INC NEWS - President Elect and 'committed' elements

Wed May 28 22:11:45 EDT 2008

I'd have to disagree with Melissa on one point, and completely agree with  
her on the other.

I totally agree with her reply directly below (Number 1) and surprised  that 
Randy would say such a thing, given that he served on the INC board, and  
knows it's impossible. 
Each President brings their own viewpoint, it's the only one they have. In  
all the years I've been involved, it has always operated as it is chartered. 

Each President's viewpoint mostly effects the focus for that year, in a  
slight way. The basic meat was the same, but the President's effect is like  
different spices. Under Cheryl Shiflett (Sweeney at the time), we learned a lot  
more about trees, while we took care of the usual business.
At the start, I didn't think I wanted to learn more about trees, to be  
honest. By the time her term was up, I knew WHY the ordinances, which are dear  to 
my heart, existed.

>From this and other discussions, it's obvious that there is interest  in how 
developers interact with neighborhoods. There has always been friction  
between the two. Perhaps the developers would build us better neighborhoods,  more 
to our liking, with our input and maybe the neighborhoods would benefit  from 
understanding developers, and making it easier for them to please us. After  
all, we are the buyers of their product.

I can't recall a single time where a better understanding was a bad thing.  
If Craigie, during his term, explores bringing those two closer together, or at 
 least understanding each other better, it would seem rather timely.

If that's a wise direction to focus, then it was just pure luck that  Craigie 
Sanders also happened to be the best prospect in Durham to do so.

Bill Anderson
PS: Melissa, disagree that you've contributed $1.10, I'd say more like $.84  
so far. Didn't want you to short change yourself.  : -  {)

In a message dated 5/28/2008 9:08:16 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
mmr121570 at yahoo.com writes:

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 ===

_______________________________________________
INC-list mailing  list
INC-list at rtpnet.org
http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list

**************Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with 
Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.      
(http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4&?NCID=aolfod00030000000002)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20080528/60f3ac8b/attachment.htm 