Name of candidate: Will Raymond
http://citizenwill.org/
1. We talk a lot about growth and where it should occur. Clearly the Town Council can influence the rate of growth through its planning and zoning powers, granted by the NC Legislature.
What are your goals and objectives for growth? Building on a question asked at the Visioning Task Force focus groups, how much growth can Chapel Hill support and still maintain our values, the things that people like about living in Chapel Hill? How would you determine growth rates that are "sustainable"?
Listening to folks at all 9 forums, it was obvious that the current sustainability "yard-stick" Council uses does not adequately capture the concerns of our citizens. Whether establishing the cumulative impact on Town infrastructure, the importance of design or increasing the tax burden on homeowners to fuel growth, the current approach fails at addressing those concerns. Establishing growth rates involves asking our community how important the physical, environmental, social and economic components of current Chapel Hill are? Which are most amenable to change? How do we identify and objectively assess trade-offs? Or, as I've long asked, will we live within our means? For example, OWASA's Board maintains policies that penalize conservation and promise water for any level of growth as long as we agree to tap Lake Jordan and/or purchase other communities water. Does that "open-ended" approach align with our community values? We need to ask.
2. New development occurs on vacant land, or developers buy properties to redevelop for a completely different purpose. Examples of the latter are East 54 and Greenbridge, and proposed projects such as Rams Plaza, University Mall and University Square. Development of any type can bring desired amenities for the Town but can also cause undesirable consequences, such as a changed Town character, environmental damage, the loss of affordable housing, increased traffic, and the migration of small scale retail from present locations.
Given that development and change are inevitable, please suggest ideas about how each of the unwanted consequences could be addressed in future development proposals.
I have consistently challenged our Council to honestly assess the positive and negative consequences of development (recent notable examples being Lot #5 and Greenbridge). Clearly identifying trade-offs, establishing community-based standards for success, verifying touted benefits and, most importantly at this point in Chapel Hill's growth, understanding that the impacts spread well beyond the property-line are necessary components in adopting a sustainable approach which our community will both understand and support. Communication and collaboration, using clear, objective and measurable standards will help build consensus beforehand. Reviewing and reflecting afterwards on the consequences will build confidence. We need to improve the Town's development process to better address these two elements (University Square's redevelopment presents an excellentopportunity to build upon the Carolina North public outreach approach). Finally, as Carolina North and other major projects come online, we must model the cumulative impacts of development and adopt a flexible, fiscally prudent, approach to mitigating both predictable and unforeseen consequences.
3. Chapel Hill prides itself on an open public process with fair, consistent rules and development review process. Citizen Advisory Boards ensure that citizens are involved in decisions that affect them. A Concept Plan process helps guide developers toward a concept desired by the Town.
Please comment on whether the Town's process is working as it should, and offer specific ways it could be improved. Is the process achieving the results we want?
Developers need to have faith that their plans will be reviewed in a predictably consistent fashion, results will come in a timely manner and major design issues will be caught early on. Our citizens need better tools to identify on-going/proposed development projects, their position in the approval pipeline, what information is available for review and who to respond with as far as their concerns. For both, guidelines need to be clear, assistance easily available and milestones for action identified. As far as "streamlining", better integration of each of the steps in the review process will help each participating board stay on the same page. As part of that, the socio-economic, design and policy goals of the Council need to be clear. The recent twisting of the RSSC zone to accommodate a particular style of expensive development provides a cautionary example of the problems with the current process.
4. For the last few years the Council has embraced a policy of encouraging higher densities along major transit corridors through zoning changes based on certain assumptions about transit and population estimates, e.g. a planned hotel on MLK near I-40, and the 54 East project already built at the proposed transit hub. Do you support the policy of putting density on major transit corridors and why? What changes, if any, would you want to make in the policy?
Transit-oriented, high-density developments need to be sited along existing and planned transit corridors. Without dramatic in-fill in existing neighborhoods, which will diminish their character, the majority of brown/green-field development opportunities along these corridors (Ram's Plaza, for instance). I disagree, though, with a number of Council's high-density policies including "if you build it, they will come" (Field of Dreams). One reason touted for East54's approval was that if you build high-density (luxury) condos, the Federal government will eventually dispense monies for light-rail. Ignoring that most successful transit-oriented developments address the needs of the middle class, there is no guarantee that regional light-rail will get development dollars. The impacts, though, of these developments on infrastructure and quality of life is immediate - the drain on resources moreso.
5. Chapel Hill and UNC signed a Development Agreement in June 2009. NRG worked with the Town of Chapel Hill and UNC to ensure that interests of Chapel Hill neighborhoods were taken into consideration, particularly in transportation planning. Our recommendations and neighborhood concerns are found at http://www.nrg-nc.net.
When the review of the Development Agreement comes up, name three issues that you will consider to determine whether or not the Agreement is a success, and discuss in general terms what you will be looking for as measures of success.
I supported not only section 4.16 but also adopting, in general, an "evergreen" approach to objectively measure and mitigate impacts as the need arose. I'm pleased that my recommendation to do short-term fiscal equity reviews ensuring that the cost of developing Carolina North doesn't fall on our residents' shoulders was adopted. While development at Carolina North seems distant, the commitment to make community participation an intrinsic part of the development agreement process needs to be acted upon soon. Since Council rushed approval, public participation, now, is needed to flesh out some measures of success. As far as transit, filling in some gaps, like measuring traffic off-loaded to Umpstead/Elkins Hills neighborhoods, are good first steps.
Further, my hope is that the process concerned citizens brought to the CN negotiating table will be factored into our approach for managing the redevelopment of University Square, University Mall and Ram's Plaza.
6. Public participation cuts across all aspects of Town Government. During the Carolina North planning process, many neighbors emphasized the importance of improving public participation. See attached NRG recommendations report. What is your view of public participation in Town Council decisions, and your ideas for updating Town strategies to reflect current]day technologies and media?
Community input must be central to our decision process. No mere courtesy, more than good sense, it is a vital component of governance. Key to success is accuracy, timeliness and context. Information/assessments provided must be honest, delivered early enough for citizens to digest then respond deliberatively and be backed with easily accessible, verifiably objective, supporting material. Over eight years I have had some success in broadening participation, from technological approaches like a more comprehensive Town website/streaming video of Council meetings to process improvements facilitating input addressing Carolina North. To strengthen community outreach, I will champion additional improvements like tracking applications through the Town's planning process, delivering Council agendas 7 days prior to meeting, cultivating/recruiting diverse representation on our advisory boards. Finally, citizens should not have to rely on "backchannels" to get information. They deserve the same level of timely access as decision-makers. Correcting this longstanding problem will be a priority.