Anony | Indy Week

Member since Oct 22, 2015



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Are restrictions on a Chapel Hill shelter keeping the homeless out in the cold?

The writer should fully convey that the IFC chose how it "marketed" the shelter to the public and council. The IFC was very clear this was NOT to be an emergency shelter nor would they house drug addicted individuals. The IFC sold it has a halfway rehabilitation house not an emergency shelter. Blame the IFC not the neighbors.

A better site in fact did raise many times the number of white flag nights would exceed the IFCs projections. Finally, true shelters that house lots of people tend to be downtown or in industrial areas. Most of the surroundings to this site are residential. Which was kind of a better site's point - it wasn't a compatible location for drop in . A better site also mentioned the impracticality of having a food kitchen as a separate entity; maybe the writer can write an article - if the food kitchen ever gets built (everyone was told Carrboro) - how impractical it is to have the food kitchen separate and blame the people who pointed that out beforehand, instead of IFC.

Finally, maybe there are fewer drop ins since most of the panhandlers prefer Franklin street and rosemary has some of the easy access liquor stores.. Moving miles away from the action and saying there are now fewer drop ins does not necessarily mean everyone who doesn't drop in now does it cause of zoning ordinances. take a statistics class.

2 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Anony on 01/28/2016 at 10:55 AM

Re: “Vote! The INDY’s endorsements for races in Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill and Carrboro

"Having the university build more dorms isn't the answer here since many students refuse to life on-campus"

actually that is an answer. Not only lowers rents off campus but also reduces tax burden on
the Town since about half the people on the buses are UNC students (undergrad/grad/ professional).

A better argument is to say the town has no jurisdiction to make the university build more housing, but if UNC did that absolutely is a good solution. However, UNC won't break even off it because the price would have to be low to entice people. At one point there was a 'bed for every head' slogan about building housing but that disappeared.

Posted by Anony on 11/02/2015 at 1:53 PM

Re: “Vote! The INDY’s endorsements for races in Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill and Carrboro

"Of course the amount of housing stock relative to demand is the only thing that determines price."
you left out the part "in the long run".

Which is precisely my point - unless the property is owned by a non-profit agency/has some type of easement or is income restricted - supply and demand will make it unaffordable over time (assuming there's no urban blight/fleeing).

The Council has approved Urban Hipster/empty nester high rise condos/apartments. This is not what people want when they say "affordable". It's a bait and switch much like when people were taught "commercial" development is good only to have "commercial development" be 75% residential.

Truly affordable would be owned by a group that artificially indeed keeps demand only to those with low incomes - which is NOT true supply and demand. The illustration of multimillion dollar shacks in san francisco is to demonstrate that size limited is not enough in the longterm.

In the meantime I look forward to watching hipsters and empty nesters at ephesus fordham able to walk in their pajamas to Whole Foods and then Phydeaux with their Shitzus and corkis while people pat themselves about "affordable". Greenfield (the cemetary) is nice but that's just the town giving away its land which is a lot different than getting private developers to have land trust housing or other mechanisms for truly affordable.

Posted by Anony on 11/02/2015 at 1:40 PM

Re: “Vote! The INDY’s endorsements for races in Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill and Carrboro

adding more stock in the long run is irrelevant to truly affordable housing.
Shacks of 900 sq. feet go for a million dollars in San Francisco. The only way truly
affordable is made long term is for an agency (government/non-profit) to own the housing and
exactly not have market forces at work. NY city and San francisco have a lot more "stock" than Chapel hill.

A lot of Chapel Hill citizens feel conned since they were told over and over "increase the commercial tax base", "More affordable" but what gets approved on land owned by private developers in ephesus fordham has no affordable, and then in Obey Creek and the Edge the developers maximize residential.

this will lead to truly don't develop at all feelings, since folks were duped by being supportive of commercial and affordable.

1 like, 5 dislikes
Posted by Anony on 10/27/2015 at 9:54 AM

Re: “With the rise of CHALT, Chapel Hill’s never seen an election quite like this

McCurry -

I agree with you except I wouldn't call luxury 1/2 bedroom condos "multifamily"

I'd call it retiree/empty nester and urban hipster living.....

but yes, the Greenbridge , EF type developments are neither "affordable" nor "multifamily" but are good for the school system.

but I know why the council doesn't want to call it retiree/urban hipster/wealthy out of town football game/wealthy UNC student housing and instead prefers "multifamily"

0 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by Anony on 10/25/2015 at 10:55 AM

Re: “Vote! The INDY’s endorsements for races in Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill and Carrboro

To Mark McCurry -

no one has argued that the town council has authority over the County or Carrboro. Simply that school taxes for every resident in Orange County are the largest tax bill item. So yes what chapel hill council approves can affect Chapel hill residents who "only" care about schools. However, I'd agree that luxury 2 bedroom condo's will likely benefit the schools, but not surprisingly the Town Council doesn't say why.
Since it makes the place less affordable.

2 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Anony on 10/25/2015 at 10:31 AM

Re: “Vote! The INDY’s endorsements for races in Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill and Carrboro

"Ms. Anderson was my neighbor, until her family moved out of our "starter homes" neighborhood. NOT ONCE did I see Ms. Anderson attend any of the Council meetings or any of the Boards or Commissions in which I have served. NOT ONCE has she sought information or shared her insights with me, her neighbor and Council rep. In fact, until she was recruited by CHALT, she was one of the most apolitical neighbors we knew, busy with her education consulting and newborn daughter."

----Maritere Unger Palmer

pretty stunning that the INDY endorses someone who publicly slights a citizen who is not even a competitor for a seat. The fact that someone can not publicly support their candidate without attacking a never elected one is shameful.

If it's any consolation maybe palmer can give up her seat to Storrow which would be an improvement for the Council as a whole.
And anyone who follows INDY knows it takes a certain "type" to get endorsements over often much more qualified people just because their "appearance" isn't the preferred.

Palmer's behavior is worse than Lee's so hopefully INDY will look back at this thread next endorsement cycle.

Why should a citizen go before council if they are going to be treated so rudely and ignored (Obey Creek etc..) as a citizen when they don't even listen to their hand picked commissions.

8 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Anony on 10/25/2015 at 10:27 AM

All Comments »

Extra Extra!

Make sure you're signed up so we can inbox you the latest.

  • Weekly Newsletter (Wednesday) - The stories in this week's issue
  • Weekly Events Newsletter - Our picks for your weekend and beyond

Login to choose
your subscriptions!

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

© 2018 Indy Week • 320 E. Chapel Hill St., Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation