“Viewpoints” is a place on Chapelboro where local people are encouraged to share their unique perspectives on issues affecting our community. If you’d like to contribute a column on an issue you’re concerned about, interesting happenings around town, reflections on local life — or anything else — send a submission to viewpoints@wchl.com.
As a Concerned Citizen
A perspective from Kari Lennox
I am a concerned citizen in Carrboro. I have recently become aware of several town projects that are underway of which I and most of my community were unaware. One of these projects, the 203 Project, involves the development of a mammoth library and parking garage placed in the midst of our now quaint downtown area, rather than dedicating this precious land parcel to affordable housing. The 203 Project will cost the Town of Carrboro almost 19 million dollars, and it is my understanding that the town is to take on over 12 million in debt financing in order to see this project to fruition. Although the plans for this project have been going on for a number of years, the final approval process for the 203 Project took place during the pandemic lockdown in which there was very little outreach for community input to the final decision-making process. The Town is now at the point of facing the details of debt financing this project rather than whether it should it be built at all, especially given the Town’s stated priorities around affordable housing.
Similarly, in 2019, the Carrboro Town Council approved development of The Shops at Lloyd Farm, which, at 35 acres, was the largest remaining land parcel in Carrboro. Yet no affordable housing will be built there.
Instead, another proposed development site is currently under consideration for affordable housing: a beautiful hardwood forest that is owned by the Town and has served as green space for decades. These Town-owned plots of land off Pathway Drive in Carrboro are zoned for somewhere in the range of 20 to 30 units. The Town Council has stated time and again that they are in “pre-step one” of any plan to build on any existing town-owned plots of land. This is misleading given that the Town Council has already been in the process for several years of narrowing down the available town-owned parcels of land from 47 parcels to the now 3 parcels that they are considering developing. These decisions have been made without sufficient community input. It was only by happenstance that those most affected by these decisions came upon this information.
The Town Council members all ran on platforms to support affordable housing and to support environmental concerns in light of climate change. I am perplexed at the decision-making here and have the following questions:
If the Town Council is indeed in favor of affordable housing, why did they not plan to create an affordable housing complex on the flat, already cleared Town-owned land where the proposed multi-million-dollar monstrous library is now to stand? Given the proximity of this Town-owned land to essential resources — i.e., grocery stores, pharmacies, medical facilities, public transportation, etc., wouldn’t it be wise to instead have at least some affordable housing complex on this site?
Given the Town Council’s stated concern for climate change issues, wouldn’t it make sense NOT to destroy a long-standing hardwood forest that is protective of the environment?
And wouldn’t it make sense that the Town Council not compromise its current citizens who are at risk for exacerbated flooding issues which are already severe? The town has a history of irresponsible development which has cost existing homeowners additional thousands of dollars in storm water-related assessments and interventions in order to remedy flooding issues long neglected by the Town.
Why is the town not allowing for in-person meetings at this point to discuss these important issues of concern to its citizens? The meeting to discuss debt financing for the 203 Project is on April 5th and will be held virtually. Why? Governor Cooper relaxed COVID restrictions some time ago and has declared that we should all exercise personal responsibility in our decision-making regarding COVID precautions. What could possibly be the reason why this very important meeting will be virtual? In addition, the Town supposedly advocates for those individuals who may not have access to the internet. Where is the equity here?
I have been canvassing Carrboro residents recently to make them aware of the Town Council’s recent decision-making that has and continues to neglect opportunities for affordable housing on the few major parcels of land in town. It is baffling to so many people at this point. I am in favor of genuine forums for community input on the Town of Carrboro’s decision-making. The Town Council has been non-responsive to this point. Now that COVID restrictions have been relaxed, the community is demanding opportunities to be involved in the Town’s decisions that affect us all.
“Viewpoints” on Chapelboro is a recurring series of community-submitted opinion columns. All thoughts, ideas, opinions and expressions in this series are those of the author, and do not reflect the work or reporting of 97.9 The Hill and Chapelboro.com.
Brava, Kari! Very well reasoned and well stated. We deserve answers, access and transparency.
I appreciate Kari’s comments regarding the need to increase affordable housing. While our Carrboro Town Council may or may not consider affordable housing in new development opportunities, it should make a comprehensive review and modify Article XII, Density and Dimensional Regulations, zoning regulations and reduce the conditions that currently prevent apartment or multi-family construction on single family home sites.
Carrboro homeowners should review or ask to meet with planning staff to understand these complex calculations and how they impact your options to adding small dwellings on their property for use as an affordable rental option. http://www.ci.carrboro.nc.us/DocumentCenter/View/693/Article-XII-Density-and-Dimensional-Regulations-PDF
Rather than relying solely on large area projects for affordable housing or encouraging developers to dedicate a certain percentage of new construction, there is an argument to be made that more units of housing can be introduced by individual property owners and in turn increase the total supply of units available and thus reduce market rental rates. In addition to allowing multi-family housing options in established residential areas, there will be the added benefit of dispersing housing evenly across our town. The current models for introducing affordable units will never keep pace with the existing need and service future growth. A variety of options has to be utilized if we’re really serious about addressing this issue.
I’d encourage our Town Council to be courageous and look at changing Article XII to increase affordable housing options by making it easier to convert single family property use to multi-family property use. Such a change would no doubt receive opposition from a “not in my backyard” contingency as well as existing rental property owners that do not want to see market rates decline. This however may be the political cost to pay to drive lasting, incremental change to our on-going affordable housing problem.