Skip to content
The Archive of The Carrboro Citizen
Menu
  • Home
  • News
  • Community
  • Schools
  • Business
  • Opinion
  • Obituaries
  • Sports
  • Mill
  • Flora
  • Print Archive
  • About
Menu

LETTER: Context needed on Greensboro/Weaver claims

Posted on February 23, 2012February 22, 2012 by Staff

Lies obviously pollute discourse; fortunately this tends to make their damage self-limiting. More insidious are claims that are truthful only when considered in the strictest isolation. In The Citizen’s Feb. 16 “Letters,” statements were made regarding the northwest corner of Greensboro and Weaver that demand context.

Steven Schrenzel complains “Weaver Street Market … did nothing with it.” Well, not for lack of trying. While they owned it, WSM (of which I am a member) repeatedly worked with the community to develop the south part of the block so as to benefit both Carrboro and WSM. Their efforts were repeatedly rebuffed by many of the same folks currently opposing downtown Carrboro development, particularly the “Center Street Preservation Trust” (CSPT). Eventually WSM sold to service debt once the current recession hit.

That is a matter of public record; for details, one could probably consult the folks at the Village Project, who facilitated much of the public process. Evidence regarding the next matter is less well documented, so I’m forced to rely on hearsay, and on the extent to which those accounts are consistent with public statements and behavior. Do your own research, and feel free to rebut.

The developers to whom WSM sold (initially Mark Pantlin of Raleigh, a CVS associate) attempted to assemble the entire block bounded by Center, Short, Greensboro and Weaver. They were able to buy everything except 102 Center St. (better known as the Curl Up & Dye salon, aka Orange County PIN 9778862651), the owners of which are the core of the CSPT (notably, Jane Hamborsky). Whether the latter held out to block development or just to get a better deal, I don’t know.

But it thus seems more than a bit misleading for Michele Rivest and John Alderson to object that Curl Up & Dye will be “like an island in the midst of the proposed commercial development.” Especially given their characterization of Curl Up & Dye, a business with its own large parking lot, as “a residential home with office space.”

There are legitimate, or at least reasonable, objections to downtown Carrboro developments, particularly Greensboro & Weaver. But given the conduct of development opponents (notably the CSPT) over the past decade, to complain that WSM “did nothing with” that corner, or that Curl Up & Dye will be “like an island” on it, is rather like demanding mercy as an orphan after killing one’s parents.

Tom Roche
Carrboro

2 thoughts on “LETTER: Context needed on Greensboro/Weaver claims”

  1. James Carnahan says:
    February 25, 2012 at 6:13 pm

    The Village Project’s report & appendices from the community Charrette for this site are available at http://www.thevillageproject.com/services/facilitation/crossroads-charette/

  2. Dan Coleman says:
    February 26, 2012 at 3:06 pm

    No need for conjecture as to the motives of the owners of 102 Center. Their commitment to preserving their mill house and to the historic character of the downtown mill village was made quite clear during the discussion of the 2008 rezoning which, with their encouragement, made the property “SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE HISTORIC MILLHOUSE CURRENTLY LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY SHALL NOT BE REMOVED OR DEMOLISHED.”

    I offered the motion including this language to the Board of Aldermen (after several months of discussion on how best to approach the issues with this property) and it was adopted unanimously.

Comments are closed.

Web Archive

© 2025 The Archive of The Carrboro Citizen | Powered by Minimalist Blog WordPress Theme