[Durham INC] Durham considering 'Development Agreements': Why isthis a bad idea?
Ed Harrison
ed.harrison at mindspring.com
Fri Mar 11 20:32:25 EST 2011
The document for which Mike gives the link is the end-all and be-all
of current NC literature on development agreements. Its author is
David Owens, not David Lawrence. Both are two of my favorite faculty
at the School of Government. It's not at all hard to confuse their
names. Professor Lawrence, now officially retired, is the state's
expert on city-county merger, open meetings, public records, and many
other issues of interest to his fellow Durham County residents.
Professor Owens is one of two zoning experts at the School, and is a
very clear and compelling speaker. And he can work on contract on
occasion. The most notable recent occasion was the first half of
2009, when the Chapel Hill Town Council hired Owens to help negotiate
a Development Agreement with UNC-CH for the new campus in Chapel Hill.
In that case, all parties -- including the public -- came to agree
that a Development Agreement was the way to go. One major advantage
for the public, in the context of Chapel Hill's development process,
was that a DA is a legislative process, not the quasi-judicial Special
Use Permit process always used previously for projects of any
significant size in CH. Because the mayor and council were not sitting
as "jurors" in the case, there was no such thing as "ex parte
communications." There was a full and open flow of information and
opinions between all parties for the entire time. I'm big on giving
the public access to documents as soon as I see them, so I continually
made sure that folks were seeing versions of the DA rapidly. I hope
that any other DA process in which I'm part, or any that Durham
governments might do, have more time for folks to catch their breath
than my Council had in dealing with the UNC-CH trustees. (I would
also have appreciated it if the chairman of that board hadn't referred
to my alma mater in Durham as "the evil empire."). Throughout the
process, I was glad that David Owens was working for the town and not
the university.
There are probably shorter reads on the School of Government website
than the book from David Owens. The shorter versions are probably
also by David.
In any case, I'd recommend that people not categorically dismiss
Development Agreements. There are circumstances in which they might be
the best way to go. At the moment, I can't think of any in Durham
County, but there may be future cases which parallel the new UNC-CH
campus in some way. I can't envision many which involve the private
sector, because one major assumption that both parties have to accept
is that a development will happen. In the case of some rezonings, I
don't believe this assumption is warranted.
Ed Harrison
Durham County resident
On Mar 11, 2011, at 7:53 PM, Mike Woodard wrote:
> As I said earlier, I'm in DC working on transportation issues, so I
> don't have time to respond fully now. As I suggested, inviting
> elected and appointed officials to a meeting is the best forum to
> discuss this fully.
>
> I would suggest that people really interested in learning more about
> this topic read the following:
> http://www.sog.unc.edu/pubs/electronicversions/pdfs/ss25viewonly.pdf
>
> It is authored by David Lawrence, professor at the UNC School of
> Government and a Durham resident. You may doubt the motives of some
> local officials, but you will find David is as fair, honest, and
> knowledgable as they come.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Mike Woodard
> Email: mike at mikewoodard.com
> Web site: www.mikewoodard.com
> Mobile: 919.599.5143
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Tina Motley" [tinamotley at earthlink.net]
> Date: 03/11/2011 07:38 PM
> To: "'Melissa Rooney'" <mmr121570 at yahoo.com>, inc-list at durhaminc.org
> CC: durhamenviro at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Durham INC] Durham considering 'Development Agreements':
> Why isthis a bad idea?
>
> Durham is progressive in many areas. It is a diverse and
> interesting place to live. Durham has some pretty amazing citizens
> too.
>
> But like all municipalities, Durham has growing pains. Growth can
> be a contentious issue for many reasons. Durham doesn’t allow
> developments in its own watersheds of Lake Michie and Little River
> which makes up 1/5 of Durham County. The only place left to develop
> is the watersheds of Jordan Lake and Falls Lake. Durham has the
> opportunity to be leaders in protection of these watersheds, but
> instead, the development community has been very influential…
> maximizing their profits at costs to citizens (stormwater fees) and
> those downstream (polluted water).
>
> I wrote about the development agreements. I’m not sure what
> Councilman Woodard found inaccurate. Please feel free to correct
> any inaccuracies you find.
>
> The General Assembly allowed development agreements in 2005. The
> developers would be allowed to use existing regulations at the time
> of the agreement, not newly passed ordinances.
> Durham didn’t allow them, but is now considering them.
>
> It has been noted that these agreements would have to abide by state
> and federal laws. Who is going to go through all these agreements
> and compare them to the UDO and figure out which rules are based on
> state and federal laws and which are based on local laws? Which
> rules in the UDO were active at the time of the agreement? Can you
> see what a potential mess that is? One of the agreements we
> researched was for 19 years. Who in the world would muddle through
> that? Is this a nightmare for the planning department?
>
> You can’t always depend on federal rules. The Clean Water Act has
> had no teeth for a while. Many municipalities fight rules, even
> federal rules. Akron, Ohio had their stormwater and sewer connected
> and it was dumping in the Cuyahoga River. Akron said they couldn’t
> afford to fix their mess. EPA had to file a law suit against them.
> EPA won.
>
> Tina Motley-Pearson
>
>
>
> From: inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org [mailto:inc-list-
> bounces at rtpnet.org] On Behalf Of Melissa Rooney
> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 3:12 PM
> To: inc-list at durhaminc.org
> Cc: durhamenviro at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Durham INC] Durham considering 'Development
> Agreements': Why isthis a bad idea?
>
>
>
> I absolutely agree with Mike here. Invite gov't officials,
> development interests, AND a good environmental attorney, as we all
> know how easy it is to miss the loopholes that the development
> industry, especially K&L Gates, is all to happy to reveal to us
> before we can do anything about them.
>
> I am flat out at the moment...I can barely keep up with my part time
> job, kids and other obligations (school, nbhd, financial, family,
> and otherwise).
>
> I was merely sending out the information to anyone and everyone who
> is unaware this is even an issue (as I was). I think Jim Wise called
> me the "Paul Revere" a few years back, and that's what I was doing
> here. I am hoping that orgs like INC, the PA, NE, New Hope and
> Ellerbe Creek orgs, etc. will form a committee (or at least have one
> volunteer) to research this issue before any gov't decisions are
> made so that if they feel a resolution is required, they can act in
> good time.
>
> Given Durham's track record -- you have to admit, Durham has closed
> far too many doors after the first horse (or two) has left the barn
> and the public finally gets wind that the door has even been left
> open -- this certainly seems like an issue that the public should
> get in front of. And I don't feel bad in the least for being wary of
> anything K&L Gates supports, what with the business tactics they
> have used in Durham and throughout the rest of the country.
>
> Melissa
>
>
>
> From: Mike Woodard <mike at mikewoodard.com>
> To: Melissa Rooney <mmr121570 at yahoo.com>; inc-list-
> bounces at rtpnet.org; inc-list at durhaminc.org
> Cc: durhamenviro at yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Fri, March 11, 2011 1:46:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [Durham INC] Durham considering 'Development
> Agreements': Why isthis a bad idea?
>
> I'm en route to DC, so I can't give a full response. This contains a
> lot of inaccurate and misleading information.
>
> Before loading up our email boxes and passing a resolution, invite
> elected and appointed officials to an upcoming meeting and learn the
> facts.
>
> Mike Woodard
> City Council
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Melissa Rooney <mmr121570 at yahoo.com>
> Sender: inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org
> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 09:31:18
> To: <inc-list at durhaminc.org>
> Cc: <durhamenviro at yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Durham INC] Durham considering 'Development Agreements':
> Why is
> this a bad idea?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Durham INC Mailing List
> list at durham-inc.org
> http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Durham INC Mailing List
> list at durham-inc.org
> http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
More information about the INC-list
mailing list