Interrogating the witness

I can only comment on what I’ve read here and on the Herald Sun article.  But if this is all because he asked Cianciolo where he works, is that really such a big deal?  This makes me want to see the entire exchange, I know TPC broadcast meetings, but are there re-plays?

I will take a look. 

John Rees

Ruby, thanks for the suport and kind words. I wasn't insulted by Councilman Czajkowski's questioning although it did seem that he didn't understand the basis of the added stipulations that the Planning Board added to its recommendation of the conditional rezoning that Ram had requested for their project. They requested a rezoning from R-4 to R-HD-3 C (this is a new, high-density residential zone that has been proposed for incorporation into LUMO but not yet approved by Council). The C (Conditional) would make this zone conditional to whatever Special Use Permit is approved with it and thus would apply only to the project accompanying the rezoning request.

Ram justified their request for this rezoning on the basis that their project would be a TOD (Transit Oriented Development) project. However, neither the PB nor the T-Board nor the CDC thought that the amount of parking requested by RAM made this a TOD project (too much) and thus we recommended, as part of our approval of the rezoning, an approximate 10% decrease in the number of parking spaces. The Councilman seemed to be trying to make the point that the people who would be living in this development would be commuters who would need two cars (thus his indirect reference to the fact that I commute from CH each day by asking where I worked). And what I was trying, unsucccessfully it seems, to explain was: "if an applicant's justification for a rezoning is that they are providing a TOD, then they should submit an application that qualifies as TOD."

The Councilman also questioned the basis of my ability to make assumptions regarding what qualifies as TOD, after which remarks Mark K brought up my many years of experience on advisory boards (including T-board and Special Transit Advisory Commission). The Councilman questioned my assertion that CH is more transit-oriented than Raleigh which I had mentioned that I had made to RAM when they explained at the PB meeting that the reason they weren't presenting a true TOD project was that they had such a project in Raleigh and it wasn't selling.

In any case, I wasn't bruised but I was dismayed that my point hadn't gotten across. I think several Councilpersons were much more concerned that the number of affordable housing units on this site would be going from 110 (the number of affordable appartments there now) to 39. Unfortunately the news media didn't elect to focus on that more important point.

According to the Town video Matt C did attempt to discredit George Cianciolo personally. Fact is George was asked by Mayor Foy for *his* options. So he shared them. Matt C disagreed and proceeded to go on the attack.

After Matt C questioned George, Mark K. asked him about his "creditability as a witness" and qualifications. (Which are immense. As Ruby mentioned above.) Mayor Foy quiped as George was stepping away from the mic, "Please stay in the witness box. We may call you latter."

I'm disappointed in Matt C's tactic of attacking the messenger.

(thanks for the video link and time mark Fred)

...and now that I've watched it: Matt C just came across as uninformed or a bad listener. Clearly at least Mark K thought it was an attack on George's credibility, since I can see no other reason for bringing up George's laundry list of experience and qualifications when he did.

George: thanks for your work. I share your concern about the decrease in the number of affordable units. I think that's the more important issue by far. I would hazzard a guess that the majority of CH workers who commute from Durham do so because of the lower rents in Durham, and to skew that even more....

Cheers,

--
decision by default is still decision

Except for the last question, I didn't hear anything aggressive or argumentative in Matt's questioning. The decision to rezone this area of town is important (three times the current density!). I don't understand why he is being criticized for asking someone, who is presenting himself as an expert advisor, to distinguish between personal opinions and fact and to provide credentials.

I haven't watched the video, but I would like to just throw something out here and ask a question.   I do not know if what happened between Matt and George got personal (not OK),  but  I do not think it is rude or insulting for an elected public official to ask tough questions of an advisory  group to understand better why  they are recommending a course of action  to the Council and upon what premises that recommendation is based.    I expect that of the people we've  entrusted with our community's care and well being., and Matt C is the not the first to do so.       

 BUT    I still do not understand what data or information we are using to determine  that the demand exists for the type of high density housing development we are promoting  in this town.   Maybe that's not part of the Council's role--to determine demand---but I keep hearing this argument advanced to support this move toward high rises, etc, and I would like to know from whence that comes. 

 I assume that the people who are going to move to this town in the foreseeable future are people with similar lifestyles and values to the people who already live here.    If we  surveyed the people who post on this site, town committee volunteers, and our neighbors, how many of us have jobs that we could reasonably commute to on  public transit that now exists or will exist in the foreseeable future?     How many of us currently live in existing high density development?   How many of us are honestly planning to move into this new development when it's built?   How many of us currently live in a condo or apartment community  and sit through meeting after meeting where people are arguing about the amount of parking available?     

I guess what I am saying is that we seem to be building for a lot of future citizens whose preferred living choices we assume will be very different from our own, and I don't know why we think that.   

While I am very much in favor of what we are trying to accomplish by limiting sprawl and encouraging transit oriented lifestyles,  I want to know what reality we're dealing with.  And we need to know what reality we're dealing with, because that's always how you figure out how to get what you want---by knowing the truth about where you are starting and creating a pathway to success for everybody you need 'on board' to make it happen.      That pathway is different depending on whether we are starting with a ready market for this product, or whether we will have to create a market.