Preservation vs. "Sustainable Growth"

"Putting pre-K children into an institution reflects a misunderstanding of human health, creativity, and potential."

Sounds like you have a pre-conceived set of ideas. My son started private day care at 10 weeks. His teachers have all had degrees in early childhood education. I sure don't. He also gets more time socializing with his age peers than we could provide at home.

When he IS at home, he does help with cooking, laundry, yard maintenance. We read and play together.

Maybe you have specific problems with specific programs? I would RATHER have my kids have a lot of experiences with different people and activities than get them too looked into my own likes and dislikes.

The LAC document has a purpose statement that says, "The committee will develop principles that will guide the University in preparing plans for submission to the local governing bodies."

I see a covenant as an agreement that is binding on all parties, which is something much more than a "guide."

Fred,

As I stated earlier "It was understood at the beginning that neither the University nor any of the local governments were actually obligated to adhere to any of the principles endorsed by the LAC."

But the significance, IMHO, of the LAC process was that it got most of the involved parties at the table discussing the issues that ultimately are going to be an integral part of any final disposition of the University's Horace Williams property. I wouldn't go so far as to say that everyone trusts one another at this point but I certainly feel that there is the potential for a more open dialogue than there was previous to this process. The next 6 months should be very revealing.

I have often wondered about the human beings behind the HWT/CN decision maker facades. I wondered how vested they feel as residents, parents, spouses, etc. in Chapel Hill. As people, and not “suits,” do they appreciate what so many of us seem to know intuitively-that we (as citizens of the world) cannot pave and develop forever without consequences?

While I do not want to see the HW tract developed, I know many of these decision makers and they are smart professionals who have a commitment to the university, the community, and the state. While it may be a different commitment than I feel, I chalk that up to a different vision and difference of opinion on the value of growth. Differences of opinion can be held without the need to challenge their roles as 'citizens of the world", residents, parents, and responsible planners. The different vision, from what I can tell, is that they see the university and the research done at the university as a vehicle for improving the quality of life for people on the coast, in the mountains, in small towns, and cities across the state. Me--I'm more selfish and want to maintain my own nest.

I agree with you 100% George. I missed your earlier comment but saw the repeat of the convenant claim by squonk. Things are better and the trust levels seem higher, but at the end of the day, UNC will still pursue plans that they believe are in their best interest.

Here's an interesting mental exercise: what would the property look like today if Professor Williams had given the tract to the Town of Chapel Hill instead of the UNC Philosophy Department?

"The different vision, from what I can tell, is that they see the university and the research done at the university as a vehicle for improving the quality of life for people on the coast, in the mountains, in small towns, and cities across the state. Me–I'm more selfish and want to maintain my own nest. "

Terri-
I'm SURE that these smart professionals may be fine human beings- that was the part of them I was trying to communicate with. I appreciate the fact that we all have our personal visions that we validate by convincing ourselves that what we are doing is right. I don't believe that you are at all selfish for wanting to "maintain your own nest," not because it's YOUR nest, but because your vision is that it is for the good of our community, which is part of the greater community. It would be a step in the right direction.
So, my question to you would be, can't the university's vision to improve the quality of life for people on the coast, in the mountains, in small towns, and cities across the state be accomplished on 25% of the HWT/CN tract? And can it be done WITHOUT negatively affective the quality of life for people here at their home in Chapel Hill?

Del,

From what I saw at the last public meeting, I think the footprint would be smaller if the planners weren't trying to respond to the expectations of public officials for onsite housing and commercial space. The more stuff, external to the academic/research mission, that is proposed for CN, the larger the footprint becomes and the less willing, IMHO, the university will be in making any preservation commitment.

My other belief is that the unwillingness to commit to preservation is a matter of practicality (for the university) associated with the ins and outs of plan review with the town of Chapel Hill. If they were to commit areas to preservation before they have a final, council-approved plan, they would eliminate any flexibility in responding to the occasionally whimsical nature of elected officials (and the planning staff).

But what I have heard....and believe....is that there is a commitment to preservation. Why else would they have gone to the expense of bringing Biohabitats into the planning partnership? Why else would they have hired additional staff to clean up and repair the trails? Why are they putting together a management plan for the section to the west of the airport? While the actual preservation has not been formalized, I see the signals saying that the commitment to preservation has been.

One last issue with preservation. If you look at the charter for OWASA, that came from the University, you will see that there are numerous expectations and limitations that we might not want today. Based on that formalized contract between the community and the university, I wonder if we might be better off with a renewal preservation agreement than with a permanent one.

"If you regulate it, they will come."

I know that builders will hem and haw that you can't make them stop building OUT, that it will put them out of business. But, I guarantee that if you force them to build UP in certain areas, someone will do it. Even if it takes a Donald Trump-like developer to see the HUGE profits that will come from it, someone will do it. That is the lesson from the beach. Sooner or later someone will get rich from building up, the question is how much green-space do you want to lose in the meantime.

Clearly erroneous? I prefaced my statement with "From what I saw at the last public meeting." Are you saying there were no housing/commercial facilites shown in the plans they presented a few weeks back? I did go after work, so maybe I wasn't altogether alert, but I could swear I heard them say the plans included space for around 3,000 full-time residents (along with the necessary parking and infrastructure).

In any case, the housing and commercial development caused by creating so many new jobs at CN will have to happen somewhere. Why would it be better if it happened offsite?

IMHO the towns should work on affordability so that university faculty and staff could buy some of that new residential property being built here instead of having those properties purchased by people who work elsewhere. As it is, I see requiring the university to build housing onsite as a way of increasing population growth UNLESS there is a commitment by the towns to stop new residential development outside of CN.

And maybe instead of upzoning to create added residential density, our elected bodies could start zoning for office/commercial (NOT retail), instead of having to negotiate for fiscal equity. Do you think any fiscal equity agreement will be fully equal to what could be generated if new commercial ventures were located in spaces where they were fully taxed?

BTW, how many new jobs is the University predicting will be created by CN, discounting those that will be relocated from rented space around town and duplicated through entrepreneurship?

No problem, Mark-following I've copied from my initial post on this thread:

"The right thing, in this case, is committing to the 25% footprint and preserving the 75% in perpetuity. The exceptions-your project has to be green, mine doesn't-have to end and an acknowledgement of new realities has to begin-anything else is shameful."
My reply to Chris had to do with the NW area moratorium.

BTW-the in my mind, the "new realities" have to do with the state of the environment. Time has run out-and with the knowledge we have now, not responding to it is unconscionable.

"Do you think any fiscal equity agreement will be fully equal to what could be generated if new commercial ventures were located in spaces where they were fully taxed?"

No, but I don't see why we should have to choose merely one of these two.

Will Raymond said,

"It's kind of funny to see who is now talking about “carrying capacity”. In 2005, some folks posting here had a fun old time dressing down Robin Cutson's single-mindedness on OWASA's water capacity and growth."

Thanks Will. I will never, ever put myself through the torture of running for any office again and have become pretty much a political dropout—but it's really nice of you to note the irony.

I also admire your political stamina and hope you run again.

Mark Marcoplos has brought up a very important point.

"A pre-K school to me is a sign of societal mental illness. So are university labs working on bio-weaponry. I have a very difficult time skipping past the lack of information on what types of activity there will be at CN to focus on how the development and building will be done."

I agree that there should be more discussion on the biowarfare research being conducted at UNC and by UNC in collaboration with Duke--and what this means in terms of Carolina North.

After the post 9-11 anthrax attack in Washington, President Bush requested and was granted billions of dollars to fund biodefense research and development at universities and research parks across the nation—ironically later on genetic analysis proved the anthrax used in the post 9-11 attack was from a U.S. military research lab.

And UNC is now involved in biodefense research.
On November 15, 2004 the NIH awarded a $3.5 million research contract for biodefense to UNC professor Jeffrey Frelinger, to research tularemia (also known as rabbit fever). Tularemia is a very rare disease (only 200 cases annually in the U.S.) and is NOT transmitted from person-to-person---it most commonly results from butchering infected animals while not wearing gloves or eating insufficiently cooked meat.

The CDC has reported that if tularensis were used as a bioweapon, it would have to altered to make it airborne. This means biodefense research would most likely involve weaponizing tularemia to an airborne form and then devising a vaccine.

And in 2003 Duke University was chosen as one of only eight national centers to host a consortium of investigators from six regional universities to pursue biodefense work. Called the Southeast Regional Center of Excellence for Emerging Infections and Biodefense (SERCEB), this biodefense center will include researchers from Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School as well as researchers from other states. (see Duke University News & Communications "Duke is Part of a New Biodefense Initiative" By Keith Lawrence Thursday, September 4, 2003).

The former chief American negotiator of the Biological Weapons Convention, James Leonard has warned that biodefense research may be a violation of Biological Weapons Convention—the very reason we supposedly went to war against Iraq.

And then there's the risk of accidental or deliberate release. A 2001 document called Strategic Planning for UNC Environment, Health & Safety said among other things that 60-100 hazmat spills occur at UNC each year, yet UNC does not fully comply with OSHA standards for response and cleanup of hazardous materials spills. http://ehs.unc.edu/2001strategicplanning.doc.

And if there is an accidental or deliberate release from the research labs then it triggers the provisions of N.C.'s Emergency Health Powers Act which makes the Patriot Act look like a cakewalk—from forced quarantines and use of experimental vaccines without consent to taking over all local communications.

Want to be a guinea pig for those experimental vaccines? Better read about Gulf War syndrome, the swine flu vaccine and the latest about the toddler who almost died after having a reaction just from contact with his father who had received a vaccination against smallpox http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?alias=toddler-survives-smallpox&chanId=...

@Mark and any others concerning growth.
I still say that we should learn from the beaches. I've said this before, so forgive me those of you who have read it. I've lived at a number of beaches, from quaint little ol' St. Augustine to Miami and everything in between. What happens there provides a glimpse into the future of what will happen here. Single-family, smallish houses will be replaced by larger houses or small "buildings". Small buildings replaced by larger buildings. Larger buildings replaced by mega-buildings.

The upward sprawl will not start until the outward sprawl has stopped. So, why not stop it now. No more growth out, only growth up, and only in certain places.

Again, not a Carrboro issue, but Eastgate mall area. What a perfect place for a couple tall buildings with underground parking and green space around them. The Hillsborough economic development district, another great place to allow tall buildings?

All the Orange County EDDs, which all just happen to be along the NCRR rail corridor, are good candidates for tall buildings and growth. These are some of the few places in the County for which there are plans to extend sewer.

Many of the ideas here for getting what citizens want or need in these developments use terms relating to making deals with or somehow forcing builders to provide certain qualities like efficiency. Seems to me the city shouldn't really be involved in cajoling developers since these folks are taking the financial risks. Cities only have taxing and permitting authorities, and it's hard to cajole someone with zoning laws.

Wouldn't it be much more interesting to imagine long-term tax incentives that could be scaled inversely to the impacts of these developments?

Today's State of Things focused on the topic of growth in Wake County. It was an interesting discussion and a similar discussion would be worth having for Orange County.

The program started by stating what we often forget or fail to acknowledge: people are leaving the Northeast and midwest to come here. North Carolina's population growth is primarily the result of migration as opposed to local reproduction. So the dense development of the northeast and midwestern cities are being abandoned in favor of the southeast and the west. Listening to the Wake County planner, within 20 years Wake County is going to be completely developed with a population of closing in on a million.

By contrast, my evening was spent listening to Carlo Petrini talk about the importance of bringing scale and harmony back into our lives, of becoming co-producers with local farmers, of remembering that poetry and anthropology are as important as science and technology.

I know that some of our local officials are very interested in growing local economies; others are dedicated to supporting local farmers; and others are convinced that we can do it all while building out every square inch within the urban services boundary. Is it realistic to believe that we can preserve a local economy while continuing to grow our local population? Are community gardens and greenways sufficient for maintaining a tangible connection with nature? How much more growth can we accept while still maintaining enough local farms to feed our population?

I think the "highest and best" use of the Eastgate area would be to remove the buildings, unearth and liberate Bolin Creek (no more floods), and form a lake there. Build an outdoor performance stage there. Allow some appropriate businesses to locate around the edges of the park.

"I think the “highest and best” use of the Eastgate area would be to remove the buildings, unearth and liberate Bolin Creek (no more floods), and form a lake there. Build an outdoor performance stage there. Allow some appropriate businesses to locate around the edges of the park."

Well, I REALLY don't think they should have approved construction in obvious flood plain. But, given that the mall is there (and they are not likely to let it revert to nature), I AM looking forward to the Trader Joe's. It will be much closer than Cary's store.

"Would this be part of that revised area's transit plan?"

Very funny! Boston Public Garden, I believe. Nostalgic for me-- I did college near Beantown.

You got it, Will. Except maybe we could do without the goofy swan - well, we'd have to prevent some ding-dong from wanting to put a UNC ram on the boats - better stick with the swan.

"Today's State of Things focused on the topic of growth in Wake County."

I caught part of that.

One planner opined that for the cost of the proposed light rail project they could just buy everybody Hummers. I concluded that this gentleman had his head planted way deep up his "backside" I hope he wasn't in a position of great authority.

Terri:

If Wake County grows at the rate it grew in 2005 and 2006, it will get a million people long before 20 years have gone by. Wake was at 786,000 as of 2006, and had grown at 4.5% over 2004 and 2005.

See http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/popc/pc37183.htm

From 1970 Wake went from 229,000 people to 786,000 in 2006.

By contrast, Orange went from 57.000 to 120.000 and Durham from 133.000 to 247,000

Wake County is a colony of Progress Energy. The more cunsumption by the colonists, the better.

Hey folks, this seemed like a worthwhile discussion at first - preservation v sustainable growth - but it's sounding like we're lazing on the porch with a few beers under our belts and started daydreaming about what we'd each like to see.

Assuming the Wake growth predictions are realistic and impact Orange, does it really make ecological sense to have a large undeveloped tract in the midst of an area with such high housing prices? Wouldn't that just push growth pressure out into rural areas?

The HWtract is most likely going to be developed, so to me the question is: what role can the larger community play, or what tools are we able to use collectively to shape the development in a positive way?

squonk,

The HW tract was deeded to the University, not to the Town (s). As citizens of NC we are all stakeholders in the University and thus have a right to express our opinion(s) as to how they should utilize their property. And as citizens of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Orange County we all have a right to express our opinion(s) as to how a developer (including the University) develops their property. But if you want the University to leave the HW tract totally undeveloped you're going to have to get a lot more of the University's stakeholders than just the local residents to support such a concept. That's reality and I would be surprised if any local politician would suggest otherwise.

squonk,
No, I'm not implying that at all. The Town leaders will have a lot to say about what happens on that site but unfortunately, it would be very difficult (impossible) to tell the University they can't do anything at all. It would take, at the very least, a major campaign by a majority of the alumni (the reality is that currently-registered students have limited impact upon the administration's decisions) to convince the University's trustees that the site should remain undeveloped. Even then, the state's legislators would probably balk at that idea. The University has committed (at least thus far) to restricting their development to 1/4th of the site for 50 years. Assuming they hold to this commitment I think it will be critical for current and future generations to convince the University, it's alumni, local citizens and state residents that the remaining 75% of open space is a far greater asset to all of the citizens of NC than anything that might be developed upon it.

Squonk
As a citizen of NC I have a say in the direction that our university takes, although it feels like a pretty small say. As a member of the Chapel Hill Town Council I am one of nine people elected to represent the citizens of Chapel Hill. The council's focus is "impacts" not "uses". While mitigating CN's "impacts" looks like an uphill slog, discussing the "uses" (and whether or not they are appropriate) has never really occurred.
I firmly believe that if there was a pressing need (and funding ) for CN, there would be shovels in the ground already (and bulldozer tracks down the back of the council). The current slow progress is indicative of a lack of funding, which would seem to demonstrate a lack of need.
There is plenty of evidence that CN as currently envisioned may not be successful (look at Centennial Campus). Some 70% of research campuses nationwide have failed.
The discussion has moved too quickly to "how to build it" and I believe more time should have been spent on "if we should build it". I doubt the administration and the trustees would listen if all the alumni were against CN. The only real way to get them to listen is through the legislature (always a big supporter of the wishes of Chapel Hillians). As an economic development project CN is in the wrong place and the rest of the state should resent its placement here (especially at the expense of AHEC).
Chapel Hill and Carrboro are under assault in so many ways that are outside our control, it would be nice if this project was at least discussed as a concept before the site plan was developed.
When UNC proposed the bond that has funded all the construction on campus they sold it as mechanism to perform some long overdue maintenance and refurbishment of existing buildings; they neglected to mention that they were going to build out every square inch of the campus. In my mind the campus has suffered serious damage. The same administration and trustees that were responsible for this building program is behind Carolina North and we should all be concerned.
UNC is progressing as if there has been public input. They are planning in advance of the "foundational studies" that were supposed to inform the planning. I wonder how much this planning has cost and where the money is coming from.
I believe NC citizens should have a greater discussion about the concept of CN before it proceeds any further...........

Cam
I was wondering, too, the success other such campuses were finding - what kind of value they really add to an educational institution. Thanks for pointing that out. I'd be very interested to know where you found that 70% failure rate and how failure is defined.

squonk and George,
my point about "ecological sense" of preservation is that if growth is a given, then preserving large, isolated tracts in the midst of an urban area means that outlying, pristine tracts will be lost - I guess to me it's a kind of zero-sum game.
We moved here recently from Oregon, where Portland's urban growth boundary concept has worked well to prevent sprawl - though it's coming under fire now. Not sure how strong this idea is being used here.

David,
Chapel Hill's position on CN is that growth should go up, not out. There's no reason we can't do that on existing properties as well, encouraging developers/re-developers to give us more dense, transit-oriented developments to preserve those outlying, pristine areas wherever possible.

Exactly George, but "wherever possible" is the all in the eye of the proposer and approvers. Take the new Town Operations Center (and it's wonderful public art :-)) for example. What else (and by whom) might have built there?

I asked this question earlier and I don't think there were any responses, so I'll ask again:

Here's an interesting mental exercise: what would the property look like today if Professor Williams had given the tract to the Town of Chapel Hill instead of the UNC Philosophy Department?

Fred
The property would have been sold off 80 years ago or it would be a dump or Chapel Hill High would be closer to town or some bonehead thing. UNC's ownership has definitely helped preserve the HW property up until now, just like the Debose's ownership preserved the land that is now Meadowmont.

True Mark, but I think that Cam makes the point very well.