[Durham INC] Development Agreements

[Tom Miller]

Friends:

 

It has been pointed out to me by a reader that my comments concerning
development agreements skipped over the fact that the UDO's original
declaration against development agreements was removed some years ago and
that my comments make it seem like the declaration is still there.  This is
a good point which did not occur to me while I was writing.  My argument is
against the current proposal to expressly allow development agreements in
Durham.  I have modified my comments to clarify the current status of the
UDO.  The points I am making in opposition to development agreements are all
the same.  You will see the modification I made in the first paragraph.

 

I want to point out also that these are comments which planning commission
members are allowed to submit for inclusion in the city council and BOCC
agenda packets for the various cases when the cases reach the elected
officials for a final decision.  They are sent to staff who compiles them.
My comments are not a letter to the council as Will Wilson reasonably
suggested in his post to the INC list.  This is also a small point that
deserves clarification.  I had time to modify my comments to address the
point the reader made so I did.   

 

Tom

 

Concerning case TC2000003, Development Agreements:

 

The City Council and the Board of Commissioners should reject this text
amendment.

 

The statutory authority for local governments to enter into development
agreements was in place when Durham adopted its UDO.  In the UDO Durham
declared that such agreements would not be allowed.  Not here.  This was a
deliberate decision based in ideas of simple fairness and openness in
government.  The UDO is one set of rules for everybody.  Durham does not do
business in back rooms or behind closed doors.  In 2016 we removed the
declaration against development agreements from the UDO and today, with this
text change, we propose to expressly allow them.  We have got along without
special favors to the already specially favored for nearly fifteen years.
We do not need to change the rules now.

 

Development Agreements - allowing special deals and special treatment for
favored developers - are anti-democratic.  How can we promote such a thing
when we are at the same time struggling to make the whole development review
and approval process more transparent, accessible, and equitable? Our UDO
applies equally to everybody.  The UDO belongs to everybody.  The developer
may own his land but zoning is public property.  The very idea of
development agreements runs against this idea - a separate deal between the
government and a developer that takes the developer's property out of the
general regulatory scheme and provides the developer with an exclusive set
of rules which he will own for a set period of time.  Zoning the developer
can rely on.  What about zoning everyone else can rely on?

 

The legislative trend over the last few years has definitely been one of
opening doors for developer interests and closing them for everyone else.
First the General Assembly eliminated the protest petition right for
neighbors of proposed rezonings.  Then just last year they took away the
right of average citizens to ask for rezonings.  That right now belongs to
land owners.  Now Durham, the "for all" city, wants to activate the
development agreement method of land use regulation.  More for the
developer, less for everyone else.  Public input has been reduced from real
due process to a box to be checked at the end of the process.  With
development agreements, due process will occur only after the city and
county elected officials, staff, and the developer have hammered out all the
particulars of their deal.  Potential stakeholders in the community will not
be consulted.  They won't even know what's going on.  That's the point,
isn't it?  By the time case is rolled out and the notices are sent, it  will
be too late for the public to back up the momentum of the agreement or alter
its course.  Review by the Planning Commission and even the hearing before
city or county officials will be window dressing.  The case will have been
agreed to and decided before it even started.

 

It's already happened in getting this proposal this far.  The only reason
this text amendment is being considered is that it is necessary to bring
about a backroom deal between the city administration and a developer near
Farrington Road.  Planning Commission members only found this out when staff
objected to a possible delay to study the item more.  "Oh no!  You can't
delay this.  A delay will mess up a deal we have with a developer of a
project on Farrington Road!"   We have not yet been briefed on the
Farrington Road project.  It is obvious from what we have been told,
however, that city officials have committed themselves to the project before
opening it up to public scrutiny.  We were told again at our meeting on
August 11 that if we delayed our consideration of the development agreement
ordinance that it would "sink" the Farrington Road project.  I wish I could
make people realize that this behind-the-scenes deal making - even to the
point of agreeing to change the zoning code to formalize the deal  - is
contrary to sincere public engagement and injurious to public trust.  There
can be no equity in city planning if cases are decided before the public
knows they have started and public involvement is reduced to a box to be
checked.

 

We must vote this idea down.  Staff says this is just another tool.  Imagine
calling special treatment just another tool!  Whatever we might get from
this tool isn't worth having - not at this cost.

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20200824/3999e390/attachment.htm>