[Durham INC] Minutes from 5/25

Thu May 26 21:39:16 EDT 2011

Note that the numbers on the Inspections bill resolution are wrong -- the ones in the minutes are corrected.  Thanks to Jennifer S. for taking notes.  Please let me know about corrections or additions.  Regards, pat
-------------

May
Delegate Meeting of the InterNeighborhood Council of Durham

First Presbyterian Church

May 24, 2011

Attending the meeting were:

Neighborhoods

Burch Avenue – Jennifer Skahen

Cleveland + Holloway – Matt
Dudek, Ken Gasch

Colony Park – Susan and Don
Lebkos

Cross Counties – Pat Carstensen 

Duke Park – Ian Kipp, Bill
Anderson

Falconbridge Homeowners Association
– Rosemarie Kitchin

Golden Belt Neighborhood
Association – John Martin

Long Meadow – Pakis Bessias

Northgate Park – Mike Shiflett,
Nancy Kneepkens

Old East Durham – Chloe’ Palenchar

Old Farm – David Harris

Old North Durham – Peter Katz

Parkwood – Mike Brooks 

Trinity Park – Philip Azar, John
Swansey

Watts Hospital Hillandale – Tom
Miller

Woodcroft – Scott Carter

Visitors 

Jim Wise – News and Observer

Lynwood D. Best – City of
Durham, NIS

Rick Hester – City of Durham,
Assistant Director of NIS

Brenda Howerton 

Tom Miller called the meeting to order, and members
introduced themselves.  The treasurer reported we have about $3000; please pay your dues.

Rick Hester of Neighborhood Improvement Services gave a presentation,
which was sent to the list-serve after the meeting:

·      
Periodic Rental
Inspection Program – A program to assure that rental units in the City of Durham are maintained in a
safe and habitable condition and comply with city codes and standards
applicable to rental housing in Durham. 
They plan to have inspection cycles start in summer
of 2012.  It will replace the
current complaint-driven model, but using the same processes about what happens
with violations and same definitions of violations.  It will have a database of substandard units that can track
improvements and new issues.  Based
on the experience in Greensboro, they hope huge decreases in complaints with
less work.  

·      
Remediation Program for Boarded-up Buildings – They will enter boarded up buildings in a database and monitor for 6
months, with the intention to get the structure re-mediated by NIS or the
owner.  

·      
SB 683/ HB 554 – This
bill currently in the General Assembly would significantly limit the ability of
Inspections to do their job.  For
example, the bill says that rental and owner-occupied units have to be treated
the same, forbids licensing of rental properties, allows routine inspections
only if there is “reasonable cause” to think there may be issues, and even bans
requiring landlord training.  Mr.
Hester asked folks to City Council to pass a resolution against this bill, and
contact your representative. 

The Committee on Boarded-up Houses will meet next Tuesday (5/31); contact
John Martin if you are interested. 
Mike Shiflett moved that the Executive Council develop a resolution on
SB 554, send it to the list-serve for comment, and if there is consensus on it,
share it with other neighborhood groups in the state-wide network and convey
this consensus to elected officials. 
This passed. 

Bill Anderson shared some of his thoughts on resources for
neighborhoods.  Clearly, having
more parks is good (if nothing else, more parks means more of the city is
within 500 feet of a park, areas where certain misdemeanor drug
charges become felonies).  The
parks issues Bill is seeing come from single departments being able to veto
turning over city property to become parks, use of park areas to park vehicles
and other non-recreational uses, and (yes) money for needs such as the Duke
Park bath house.  Bill’s full
remarks are in Appendix A.   

Philip Azar gave a detailed
update on what is happening with the hotel development at the McPherson
Hospital.  There are a lot of
interests to be fit together – preservationist concerns, neighborhood issues
such as parking and noise and sheer massiveness, and economic viability from
the developer.  The neighborhood
has had a lot of sturm und drang on
this development since they got talked into letting the Downtown Development
area come right up to the edge of the neighborhood, which means that what is
developed depends on the judgment (or lack thereof) of the Planning
Director.  Trinity Park has an
urban planning committee that has been very active in the process.  Their basic message was that Trinity
Park is not afraid of large brick buildings.  However, since the first iteration looked like a generic
airport motel, they encouraged the developer to involve Eddie Belk; the next
set of drawing was much improved. 
They are progressing, but the process is not yet complete.

Announcements included:

·      
The Duke Park Beaver
Pageant will be June 5.

·      
There are open houses on
the Comp Plan (the details were posted to the list-serve).

·      
Pat attended the workshop
on Mixed Use and will send out comments and a link to the website on it to the
list-serve.

·      
David said he would be
bringing up activities of a coalition working to end the war in Afghanistan.

·      
Mike mentioned that the
Transportation Advisory Committee Transit Plan has been released so look for
workshops on the subject. 

·      
There will be a Memorial
Day Ceremony at the Fitzgerald Cemetery. 
http://paulimurrayproject.org/may-30-memorial-day-event-at-fitzgerald-family-cemetery/  

The meeting adjourned.

Appendix A:  Text of Bill
Anderson’s Presentation

Very much appreciate President Tom's willingness and
interest in hearing more about the concern I brought up at the end of our last
meeting.

I described it at that time as lopsided resource allocation,
and quite frankly, Tom's request to address the issue at this
month's meeting, caused me to do a great deal more thinking about the
exact point I wanted to make.

Originally I thought it was a money issue, partly because
the bad news for an Historic structure in Duke Park always came in the form of
"We don't have the money to properly care for the building", and
that's the bath house at Duke Park that was recently on Preservation Durham's
Old Home Tour. And that bath house contains the two public restrooms that
serves that busy park. I have personally been begging for some attention to
those restrooms for more than a quarter century, and they still look
approximately like they did when I started.

That frustration is what led to my statement last month, and
to the conclusion it was a funding issue.

But I've come prepared to show that it's not a funding
dilemma, because it can be illustrated with an example that involves no money
whatsoever.

Perhaps it's a departmental issue, since some neighborhoods
require more attention than others. Code enforcement spends more time in
neighborhoods that contain a great many more boarded up houses than, for
example, Trinity Park. Likewise, Police and Fire Departments get more calls for
service from disadvantaged neighborhoods, but is that the problem? Of course
not!

Who would want Firemen and Police to show up if their house
wasn't on fire? No one. And if Trinity Park suddenly had a rash of fires, we
all know the fire dept would respond just as quickly, and none of us would
complain that Trinity Park was suddenly using more than their fair share of
city resources.

The more I thought about it, the more it all boiled
down to one department. Parks and Recreation.

Interestingly, the real trouble doesn't seem to be about
money for a change. So what is the real problem?

That folks, is the question I think INC should ask the city,
and I hope to show you good reason for asking it.

Let me draw your attention to a tiny little non-buildable
lot in Cleveland Holloway. Its address is 577 Mallard Ave and it's right here
at the corner of Gurley & Mallard. As many of you know, this particular
block has under gone a rather wonderful revival, that I'm proud to have been a
part of, in fact, got my Real Estate license just for the purpose. That's how I
came to be the person who requested that lot become "Cleveland Holloway
Park", besides also being the President of Duke Park Preservation
Initiative, a nonprofit capable of accepting and holding the land for purposes
of creating a pocket park there.

This wouldn't be a money issue, because the residents
themselves would clean up the section of Ellerbee Creek that runs through it,
they'd put in a park bench if they wanted one, in essence, all the labor and
all the expenses would be borne by the neighborhood, and it wouldn't take much
of either of those to create a cute little park.

Besides the obvious benefits of a neighborhood park for the
pioneering residents who poured themselves into the renovations of each of
their homes, removing this tiny parcel from the city's books has another
effect.

You see the red circle I've drawn here? That's my guess of
500 feet surrounding this lot.

Remember certain criminal offenses that take place within
500 feet of a school or a park, carry more severe charges. The same way
speeding in a work zone can double the fines. If this were a park, certain
misdemeanor drug charges inside this circle would become felonies.

It would cost millions to build a school if you had a place
to put one, but this little park would be free to the city of Durham. Inside
that circle is this corner, Elizabeth and Canal. It was known for the five guys
standing there day and night, and not contributing a thing toward the
revitalization of this area.

Sadly, a drive by murder has done more to reduce the
loitering there than anything else.

Wonder if that guy would still be alive if this were a city
park that could have created that magical 500 foot circle.

The INC question would actually be, "Why isn't this a
city park?

Before any property owned by the city can become anything
else, the idea must be run past all the depts.

That prevents the loss of property where a Fire substation
is needed, or where any dept might have a need for the land.

I recall the neighborhood being excited as the request went
in, after all... what dept could possibly have a use for such a worthless lot?
That's an INC question... because some dept objected. That's why the parcel remains
on the city's books, and is presumably maintained by the city.... where it
could have been maintained by the neighbors.

So the question becomes, "Which dept objected, and
why?" And if the answer is Parks and Rec, it begs an additional
question... "What would DPR hope to do with it besides build a park?"

The ability to say "No" in this case carries a
great deal of authority that can have a serious effect on a neighborhood. Hope
I've illustrated that. And in this example, it's clearly not a money issue,
heck, the city would probably save a couple bucks in maintenance expenses.

Traditionally INC doesn't take up specific issues on behalf
of a given neighborhood, but I hope this explains why the process is worthy of
INC's attention. It's good that the public can propose a change like this
little park, but in the interest of government transparency, and because we all
know that unchecked authority can become a dangerous thing, the public
should also have the ability to ask a reasonable question.

"Which dept objected, and why?"

Now let's explore the issue I know all too well, the Duke
Park Bath House.

On the surface it appears to be a no brainer money issue.

I made the comparison last month of the two 2800 sq foot
community centers, the one that exist in Walltown that cost $9 million, and the
one that could exist in Duke Park for about one tenth of that by the city's own
estimates.

Since this would also solve the ancient bath room problem
there, that Melissa was kind enough to illustrate with the detailed description
of her 6 year old's bowel movement in the bushes, and it would also preserve an
Historic structure... it would all seem to come down to not having the million
dollars to take advantage of such a bargain.

 Since I've already told you it's not a money issue,
let me give you the questions first, then I'll explain why these are
appropriate questions for INC to ask.

Question number one, How much did that Ten Year Master Plan
cost to assemble, and how's that working out since we're nearing the end of the
plan's cycle which covered 2003-2013?

For that matter, how much did the survey in 1999 cost to
evaluate all the Park's restrooms in preparation for that Master Plan? 

Or the killer question, "How could that 1999 survey
determine that the bath rooms in Duke Park were "Unacceptable and in Dire
Need of Attention" and 12 years later become "Not a Priority"?

Clearly that Master Plan isn't serving Parks & Rec very
well, and as a result, Parks & Rec isn't serving Melissa's 6 year old very
well either.

If it's not about money, what is it about? It's about land.

A big dept like Parks and Rec needs space to operate from.
It's that need that has put DPR in conflict with a neighborhood or a few, and
in fact DPR is in conflict with itself because of its need for space.

If you view all parts of government the way I do, that when
we say "they" we should mean "us", as in Of, For, and By
the people, then you can't fault Parks and Rec for needing space from which to
do their big job.

They need a place to store mowers and equipment and to park
their fleet of vehicles.

And they've grown accustomed to the space they occupy in
Duke Park. That's why the caretaker's house looks like a compound, and it
explains why DPR spent $5,000 of the taxpayer's money to fence in a public
parking lot. We might take issue that it was done without consulting anyone,
while the park was closed for an unbelievably long time after a storm knocked
down some trees. But we can't fault them for needing space.

And Mr. Bonfield recently told me that new space is being
prepared for them, but the move will take a year and a half or so. So that's a
good thing, as it will end this conflict once and for all.

But it's still fair to ask questions. For example, is it
possible, since DPR wants that parking lot so bad, that when the decision was
made to maintain the tennis courts located here, or not maintain them as has
been the case, could the need for that parking lot influence their decision,
since tennis players might want to park there?

How about all the other things Duke Parkers have complained
about over the years? The field that was built over the old pool has always
been a big puddle after even a light rain, could the need for space
have influenced the job Parks & Rec did when they installed the drainage
tubes that were too small? Could this also explain the intense resistance to
truly maintaining the old Bath House over all these years.

I propose that DPR's reasonable need for space has put them
in a conflict of interest since any of these improvements would draw more
visitors and potentially put pressure on them to exit space they authentically
need to operate. Sadly it results in the decision by Parks & Rec, do we
serve the public as we are charged with doing, or do we serve ourselves by
protecting this area we need to better serve the city as a whole?

This logically explains why converting a public parking
lot to their depts use, in a way, serves the public.  

And if these assumptions are correct, then it explains the
years of neglect and almost makes them reasonable. And as I said before, the
conflict is coming to an end thanks to the new digs being readied for Parks
& Rec use as a new base of operations.

All of that is good, but the years of neglect have still
left a raw spot on Duke Park, and it still threatens the loss of an Historic
Building, and the kids are still going to be peeing in the bushes for quite
awhile.

Basically, when Parks and Rec moves, it will leave behind a
serious backlog of needs in Durham's oldest park. Amends are required, and they
are needed in a hurry. This is a far better comparison with Walltown, because
after 47 years of begging, Walltown overly deserved it's community center, and
it needed it in a hurry. And so the city floated a bond for the $9 million it took
to build it, and that's the same solution for Duke Park, except we only need
one million.

Again, historically INC doesn't take up issues that are so
pointedly focused on one single neighborhood, but there are exceptions to every
rule. This is one of those exceptions for two reasons. First, folks from all
over the city come to Duke Park, just as Melissa is from Fairfield on the
other side of town. So all the neighborhoods will benefit from decent bathrooms
someday.

Secondly, all the other parks have been benefiting at Duke
Park's expense. If your park just got some new trash cans, those 55 gallon
drums with the holes in the bottom were delivered from Duke Park where they've
been stored much to the chagrin of we Duke Parkers. Your park didn't suffer from
being used as storage, because Duke Park has borne that burden, in a way, on
behalf of all the other parks in Durham.

I'd remind you that how the city treats one neighborhood
should be of interest to all neighborhoods, and so I'd ask that INC add to the short
list of questions raised above.... one more question.

".... and how 'bout floating a bond to preserve
Durham's history, and make amends in a hurry for the inequities experienced by
a park that is treasured by all of us?"

It is INC's place to help amplify the voice of a
neighborhood that hasn't been heard, and without INC's help, I fear the
repairs to Duke Park will come too late to save the Bath House which could
serve all of Durham.

Sort of reminds me of a favorite song from my youth, and a
line in it. "When the trolley is clean out of reach, a certain lesson it
will teach".

It was a great song, but it's not a lesson Durham ever wants
to learn.

If INC is interested in asking the questions I've proposed,
I'll gladly return next month with a very short resolution to that effect.
Thank you for allowing me the time to suggest it.   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20110526/b0a0dea6/attachment-0001.html>