“Viewpoints” is a place on Chapelboro where local people are encouraged to share their unique perspectives on issues affecting our community. All thoughts, ideas, opinions and expressions in this series are those of the author, and do not reflect the work, reporting or approval of 97.9 The Hill and Chapelboro.com. 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.
What Went Wrong With Complete Communities?
A perspective from Rod Stevens
Three years ago this month, I presented an analysis to the Chapel Hill Town Council showing that the community needs to build 30% more housing per year for various incomes and households. I noted three options for the town:
- To consciously decide not to grow, which would make Chapel Hill the “Palo Alto of the South”
- To carefully plan where and how to grow
- Do nothing. I said the last option would be the worst, for housing affordability would remain a big problem, and the town would continue to lose its sense of place
Effectively, the town chose option 3, doing nothing. There is no comprehensive plan for where and how to grow, the infill approach of missing middle won’t come close to meeting the town’s needs, and the council has adopted the housing equivalent of Ronald Reagan’s trickle-down theory to approve more large, drive-to luxury apartment projects that are divorced from their surroundings. What went wrong?
As the person who scoped the work of the “Complete Communities” effort that was supposed to address these concerns, I had a hand in this failure. That failure has been disappointing, for we dared to hope that we could prototype a new approach that would be a model for public involvement and that would put Chapel Hill on the map as a place building “green”.
The town should learn three lessons from this failure. The first is “Stop at “Go” and consult people on your direction before you take them on a trip. We didn’t ask the community if it wanted to grow or preferred the Palo Alto alternative. The 60/40 split in last year’s mayoral race shows that there is still no consensus that the town can adequately manage growth.
The second lesson is that there is no messiah, at least when it comes to planning. I advocated hiring a “world-class” planner to lead Complete Communities and found Jennifer Keesmaat, but Keesmaat herself said, on more than one occasion, that “planning is a failed profession”. . I should have recommended someone with local civic capital, skilled at creating peer-to-peer dialogue, and willing to take the necessary time.
The third problem is that for planning the final “product” is PowerPoint presentations and paper documents, not results on the ground. If the community wanted to significantly increase the amount of diverse housing and resident satisfaction with life in the town, these would be a priority in the city manager’s contract. Instead, the council remains immersed in project-by-project approvals. With public consensus and good management, Chapel Hill could spend half to two-thirds of what it now does on planning salaries and consulting fees and still achieve its goals.
I was told again and again not to use the phrase “The Village”, but people yearn for the oneness implied in that. The town’s first order of business should be rebuilding that sense of community. That means leaving identity politics behind and building agreement about what everyone will benefit from. Those are very basic discussions that cannot be rushed.
“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.
