Chapel Hill is Open to All—Except Alexan’s New Residents
Commentary by Matt Bailey
At a recent Chapel Hill Town Council meeting, a council member proclaimed, “I don’t want another Alexan popping up.”
Alexan is the new apartment and retail building next to Whole Foods. It was originally named Village Plaza apartments. That sentiment was echoed by several other elected officials behind the dais for all to see on live TV.
The timing of the comment during this official government meeting is troubling, because some of Alexan’s first residents were moving into their new homes there that very day. Do we really want elected officials telling our newest neighbors, “we don’t want you or your new home in our town?”
Ironically, just a few weeks ago, those same town leaders declared January 20th a day of kindness and respect. They took to social media proclaiming, “Let’s listen and strive to be inclusive and diverse on all levels.” How is telling our newest residents that we don’t want their home here being inclusive? Do we only have to listen to folks who have $450-thousand to purchase a single family ranch in Booker Creek?
Here’s a thought. Instead of telling people you wish their new home was never built, why don’t Chapel Hill Town Council members go visit Alexan and get to know their new constituents? Ask them why they chose make Alexan their home. What do they like about the building and its amenities? Do they live there so they can walk or bike or catch the bus intend of driving? Are they graduate students, retirees, or young professionals hoping to start their own business here someday?
Would they have moved to Chapel Hill if there wasn’t a place like Alexan to call home?
While they’re at it, town leaders could get Alexan residents signed up for Chapel Hill’s excellent email updates, connect them with town government on social media, and even encourage them to share their needs and dreams for our community at town council meetings.
If Chapel Hill’s elected officials were sincere about “listening” and striving to be “inclusive on all levels,” back on that day of kindness and respect, perhaps they could start by respecting and listening to people who actually chose to make Alexan their home.
After all, if you’re only inclusive with people who live in the same kind of home as you do, you’re not really doing inclusiveness right.
Matt, you most definitely mix apples and oranges by equating human lack of inclusiveness with dislike of a town policy that led to construction of an abominable building way out of character with anything around it. Dislike of the stick-built, fire-trap?, flimsy nature of the building has nothing to do with unsuspecting future residents who probably are unaware of the town government processes that led to its approval by a since-replaced administration.
Is “fire-trap” your professional opinion as a licensed engineer, building inspector, or fire marshal? Were the fire safety and engineering professionals who were involved in the approval of this project wrong?
Matt, council members have been trying to increase the proportion of businesses to residences in town, and taxpayers have soundly supported that stance. Council envisioned Ephesus-Fordham as a commercial center. We do not want it filled up with apartment buildings, which could go anywhere in town. I object to your divisive, inflammatory comments that try to pit Alexan residents against town government and the rest of the community.
Actually, 1) we need to increase the commercial tax base in town, the proportion doesn’t matter. 2) the town (meaning the residents and the council through the 2020 process) envisioned Ephesus-Fordham as a mixed use redevelopment. Here is the summary from the Town’s website on E-F: “The vision is to create a pleasant walking experience, and a mix of commercial uses, upper story residences and offices . . .” The Alexan, even if you don’t like it in scale or aesthetics, fits that goal. http://ow.ly/QeTH309tCq9
Gee, Nancy. Sure sounds like the city has it out for people who want to live there. Funny thing about social media and your comments – they’re out there for ALL to see how you really feel about We the People. You want to talk about divisive and inflammatory? Look in the mirror. Your position is anti-business. Think about all the jobs created in a project like that, purely from a construction standpoint, related infrastructure, not to mention the business generated for the local community by increasing the local population. You’re pitting government against the people with your own position and it’s plain as day to everyone. The problem with people in your position is they get to a place where they believe they are somehow magically smarter than the average Joe Sixpack American. You think you know better and your anti-aleman position is evident. Good luck with that and thanks for inspiration for another article on the woes of anti-business government officials such as yourself. Good news is it’s not too late to change your position. Social media can be a tricky thing once you put your positions out there as a politician. The internet doesn’t forget.
According to your own post on July 9, 2015, Chapel Hill’s City Council has been battling against a poor image in that residents don’t feel like the City Council really has their best interests in mind. It’s apparent, by the obvious fact that you are engaged in a petty war of arrogant words with Matt Bailey, that you do NOT have Chapel Hill’s best interests in mind and you’re simply perpetuating the machine of big government. Assuming that is actually your goal, congratulations. If it’s not, you need to change your position and your talking points.
Matt, keep it up. Don’t let political bullies have their way.
-Joe Sixpack American