“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.
Is the Chapel Hill Town Council a Board of Trustees?
A perspective from David Adams
The Chapel Hill Town Council recently engaged the Keesmaat Group to guide the town’s development via the Group’s “Building Complete Communities” process. Like the form-based code created to develop the Blue Hill area, Building Complete Communities seeks to streamline current and future land use decisions. Public input is cited as a key obstacle to past decision-making – and that includes input from the town’s own advisory boards and commissions.
Lead consultant, Jennifer Keesmaat, has in fact advised council members to act as trustees rather than delegates. Trustees and delegates represent two divergent theories on the roles of representatives in government (first proposed by Edmund Burke). A trustee makes decisions based on personal judgment (“I was elected, so I know best”), while a delegate makes decisions based on feedback from constituents.
The controversy surrounding the American Legion property is a case in point. When the resolution to purchase the property came before Council, Councilman Michael Parker proposed a last minute, “surprise” amendment to the resolution to clarify that the council did not intend for the entire property to be used as a park (see Hodge, B, Chapelboro.com, 12/7/16).
This amendment is contrary to the town’s 2013 Comprehensive Parks Plan and states that some of the property be sold to recoup the cost and the remainder serve a mix of purposes, both public and private. Fast forward to this year when Mr. Parker petitioned the Council to again sell some portion of the land, drain the pond and build housing on the site while somehow retaining a “world class” park.
Now the mayor has created a Legion subcommittee composed of the mayor, Council members Parker, Stegman and Ryan. Of note, Councilman Adam Searing, the lone community park advocate on the Council, was excluded. This committee will make a decision for a Council vote in December with little time for public engagement. Not surprisingly, of the options under consideration, none would combine Ephesus Park with the Legion property to create a true community park as advised by the Comprehensive Parks Plan, the American Legion Task Force (2017) and the Parks, Greenways and Recreation Commission (2019). Not to mention the current grass roots citizen petition to create such a park with over 900 signatures to date and counting.
In short, the Chapel Hill Town Council, under political cover provided by an expensive consultant, has become a Board of Trustees who know best what the town needs and is planning to fast-track other important decisions without advisory board review and little to no public input.
True representative government in Chapel Hill needs delegates, not trustees.
(featured photo via the Town of Chapel Hill)
“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.
I support the author’s views on this matter. Elections have a way of sorting out trustee-like behavior but by then, it’s too late. What next, sell Ephesus Park too? Both are prime real estate.
Consider on one side of the climate change balance the vast amounts of CO2 that will be emitted by bulldozers, concrete (a major source!), and in the production and installation of all the building materials used for construction of still more apartments. On the other side of the balance, a park where citizens can get exercise and fresh air while locking away CO2. This tract is a carbon rich environment that should be left intact for future generations. It’s time, as a town, that we walk the walk vis a vis climate change.
Whatever the merits of the governance argument, it is absolutely not true that the the full agreement to purchase the Legion property (the purported “surprise” provision regarding the sale of part of the property was adopted 8-1 by the Council) somehow is in opposition to the 2013 parks plan. Here is the exact language from the parks plan: “The eastern section of Chapel Hill is not served by a community park. The closest community park to this area is Community Center Park; which, as noted above is much smaller than a typical community park. One option for meeting the community park needs of the eastern section of Chapel Hill and relieving some over use of Community Center Park may be the expansion of Ephesus Park. Ephesus Park could be expanded by 1) adding facilities in undeveloped areas of the existing park property, 2) working with the school to expand/improve facilities on school property, and 3) purchasing or leasing acreage from the adjacent property owned by American Legion Post 6.” At no point does the parks plan commit to the use of the *entire* American Legion site as a community park. Rather, the Council’s actions in 2017, and the recent council member petition, are entirely consistent with the current parks plan.
But regarding the governance argument, the writer talks about a petition signed by over 900 persons asking that the entire site be used as a park. There’s another petition with more than 500 signatories asking that part of the site be used as affordable housing. It’s up to our elected officials to chart the best path forward, not dueling petitions which supposedly reflect the wishes of the community. And I for one support the council members’ plan, which would add significant additional acreage to the existing Ephesus Park, provide additional housing options for the most financially challenged members of our community, and may provide funding to actually turn the Legion site into a park and not what it is today, a vacant site that is usually empty.
Respectfully, it’s disingenuous to label the land as merely a vacant lot when the potential for – dare I say – a world-class park is so great. I attended the Thanks + Giving event at the Legion property today – it was a happy, lively event with a food truck rodeo, rocking music, kids playing, and booths showcasing area non-profits. Instead of thinking of it as vacant land, imagine a dog park, a playground, a splash pad, picnic tables, a farmer’s market, a music venue and yes, even some open land to simply enjoy the outdoors.
I also want to see affordable housing for the missing middle. My question is, is this the only land available for that purpose? A park also adds much to a community. It would be a shame to lose this opportunity if there are other options for development. Are New Yorkers’ complaining that Central Park is just sitting around, not doing its civic duty? Certainly not, because it’s was carefully developed revealing it’s purpose as a great park.
To reduce the size of what is a much needed park/preserve in an area of town that has a lot of affordable housing and now many apartments would be a tragedy. The Ephesus Church Park is small and is also impacted with water and drainage issues, why try to enlarge a problematic piece of land. The Legion Park property is ideal for our town to finally have a decent size park that will help our town in so many positive way and for all the residents who reside in this area who can even walk and bike to this location. Having a great park in this location is long overdue.
Apples: The LegionPark.org group (and petition) of over 1000 people is primarily made up of people that live in Chapel Hill.
Oranges: The Orange County Affordable Housing Coalition petition of ~550 people is made up of people from all over Orange County.
The people of Chapel Hill paid for the property with their tax dollars. We should welcome perspectives from the regional area, but the two petitions are night and day.
I’m am curious about the origin of the mistaken idea that the Legion property is “vacant and usually empty.” That is not my experience. I suspect it was initially circulated by someone who rarely (if ever) visited the park. I am there almost every morning, and I can assure you that many people use the park. Most are there for a walk, some fish, and others attend dance classes.
Most mornings, we have volunteers who remove invasive, non-native plants. We enjoy talking with the people passing by and explaining the need to preserve the Legion property as a park that everyone can enjoy.
The alternatives proposed by the council would: (1) increase the likelihood of flooding (reducing the tax value of affected properties and subsequent revenue to the city), (2) decrease the carbon sequestering capability of the property, (3) reduce habitat for threatened species, (4) turn public property into private property, and (5) increase traffic on Legion Rd (where there has already been significant development, recently).
Please join me Saturday around 10:00. I’ll show you how people are using the park. And I’ll ask you to help remove invasive plants.
Hey Richard, how do you know the signatories and location of the OCAHC petition? It’s not publicly available as far as I can tell.