Del, if I cited something incorrectly, I apologize. Do I understand you correctly that CHALT and the CHALT supported candidates support the replacement of substandard organically affordable housing in Ephesus-Fordham district with more effective solutions like the proposed DHIC project? Do they support the incentive program for affordable housing at EF? If so, that's great to hear.
I look forward to a Chapel Hill that addresses its housing demand by building more housing to accommodate the growing need at all income levels, and will be excited to see the per capita cost (not to mention per capita environmental impact) of compact development within Ephesus Fordham and elsewhere.
I'm also very excited to see the affordable housing units being constructed as a part of Obey Creek, as well as the rental program that Mayor Kleinschmidt and the current council negotiated for which does far more than we would have gotten from the inclusionary ordinance alone. This is a net gain for the town by any measure.
Scott, I'm just going to let the fact that you referred to market rate organically affordable housing as "public housing" hang out there. Do you not understand the difference between market rate housing, public housing, and subsidized affordable housing, or are you just trying to confuse people?
Del, you know very well what I'm talking about, and you went ahead and ignored it. It's not this "...that onw[sic] of CHALT's (and Jim Ward's) fundamental recommendations was the inclusion of incentives for additional height based on the provision of affordable housing. "
It's this complaint about the...
"...possible net loss of 118 units" http://www.chalt.org/home/first-ef-tower-a…
I am assuming the CHALT website is referring that they're worried about losing is The Park at Chapel Hill (formerly Colony Park). Ever wonder what it's like to live in Colony Park? I'll let the reviews speak for themselves.
This is the affordable housing we think we should be preserving for low and moderate income families? Here's one review I found especially helpful of what "organically affordable" housing currently looks like in our in Ephesus-Fordham:
"I was promised upgraded appliances and arrived to an apartment with appliances from the 80s, including a gas stove that sticks, a broken microwave, and a dishwasher full of roach houses. There was clear water damage on my living room fan and the ceiling in my kitchen and my apartment smelled like mold! I had to go as far as contacting corporate for anything to get repaired. A lot of the repairs were very "shotty" although the maintenance team was nice. I was told they were trained for finding mold, but they only drilled about a 1/2 inch hole in the ceiling and felt with their finger to see if it was dry (I am pretty sure this does not constitute approving my apartment to be mold free). Finally once that was done, then I began have serious problems with huge roaches! "
The problem with C-HALT and their backed candidates is that while they've been successful at presenting an alternative narrative, a narrative is not the same thing as a plan. Yes, I understand that many of my neighbors are upset with recent developments, but saying that citizen input wasn't considered and woven into the projects just isn't true. It may have not been the exact outcome they were hoping for, but not getting your way does not mean you were not heard.
The C-HALT candidates' platforms sound good on paper. I agree with 90% of their high level goals. But the connection between the goals they present and the policies they advocate is spurious. You don't reduce housing demand by building less housing. You don't reduce carbon emissions by refusing to build a modern transit infrastructure. You don't heal and build coalitions by spending the three years prior insulting incumbents with potshots about their personal lives.
What might upset me the most is their take on "affordable housing." The crumbling, ancient, and often unsafe legacy apartments they're seeking to preserve, rather than _actually building new affordable housing_ are an insult to our lower income communities. I wonder how many have actually lived in a unit in Chapel Hill where they've been literally shocked to use their sink by accidentally touching it at the same time they touch their improperly wired stove; how many have had to plug in their floor lamps in a specific order across the room because half the outlets cause the other half to stop working; how many have had unfinished 2x4s holding up their countertops; how many have fought the waves of cockroaches which you can never really exterminate as they simply move through porous walls to the next unit over. Trying to put substandard housing on the same level with purpose-built affordable housing is an insult
To the comment about parking: I've lived in Chapel Hill for over a decade now. I have never once failed to find parking downtown, though I prefer to take the bus when I can anyway. That said, it can be tricky to find if you don't know all of the many, many places to look. This resource helps: http://www.parkonthehill.com/
No, but I think we should hold onto "Royal Goat Fuck" for a future project. I'm sure there will be adequate opportunity to use it for future efforts as well.
Cal Cunningham didn't run against Dalton four years ago. Dan Besse, Hampton Dellinger, and Pat Smathers did. Maybe one of those three is interested in Lt. Governor again?
All Comments »
Make sure you're signed up so we can inbox you the latest.
Login to choose your subscriptions!
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation