Interrogating the witness

By now I have come to expect dissent from our newest Town Council member Matt Czajkowski. Whether it's defending power companies against the community's conservation efforts or resisting smart urban growth, Matt can be counted on for almost knee-jerk opposition to his colleagues' progressive ideas.

But he has now taken to personally attacking hardworking, knowledgeable, volunteers like George Cianciolo (aka George C here on OP). I served on the Planning Board alongside George, who also spent 6 years on the Chapel Hill Transportation Board, and has also represented us on UNC's Leadership Advisory Council and the regional Special Transit Advisory Committee. George is the kind of guy who probably spends more time in meetings than most people spend watching TV every week - and that's not even counting the research and preparation for doing the community's work.

The Chapel Hill Planning Board voted 6-1 to recommend the project to the council, and it was during board chair George Cianciolo's presentation that differences of opinion concerning the future needs of the town became apparent again.

Council member Matt Czajkowski needled Cianciolo with questions about why the planning board voted in favor of the project. In a later interview, Czajkowski clarified that his queries about planning board judgments and Cianciolo's own background in making those judgments were intended to shine a light on assumptions that deserve re-examination.

- HeraldSun.com: Council at odds over condos, 4/23/08

I am disgusted by Matt's tactic of blaming George for the fact that the Planning Board made a recommendation that Matt didn't agree with. The reason the Town has advisory boards is to aid elected officials in areas where they may not have the time or expertise to specialize. Ultimately the Council makes the decisions. They don't have to do what boards tell them, but they ignore good advice at their own peril.

Most importantly, there is no reason to treat dedicated public servants in such an insulting fashion. Reasonable adults can disagree quite respectfully. Matt C's behavior threatens the Council's ability to do its job in a productive manner, and that hurts all of us. I encourage Matt to rise to the occasion of the job he was elected to do, and I applaud the other Council members for not sinking to his level of personal attacks and snide remarks.

[Editor's note, 4/24/08: I am changing the title - but not the content - of this post.  I am trying not to step over the line that I also ask others not to cross of making personal attacks. The behavior is what I mean to criticize, not the person. = Ruby]

Issues: 

Comments

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?

John Rees
If one's assessment comes only from the article, I would recommend going to minute 56:55 of the video on the Town's site and watch the interaction. Part of the exchange had to do with the judgment of the Planning Board and those judgments that were George's. Clearly, Matt was trying to get clarification on the premises behind transit oriented development as they relate to this proposal and how the available information was considered. I don't think George should be insulted, but if George felt insulted, he and Matt ought to work that out.

I finally watched the video. (It took a LOONG time to load on my computer.) To John's question, it most certainly is not about the singular question asking where George works.

Matt seems to question the entire premise of building housing that is not wholly dependent on cars. I also think he came across kind of mean with his listing of "your four judgements" as if he was trying to question George's credibility when in fact a) he is representing the entire board, and b) he actually has a lot of authority on these issues.

I still think Matt C needs to do some homework about land use issues. But then again, I don't think he shares my assumption that more cars are BAD, so maybe it doesn't matter how much he knows, we probably still won't agree about how to shape the future of Chapel Hill.

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)

More important than this exchange were the serious concerns expressed by the Land Trust executive director and a member of his board.  Also, there was an important comment towards the end of the evening (AKA "glaze-over" time) by Councilman Thorpe about possible legal vulnerabilities because of some of the discussion on the zone and the development.

...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

Matt C is not a Kool Aid drinker like most.  A breath of fresh air.  A non-sheep.
I've heard that rhetoric time and time again, but I still don't understand what kind of policies that the small group of people saying this are hoping to get out of our Council now that we have a Kool-Aid-free member that we weren't getting two years ago from Cam Hill, who could hardly be called a sheep. I might even agree with you, but there is no way know, because statements like this don't ever seem to include tangible criteria, and are more often than not presented anonymously. What is the Kool Aid that the rest of Council drank? That reduced parking in a TOD has potential benefits in decreasing the number of trips and/or vehicle miles travelled in town? That George C has enough credibility on this issue that he shouldn't have it implied that these are merely his personal opinions when he presents the Planning Board's position to the Council? Dissent is fine, but it would carry more weight if it involved bringing considered alternatives on matters of substance rather than, as Ruby put it (and I'm inclined to agree) "knee-jerk opposition to his colleagues' progressive ideas."

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.  

 

 

I want to make something very clear here to the readers and perhaps, if that was the issue he was trying to address, to Councilman Czajkowski. The Planning Board did not try to foist high-density, transit-oriented development (TOD) upon the applicant for this project, RAM. The applicant requested a change of zoning to a new (as yet unapproved) high-density zoning district. The applicant justified their request on the basis that they would provide a transit-oriented development. The Planning Board recommended this re-zoning request with a recommendation that the parking be reduced 10% to make it more transit-oriented. The Planning Board never suggested that this parcel HAD to be developed as a TOD project. It was the applicant who brought it forth as a TOD project as their justification for a re-zoning to a higher-density use. The PB, in our recommendation, said, in essence, "if you're going to call it TOD, it should be TOD".
George, I thank you for that clarification.  
RAM has the council (except Matt) eating out if its hand.  Wow.

Or

Maybe Matt has you eating out of his hand, Anonymous. It all depends on how you look at it.
 

Community Guidelines

By using this site, you agree to our community guidelines. Inappropriate or disruptive behavior will result in moderation or eviction.

 

Content license

By contributing to OrangePolitics, you agree to license your contributions under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.

Creative Commons License

 
Zircon - This is a contributing Drupal Theme
Design by WeebPal.