,
> 
=== message truncated ===