News
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Durham council to consider granting 751 South utilities at Feb. 20 meeting
This post has been modified from its original form. See deletions and italicized phrases below.
Despite initial plans to wait until a civil lawsuit was over, Durham's City Council has now decided it will consider at a meeting Feb. 20 whether to grant utilities to Southern Durham Development. The company wants to build 751 South, a large mixed-use project in southwest Durham controversial in part because of its proximity to Jordan Lake.
The council met during a closed session Thursday with City Attorney Patrick Baker to consider a request from SDD to grant water lines and the use of storm drainage and sewer systems for the project. Baker said the session was not public because he was providing legal advice to the council covered by attorney-client privilege.
SDD made the original request in April 2010, but city council members decided in August 2011 that they wanted to wait until a civil lawsuit related to the development had been resolved. A judge recently dismissed the lawsuit the plaintiffs, Chancellor's Ridge Homeowners Association, brought against Durham County. The plaintiffs announced they would appeal.
In the meeting, council members indicated that they wanted to delay their decision until after the appeals process had concluded. The council isn't bound by its August decision and is free to change course, Baker said Thursday.
The council also isn't required to hold a public hearing on the utility extension agreement, Baker said. The council could opt to allow public comment at the meeting, and could vote on that date, or defer the matter.
But the application has already been deferred by 21 months, Cal Cunningham, an attorney for SDD, pointed out in a recent letter to Baker (PDF). The company paid the appropriate fees to the city when it filed the application in April 2010, Cunningham wrote, and the application materials indicated a decision would be made within five months.
SDD had originally asked the council to consider annexing the 167 acres on which 751 South would be built. Becoming part of the city limits would entitle the property to services such as water, wastewater treatment, police and fire services. But a city analysis determined that the city could potentially spend as much as $1 million by providing services to the property before the tax revenue from the project would help the city break even.
When it became evident the numbers wouldn't add up in the city's favor, SDD changed its request. Instead of asking for annexation, it just asked the city to consider providing provide water, stormwater and sewer services without annexation. That's the request discussion that was tabled in August, and is now coming before council again Feb. 20.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Liberty Warehouse repairs unfinished; city could set new conditions, deadline next week
- file photo by D.L. Anderson
- In 2008, actors used a portion of the Liberty Warehouse as a rehearsal space.
Durham’s planning department held a public meeting Thursday to determine whether Greenfire Development, which owns more than 25 properties downtown, neglected its historic Liberty Warehouse property on Rigsbee Avenue. Part of the roof over one of the two adjoining warehouses at 611 and 613 Rigsbee Avenue collapsed in heavy rains last May, displacing several artists and art nonprofits. (See a map on all Greenfire Development properties)
The incident also generated questions about the management of Greenfire’s historic properties, and whether the local company was on track with its large-scale redevelopment plans for downtown; They include the renovation of the former SunTrust building into a boutique hotel, the redevelopment of an adjacent Main Street site that used to house a Woolworth’s store, and a newly announced venture to build 88 apartments on an acre just north of the American Tobacco campus.
If Durham’s planning officials find that Greenfire didn’t do enough to maintain its historic property (called demolition by neglect, see p. 85 of the Unified Development Ordinance) and the company fails to meet future deadlines for repairs, it could be subject to civil fines of $500 a day and other legal action. Planning Director Steve Medlin said he expects to make a decision by the end of next week. If he does find Greenfire neglected the property, he’ll set a final deadline for the repairs. The city would take civil action only if the company misses those new deadlines, Medlin said. The goal isn’t to fine Greenfire, he said—it’s just to get the building fixed.
Greenfire has had seven months to repair damage inside the former tobacco auction warehouses from what city inspectors determined to be longtime leaks resulting in water damage and wood rot. After the collapse and subsequent inspections, the city condemned the building and two organizations central to the area’s arts community, including The Scrap Exchange and a portion of the operations for the Liberty Arts bronze-casting foundry were forced to relocate.
Medlin began his “demolition by neglect” investigation soon after the collapse, but suspended it and allowed the company to make the necessary repairs by the end of January. Now that the repairs still aren’t complete, Medlin said he had to resume the investigation.
“To my knowledge they did not do any repairs to the portion of the building where the roof collapsed,” Medlin said, adding that, as of last month when he entered the building, there was still a tarp covering the roof breach in the building at 611 Rigsbee Ave.
Greenfire has so far spent $105,000 to stabilize the building and has committed another $20,000 for more repairs, said Managing Partner Paul Smith. But there’s still that hole, covered by a tarp. Economically, it doesn’t make sense to replace the roof at a cost of more than $1 million when the company has long-term plans to totally redevelop the site, Smith said.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Can school districts truly affect which charter schools are approved?
Most public school officials won't be shy if you ask them how a charter school impacts their local budgets. For every student who is eligible to enroll in a traditional public school but chooses to attend a charter, the student's home school system must send the charter a chunk of money. In short, the money follows the student through the public system.
At a meeting of the State Board of Education (SBE) this morning in Raleigh, one state official likened the payments to alimony—painful in many cases, but necessary by law. In a district such as Durham County, with eight charter schools, the pass-through money totals more than $10 million a year, according to a recent statement from Durham Superintendent Eric Becoats. Durham has the highest market share of charter schools in the state, Becoats wrote. (PDF)
But will that stop the SBE from approving any more charters in Durham? It's hard to say.
On Wednesday and Thursday, the SBE is scheduled to consider nine applications for new charter schools to open this fall. Board members will merely discuss this week, and take a final vote in the beginning of March.
The board reviewed impact statements that school districts provided on the nine pending applications, said Joel Medley, director of the state's Office of Charter Schools. But moving forward, board members agreed, they need more specific policies on what data the impact statements should include, and how the impact statements would figure into their decisions.
Reports from local school districts are varied and inconsistent—if the districts even send one—that there's really no standard for the weight they should carry as SBE members consider a charter application. The board discussed identifying specific questions that school districts should answer. Chairman Bill Harrison said the board needs to discuss how the board should weigh the impact on traditional public schools without creating inroads or barriers for either side.
Say, for instance, a school district gets to a point where half its students are enrolled in a charter school, Harrison said. "Is that [school district] going to provide an efficient education for the children who are remaining? It could be debatable, but probably not," he said. But, the state also can't definitively say that once a school district loses half its students, the charter can't expand any more, he said.
"I think we need to frame this conversation," Harrison said. "It's an important time in the history of public education in North Carolina ... and it’s my preference and my desire that we strengthen the opportunities for all kids."
The N.C. Department of Public Instruction is expecting to receive 50 to 70 more applications for new or expanded charter schools in April, Medley said. Expecting the slew, the SBE needs to work quickly on setting some more specific parameters, board members agreed.
"We don't know where this is going, but we do know this is time sensitive," said board member Wayne McDevitt, of Marshall.
Look for this topic to come up again when the state board begins its monthly meeting Wednesday at 10 a.m. and stretches to Thursday. Look for coverage on Staff Writer Bob Geary's blog, Citizen.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Durham County property taxes were due Jan. 5, but more than a few property owners haven't gotten around to paying them, including Southern Durham Development.
SDD owns at least 170 acres of land in South Durham where the company is looking to build its controversial 751 South development. According to tax records on the Durham County government website, the company owes $142,000 for five parcels.
The company just won a major victory in civil court last week, when a visiting judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by opponents to the project who filed a protest petition against the rezoning of the land to build a large new community, which could encompass 1,300 residences, plus retail and offices.
But it's unclear why the tax bill is unpaid. A call to the county's tax office last week confirmed that information online is up-to-date, and according to a customer service representative, interest is included in the online tax calculations, although it's not shown separately.
We contacted a couple representatives of SDD after hours Wednesday night, but weren't able to reach anyone just yet. Updates to be posted once we hear back.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Judge: Controversial rezoning for 751 South was legal
Editor's note: This story has been modified since its original post.
A judge in Durham dismissed a lawsuit Friday (PDF) that opponents of the controversial 751 South development near Jordan Lake filed in 2010. The ruling means the judge agreed with the defendants, that the actions Durham County Commissioners took to rezone the case in 2010 were legal. No word yet on whether the plaintiffs will appeal.
Residents near the land to be developed brought the civil lawsuit against Durham County after Durham County Commissioners voted to rezone the land to allow a large, dense development along N.C. 751, which is near the environmentally sensitive lake in southern Durham County.
Numerous property owners had signed a protest petition against the project. By local law, if enough adjacent property owners petition, at least four of five commissioners have to approve the rezoning. And while the petition met all the requirements, a last-minute technicality involving a land-transfer to the N.C. Department of Transportation botched their efforts. The commissioners approved the rezoning by a 3-2 vote, a simple majority. (See a timeline of events)
The Chancellor's Ridge Homeowners Association was one property owner that signed a petition. The HOA sued the county saying its petition shouldn't have been invalidated on the technicality, and thus that commissioners didn't lawfully approve the rezoning. Many residents in the Chancellor's Ridge neighborhood, which is across from the 167 acres to be developed, have said they don't want to live through the estimated 10-year construction of 751 South, which could include 1,300 homes and apartments, plus shopping and office space.
But in his order Friday afternoon, Superior Court Judge Henry Hight sided with Durham County and the project's proponents Southern Durham Development, which intervened in the case and helped defend the county in the lawsuit. Hight granted the parties' request for a dismissal, essentially agreeing that the protest petition was no longer valid when commissioners rezoned the land for 751 South. Hight is a judge from Henderson who has just begun a regularly scheduled rotation presiding in Durham.
"I’m very disappointed," said Steve Bocckino, one of the most vocal opponents to the project. Bocckino was not a plaintiff in the case, but supported their cause. "I do think that Southern Durham Development was guilty at least of trickery in giving land to N.C. DOT and I’m sorry that the judge didn’t recognize that." Plaintiffs in the case couldn't be immediately reached for comment. It is unknown whether the plaintiffs will appeal the judge's findings. However, representatives of the plaintiffs had indicated in recent months that they would appeal if the case was not decided in their favor.
Southern Durham Development President Alex Mitchell issued a statement through his attorney: “We are pleased with Judge Hight’s decision. His order shows Southern Durham Development has consistently acted above board and within the law. We hope this puts to rest any concerns that may have been generated during the course of this lawsuit. We look forward to being part of Durham’s future success.”
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
The living victims of North Carolina's eugenics program came closer Tuesday to receiving compensation when a task force authorized by Gov. Bev Perdue last March voted on its final recommendations.
"We were told that this would be a tough job. I don't think we knew at that time how tough it would be," Dr. Laura Gerald, the task force chair, said.
In keeping with the task force's preliminary recommendations and debates, the task force voted 3-2 in favor of recommending a $50,000 lump sum to verified living victims. With the vote, the stage is being set for a tough battle in the General Assembly as elected officials balance budget issues and victims and family members continue to fight for more.
Between 1929 and 1974, the State of North Carolina sterilized an estimated 7,600 men, women and children, several of which were present in the packed conference room Tuesday. Even after most states ended their programs after World War II, the N.C. Eugenics Board continued to approve sterilizations for often little more than the loosely defined definition of being "feebleminded" and therefore unfit to reproduce.
Since 2000, the State has issued an apology and two similar task force groups have sought to recommend courses of action, but compensation died both times in the General Assembly.
In previous meetings and debates the volunteer task force has received much criticism.
"It has been a difficult and at times very uncomfortable for us, as we have had several victims and their loved ones express disappointment in and even anger toward the task force for the amounts of compensation that we're considering," Gerald said.
Gerald, former journalist Phoebe Zerwick and historian Linwood Davis voted for the $50,000. Only 72 victims have come forward and have been verified as of Dec. 31. The three task force members believed the estimated 1,500—2,000 living victims would not come forward all at once.
"I believe that over a period of the years that will be outlaid in the statue of limitations that the state will be able to achieve a compensation of $50,000 per victim," Gerald said.
Attorney Demetrius Worley Berry and former judge Fetzer Mills recommended $20,000. Mills said she was worried about larger amounts, given the failure of the General Assembly to pass the $20,000 recommended in 2008.
In addition to the $50,000, members unanimously voted for a variety of other recommendations including mental health care, a three-year limit on when victims can come forward to apply for compensation and a public education effort through, among other things, restoring the state's mobile eugenics history exhibit.
The group also recognized the need to further staff and fund the N.C. Justice for Sterilization Victims Foundation, which has three employees, for the purpose of administering and overseeing many of the recommendations made.
The task force's final report is due to Perdue Feb. 1, when she will review it and make her recommendations to the legislature.
"Throughout these proceedings, bipartisan support has strengthened. We believe that the governor and legislature should act now to seize the moment," Gerald said in her closing remarks.
The task force hopes the Legislature will act in this year's short session, which begins in May.
Many comments and suggestions have been put forward by victims, family members and concerned citizens, including a proposal brought to Tuesday's meeting by 10 victims and family members, asking for $1 million for living victims and estates of the deceased as well. Many of these comments and suggestions Gerald said would also be included in the report.
"We recognize that there are many other wonderful suggestions out there for recommendation, so again I think it is the hope and sentiment of this task force that our recommendations serve as the floor for action," Gerald said.
Many of the victims and family members present were unhappy with the results, but ready to move on with their lives.
Melissa Hyatt, stepdaughter of eugenics victim Charles Holt, said previous recommendations had felt like a slap in the face. "But today, I see a little bit of relief, especially on my dad's face and that's all that matters," Hyatt said. "Whatever makes him happy, I'm happy."
Elaine Riddick, sterilized at 14 after being raped and giving birth to her only son, would have liked $5 million to $10 million. 'I don't like the recommendation but I have to accept it. I have to accept it because I am ready to go on with my life," Riddick said.
Those involved are optimistic that action will be taken this time around. "It has appeared to me that there is pretty strong bipartisan support and I think what we've recommended is feasible," Zerwick said.
Delores Marks, daughter of a deceased victim and advocate for compensation to the estates of the deceased, recognized the fight is not over.
"We are going to continue to stay optimistic until the end," Marks said. "Until the end."
The band of people that descended upon and dismantled Occupy Chapel Hill was friendly, and also a bit sentimental. About a dozen Occupiers showed up Tuesday afternoon to remove the tents, tarps and random detritus that had sat with them in Peace and Justice Plaza since Oct. 15.
The voluntary disencampment isn't an abandonment of Occupy Chapel Hill. At the press conference that followed, Katya Roytburd, who helped organize the event, proclaimed, "I would like to welcome everyone here to Occupy Chapel Hill-Carrboro's celebration of Occupy 2.0, the next phase of our existence."
The decision was made last December at one of the group's general assembly meetings amid concerns over the camp's long-term sustainability. At its peak, the camp filled the small square except for a thin strip of walkway. Up to 35 people slept there overnight; at least one person was there during the day. Food and medical supplies had to be provided. Sanitation and cleanup were ongoing concerns.
Stephanie Daugherty has slept the majority of the past three months in an OCH tent and was often responsible for arranging night watches. OCH occasionally had confrontations with drunk and belligerent college students, the homeward-bound patrons of nearby bars and homeless people.
"It's taken a lot of time and energy," Daugherty says, sounding drained. The tents and overnighters have dwindled to five and around a half-dozen, respectively. "The proximity to the street and the proximity to the bars, the concrete, how exposed the space really is [means] the site is really a great site to make a political statement. It's really not a great site to camp in."
By breaking down the encampment, the next phase of OCH frees up much energy and personnel for other goals. Future plans include other and more frequent events, outreach seminars and teach-ins. For instance, OCH is participating in Occupy the Courts in Raleigh on Jan. 20, and promoting a Jan. 21 foreclosure prevention seminar hosted by the N.C. Central University School of Law in Durham.
And even the tents won't be completely gone. Temporary encampments will sprout up around Chapel Hill and Carrboro as occasion and causes demand—the Roving Occupy. "It actually expands our ability to connect and make alliances with more people in our community, because not everyone comes to this corner of Franklin Street," says Maria Rowan, who is part of the Roving Occupy working group. She hopes that only having occasional campouts will renew enthusiasm and turnout for OCH events.
Others in OCH fretted about the value of a permanent physical presence. Daugherty says, "The encampment's been a visual disruption as you go down Franklin Street and gives you an idea that something's not right here." Arturo Escobar, a professor of anthropology and self-described sympathizer of OCH who makes occasional small donations, said it's "very important to keep the issues in the public imagination. They might take the camp down today, but this needs to continue in different ways."
OCH is mindful of preserving its momentum. The group's website and blog will continue to be updated, and the listservs will be carefully tended. Peace and Justice Plaza will continue to host the regular general assembly meetings, open to all. And there are talks of getting a permanent indoor space or setting up information tables on the Plaza.
Ultimately the disencampment is a calculation that OCH hopes will pay off. "We're voluntarily taking this down, which is a huge change from other Occupy camps," says Lila Little, whose large, brown tent loomed before the post office door. "But everybody's different, and I think this will suit us fairly well."
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Task force meets Tuesday on compensation for N.C. sterilization victims
- file photo by Adam David Kissick
- Elaine Riddick, a victim of forced sterilization, speaks before a state task force that could recommend compensation for the nearly 3,000 living victims sterilized through the N.C. Eugenics Board.
A state task force will meet Tuesday to decide what compensation the state government should offer victims of North Carolina's eugenics program.
The N.C. Eugenics Board forcibly sterilized at least 7,600 men and women from 1929 to 1974. More than 2,900 of those victims are thought to be alive today. Nearly anyone could petition the state to sterilize someone and prevent them from reproducing because they were diseased, addicted to drugs, or "feebleminded." Read the Indy's coverage of the issue.
The Governor’s Eugenics Compensation Task Force released a preliminary report in August with a set of recommendations: lump sum financial compensation, plus health services for the living victims, funding for a traveling N.C. Eugenics Board exhibit and the continuation and expansion of the N.C. Justice for Sterilization Victims Foundation.
The task force will finalize its report and send it to Gov. Bev Perdue. If Perdue accepts the recommendations, she could include compensation for victims and funding for other services in her state budget, which will go to the N.C. General Assembly when it reconvenes in May.
Monday, January 9, 2012
UPDATE: DSS investigation: legal missteps, unfair salaries and benefits, and possible cronyism
- Tupungato via Dreamstime
UPDATE, 1/9
To update our previous report, Durham County Internal Auditor Richard Edwards confirmed today that the unnamed commissioner he mentions in his report as asking department heads to consider hiring specific people is Commissioner Joe Bowser.
According to Edwards, Bowser approached the director of The Durham Center, which provides mental health services for county residents, as well as the head of the Durham County Health Department. Both incidents happened some time within the past two years, he said.
It was the head of The Durham Center who felt uncomfortable receiving the recommendation from Bowser, Edwards said. Ellen Holliman, director for the center, didn't return a call seeking comment.
Gayle Harris, director of the health department, confirmed what was in Edwards' report—that she didn't feel awkward or pressured when Bowser approached her about a potential hire.
Bowser hasn't returned messages from the Indy seeking comment, but took the microphone at Monday's regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners to say that he did call Holliman in 2009 to recommend a well qualified, unemployed Durham County resident for a new position that the county had opened.
"At no time did I do any coercing or thought that I was putting any pressure on the director, as she has stated, to hire this woman," Bowser said. He added,"Our citizens should have the right to contact us for help. I will continue to try to help them, even in situations like this."
Edwards said he doesn't believe Bowser's actions violate the Board of Commissioners' ethics policy (PDF). At the commissioners' meeting Monday, County Attorney Lowell Siler gave the same opinion.
But late last week, Commissioner Michael Page, chairman of the Board of Commissioners, said he thought the move was inappropriate.
"If somebody asks me what can I do to help them get this job ... I will serve as a reference," Page said. "But I do not call a department head to say 'so-and-so is submitting an application'."
It's unclear what, if anything, the commissioners will do or say to address the apparent impropriety.
"I would say, as a rule, that that’s not a good thing, but I wasn’t around for the events surrounding this controversy," Commissioner Pam Karriker, who took her seat on the board in October, said about Bowser's requests. "But I know that there are two sides to every story."
Page says the commissioners sought the answers, and it's the public that should decide what comes next.
"It's not my place to figure out what do you do about it, and who did it," Page said last week, before Edwards confirmed that Bowser was the unnamed commissioner. "You've got citizens in Durham to demand an answer about it."
ORIGINAL POST, 1/3
Investigative reports by Durham County’s internal auditor (report 1, PDF) and an out-of-town attorney (report 2, PDF)—two long-awaited reviews finally released Tuesday—answer some of the myriad questions surrounding the departure last summer of former Social Services Director Gerri Robinson and the subsequent appointment of Interim Director Gail Perry.
The reports fill in some details of Robinson’s messy departure in July, and expand on accusations that her cool manner with employees caused several to leave their jobs. The findings also look into an accusation by Michael Page, chairman of the Board of County Commissioners, that fellow Commissioner Joe Bowser might have pressured county department heads to hire friends or associates.
Although commissioners pushed for this investigation last fall as an attempt to clear the air on Robinson’s firing and restore public faith in county government, the findings paint an unflattering picture of the management of the social services department, of Robinson and of relationships among commissioners. All five of their seats will be up for election this year.
Among the findings released in Tuesday's reports:
— A county commissioner (unnamed in the reports) has asked at least two heads of county departments to employ a specific person, and at least one of the department heads who was approached felt uncomfortable or pressured about it.
— 87 employees left during Robinson’s tenure as the director, 54 of them resigning. (This might not be excessive compared to other directors.)
— Based on available information, Robinson overpaid an employee who worked for her directly, and who other DSS employees described as Robinson’s personal assistant.
— Since August, the county has been paying for benefits and/or for holiday leave for Perry, but as a temporary county employee, she is not eligible for such benefits, and the county now has to recoup that money.
Perhaps the weightiest finding by one of the investigators, New Bern attorney Jimmie Hicks Jr., was that a state conflict-of-interest law might have been violated when Perry was appointed in July to become the interim director of the Department of Social Services. Perry didn't return calls for comment Tuesday.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
- File photo by Jenny Warburg
- Death chamber at Central Prison, Raleigh
State lawmakers will meet Wednesday at 2 p.m. to decide whether to uphold the historic Racial Justice Act, a law passed in 2009 to spare the lives of death-row inmates who could prove that their trials, convictions or sentences were influenced by racial prejudice. Under the law, inmates who successfully prove their cases would be allowed to serve life sentences without parole instead of being put to death.
Recently released studies have shown patterns of racial bias in the selection of juries in North Carolina over the past 20 years, as well as in the application of the death penalty to defendants, based on their race or the race of the victim.
But in 2011, a mostly Republican ensemble of legislators set out to dismantle the law. Many have argued the legislation is too broad, and others have criticized it as death penalty opponents' way to simply stave off further executions in this state.
During the summer and fall, both chambers of the Legislature supported Senate Bill 9, which effectively guts the RJA. Gov. Bev Perdue vetoed the passing of SB 9 on Dec. 14 and chose Jan. 4 as the date Legislators could vote to override her veto. The Senate will consider the bill first, then the House. Three-fifths of the present and voting members in each chamber must agree to override the governor's decision. An override in the Senate looks certain, but it could prove more challenging for House opponents of the Racial Justice Act to gather enough support to pass the bill.
Even if the Racial Justice Act is repealed, the issue will continue in 2012. Expect the more than 150 death-row inmates who have filed motions under the law to return with additional legal action based on their in-progress appeals.
See tomorrow's paper for more new stories to watch in 2012.
Michael Pollan,
Amen, Amen, Amen!! Your comment was excellently put. Thanks so much for writing in! …
by jwaters on Carrboro Commune occupies CVS building (Orange County)
Gannamede,
The building DOES belong to them and all of us, or at least it should. The people's labor …
by jwaters on Carrboro Commune occupies CVS building (Orange County)