Bialystock and Bloom

I can't quite put my finger on why, but this story in the Herald-Sun reminds me of this.

The original, and far superior version.

Continue reading Bialystock and Bloom

Real journalism

Samiha Khanna shines a light on the backroom dealings of K&L Gates in this week's Indy.

The money quote?

The attorneys and their public relations team declined several requests for interviews with the Indy.

All their protestations to the contrary about how they believe their work is in the best interests of the community yadda yadda yadda vanish in a plume of smoke. They don't want to talk about it in public.

Durham - you've got a pretty clear choice ahead of you in the next two years, as we vote first on 4 of our City Council seats this year, and then all 5 of our County Commissioners seats next year. Do you want these land use attorneys pushing projects and policies that will turn Durham into the new Atlanta, or do you want a sustainable, organic growth process that allows us to become a new model for the 21st century.

That decision will be made in the next 16 months.

Continue reading Real journalism

New Year - Same Old Shit

Durham's City Council holds its first meeting of 2011 tonight, and lo and behold, Southern Durham Development's 751 South project is on the agenda. Following a 2 year run at the clown show that is the Board of County Commissioners, SDD and their lawyers, K&L Gates, are asking the City Council to redraw the Urban Growth Area boundaries, thus including the parcel adjacent to Jordan Lake in order to provide a path for sewer and water services to be brought in, as well as to obviate the current lawsuit filed by opponents of the project over the actions of the BoCC and County Attorney Lowell Siler in the run-up to the BoCC's rezoning of the parcel last year.

The Indy, BCR, the Herald-Sun, & the N&O have all covered the details of that tawdry episode, so i'm not going to bother with a recap.

Let's just note a couple of things.

First, there is only one reason to even consider this request. And that is to ensure that the investors make the maximum profit possible. If you believe that's the role of government, then you're in favor of annexation.

Second, Durham doesn't need to develop its rural fringes in order to grow its tax base. There are plenty of redevelopment opportunities in town, that take advantage of existing infrastructure, to do that. The area surrounding the old ballpark, for instance, is primed to take off in the next 3 or 4 years, and don't be surprised to see hundreds, if not a thousand or more, new residential units come on line in that part of town now that large chunks of it have been rezoned for higher density residential. The infrastructure investments required to serve that population increase will be an order of magnitude less than having to provide new services to a village sized community on the far fringe of the county.

Third, how will this development provide a match between the jobs it creates, and the parts of our community that are most in need of those jobs? It's about 15 miles from downtown Durham to this project, which may as well be in Richmond, VA, for job seekers who don't own their own transportation. Hell, both Chapel Hill and Cary are closer to the 751 project site than Northeast Central Durham.

The developers have done a great job incorporating lots of 21st century buzzwords into their presentations. We hear that this will be a livable streets mixed use development, with lots of environmental impact mitigations to lessen the effect of paving large areas of rural land. The bottom line, though, is that none of that matters. This is a stupid idea whose costs will be borne by all of Durham's taxpayers, and whose profits will accrue to a handful of investors. County Commissioners, who don't have to face the voters until May 2012, have already shown who they side with. Half of our City Council, as well as the Mayor, are on the ballot this year. They may be a little more mindful of the consequences of their actions.

Continue reading New Year - Same Old Shit

751 Assemblage

So, among the other items we've been neglectful of as December hastens towards its close is updating you on the fate of the 751 South project wich seemed ot occupy so much of our time earlier this year.

Fortunately, Ray Gronberg does this for a living, and he's already told you that the developers and their attorneys are trying to get the services contract, which would bring water and sewer to the distant village-sized project in south Durham.

Council members are scheduled to get their first look at the proposed service extension contract today, and will have to decide whether to put it on the agenda for a vote at their Jan. 3 business meeting.

The request already has drawn heated opposition from one of Durham's key political groups, the People's Alliance, and from dozens of people who have e-mailed council members to say consideration of the request is premature.

. . .

City Manager Tom Bonfield, though, said the developers have questioned why he and his staff should sit on an extension contract.

"They've argued -- what's the reason we wouldn't at least consider it, or move it to the policy level," Bonfield said, alluding to the developers' contention that extensions and annexation are a matter for the city's elected political leaders and not its unelected staff to decide.

The manager also said the developers would argue that the staff has "been negligent to [an] ordinance" that sets a deadline for processing applications for utility extensions.

City Attorney Patrick Baker, however, said Monday he's aware of no such ordinance.

Officials do generally pledge an answer to applications in six months, and city officials received Southern Durham Development's Inc. request in March, Baker said.

But the city code on utility extensions to land outside the city limits does specify that decisions on such applications are discretionary as far as the council is concerned.

That means the council can say yes or no, with a no leaving developers unable to count on access to utilities and with little basis for arguing that such access is a matter of right.

Bonfield had halted work over the summer on both on the extension contract and the annexation that 751 South's developers have requested. He said he decided work should resume after the two sides in the zoning fight opted this fall to take it to court rather than going to Durham's Board of Adjustment.

One quick note here - it's my understanding of the case that County Attorney Lowell "Encyclopedia Brown" Siler made the decision that the Board of Adjustment would not be able to rule on the legality of the BoCC's decision to invalidate the original protest petition filed int he rezoning case, which necessitated the lengthier and more expensive lawsuit currently under way.

No matter, though. Our sources tell us that Council has agreed with the notion that that lawsuit should be decided before making their annexation and services extension decisions. For Durhamites who believe our elected officials, and not the attorneys of K&L Gates, should be making decisions about what the Durham of the future will look like, that's a victory indeed.

Continue reading 751 Assemblage

Expanding the commercial district

I was walking downtown for dinner the other night with Mrs. D. Our walk takes us past the two currently vacant properties on Markham near Mangum. One is currently available through Preservation Durham; not sure what the status of the other is, though i keep hearing rumors that someone has plans for it.

PD touts the potential of their property to be restored to single family housing. At around 50 bucks a square foot, that's probably doable, though it
s been available for most of the year, so it might still need to come down again.

From my perspective, though, a neighborhood commercial use for these buildings is even more desirable. I'm thinking of a Four Square type restaurant, or perhaps a law office. Of course, the city has got to do a couple of things on that block no matter what's going to happen to those buildings. For starters, the plastic Rhino wall on the curve as you go from Markham to southbound Mangum has got to go. That was a temporary installation that was supposed to last a year or two until the city got around to the permanent modifications for that intersection. 2011 will mark the wall's 8th anniversary.

Enforcing city codes at the other 2 buildings on the block, including the apartment building that was the site of a multiple homicide a few years back at the SW Roxboro/Markham corner shouldn't be that difficult. Multiple city administrators and elected officials drive past those buildings every day on their way to city hall. You'd think someone would be paying attention to the state of that intersection. The only explanation i can come up with is that it's so dangerous to drive through there, and people are going so fast, that they don't have the cognitive ability to pay attention to much more than the car in front of them.

That's why i was so thrilled the other night to see someone with entrepreneurial spirit taking notice of this corner. On our way back from dinner, around 7:45 or so on Saturday night, i was solicited for a sexual encounter by a woman working the street. while i was walking by with my wife.

The only thing that would make this any better would be to buy the woman a T-shirt that reads "Great Things Are Happening in Durham" and let her solicit those out-of-towners who are driving through to the DPAC to see Billy Elliott. That would give them the full Durham experience.

Continue reading Expanding the commercial district

Rubber stamp commission

From N&O's Bull's Eye blog:

The Durham County Board of Commissioners approved a rezoning request last night to allow up to 33,500 square feet of commercial development on nearly 10 acres on Glenn School Road.

Commissioners Joe Bowser, Brenda Howerton and Chairman Michael Page voted in favor of the rezoning, which changes the zoning from rural residential to allow for a yet-to-be defined commercial development between Glenn Road and Interstate 85.

Commissioners Ellen Reckhow and Becky Heron voted against the change, saying they wanted more details about the development that would be a gateway to East Durham.

Development representative Ronald Horvath said property owners couldn’t provide specific details because they are talking to different potential buyers and exploring three or four possible uses. Those uses include a small hotel, a sit-down restaurant, a gas station, and a fast food restaurant, all intended to serve I-85 traffic, he said.

Emphasis mine.

Is it too damn much to ask of our elected officials that they at least find out what the hell it is they're approving when they approve rezoning requests like this? Do we really need another Quickie Mart with a Subway off the freeway in east Durham? Is this really what passes for economic development in the minds of our county commissioners?

Continue reading Rubber stamp commission

Synchronicity

National Weather Service:

MUCH OF CENTRAL NORTH CAROLINA HAS RECEIVED BETWEEN ONE AND THREE INCHES OF RAIN SINCE LATE SUNDAY MORNING. AN ADDITIONAL TWO TO THREE INCHES OF RAIN WITH LOCALLY HEAVIER AMOUNTS MAY OCCUR TODAY THROUGH TONIGHT...MOST OF IT FALLING IN A RELATIVELY SHORT TIME FRAME. THIS ADDITIONAL RAINFALL WILL QUICKLY RUN OFF FILLING CREEKS AND STREAMS TO BANKFUL OR POSSIBLY OUT OF THEIR BANKS. ALSO THE POTENTIAL EXIST FOR WIDESPREAD HEAVY RAINFALL. IF THIS OCCURS OVER AN URBAN AREA...FLASH FLOODING WILL QUICKLY OCCUR.

* WHILE MUCH OF THE REGION HAS EXPERIENCED A SIGNIFICANT DROUGHT...THIS AMOUNT OF RAINFALL...ESSENTIALLY A MONTH S WORTH...IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME...WILL QUICKLY RUN OFF. SOME OF THE HEAVIEST RAINFALL MAY OCCUR EARLY THIS MORNING...MAINLY ACROSS THE SOUTH AND EAST...AND AGAIN TONIGHT AS STRONG THUNDERSTORMS ARE EXPECTED TO CROSS THE REGION. SOME OF OUR MOST RECENT FLASH FLOOD DEATHS HAVE OCCURRED WITH HEAVY RAIN EVENTS
IMMEDIATELY AFTER A PROLONG PERIOD OF DRY WEATHER. MOTORISTS SHOULD AVOID KNOWN AREAS THAT FLOOD DURING HEAVY RAIN EVENTS WHILE OUT AND ABOUT TODAY AND TONIGHT.

Herald-Sun:

The would-be developers of a massive, Meadowmont-plus-sized residential and commercial development on the eastern edge of Durham want the City Council to exempt their project from a pending move to widen required stream buffers.


. . .

Construction has yet to begin, but Zumwalt and his clients are worried that Durham officials could throw a kink in the plan by doubling the size of the buffers they require around many streams.

That would come as part of an effort to beef up the environmental-protection standards of Durham's "unified development ordinance."

Simplifying the matter somewhat, officials now require a 50-foot-wide buffer strip along each edge of the streams in and around the project site. A proposal to widen that to 100 feet is making its way through the drafting and review process.

The change is supposed to leave more vegetation intact to help filter pollutants out of runoff, and bring Durham's standards for protected so-called "perennial streams" more in line with those of other communities in the area.

Zumwalt's clients, however, maintain that the change would undermine their plans. They want a five-year exemption so they can go ahead under existing buffer standards.

Widened buffers and other changes officials are considering "will result in a considerable loss of developable land," translating "directly into a greatly reduced number of residential units as well as reduced commercial and office floor space," Zumwalt said in a letter explaining his clients' request.

It's a pretty simple equation - more impervious surface = more runoff = more pollution.

In economic terms, it's an unpriced externality that developers pass on to the community, or as we like to say around the Dependable Ranch, socialize the costs, privatize the profits. Adding "$500 Million" to the tax base increases municipal revenues by about $5.5 million a year or so, nowhere near enough to meet Durham's existing financial responsibilities for cleaning up Jordan and Falls Lakes.

I have no doubts, though, that most of our current crop of elected officials, especially the clown show that is our County Commission, are incapable of seeing past that "$500 Million" figure.

Also worth noting is the continuing trend, first commented upon a couple of years ago during the extended drought, toward wet and dry seasons in North Carolina and the southeast region. It appears to this casual observer that that's becoming the norm rather than the exception.

Continue reading Synchronicity

Death of a strip mall

Don't get me wrong, i don't have any nostalgia for, or special attachment to strip malls in general, or this one in particular. But whenever developers come before public decision making boards talking about how their new development is going to be bringing much needed jobs to the community, this is inevitably the result. That our decision makers fall for this bullshit every time says as much about us, who keep voting for them, as it does about them.

This particular shopping center is called Hillsborough Commons. This one is before my time, but judging by the architecture, i'd guess it was built in the early-to-mid 80s, during one of Wal-Mart's big expansion phases. I'm sure it was sold to the county as a job creation engine, enough so that Hillsborough eventually annexed it into the town. Wal-Mart built their big new job creation engine about 2 miles away on the other side of I-85 (i'm guessing outside of town limits again) a couple years ago. The center has been slowly losing customers while the old Wal-Mart sat empty. Earlier this year, Orange County social Services became the new occupant of most of the Wal-Mart space.

Last week, employees and patrons of Lowe's food store were surprised to discover the store locked up tight when they showed up to work and shop. Sonny's, one of the relative handful of lunch spots in Hillsborough, packed it in the next day.



















I don't know what the net gain/loss of jobs is now between the new and old Wal-Mart centers, and i don't know what the eventual cost to the taxpayer is going to be to either decommission the center, or just keep it from deteriorating until someone figures out how to make that land profitable, or what the environmental costs of having about 10 acres of more or less useless impervious surface in the watershed is, but i know that whatever those numbers are, they weren't used by any decision makers when it came to approving the new Wal-Mart location.

Which is a valuable lesson for Durham, and its empty big box stores on Roxboro (Wal-Mart and K-Mart) and 15-501 (Circuit City and Ashley).

Continue reading Death of a strip mall

The next time some moron talks to me about the free market . . .

I think i'll shove this down his throat.

12. Public Hearing to Consider Allocating Economic Development Investment Funds to Cree

20 min.

The Board is requested to hold a public hearing to consider allocating economic development investment funds to Cree, a leading developer and manufacturer of LED lighting, and semiconductor solutions for wireless and power applications. Cree’s products are used in backlighting for electronics and vehicles, general illumination, electronic signs and signals, variable speed motors and wireless communications. The company is dedicated to designing and producing products which are energy efficient and environmentally friendly.

Cree, a homegrown Durham company since 1987, operates in a highly competitive global market driven by rapidly changing technology, short product life and a competitive pricing environment. Currently Cree is evaluating a substantial investment in a new production line to launch a new generation LED chip. Cree is considering several locations for the project, including China, Malaysia, and Durham. The capital investment for this project is expected to be approximately $392 million, with $135 million dedicated to machinery for the new production line. Cree would also create 244 new jobs in Durham by the end of 2013 to operate the production center. Company officials have stated that incentives from the local government are a key consideration in its final decision on locating the expansion, particularly in light of the cost of labor in the overseas market.

Staff is recommending that the county participate in this economic development project by providing up to two million ($2,000,000.00) for the $392 million project. Eight hundred and twenty five thousand ($825,000) of those funds would be reserved to pay for training expenses of new employees hired who are Durham residents. Funds would be furnished over a seven year period through an economic development incentive fund performance contract.

This public hearing was advertised on Friday, September 3, 2010 as required by law.

One of the other items on tonight's County Commissioners' agenda.

So you got that, right? Cree is holding a proposed $392 M investment project ransom, and threatening to take it overseas, unless they get $2 million from the county.

That's the same Cree, "a homegrown Durham company since 1987," whose owner also owns the 751 South development project, which is going to be bringing new jobs to Durham County Real Soon Now®. funny how the agenda item doesn't mention that connection. I suppose that's because it's impartial.

Thanks, bud. Maybe if we spent that 2 million on our public schools, you wouldn't need to retrain new hires who are Durham residents?

UPDATE: Cree doesn't even need the money.

Cree has been consistently profitable and is sitting on nearly $1 billion cash. The company plans to use the money for expansion, hiring and research, and plans to spend more than $250 million this year on factories and equipment in Durham and China.

h/t MR

Continue reading The next time some moron talks to me about the free market . . .

Developers

Next time Durham County is considering impact fees for new development, or transfer fees for resale property, and the development and real estate communities talk about what an onerous burden they are for both them and their potential customers, and our county commissioners fall all over themselves sucking up to these guys, someone will remind them of this article.

A growing number of developers and builders have been quietly slipping “resale fee” covenants into sales agreements of newly built homes in some subdivisions. In the Dupaix contract, the clause was in a separate 13-page document — called the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions — that wasn’t even included in the closing papers and did not require a signature.

The fee, sometimes called a capital recovery fee or private transfer fee, has been gaining popularity among companies that have been frantically searching for new ways to gain access to cash in the depressed housing market.

Emphasis added.

The article notes that developers claim that the fee allows them to "spread out the cost of building the roads, utilities and other infrastructure across all homeowners in a subdivision, rather than just the initial buyers."

Yeah, right.

Here's the money quote:

Someone selling a home for $500,000, for example, would have to pay the original developer $5,000. If the home sold again two years later for $750,000, the second seller would have to pony up $7,500 to the developer, and so on. Even if a home declines in value, the seller still must pay the 1 percent fee. Freehold gets a cut of the resale fee; if the fees are securitized, it retains a percentage of the cash generated from the securitization.

Freehold’s principals and lawyers have been aggressive in sales pitches to developers, but have declined to give details on their clients, securitization efforts or the company itself. Freehold moved its corporate office from Round Rock, Tex., to New York this year as it stepped up efforts to securitize the resale fees.

Remember three years ago, when adding a quarter cent to the "transfer tax" rate was going to be enough to put the home resale market out of business in Durham?

Now, i have no idea which, if any, Durham developments have this sell-on fee clause in their contracts. The article notes that they're appearing in developments in 43 states. But if developers think it's OK to tack on a 1% charge, essentially in perpetuity, to home resales, how can they, or their partners in the real estate industry, make the argument that a county tax would be so damaging to the market?

Basically, they just want to keep the money for themselves, and not for the common good. They need to be a bit more honest about that.

UPDATE - commenter Steve points out that the NC legislators last year passed a law banning this type of transfer fee. Good on them for being pro-active about this.

I'd like to see the lobbying reports that accompanied the debate.

Continue reading Developers

Number one reason to live in Durham

"It may not pass the smell test, but it's legal." - County Attorney Lowell "Encyclopedia Brown" Siler, at the Durham BoCC meeting, 8/9/10.

Nice to know we've set the bar so high.

Continue reading Number one reason to live in Durham

Is that Lowell Siler I hear giving his opinion about the NCDOT revocation?

Actually, no, it's not. Two weeks after saying his office needed two days to review, and a whole weekend after receiving the state AG's decision on the validity of the easement revocation, County Attorney Lowell "Encyclopedia Brown" Siler is still silent on whether NCDOT's revocation of an easement given by Southern Durham Development is valid or not. The validity of the revocation is directly proportional to the validity of a protest petition filed against a rezoning request by SDD - if the revocation is valid, the petition is valid, and SDD looks set to come up one vote short for their rezoning request. If the revocation is invalid, then so is the petition, and SDD will probably have enough votes at the Board of County Commissioners. Add to the mix is that Planning Department Director Steve Medlin is the official who actually makes the call on the validity of the petition, and he is not obligated to follow Siler's opinion. A correspondent informs me that as of 4 pm today, Medlin had still not heard from Siler.

Gee, i wonder how this will play out?

Continue reading Is that Lowell Siler I hear giving his opinion about the NCDOT revocation?

751 decision tonight? Billboards on the agenda?

Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey's Greatest Show on Earth Durham Board of County Commissioners meets tonight with two, count 'em two, pressing issues on the agenda, although one might get dropped.

First up, a continuation of the hearing begun 2 weeks ago regarding the rezoning application for the proposed 751 South development project down near Jordan Lake. Since we last checked in with the Commissioners, County Attorney Lowell "Encyclopedia Brown" Siler has received his answer from the NC Attorney General's office regarding the legal grounds the state believes it has to revoke the NCDOT's acceptance of a land easement from the developer, Southern Durham Development, Inc. The 41 foot wide strip of land was just wide enough to push the boundaries of the property far enough away from that of many of the signatories to a protest petition against the rezoning, which would have had the effect of invalidating the petition.

Of interest to note in this process is that one of SDD's attorneys, Patrick Byker of Keystone Kops law firm K&L Gates, was quoted by NCDOT officials who originally accepted the easement as saying the gift was made to "show good faith." Byker's client, Alex Mitchell, was subsequently quoted by area reporters as saying the easement was given specifically to invalidate the petition. It's precisely this action by Byker that has a number of local residents, according to some rumors we're hearing, considering filing complaints with the NC Bar Association. Stay tuned for developments on that, which i'm sure will be lots of fun if they turn out to be true.

Anyway, it's up to Siler to render an opinion on whether or not NCDOT's revocation of the easement passes muster. Planning Department Director Steve Medlin can then accept Siler's reasoning or, as i understand it, issue an independent judgment on the validity of the protest petition. Either way, expect to hear from one or the other party tomorrow night that further legal action is being prepared.

Also on the agenda, maybe, is the proposed amendments to Durham's Uniform Development Ordinance to make billboards legal again, and invite new hi tech digital billboards into the county. Fresh on their stinging 7-0 rebuke at the hands of the City Council last Monday, though, Fairway Outdoor Advertising and their attorney, Patrick Byker of K&L Gates (dejá vu, anyone?) have asked for a one month delay in having the BoCC consider the billboard issue. Byker was quoted by local media as saying the request was based out of concern for the Commissioners having to deal with too many difficult issues in one night.

I give about as much credence to that as i do to his statement about "showing good faith" with NCDOT, to be honest.

The fun and games kick off at 7 pm at the County Commissioners chambers in the Old Courthouse, 200 East Main.

Or you can stay home, make a big bucket of popcorn, and watch proceedings on Time Warner Cable channel 8. Let's hope Chair Michael Page watched Mayor Bill Bell manage the billboard issue at last week's Council meeting. Another fiasco like the BoCC's meeting two weeks ago and Durham might start to develop a reputation, if you know what i mean.

Get all the background you need from Samiha Khanna at the Indy's Triangulator blog; Jim Wise at the N&O's Bull's Eye blog; Ray Gronberg at the Herald Sun; and Kevin and Rob at BCR. Search on 751 or billboards when you get to their sites.

Continue reading 751 decision tonight? Billboards on the agenda?

Ark of the Covenant located at last!

Samiha at the Indy reports that W. Richard Moore at the NC Attorney General's office has given Boy Detective Encyclopedia Brown County Attorney Lowell Siler a letter outlining the state's authority to reject Southern Durham Development's gift of an easement along NC 751.

The easement would have invalidated a protest petition filed against a rezoning request by moving the boundary of the land more than 100 feet from a number of signatories on the petition. By rejecting the easement, the state seeks to step away from Durham's internal processes and allow the case to be decided by current law. I imagine that Siler will have a busy weekend looking for holes in the State's document.

Keystone Kops Law Firm K&L Gates attorney Patrick Byker, representing SDD has threatened to sue the state if they give the land back. That ought to be amusing.

I swear, you can't buy entertainment like this at any price.

Continue reading Ark of the Covenant located at last!

So many lawsuits, so little time

According to Jim Wise at the N&O, K&L Gates attorney Patrick Byker, representing Southern Durham Development, Inc., is threatening to sue the NCDOT if they don't rescind their revocation of their acceptance of the easement that Byker gave them back on July 13 of a 41 foot wide strip of land. NCDOT says that Byker claimed he was giving the easement to the state to "show good faith," but his client was later quoted as saying that the gift was intended to push the boundary of the land far enough away from the folks at the Chancellor's Ridge subdivision that their signatures could no longer be counted on the protest petition that's been filed against this rezoning request.

Reader RH writes to me to say that this very technique was used a decade and a half ago in Chapel Hill to get approval for the Hogan Farm subdivision; before my time, i think, so i'll leave it to you as an exercise in Google to see what happened in that case, and who the attorneys might have been.

But what's Byker going to sue on? He's claiming the revocation is "unlawful." If it is, then i'm sure that Boy Detective Encyclopedia Brown County Attorney Lowell Siler will figure that out in the nick of time before Monday's BoCC meeting, and rule the petition invalid, at least long enough for the commissioners to vote 3-2 in favor of the developer. If Siler can't find the grounds to invalidate the revocation, and lord knows he's spent enough time looking, then Byker's just blowing smoke, and he knows it, and so does NCDOT. A lot of folks i talk to believe that Siler will come up with something around 6:00 pm on Monday night to make the determination that the protest petition is invalid.

That, though, will almost certainly invite a second lawsuit against the county, since, as yoiu may recall, Siler similarly ruled a protest petition invalid last fall, allowing a 3-2 vote to be recorded accepting the new watershed boundary, only later to determine that the petition was in fact valid, but that no new vote needed to be taken.

Will recent history repeat itself Monday night?

My money says yes, but i'm just a cynical old fart with no faith in the goodness of humanity.

Continue reading So many lawsuits, so little time

Rewarding incompetence

Good thing i spent a relaxing day at the beach yesterday, cause something like this could really get my blood pressure up.

Southern Durham Development admittedly attempted to foil a second petition that included Chancellor’s Ridge homeowners last week, by donating land rights to part of its property to the North Carolina Department of Transportation. When the N.C. DOT realized its acceptance of that land would nullify the citizens’ petition on a technicality, the department attempted to revoke its acceptance.

The last-minute maneuver also pushed back, yet again, county commissioners’ attempt to vote on 751 South, an event that has been scheduled and rescheduled since last spring.

On July 26, when commissioners were on the verge of voting, Durham County Attorney Lowell Siler asked them for more time to consider whether the N.C. DOT’s revocation, which was written by lawyers at the attorney general’s office and filed in court, is legally binding.

Siler’s decision is expected Aug. 9, when commissioners meet at 7 p.m. to vote on whether to allow 751 South to go forward—a move that could put the issue to rest, at least for the time being.

Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick, Lowell. You said you needed 48 hours last Monday to make a determination as to whether NCDOT's revocation of the easement passed muster. Indiana Jones found the Ark of the Covenant in less time than it's taken you to try to find a hole in NCDOT's revocation. I mean, what the fuck else could you possibly be looking for, since the attorneys at NCDOT and the state AG's office have vetted this document as valid? Are you sure you're being objective here, or is your office actually being used to try to sway the outcome of these hearings?

If you do find a way to declare that NCDOT's actions don't count, and as a result the opponents' protest petition is invalid, and the rezoning application has enough support on the County Commission to pass, you do realize that your name will be forever linked with shady and dishonest dealings in Durham County lore, right?

But i suppose that, like former County Commissioner Lewis Cheek, there's probably an office with your naming waiting over at K&L Gates.

Continue reading Rewarding incompetence

7-0 baby

Just back from a quick 2 day trip to Wrightsville Beach (see last week's series of kvetches about Priceline.com) and i hear our City Council unanimously rejected Fairway Outdoor Advertising and K&L Gates request to amend Durham zoning regs to allow some of them newfangled 60 foot digital TVs on our highways.

Here's the thing that caught my eye, from Ray's piece in the Herald-Sun:

"Honestly, we came to Durham first because we thought Durham was the most open-minded and progressive city" in the Triangle, said Paul Hickman, Fairway's area general manager.

The word progressive also came up a lot in last week's presentation to the County Commissioners, also stage managed by K&L Gates on behalf of their client Southern Durham Development, Inc., for a rezoning application for the 751 South (nee 751 Assemblage) development.

So in addition to the pattern here, i'm wondering just who is defining "progressive" here, and why are we letting them do that?

More thoughts about what might constitute "progressive" in Durham later this week, after i soothe my sunburn.

Continue reading 7-0 baby

Paging Lowell Siler

Now approaching 86 hours since County Attorney Lowell Siler said his office needed 48 hours to review NCDOT's rejection of the Southern Durham Development's easement.

Yesterday, SDD president Alex Mithcell was quoted in the N&O as saying that the reason he went ahead with the easement was to disenfranchise opponents of his project by invalidating their protest petition.

NCDOT and the state Attorney General's office continue to maintain that the revocation is legally binding.

What could County Attorney Siler possibly be looking for that is taking so long to find?

Continue reading Paging Lowell Siler

Truth outs

Herald Sun, yesterday:

Hopkins told Ruffin the original discussion lapsed after the first meeting, resuming only on or about July 12 -- after the window for neighbors to file a protest petition had closed. At that point, lawyer Patrick Byker contacted DOT officials to move the donation through.

Byker was "in a hurry" to complete it, and when asked why the rush, told DOT officials his clients wanted to show "good faith" by making the deal before the hearing, Hopkins said.

But such a showing was unnecessary, as the developers already had formally promised city/county planners they would give DOT an easement along the N.C. 751 frontage of the site in return for the rezoning.

N&O, today:

The widening is not in DOT's near-future plan, said (Southern Durham President Alex) Mitchell and DOT engineer Joey Hopkins, but Mitchell said he went ahead when he realized that donating the right of way would invalidate the protest petition.

"I have a group of opponents who wake up every day trying to think of ways to block this plan," he said. "I'll do everything within my power, legally, to move it forward."

So, Patrick Byker lied to state officials in his capacity as the attorney representing Southern Durham Development, Inc.

And people wonder why opponents of this plan don't trust the developers to make good on their promises.

Continue reading Truth outs

Paging Lowell Siler

It's been over 48 hours since the NCDOT filed its papers rejecting Southern Durham Development's gift of 41 feet of right of way along highway 751, a gift which coincidentally happened to disenfranchise a good chunk of citizens who had added their names to a protest petition against rezoning that company's land.

Herald Sun reporter Ray Gronberg has managed to suss this out:

A DOT official, Deputy Division 5 Engineer Joey Hopkins, said the document, drafted with help from N.C. Attorney General Roy Cooper's staff, was modeled on instruments the agency uses to give up temporary easements.

State law, meanwhile, clearly suggests that DOT has the General Assembly's permission to walk away from a donation.

The statute establishing its power to accept one, G.S. 136-19, says that if the department "later determines that the property acquired for transportation infrastructure, including highway right of way, or a part of that property, is no longer needed," it should give "first consideration" to a repurchase offer from its former owner.

Such an offer in this case would appear superfluous because no money ever changed hands between DOT and the developer. The easement also didn't convey anything beyond usage rights to the agency.

The law also makes it clear DOT is the sole judge of its own property needs.

Siler's inability to come to a conclusion in this case leads one to wonder, can he find his ass with both hands, or does he need a map and a flashlight?

Continue reading Paging Lowell Siler