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

[RW Pickle]

I have found, we as citizens, have plenty of people to go to for answers.
But none of them wear the same hat for just that reason. For
water/sewer/storm drainage I go one place. For traffic and transportation
issues I go another. For planning and zoning I go to yet another. And so
on... To think that any one person can speak toward all these issues is
hard to believe. Much less advocate one thing or the next for any
particular facet of any given neighborhood. That's why we have all these
different departments with competent people to address various issues. No
one person has all that expertise. Not on one development, let alone on
all the development going on. Our best defense (as far as citizens) is to
rely on our fellow citizens, those we elect and those who make up the PC
and various other "watchdogs" of what goes on around us. Certainly,
collectively, they have a much bigger picture than we'll ever have or
need. Certainly more than any one person would have. Sometimes even
finding one person in a particular department who can answer all of the
questions for just that department is hard.

I see development of particular areas as problems/issues relating to a
particular geographic area, not as a wide brush stroke. So neighbors close
to the problem/issue would have a much larger stake in the outcome.
Something 9 miles away from me would have a relatively small impact on me
I would think (unless it was in a transportation I use). If it was next
door to you, it would be much greater. You might not want it in your
backdoor whereas I might think it's a great idea (thinking about
Southpoint here). Or like transportation corridors like the EEC. A lot of
folks will be happy to see built while those living in the affected area
may not be so happy with the idea...

Again, and for the last time, I'll say that organized neighborhoods are
the best solution for dealing with issues in their neighborhoods/area. I
know I don't want someone way across town who won't have to live with a
development in my area making a decision for me. They may think it's a
good idea...

All neighborhoods need an advocate. If INC can't/won't be it, then I
suggest, as you certainly have, taking matters into your own hands. If
other neighborhoods did the same thing (in fact that is how many
neighborhood organizations get off the ground; they have a common
planning/development issue that brings them all together), imagine what a
knowledge base we'd have.  I'd also suggest that anyone concerned, get
involved in the process in any one of the many volunteer (and some paid)
opportunities to steer the direction of the comminity of which we live.
Citizens make up all the Boards, Commissions, Authorities and advisory
groups as well as the designated staff from particular City/County
departments. It's then that you'll really get an opportunity to see what
it all takes to make it all happen. And sometimes, you might even be
shocked that it works as good as it does...

RWP
27 Beverly


> 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 ===
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> INC-list mailing list
> INC-list at rtpnet.org
> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
>


====================================================================
This e-mail, and any attachments to it, contains PRIVILEGED AND
CONFIDENTIAL information intended only for the use of the addressee(s) or
entity named on the e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient of this
e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading,
dissemination or copying of this e-mail in error is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this electronic  transmission in error, please notify
me by telephone (919-489-0576) or by electronic mail (pickle at patriot.net)
immediately.
=====================================================================