“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.
Transparency and Trust
A perspective from Tara Kachgal
On Wednesday, April 27, Chapel Hill’s Town Council is set to pass a conditional zoning application for 110 Jay Street. The developer, the Taft-Mills Group (TMG), is planning to build 52 affordable housing units in the currently wooded area. Last year, the Council approved TMG’s concept plan. Earlier this year, it voted to lease the property to the TMG ahead of the developer’s application for federal low-income housing tax credit funds. Only new Council member Adam Searing voted against awarding the lease to TMG. All indications are that the conditional zoning application will similarly sail through.
With only one current Council member voting against the lease application, you might think that the development proposal is a good idea, one that will meet a critical need for affordable housing in Chapel Hill. As with the Town’s current plans to build affordable housing at 828 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, a former coal ash dump, it’s worth looking more closely.
Accountability, transparency, trust, and the proper use of public funds—elements that underpin democratic forms of government and public policy making—are at play in the Jay Street proposal.
Regarding funding, you may not know that 110 Jay Street was purchased with open space bond funds. I only found out when a neighbor mentioned that the land used to belong to a Mr. Leo V. Merritt. Curious, I did some research and discovered that the Town had bought the 7.34 acre tract and some other parcels in a transaction for $1,050,000 in 2005. The Town’s Parks and Recreation staff managed the purchase from Mr. Merritt’s heirs using proceeds from a 2003 open space bond referendum approved by Chapel Hill voters. I was stunned, a reaction that deepened when I learned more.
The referendum was part of a package of bonds measures for parks and recreation facility upgrades, sidewalk improvements, extensive library renovations, and public housing improvements. In 2002 and 2003, then-Town leaders and staff engaged in several meetings to plan for the bond referenda for the November 2003 election. Part of their planning was how to sell the call for public financing (essentially a tax increase) to voters. They undertook a campaign with the slogan “Invest in Chapel Hill.”
In planning meetings about the open space bond measure, Town staff, leaders, and outside counsel discussed the need to preserve in-town open space amid the rapid urbanization of the area. Indeed, the open space bond resolution was “to pay capital costs of acquiring real property in order to maintain, protect, limit the future use of or otherwise conserve open spaces and areas.” There was talk of what open space meant and whether land purchased with funds intended for it could ever be developed. In the view of the Town’s bond attorney, open space is “for open space alone” and is “not normally developed at all.” Any development would need to be consistent with the aims of open space (e.g., greenways and trails). In November 2003, Chapel Hill voters approved all five bond referenda on the ballot.
The decision in 2005 to purchase the Merritt estate with open space bonds clearly aligned with the Town’s Greenways Comprehensive Master Plan, given its close proximity to Tanyard Branch Trail.
Apart from the removal of Mr. Merritt’s house, the wooded area has remained undisturbed as open space since its purchase. When Town staff and Council members undertook a review of Town-owned property in 2017 for development potential, they decided to preserve 110 Jay Street as open space and as a potential corridor for a bike trail. A chief reason: Access issues and topography made potential development very challenging.
After the passage of an affordable housing bond measure in 2018, Town staff did a turnabout and prioritized three areas, one of which was Jay Street, for development into affordable housing. Jay Street is the first to go forward. At at Town Council work meeting where staff introduced the proposals, Mayor Hemminger asked whether any of the sites had been purchased with parks monies. The Town staff said they were unsure, but, if so, the money could simply be repaid allowing the development to proceed.
I still find it shocking that land purchased with public monies for a stated aim (open space) would be considered ripe for transformation into something completely different—and also that the Town leaders and staff have not apparently considered the ethical issues at stake, as evidenced by the assertion that simply paying the money back would be sufficient.
The Town has since confirmed that the Merritt estate was entirely purchased with open space bond money. In responding to a petition submitted by a neighbor, the Town also conveyed that the purchase was legal under North Carolina law, according to its outside counsel, which gives municipalities wide latitude in their decision-making. A memo prepared by the outside counsel, SanfordHolshouser, which I obtained via a public records request, asserts that the land “satisfied” the intent of the open space funding because it stayed undeveloped for almost 15 years. The firm also asserted that the intended aim of the development, affordable housing, was a sufficient imperative to justify the repurposing the land. Last, the firm noted even that paying back the bond monies was completely at the discretion of the Town.
I can find precious little discussion by Town staff or elected officials about the ethical (vs. legal) issues at stake.
The proposal has proceeded since then with traffic and stormwater analyses, a vote by the Council to lease the land to the developer TMG (a necessity for TMG to apply for federal low-income housing tax credits), and, now, the conditional zoning application. If the past is indicative, it appears that the Town Council will near unanimously approve the application. What a shame.
Developing Jay Street, especially following TMG’s proposal, is very shortsighted, I believe, and emblematic of broader issues with the Town’s decision-making. No one disputes that affordable housing is anything but a crucial need, but the environmental issues that fueled the open space bond referendum and the purchase of Jay Street in the 2000s have not gone away; they have, in fact, only intensified amid the catastrophic climate crisis. The need for open space, especially in urban areas, is more critical than ever. Affordable housing and environmental protections are both necessary for healthy, livable, and sustainable municipalities. One is not more important or more urgent than the other.
The rush to act without carefully addressing key issues and thinking about the full range of costs is apparent in the Town’s current deliberation on the 828 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard affordable housing project. As has been well publicized, the site sits atop an extensive coal ash dump. Rather than pay to fully clean up the site, the Town wants to “cap” and supposedly contain it by adding 3-4 feet of dirt atop the ash, never mind that erosion and other factors could expose this toxic material down the road. Again, only Council Member Searing has been a voice of reason on this issue.
It is worth noting that 110 Jay Street is feet away from the railroad that ferries the coal ash from the UNC power plant that helped pollute 828 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. Weakened state environmental regulations, as the Center for Biological Diversity has noted, mean that the harmful emissions from the plant will continue as a grave risk to public health, especially for those living nearby.
As I have laid out here, the potential development of 110 Jay Street is problematic for a number of reasons. Ignoring the will of the people when its comes to the stewardship of public property is troubling. I think that any decision about repurposing land purchased with public monies should be made in a transparent manner with full attention to ethical (not just legal) issues and with extensive public input. Doing anything else is risky, not least because it reinforces the cynicism and lack of trust that pervades contemporary politics, local and national.
Author bio: Tara Kachgal is an academic editor and Chapel Hill resident. She has a PhD from UNC’s Hussman School of Journalism and Media.
“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.
Comments on Chapelboro are moderated according to our Community Guidelines