
{"id":26598,"date":"2012-06-21T11:21:29","date_gmt":"2012-06-21T15:21:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.carrborocitizen.com\/main\/?p=26598"},"modified":"2012-06-21T11:21:29","modified_gmt":"2012-06-21T15:21:29","slug":"not-ready-to-cheer-2020","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ibiblio.org\/carrborocitizen\/main\/2012\/06\/21\/not-ready-to-cheer-2020\/","title":{"rendered":"Not ready to cheer 2020"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>By Joe Buonfiglio<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Watch out, Carrboro; Chapel Hill\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s new comprehensive plan cannot help but have a major impact on your future too.<\/p>\n<p>As the June 25 deadline for completion and possible adoption of Chapel Hill\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s new comprehensive plan draws near, kudos and congratulatory pats on the back abound. Unfortunately, I am not able to join in the current Chapel Hill 2020 lovefest. While there are many positive points that can be made, the final product is certainly not shaping up to be anything we should celebrate.<\/p>\n<p>CH2020 co-chairs George Cianciolo and Rosemary Waldorf have touted this process of creating a new plan as \u00e2\u20ac\u0153our people\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s vision\u00e2\u20ac\u009d with \u00e2\u20ac\u0153a wide-open opportunity to break with the old ways of doing business.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Additionally, at the May 21 Chapel Hill Town Council meeting, there were but a few exceptions to the parade of valentines for the 2020 leadership and town staff. <\/p>\n<p>There is no doubt that a great deal of time and effort on the part of a lot of people went into this thing. I certainly applaud the months of arduous work and self-sacrifice by all of those involved. However, let me suggest an alternative, far less rosy perspective of the 2020 process and its resulting document.<\/p>\n<p>First of all, there is the lingering and consistently circumvented complaint that the process was unnecessarily rushed, and it shows. In textbook adherence to the old \u00e2\u20ac\u0153haste makes waste\u00e2\u20ac\u009d adage, the resulting 2020 document is painted with too broad a brush and backed by little proven, defensible, hard data. While home to lovely thoughts and wishes, mostly useless generalities reside within its pages. So while developers will be thrilled by this new vision and the abandonment of the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153old ways of doing business,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d as the 2020 co-chairs happily announced, the fact is that a commitment to protecting the wants and needs of neighborhoods clearly stated in the soon-to-be retired comprehensive plan are blatantly lacking in the new one. If defending the character and concerns of neighborhoods is added to the final product, I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m quite confident it will be done so in a way that will water down a Chapel Hill neighborhood\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s ability to point to this document in any attempt at self-preservation.<\/p>\n<p>Besides the unreasonably accelerated tempo of the process, I (and many others) had the distinct feeling that we were being herded to an almost predetermined outcome. We can talk of preserving Chapel Hill\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s small-town qualities \u00e2\u20ac\u201c we can even put it down on paper \u00e2\u20ac\u201c but make sure it is done in a way that won\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t have any real impact on our new savior, high-density mixed-use commercial development. The new mantra: Bigger is the new better.<\/p>\n<p>A good example of this is the much-hyped \u00e2\u20ac\u015315-501 South Discussion Group\u00e2\u20ac\u009d process that basically outlines the vision (read: fate) for the Obey Creek tract across from Southern Village in the town\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s southern area. This vicinity is currently zoned single-family-home residential and has long been considered an environmental offset to high-density Southern Village. However, to look at the new comprehensive plan after the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153discussion group\u00e2\u20ac\u009d was done with it, you\u00e2\u20ac\u2122d assume \u00e2\u20ac\u0153the people\u00e2\u20ac\u009d wanted to change this and build the heck out of it.<\/p>\n<p>This outcome, as with the rest of the whole 2020 process, is highly suspect at best.<\/p>\n<p>In the May 21 meeting, Chapel Hill Town Council member Lee Storrow questioned assistant planning director Mary Jane Nirdlinger about the level of development contained within the map derived from the conclusions of the 15-501 South discussion group, stating, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153because I know some folks had some concerns about making a jump from what had been really a longstanding policy discussion about what zoning was going to look like in the southern part of town \u00e2\u20ac\u201c and I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m not saying this is bad; I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m not saying this is good \u00e2\u20ac\u201c but I do think it looks really different than what that southern-area taskforce did, which was a really long community conversation to get to that point.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n<p>Nirdlinger responded, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153The discussion group produced those recommendations. They had a couple of collaborative evenings where folks who attended the meetings, but weren\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t with the discussion group, worked with the discussion-group members. There was information the first night about vision. The second night, more specifically about the areas on the plan. And then consensus from the discussion group is what you see in the document today.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n<p>I wish Mr. Storrow had pursued his astute concerns further, because Nirdlinger\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s answer is misleading. It gives the impression that the many citizens in attendance \u00e2\u20ac\u201c mostly from the neighborhoods actually surrounding the controversial Obey Creek property that is currently being targeted for a massive retail-and-residential complex \u00e2\u20ac\u201c came to \u00e2\u20ac\u0153consensus\u00e2\u20ac\u009d with the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153discussion group\u00e2\u20ac\u009d committee to jointly make the pro-development recommendation now embraced by the new comprehensive plan. As a citizen-stakeholder who attended those meetings, I can tell you that this is a load of garbage bordering on outright propaganda.<\/p>\n<p>The significant number of neighborhood residents working in several different, autonomous groups each independently reported wanting a much lower-density, substantially less-commercial-to-no-commercial development vision for the Obey Creek tract.<\/p>\n<p>It was the handpicked, not-nominated-by-the-people \u00e2\u20ac\u0153discussion-group\u00e2\u20ac\u009d committee \u00e2\u20ac\u201cincluding not just <em>a<\/em> developer, but <em>the<\/em> Obey Creek developer \u00e2\u20ac\u201c who came to \u00e2\u20ac\u0153consensus\u00e2\u20ac\u009d for the amplified level of development.<\/p>\n<p>I feel this is indicative of the Chapel Hill 2020 process overall. Let the people have a voice; but if that voice in any way works against the pro-development agenda, find a way to tweak it to a more developer-friendly outcome.<\/p>\n<p>This is hardly \u00e2\u20ac\u0153the people\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s vision.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d It is a weak document by design, so as not to impede on the desires of those who want to build our way to prosperity at the expense of neighborhoods. It has no concrete guidelines; this translates to no governor on development. When it comes to protecting our neighborhoods from unreasonable or unwanted development projects, the bottom line is that the current comprehensive plan is far superior to this meaningless mess coming down the pike courtesy of the CH2020 process.<\/p>\n<p>As Chapel Hill Planning Board member Amy Ryan said to the town council at its May 21 meeting, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153The result is the document you have before you: a general, placeless, often contradictory wish-list that could be cherry-picked to justify plans that have little to do with what the citizens want for our town.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n<p><em>Joe Buonfiglio is a resident of Chapel Hill.<\/em> <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Watch out, Carrboro; Chapel Hill\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s new comprehensive plan cannot help but have a major impact on your future too.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-26598","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-opinion"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ibiblio.org\/carrborocitizen\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26598","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ibiblio.org\/carrborocitizen\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ibiblio.org\/carrborocitizen\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ibiblio.org\/carrborocitizen\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ibiblio.org\/carrborocitizen\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=26598"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.ibiblio.org\/carrborocitizen\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26598\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":26599,"href":"https:\/\/www.ibiblio.org\/carrborocitizen\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26598\/revisions\/26599"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ibiblio.org\/carrborocitizen\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26598"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ibiblio.org\/carrborocitizen\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26598"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ibiblio.org\/carrborocitizen\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26598"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}