INC NEWS - President Elect and 'committed' elements

[Melissa Rooney]

In response to Randy (with utmost respect):

1) "The next President (of INC), Craigie Sanders,  is
a development lawyer. He works for one of the authors
of the article you mention. I'd be curious to hear his
take on all this since he will lead INC next year and
set his own agenda."

While I know Craigie to be an upstanding person, I
certainly hope that neither he nor any other INC
president will 'set his own agenda.' With regard to
the development issues that INC may very well be
discussing next year, I am hopeful that Craigie will
have the president-elect stand in for him should there
be any concern over conflicts of interest.

2) "In a recent private email discussion with one of
our City Council members, I was told that even though
a development might make it past the PC without a
great deal of committed elements, that by the time
they get it for a vote, these committed elements have
been added."

I must also strongly disagree with this statement:

Has anyone ever asked John Silverman what became of
his promise to build affordable housing in Northeast
Central Durham when he was making his pitch for
Southpoint's Renaissance Center?

And, under the I-40 NC 54 Corridor Plan, the
Spaulding/Stanziale/Johnson promise to build a
training center at the Lexus dealership for Durham
citizens (mainly Durham's youth)?....still waiting.

S. Durham residents are also still waiting for a trail
to connect Herndon Road neighborhoods to Herndon Park
and the ATT, which Orleans Homes told neighbors (back
in 2005) was planned. I'm not holding my breath,
especially since they are now saying their property
doesn't extend to the Park/ATT (so they can't build a
trail). Surely they had this info back when they first
discussed this trail access with neighbors.

There have been many developments in South Durham
where the developer made promises that never appeared
in the development plan. That is why all citizens are
warned to GET IT IN WRITING or else it's NOT a
committed element. 

Now I guess it's my $1.10...
Melissa

Melissa Rooney
mmr121570 at yahoo.com



--- RW Pickle <randy at 27beverly.com> wrote:

> Just so you guys will quit sending me email off the
> list asking me about
> some of the postings John has sent out lately, he is
> making this stuff up.
> Why? I guess to make a point. So it's not real, it's
> not attributed to
> anyone but John (or his fictitious characters), so
> quit sending me email
> asking me about it. He's just making the stuff up.
> And I might suggest to
> everyone that just because you read it here or on
> the web, it's just
> opinion. I think the benefit of these list servers
> is to allow input from
> a wide variety of individuals. But very few people
> end up participating
> for whatever reason. But discussion is a healthy
> thing.
> 
> To be fair (so that others have a chance to read the
> letter he referred to
> in the weekend posting), it should
> have been sent  so the comments could be seen in
> context. He leads readers to
> believe that the article primarily spoke to
> residential development which
> it did
> not. It was relative to all development;
> residential, commercial,
> institutional,
> etc. It was about the development process and what
> the issues with it are.
> The
> authors knew a great deal, from first-hand
> experience, what they were
> talking about.
> They "walk the walk" instead of just talking about
> it. They weren't
> credited as
> being "the development industry". One a vice-chair
> of the Chamber of
> Commerce and
> the other the chairman of the City of Durham Capital
> Program Advisory
> Committee
> (CPAC). The latter also does a great deal of legal
> stuff for developers,
> so he wears
> a couple of hats. But they wrote the article as
> civic leaders who have an
> opportunity to see the big picture.
> 
> Everything that is to be built has to go through
> some very specific steps.
> Zoning is
> only one of them. Only after a developer gets over
> that hurdle does any of
> the
> development review process really get started. Up to
> that point, talking
> about
> development before a property is zoned is just a
> waste. And due to
> notifications
> that are required, neighbors certainly know what is
> going on during the
> zoning
> process. Citizens have a great deal of opportunity
> at this stage for input.
> 
> But the plan review and development process (after
> zoning) gets very
> little input
> mainly because development is a defined process. The
> UDO directs what can
> and can be
> done. It's not that the developer and the Planning
> Department get into bed
> together
> and everyone comes out smiling. It's a set body of
> rules that have to meet
> specific
> criteria. that's the way development works. Break
> the rules (like soil and
> erosion
> control) and it'll land you a $1000/day fine. I
> remember the Toyota
> dealership on
> Garrett Road was more than a month late in opening
> because they had to
> change out
> all of their light fixtures in the outside lots
> because they were too
> bright, tall,
> and did not conform to the plans they submitted. Do
> we ever miss
> something? Sure.
> Everyone in the process is only human. But it would
> be hard to believe
> that anything
> is intentional.
> 
> All the additions/buildings to Duke University,
> NCCU, the Downtown
> building boom,
> additions to the corporations in the Park (like the
> $42M building at RTI),
> our bond
> projects to our own buildings (the City), as well as
> residential subdivision
> development has to go through the same review
> process. There is not short
> cut... So
> all that takes time.
> 
> And delays in the process have an actual cash value
> in the amount of time
> it takes.
> People work normally 8 hours a day, five days a
> week. Interest on money
> runs all
> 24/7. It costs developers as well as us taxpayers
> when it takes so long.
> Anything
> that uses taxpayer money in the building ends up
> costing us taxpayers more
> when it
> takes time. And when costs of various materials
> increase monthly (as well
> as the
> interest on the money), it just costs more overall.
> Not just to residential
> developers, but to all developers.
> 
> So try to be fair about this issue when you tilt an
> article one way or the
> other.
> Just send it along as well. Hearing the pros and
> cons of it all will give
> everyone a
> better idea of what the issues really are that face
> us. I think we're all
> smart
> enough to make up our minds as to what an article
> says or doesn't say.
> 
> The next President (of INC), Craigie Sanders,  is a
> development lawyer. He
> works for
> one of the authors of the article you mention. I'd
> be curious to hear his
> take on
> all this since he will lead INC next year and set
> his own agenda.
> 
> In a recent private email discussion with one of our
> City Council members,
> I was told that even though a development might make
> it past the PC
> without a great deal of committed elements, that by
> the time they get it
> for a vote, these committed elements have been
> added. And if you have ever
> been at a Council meeting where some of these
> developments have been
> discussed prior to a vote, you have heard them hash
> them out right there
> in the Council chambers. So just because it leaves
> one group without
> something, it doesn't mean that Council isn't
> looking out for us as well.
> 
> RWP
> 27 Beverly
> 
> 
> 
> > This week, the development industry wrote a column
> in
> > the Herald-Sun saying we need to find a "quicker
> way"
> > to get projects through because "new development
> > creates much-needed property tax revenue for our
> city
> > and county governments" (H-S, 5/22/08).
> >
> > Really? Were it so simple...
> >
> > New residential development doesn't pay for
> itself.
> >
> > Here's text from a Wake County/TJCOG/NCSU
> report...
> >
> > "The ratio for the residential sector is 0.65,
> > implying that for each dollar in property tax and
> > other revenues generated by residential land uses,
> the
> > county spends $1.54 to provide services supporting
> > those land uses. In other words, the residential
> > sector is on balance a net user of local public
> 
=== message truncated ===