INC NEWS - take developers' proposal off the table...

[Melissa Rooney]

Great points, John. I think that there should be full
disclosure regarding land ownership and
employment/involvement in the development industry.
With the future face of Durham under discussion here,
it is only intelligent that Durham Citizens know who
owns (and stands to gain from) what undeveloped land
still exists.

In every case in which I've been involved, PC
deferrals were a result of the development teams'
negligence, most often: 1) to give them 'time' to talk
with neighbors (and often they STILL don't do so), 2)
to give them 'time' to put their concessions in
writing and submit ammended plans (something they
usually haven't done b/c they don't want to be bound
by truly 'committed' elements), etc.

The push to speed annexation by the city in order to
avoid county input is also of grave concern. The
neighbors of soon-to-be-annexed land often aren't city
residents; so they don't elect the city gov't
officials who, after annexation, make the decisions
regarding the land around them. This is most
undemocratic.

As Steve Medlin said at the INC meeting last night, it
is difficult to develop in Durham because ALL OF THE
GOOD LAND HAS BEEN TAKEN. What's left is
environmentally sensitive (wetlands, floodplain, high
slopes, etc.) land that would be irresponsible to
develop without great consideration for ALL the costs.

Melissa

Melissa Rooney
Fairfield

--- John Schelp <bwatu at yahoo.com> wrote:

> folks,
> 
> Thanks for all the off-line emails of support.
> They've
> been great (and some have been very funny). :)
> 
> This proposal to remove the Planning Commission's
> ability to defer projects needs to be taken off the
> table. It's the big elephant in the room
> 
> Until then, how well the City/County handles its
> site
> plan and technical review process is secondary. 
> 
> The developers' current push to limit deferrals will
> undermine community participation. It goes way
> beyond
> addressing developers' complaints about competency.
> 
> The planning process in Durham needs to involve the
> community as much as possible. The Planning
> Commission
> is one of the few points where there's true open
> conversation with all the stakeholders. 
> 
> If they're going to take away that chance even more
> with this new proposal, then why have a Planning
> Commission?
> 
> Recently, developers called to cancel a meeting with
> the neighborhood because their "plans aren't ready."
> We then found out the developers had been showing
> their plans to Council members to line up votes --
> before meeting with the neighborhood. 
> 
> This deliberate attempt to circumnavigate the
> community is frustrating. Neighbors deserve a chance
> to have their say.
> 
> It also raises the question of trust. Developers'
> lawyers, lobbyists, past presidents of the
> pro-development Friends of Durham (who co-authored
> the
> column) and other allies were all at the table when
> these "technical adjustments" to streamline the
> development process were being hashed out. 
> 
> The different neighborhoods weren't at the table.
> 
> So, there's nothing wrong with questioning what's
> being proposed. (The fictitious characters help keep
> the focus on the proposals, not the individuals
> involved.)
> 
> For the record, other than my little house, I have
> no
> land holdings in the area. I would appreciate those
> who speak in favor of the developers' proposals to
> indicate whether or not they have land holdings in
> Durham city or county... It might help readers
> understand the author's perspective.
> 
> best wishes,
> John
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> INC-list mailing list
> INC-list at rtpnet.org
> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
>