It is readily apparent that Siler was not persuaded by any of the attorney's but the law. If you read the statutes (just review the documents listed in this article) the law spells out the procedure that has to be taken to rescind the right-of-way and that procedure was not followed by NCDOT.
While the opponents to this project do not like it, the developers used the law, as the opponents tried to do in filing their protest petition, as a tool to win approval.
Siler has to follow the law and he was asked to give a legal opinion to the county which he did. Now of course the opponents are crying foul...
How about saving our county some money and let this project move forward as it should have from the outset.
Grannigrump - I am the ex-President of CRHOA and I have not been on the CRHOA board since September of 2009. The current President of CRHOA, John Gunter, is the one who wrote the March, 2010 newsletter to the members of the CRHOA. In addition, I was not "booted" from my position. I chose not to run for re-election which I could have easily won and instead was nominated by Kim Preslar, current Vice President of CRHOA, who wanted me to remain on the board and I am certain that my encouragement for others to assume the position and lack of enthusiasm to be re-elected, since I believe in term limits, is the reason I did not win and I was very glad as I had served the community for 5 years. So it is insulting to me to suggest otherwise. I suggest you get your facts straight.
When I was President of our association we actually had regular communications with our members with a regular newsletter issued monthly with a few exceptions; unlike the current board whose communication has been one newsletter since August, 2009 (the March, 2010 issue) in which John Gunter told the members "the Homeowners Association has members who are interested in staying close to the issues related to this development. They may work with Southern Durham Development...the association itself does not expect to become actively involved…" and, one other letter from the President John Gunter, sent about 2 weeks after the March newsletter and it was also about the proposed development and how the members could take action by contacting county commissioners or attending a planning hearing - no mention to lend credibility to a protest petition that they were going to file approximately 2 weeks after that letter. The only other communications to the community have been regarding issues about our community pool.
The CR HOA board has broken their fiduciary responsibility to their members by not being truthful in their actions.
There seems to also be a continuing attempt to put the total number of people in Chancellor's Ridge that are for the development at a very low single digit number. No one knows the true number because no one has polled the community to know for sure - one of the reasons we are filing our lawsuit of which we have already a dozen plaintiffs - all of which are association members.
I have been in contact with a large number of residents that are in support of the development - and I have been in contact with some of those that do not support it - I am the only one who has emailed about 35% of our community (if I had more email addresses I would have sent more) and asked them to chime in either for or against - the majority of people responding were for the development by a margin of nearly 2 to 1 with those that are not sure making up about 10.5%
Your arguments about jobs is absurd. It is a fear tactic to make people think that even though there will be jobs they will only pay low wages as you assume the project is mostly retail when it is proposed that the space is 50% retail and 50% office space. So there should be a good mix of jobs with different salary levels. And even if those jobs were to go to people outside of Durham they will spend money in Durham as people often spend money where they work when they eat, shop and entertain.
Perhaps if you read the economic impact analysis: http://www.751south.com/wp-content/uploads… you would have more information to base your judgement.
And, even if the majority of permanent jobs come in 2014, as you make claim is a possibility and hope that the recession is over by then, we will need more housing, jobs, and business space to grow into in the future as the population is growing - not shrinking!
And your comment about diversity is a new one I haven't heard - why is it that a job should be promised to any one member of a particular race? They will go to Americans and that is important. And certainly those of a variety of races will find ample employment opportunities without a mandate or a government regulated job or a forced commitment by a developer - let each and every one of the job seekers attain their jobs on their own merit!
Based on your arguments about when the tax revenues will come in we should never approve any development. No development that I am aware of could do any better and if they did make those promises I think they would be laughed at all the harder.
You asked where they get the numbers and again I refer you to the economic impact report.
I do remember in the early 1980's the economy was suffering and many developments lingered longer than most people would have liked. Buildings stood vacant and there were empty houses. Then miraculously the economy rebounded (Thank you Reagan!) and those developments finished, the houses filled and the buildings became occupied with one of the largest economic booms we have ever seen. So much so that there were a slew of other developments that followed - IMAGINE THAT!
Why should they build it downtown - I don't want to go downtown - I want to shop and work where I live and I want this near me! That argument is one of the most stupid arguments I have heard - they want to build it at this location because they own the land! Those that think it should remain rural are supporting an action that will lead to more pollution than that of the proposed development and I would argue do not care as much for the environment and instead are having a NIMBY attitude.
Oh and they have committed to sidewalks on one-side of every street. Yes at the meeting someone complained that they did not commit to sidewalks on both sides - show me a development in Durham that has - not to mention all the additional impervious surface created (that would drive these extreme environmentalists even more whacko!).
And you ask if the developer will be financially able to finish the project - perhaps if these obstructionists would stop and work with the developer to build a better community they would not have to spend so much money on legal fees - imagine the developers legal bills to date on this!
More new taxes are not needed.
These county commissioners should demand that the money that is supposed to come from the lottery for schools is actually added to the pre-lottery amount that schools received from the general fund? Instead, they have allowed the state to replace the general fund money with the lottery money. This is unacceptable and a perpetrated fraud by our state government who proclaimed that the lottery money would go to benefit education. (it is not a benefit if it simply replaces other money that was already in the budget).
Instead they can only think of new taxes.
If a county really wanted to get their coffers full they should seek a lower sales tax. Lowering the sales tax makes goods more affordable and additional revenue would flow into county coffers through increased sales of products. It also makes their county more attractive to move into as it is more economical to live there. More people means more jobs, more sales, etc.
Additionally, school boards should be examined for wasteful spending. For instance, school construction costs should be contained through partnerships with contractors that will look for more economical building methods including less costly architectural elements (children do not care that their building looks like a new-age museum or high-tech building). Let's put the money inside the walls rather then decorating the exterior.
Let's make education a higher need then helping people too lazy to work who instead beg on our streets for years on end and also get a "government handout" (which is really our money that they waste on these individuals - most of that money is used on destructive behavior of drugs and alcohol).
Indy Week • 302 E. Pettigrew St., Suite 300, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation