[Durham INC] Durham considering 'Development Agreements': Why isthis a bad idea?

[Mike Woodard]

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