[Durham INC] Minutes from 5/25
TheOcean1 at aol.com
TheOcean1 at aol.com
Thu Jun 2 12:24:10 EDT 2011
Since the neighborhoods are able to read the lengthy speech, let me reduce
it to the resolution that INC President, Tom Miller, asked me to bring to
the June meeting.
Bill
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Forgoing the usual quantity of WHERE AS and the THEREFOREs, the points are
simply the public's access to the city's workings in the interest of
government transparency. Specifically the detail of why a small parcel of land
was rejected for sale at 577 Mallard Ave in 2008. This point has some
fundamental issues, so I'd like to withdraw this question while I recheck some
facts.
That will boil the resolution down to the other point, which is probably
of far greater interest to all the neighborhoods-- So here's the resolution
as requested:
****************************************************************************
*************************************
Where as Duke Park represents Durham's most historic park, and its history
is vital to all of Durham's neighborhoods, InterNeighborhood Council
therefore resolves that the City of Durham find a way to preserve the structure
formerly used as the bath house of Duke Park's pool.
and
Where as the public restrooms available to those visiting Duke Park are
part of the historic bath house and would be included in any restoration,
there is no need to remind the City of Durham that its own survey in 1999
determined them to be "UNACEPTABLE" and in "dire need of attention".
Therefore, InterNeighborhood Council resolves that the City of Durham
pursues an active path toward the re~purposing, and the refurbishing, of the
Duke Park Bath House.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In a message dated 5/26/2011 9:40:09 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
pats1717 at hotmail.com writes:
Note that the numbers on the Inspections bill resolution are wrong -- the
ones in the minutes are corrected. Thanks to Jennifer S. for taking notes.
Please let me know about corrections or additions. Regards, pat
-------------
May Delegate Meeting of the InterNeighborhood Council of Durham
First Presbyterian Church
May 24, 2011
Attending the meeting were:
Neighborhoods
Burch Avenue – Jennifer Skahen
Cleveland + Holloway – Matt Dudek, Ken Gasch
Colony Park – Susan and Don Lebkos
Cross Counties – Pat Carstensen
Duke Park – Ian Kipp, Bill Anderson
Falconbridge Homeowners Association – Rosemarie Kitchin
Golden Belt Neighborhood Association – John Martin
Long Meadow – Pakis Bessias
Northgate Park – Mike Shiflett, Nancy Kneepkens
Old East Durham – Chloe’ Palenchar
Old Farm – David Harris
Old North Durham – Peter Katz
Parkwood – Mike Brooks
Trinity Park – Philip Azar, John Swansey
Watts Hospital Hillandale – Tom Miller
Woodcroft – Scott Carter
Visitors
Jim Wise – News and Observer
Lynwood D. Best – City of Durham, NIS
Rick Hester – City of Durham, Assistant Director of NIS
Brenda Howerton
Tom Miller called the meeting to order, and members introduced themselves.
The treasurer reported we have about $3000; please pay your dues.
Rick Hester of Neighborhood Improvement Services gave a presentation,
which was sent to the list-serve after the meeting:
· Periodic Rental Inspection Program – A program to assure that
rental units in the City of Durham are maintained in a safe and habitable
condition and comply with city codes and standards applicable to rental
housing in Durham. They plan to have inspection cycles start in summer of
2012. It will replace the current complaint-driven model, but using the same
processes about what happens with violations and same definitions of
violations. It will have a database of substandard units that can track
improvements and new issues. Based on the experience in Greensboro, they hope huge
decreases in complaints with less work.
· Remediation Program for Boarded-up Buildings – They will enter
boarded up buildings in a database and monitor for 6 months, with the
intention to get the structure re-mediated by NIS or the owner.
· SB 683/ HB 554 – This bill currently in the General Assembly
would significantly limit the ability of Inspections to do their job. For
example, the bill says that rental and owner-occupied units have to be treated
the same, forbids licensing of rental properties, allows routine
inspections only if there is “reasonable cause” to think there may be issues, and
even bans requiring landlord training. Mr. Hester asked folks to City
Council to pass a resolution against this bill, and contact your representative.
The Committee on Boarded-up Houses will meet next Tuesday (5/31); contact
John Martin if you are interested. Mike Shiflett moved that the Executive
Council develop a resolution on SB 554, send it to the list-serve for
comment, and if there is consensus on it, share it with other neighborhood
groups in the state-wide network and convey this consensus to elected
officials. This passed.
Bill Anderson shared some of his thoughts on resources for neighborhoods.
Clearly, having more parks is good (if nothing else, more parks means more
of the city is within 500 feet of a park, areas where certain misdemeanor
drug charges become felonies). The parks issues Bill is seeing come from
single departments being able to veto turning over city property to become
parks, use of park areas to park vehicles and other non-recreational uses,
and (yes) money for needs such as the Duke Park bath house. Bill’s full
remarks are in Appendix A.
Philip Azar gave a detailed update on what is happening with the hotel
development at the McPherson Hospital. There are a lot of interests to be
fit together – preservationist concerns, neighborhood issues such as parking
and noise and sheer massiveness, and economic viability from the developer.
The neighborhood has had a lot of sturm und drang on this development
since they got talked into letting the Downtown Development area come right
up to the edge of the neighborhood, which means that what is developed
depends on the judgment (or lack thereof) of the Planning Director. Trinity
Park has an urban planning committee that has been very active in the process.
Their basic message was that Trinity Park is not afraid of large brick
buildings. However, since the first iteration looked like a generic airport
motel, they encouraged the developer to involve Eddie Belk; the next set of
drawing was much improved. They are progressing, but the process is not
yet complete.
Announcements included:
· The Duke Park Beaver Pageant will be June 5.
· There are open houses on the Comp Plan (the details were posted
to the list-serve).
· Pat attended the workshop on Mixed Use and will send out comments
and a link to the website on it to the list-serve.
· David said he would be bringing up activities of a coalition
working to end the war in Afghanistan.
· Mike mentioned that the Transportation Advisory Committee Transit
Plan has been released so look for workshops on the subject.
· There will be a Memorial Day Ceremony at the Fitzgerald Cemetery.
_http://paulimurrayproject.org/may-30-memorial-day-event-at-fitzgerald-family-cemetery/_
(http://paulimurrayproject.org/may-30-memorial-day-event-at-fitzgerald-family-cemetery/)
The meeting adjourned.
Appendix A: Text of Bill Anderson’s Presentation
Very much appreciate President Tom's willingness and interest in hearing
more about the concern I brought up at the end of our last meeting.
I described it at that time as lopsided resource allocation, and quite
frankly, Tom's request to address the issue at this month's meeting, caused me
to do a great deal more thinking about the exact point I wanted to make.
Originally I thought it was a money issue, partly because the bad news for
an Historic structure in Duke Park always came in the form of "We don't
have the money to properly care for the building", and that's the bath house
at Duke Park that was recently on Preservation Durham's Old Home Tour. And
that bath house contains the two public restrooms that serves that busy
park. I have personally been begging for some attention to those restrooms for
more than a quarter century, and they still look approximately like they
did when I started.
That frustration is what led to my statement last month, and to the
conclusion it was a funding issue.
But I've come prepared to show that it's not a funding dilemma, because it
can be illustrated with an example that involves no money whatsoever.
Perhaps it's a departmental issue, since some neighborhoods require more
attention than others. Code enforcement spends more time in neighborhoods
that contain a great many more boarded up houses than, for example, Trinity
Park. Likewise, Police and Fire Departments get more calls for service from
disadvantaged neighborhoods, but is that the problem? Of course not!
Who would want Firemen and Police to show up if their house wasn't on
fire? No one. And if Trinity Park suddenly had a rash of fires, we all know the
fire dept would respond just as quickly, and none of us would complain
that Trinity Park was suddenly using more than their fair share of city
resources.
The more I thought about it, the more it all boiled down to one
department. Parks and Recreation.
Interestingly, the real trouble doesn't seem to be about money for a
change. So what is the real problem?
That folks, is the question I think INC should ask the city, and I hope to
show you good reason for asking it.
Let me draw your attention to a tiny little non-buildable lot in Cleveland
Holloway. Its address is 577 Mallard Ave and it's right here at the corner
of Gurley & Mallard. As many of you know, this particular block has under
gone a rather wonderful revival, that I'm proud to have been a part of, in
fact, got my Real Estate license just for the purpose. That's how I came to
be the person who requested that lot become "Cleveland Holloway Park",
besides also being the President of Duke Park Preservation Initiative, a
nonprofit capable of accepting and holding the land for purposes of creating a
pocket park there.
This wouldn't be a money issue, because the residents themselves would
clean up the section of Ellerbee Creek that runs through it, they'd put in a
park bench if they wanted one, in essence, all the labor and all the
expenses would be borne by the neighborhood, and it wouldn't take much of either
of those to create a cute little park.
Besides the obvious benefits of a neighborhood park for the pioneering
residents who poured themselves into the renovations of each of their homes,
removing this tiny parcel from the city's books has another effect.
You see the red circle I've drawn here? That's my guess of 500 feet
surrounding this lot.
Remember certain criminal offenses that take place within 500 feet of a
school or a park, carry more severe charges. The same way speeding in a work
zone can double the fines. If this were a park, certain misdemeanor drug
charges inside this circle would become felonies.
It would cost millions to build a school if you had a place to put one,
but this little park would be free to the city of Durham. Inside that circle
is this corner, Elizabeth and Canal. It was known for the five guys
standing there day and night, and not contributing a thing toward the
revitalization of this area.
Sadly, a drive by murder has done more to reduce the loitering there than
anything else.
Wonder if that guy would still be alive if this were a city park that
could have created that magical 500 foot circle.
The INC question would actually be, "Why isn't this a city park?
Before any property owned by the city can become anything else, the idea
must be run past all the depts.
That prevents the loss of property where a Fire substation is needed, or
where any dept might have a need for the land.
I recall the neighborhood being excited as the request went in, after
all... what dept could possibly have a use for such a worthless lot? That's an
INC question... because some dept objected. That's why the parcel remains
on the city's books, and is presumably maintained by the city.... where it
could have been maintained by the neighbors.
So the question becomes, "Which dept objected, and why?" And if the answer
is Parks and Rec, it begs an additional question... "What would DPR hope
to do with it besides build a park?"
The ability to say "No" in this case carries a great deal of authority
that can have a serious effect on a neighborhood. Hope I've illustrated that.
And in this example, it's clearly not a money issue, heck, the city would
probably save a couple bucks in maintenance expenses.
Traditionally INC doesn't take up specific issues on behalf of a given
neighborhood, but I hope this explains why the process is worthy of INC's
attention. It's good that the public can propose a change like this little
park, but in the interest of government transparency, and because we all know
that unchecked authority can become a dangerous thing, the public should
also have the ability to ask a reasonable question.
"Which dept objected, and why?"
Now let's explore the issue I know all too well, the Duke Park Bath
House.
On the surface it appears to be a no brainer money issue.
I made the comparison last month of the two 2800 sq foot community
centers, the one that exist in Walltown that cost $9 million, and the one that
could exist in Duke Park for about one tenth of that by the city's own
estimates.
Since this would also solve the ancient bath room problem there, that
Melissa was kind enough to illustrate with the detailed description of her 6
year old's bowel movement in the bushes, and it would also preserve an
Historic structure... it would all seem to come down to not having the million
dollars to take advantage of such a bargain.
Since I've already told you it's not a money issue, let me give you the
questions first, then I'll explain why these are appropriate questions for
INC to ask.
Question number one, How much did that Ten Year Master Plan cost to
assemble, and how's that working out since we're nearing the end of the plan's
cycle which covered 2003-2013?
For that matter, how much did the survey in 1999 cost to evaluate all the
Park's restrooms in preparation for that Master Plan?
Or the killer question, "How could that 1999 survey determine that the
bath rooms in Duke Park were "Unacceptable and in Dire Need of Attention" and
12 years later become "Not a Priority"?
Clearly that Master Plan isn't serving Parks & Rec very well, and as a
result, Parks & Rec isn't serving Melissa's 6 year old very well either.
If it's not about money, what is it about? It's about land.
A big dept like Parks and Rec needs space to operate from. It's that need
that has put DPR in conflict with a neighborhood or a few, and in fact DPR
is in conflict with itself because of its need for space.
If you view all parts of government the way I do, that when we say "they"
we should mean "us", as in Of, For, and By the people, then you can't fault
Parks and Rec for needing space from which to do their big job.
They need a place to store mowers and equipment and to park their fleet of
vehicles.
And they've grown accustomed to the space they occupy in Duke Park. That's
why the caretaker's house looks like a compound, and it explains why DPR
spent $5,000 of the taxpayer's money to fence in a public parking lot. We
might take issue that it was done without consulting anyone, while the park
was closed for an unbelievably long time after a storm knocked down some
trees. But we can't fault them for needing space.
And Mr. Bonfield recently told me that new space is being prepared for
them, but the move will take a year and a half or so. So that's a good thing,
as it will end this conflict once and for all.
But it's still fair to ask questions. For example, is it possible, since
DPR wants that parking lot so bad, that when the decision was made to
maintain the tennis courts located here, or not maintain them as has been the
case, could the need for that parking lot influence their decision, since
tennis players might want to park there?
How about all the other things Duke Parkers have complained about over the
years? The field that was built over the old pool has always been a big
puddle after even a light rain, could the need for space have influenced the
job Parks & Rec did when they installed the drainage tubes that were too
small? Could this also explain the intense resistance to truly maintaining
the old Bath House over all these years.
I propose that DPR's reasonable need for space has put them in a conflict
of interest since any of these improvements would draw more visitors and
potentially put pressure on them to exit space they authentically need to
operate. Sadly it results in the decision by Parks & Rec, do we serve the
public as we are charged with doing, or do we serve ourselves by protecting
this area we need to better serve the city as a whole?
This logically explains why converting a public parking lot to their depts
use, in a way, serves the public.
And if these assumptions are correct, then it explains the years of
neglect and almost makes them reasonable. And as I said before, the conflict is
coming to an end thanks to the new digs being readied for Parks & Rec use as
a new base of operations.
All of that is good, but the years of neglect have still left a raw spot
on Duke Park, and it still threatens the loss of an Historic Building, and
the kids are still going to be peeing in the bushes for quite awhile.
Basically, when Parks and Rec moves, it will leave behind a serious
backlog of needs in Durham's oldest park. Amends are required, and they are
needed in a hurry. This is a far better comparison with Walltown, because after
47 years of begging, Walltown overly deserved it's community center, and it
needed it in a hurry. And so the city floated a bond for the $9 million it
took to build it, and that's the same solution for Duke Park, except we
only need one million.
Again, historically INC doesn't take up issues that are so pointedly
focused on one single neighborhood, but there are exceptions to every rule. This
is one of those exceptions for two reasons. First, folks from all over the
city come to Duke Park, just as Melissa is from Fairfield on the other
side of town. So all the neighborhoods will benefit from decent bathrooms
someday.
Secondly, all the other parks have been benefiting at Duke Park's expense.
If your park just got some new trash cans, those 55 gallon drums with the
holes in the bottom were delivered from Duke Park where they've been stored
much to the chagrin of we Duke Parkers. Your park didn't suffer from being
used as storage, because Duke Park has borne that burden, in a way, on
behalf of all the other parks in Durham.
I'd remind you that how the city treats one neighborhood should be of
interest to all neighborhoods, and so I'd ask that INC add to the short list of
questions raised above.... one more question.
".... and how 'bout floating a bond to preserve Durham's history, and make
amends in a hurry for the inequities experienced by a park that is
treasured by all of us?"
It is INC's place to help amplify the voice of a neighborhood that hasn't
been heard, and without INC's help, I fear the repairs to Duke Park will
come too late to save the Bath House which could serve all of Durham.
Sort of reminds me of a favorite song from my youth, and a line in it.
"When the trolley is clean out of reach, a certain lesson it will teach".
It was a great song, but it's not a lesson Durham ever wants to learn.
If INC is interested in asking the questions I've proposed, I'll gladly
return next month with a very short resolution to that effect. Thank you for
allowing me the time to suggest it.
=
_______________________________________________
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/20110602/625315a1/attachment.html>
More information about the INC-list
mailing list