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

Fri Mar 11 21:06:23 EST 2011

Councilman Woodard,

I know you are busy, so I appreciate you taking the time to forward me the additional information on development agreements.

This document refers to large developments, however, the state law for development agreements is only 25 acres or more… so most developments would qualify.  These agreements are for up to 20 years.  How much of an impact fee would you impose on the developers to compensate the planning department for staff’s time to enforce these agreements for the next 20 years?

Please note that all 4 of the development companies listed on page 30 of that document you provided: Crescent Resources, LLC, Carolina Resources, LLC, Key Harbor Communities, LLC, and Key Harbor Holdings, LLC are all either bankrupt, revoked or dissolved" (in NC). 

Crescent Resources, LLC (bankrupt, see paragraph 10 of following article):

http://www2.mooresvilletribune.com/business/2009/aug/11/bankruptcy-cases-approach-all-time-high-houses-go--ar-3845/

Carolina Resources, LLC (dissolved):

http://www.secretary.state.nc.us/corporations/Filings.aspx?PItemId=8961017

Key Harbor Communities, LLC (Revoked Certificate of Authority):

http://www.secretary.state.nc.us/corporations/Filings.aspx?PItemId=7941064

Key Harbor Holdings, LLC (Revoked Certificate of Authority):

http://www.secretary.state.nc.us/corporations/Filings.aspx?PItemId=7941062

Respectfully,

Tina Motley-Pearson

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Woodard [mailto:mike at mikewoodard.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 7:53 PM
To: mmr121570 at yahoo.com; inc-list at durhaminc.org; tinamotley at earthlink.net
Cc: durhamenviro at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Durham INC] Durham considering 'Development Agreements': Why isthis a bad idea?

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 doesnt 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 influentialmaximizing their profits at costs to citizens (stormwater fees) and those downstream (polluted water).

I wrote about the development agreements.  Im 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 didnt 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 cant 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 couldnt 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20110311/144545f2/attachment.html>