The Easthom Page

As you will recall earlier on my website here, I had various personal stipulations to approving a development agreement between RAM Development Co. and the Town for developing Lot 5.  These personal requirements are listed below, and in bold, I have offered my current response based on what was presented to the Council and the public a week ago—the draft development agreement. 

1.  affordable housing units at 21– no more negotiations on this number. No other negotiations regarding open space, etc.  No more surprises!  Affordable housing is at 21 units. 

2.  affordable parking ON SITE, not 2 blocks away at the Wallace Deck.  Maybe across the street, but that’s as far as I go. We don’t have to have a parking space for every unit, but include any affordable housing on site.  The Development Agreement presents a map with suggested areas for “affordable” parking which are all “within a block” of this project.  While I support the efforts at locating parking nearby, I still cannot get over the idea that our lower income residents will be trudging through the rain to and from their cars while their immediate neighbors scoot right on down to the covered parking.  Clearly in Chapel Hill we support affordable housing mixed in with regularly priced homes, as exists in communities like Larkspur.  This way neighbors feel like neighbors without a financial division.   Not including parking onsite, at least for half of the units, is not equitable to me.  If RAM were to propose no affordable units at all and had those 21 units as regularly priced, wouldn’t they have included spaces for those 21 units?  Would they have reconfigured their plan totally such that the numbers of units actually matched the numbers of parking places or better?  I contend they would have.  I think that the Town and RAM need to come to some agreement on what parking exists there and provide parking for at least half of these affordable units, in the same building.  I appreciate the effort to locate parking close by.  I just have a problem with the very obvious social and physical division.

3.  Permanent reduction of condominium association fees for affordable units.  It’s simple.  Are we getting affordable units or not?  High condo association fees make some units completely unaffordable.  This is an issue now for the council with upcoming projects.  This was a great compromise and I appreciate the agreement laid out in the development agreement, and look forward to the study that RAM has agreed to pay for to determine how best to keep these units affordable. 

4.  Details! Details! Details! on the performance bond–how much and it should cover the project “as designed.”  Performance bond numbers are not there but I understand the project is covered “as designed”.

5.  Start and end date for the project.  We will be tying up our revenue stream from parking on lot 5 for years and should not have to suffer more losses if the project goes on and on….the developer should be fined for going over the agreed to date of completion equivalent to the revenue loss for the year.  The developer should lose all property rights if they do not complete the project within a reasonable agreed to time frame, as well.  There is a stated start date and end date and financial ramifications of not being completed on time. 

6.  Where are the details of the increased town services that will have to be provided for this project?  I did not see that in any of the financial analyses.  I want to see that projected to get a real picture of our financial situation.  I do not have these details, but I did not request that they come in the development agreement itself.  I will ask again with a projection for costs of increased town services.

7.  Make sure that the project is in fact LEED certified at best and go farther with using renewable energy.  This was a point that Jim Ward argued, and I will support this in seeing that this building, as others that come before the town, are held to the highest accountable standard for energy efficiency.  RAM needs to agree to this, and not only if it is economically feasible in the project’s budget as they have indicated.   Buildings such as these account for the majority of CO2 emmissions in our nation and the world.  We are going to be facing many such development/redevelopment projects coming soon in Chapel Hill, and it is our responsibility to ensure that buildings that outlive us remain a part of a sustainable community with the most energy efficient designs possible in our time.  To require less is not responsible.   I would like to request that RAM remove the language “if feasible within the project’s budget” or else I won’t approve it.  We need to set an example.  We need to adhere to our CRED goals, and all eyes are on us now in project approvals as UNC prepares for Carolina North.   As Jim Ward stated, if we cannot require these standards of ourselves, then how can we require UNC to do the same?  I agree. 

8.  Make sure that this development agreement is made available to the public at least 2 weeks in advance of a council meeting in which it is to be approved/not approved.  The public needs more notice of this!  (short notice with 500K to 7.25 million).   I didn’t know much more in advance than the public did.  Thanks to getting this to the public in a timely manner.

If these minimums are not met in some form or fashion with the development agreement, I feel that this project is not in the Town’s best interests, and I won’t support it.  Consider this list to be not inclusive!  I will wait to see what agreement comes before us.

This past Sunday’s edition of the N&O contained an article on John Edwards’ personal wealth and his campaign for advocating for the poor.  One implied criticism is Edwards just built a multimillion dollar estate complete with pool and basketball court and thus cannot possibly truly advocate for the poor.  His neighbor across the street who humbly owns an old gas station, etc. claims Edwards has never bothered to say “hello” and that he doesn’t “care about us”.   This criticism and portrayal is completely unfair.  Let’s look at Franklin Delano Roosevelt for example.   He was born a wealthy man, and was a very wealthy president…comparably much wealthier than John Edwards.  Yet he was the president who signed our social security system into law, created the New Deal to offset the sagging economy and assist the unemployed.  He is considered one of our greatest presidents in the
United States.  John Edwards was not born into wealth and worked very hard to achieve financial success.  Consider currently another wealthy senator whose work for the poor is exceptional and tireless.  Ted Kennedy has worked tirelessly for increasing the minimum wage for years! Now with a Democratic Congress he is making progress on the first minimum wage increase in over 10 years.  Despite his wealth, he advocates wholeheartedly for the poor.Currently, another candidate for president boasts net worth similar to Edwards but the ability to fundraise millions and millions more.  Hillary Clinton, whose net worth to date is listed up to 50 million dollars, makes her the 14^th richest senator in the senate.  John Kerry is estimated to be worth 750 million and is the richest senator!  Was anyone questioning his ability to work hard for the lower and middle class Americans during his campaign?  According to Forbes, at least half of the senators coming in this year are multi-millionaires.    One of the fine attributes of John Edwards is his having come from extremely modest means, and with hard work and intellect and compassion for people (and a little luck), he has done well.    All throughout his career he has demonstrated his deep passion for helping those less fortunate than himself.  Edwards is actually using his campaign to address poverty with the creation of OneCorps, whose mission is to “fight poverty in  local communities; addressing important local needs through community organizing and service projects.”  Edwards often currently says why wait till after the election to make a difference?  He fully knows that if not elected president, he still has done something very important for uplifting communities nationwide.  Such an approach to a campaign is completely humble and selfless. Edwards has never stopped working for those in poverty.  In the last two years he led UNC’s Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity and traveled extensively nationally and internationally to raise awareness of the daily issues affecting the poor (working and non-working), which he has said generally is a “great moral issue”.  One particular goal of the Center is to address “the persistent deficiencies in the delivery of high-quality education to students in low-income areas”.  He personally has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to send financially challenged high school seniors to college through his “College for Everyone” program.  He wants everyone to see the stepping stone to a better job and a better life.    It’s simply ridiculous to look at John Edwards’ house and financial status as a negative characteristic of this future president.  We should look at what he has done in his work, is currently doing on his campaign, and will continue to do for all Americans as he proactively tackles the complexity of poverty in America.