INC NEWS - Re: INC NEWS

[bragin at nc.rr.com]

Speaking as a representative of a neighborhood which has spent much of the past seven years attempting to get the City of Durham to spend the money approved by the voters in the 1996 bond issue to renovate our neighborhood park, let me say that the Board of the Duke Park Neighborhood Association has unanimously voted to support the Erwin Area Neighborhood Groups' efforts to preserve the Duke Tract from development. We are not a particularly well-funded Association, but we have encouraged our members to contribute to this effort, and have agreed to match the first $250 pledged from our neighborhood with Neighborhood Association funds.

Speaking as an individual, I made my choice of where to live in the Triangle 12 years ago, based in large part on proximity to the neighborhood park at Duke Park. So I am very much aware of the City's ongoing difficulty in maintaining its current park base, especially in the urban neighborhoods. My children, who were toddlers when I moved here, 
have now outgrown any possible use they might get from the renovations currently underway at Duke Park.

But that discussion is irrelevant, a red herring to the issue at hand. Which is whether the City should join with the other local governments (Orange County, Durham County, and the Town of Chapel Hill) in acquiring this land for future use as a park.

It is important that we recognize the long-term implications of allowing this tract to be developed. To answer Richard's question, it is my understanding that the adjacent 60+ acres, which has been offered as a conservation easement, will not be so offered if the sale of the Duke tract to the developer goes through. It is likely, if not inevitable, that continued development along the New Hope Creek corridor will occur throughout the next 10 - 20 years, if this tract is developed. This will have a profound impact on the entire region, not only environmentally, but on the character and feel of our community.

It is quite easy 
to engage in the zero-sum game of saying "my neighborhood is still waiting for this or that, and that until we get it we can't support your neighborhood's requests", and that is understandable. Business as usual in Durham politics requires us to advocate for our specific neighborhood's needs in order to see any substantive change. But this sort of advocacy serves to pit us against one another. It prevents us from making decisions based on the good of the entire community, and rewards those subgroups which are better able to take advantage of the system at the expense of those groups which are not.

It's unfortunate that the decision to acquire this land or leave it to be developed must be made in such a short period of time. Ideally, having a 10 year plan for the acquisition and development of a regional park makes sense. But the reality is that the time frame for making this decision is short, and shrinking. 

Every year we celebrate the foresight of those founding members o
f the Eno River Association, whose work to save that land from development has helped to preserve the character of the northern end of the city. That work laid the groundwork for the successful efforts of many of our neighborhoods to oppose the Eno Loop, which in turn allowed us to successfully lobby for the East End Connector, a road which will alleviate some of our urban neighborhood traffic problems when it is built. 

We don't know what benefits will accrue to the Durham/Orange region twenty years from now from the acquisition of this tract. We do know that this will be a profoundly different place depending on our actions over the next few weeks.

Barry Ragin
DPNA president
1706 Shawnee St.
Durham

----- Original Message -----
From: kjj1 at duke.edu
Date: Wednesday, March 9, 2005 9:35 am
Subject: Re: INC NEWS -  Re: INC NEWS

> Just to weigh in on this from where I sit: Old West Durham has lost 
> all our 
> parks and recreational spaces to street and highway projects and 

> I'm a bit 
> frustrated by tax dollars going to support park spaces in new areas 
> while 
> the city hasn't made good on promises to replace the spaces it took 
> from us.
> 
> Kelly J.
> 
> --On Wednesday, March 09, 2005 2:23 PM +0000 Richard Mullinax 
> <rcmj at nc.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> > I agree with Melvin here. What is the budget to maintain this 
> open space
> > over the next ten years at least? I know it will not be much, but 
> I have
> > not seen it in any of the dialog about this park area.
> >
> > It was proposed that $100,000 each is all that is being asked of 
> the City
> > and of the County. What if it goes higher than projected?
> >
> > I would hope that the land being offered to sweeten this deal 
> will be
> > open space even if the whole tract does not go through. I am very
> > supportive of this group buying the land to protect the areas around
> > their homes. There is money available for this type project without
> > burdening our local tax collections. I
 wholly support asking for 
> more> time for these neighbors to get the resources to buy this 
> land. I also
> > would like to see Duke step up here and offer this to the 
> communities.>
> > PACII did not have this in its budget requests for this year. In 
> no way
> > does this group have our support at this time to use City funds. 
> I do not
> > remember one PAC group supported this item.
> >
> > Duke Park is just now seeing the results of the commitment that 
> was made
> > to upgrade it years ago. There are other parks in other 
> neighborhoods,> like Old North Durham Park that have not seen the 
> money being spent yet.
> > Take care of what we have first. Chris Boyer does not have current
> > funding to just maintain the trees in our parks. They have been on
> > deferred maintenance for years and are now starting to drop limbs on
> > power lines and adjoining property. This will cost the City more 
> than> preventive maintenance.
> >
> > We have two lakes in this are
a with very few homes on their 
> shores. We
> > are blessed with open spaces unlike many other places. I think our
> > governments have done all they should to ensure this. If 
> individuals want
> > more they are welcome to provide it themselves.
> >
> > Richard
> >
> > --
> > Richard Mullinax
> > 921 N Mangum St
> > 680-3883
> > Housing Chair, Old North Durham PAC II co-chair
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > INC-list mailing list
> > INC-list at rtpnet.org
> > http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> INC-list mailing list
> INC-list at rtpnet.org
> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
>