GUEST COLUMNS
by David Adams
When our current mayor, Pam Hemminger, was elected in 2015, development was a key issue. Forward to today and development remains the single most controversial issue in the Chapel Hill municipal election this November.
In 2015, the issue was the form-based code, created to fast-track development in the Ephesus-Fordham area in what is now called Blue Hill. Public input and Council review was strictly limited. The goal was to get 60% residential and 40% commercial development in the district. Instead, we got all market rate apartments.
Today we are focused on creating “complete communities” through changes in the town’s land use management ordinance (LUMO). This effectively amounts to a town-wide rezoning of single-family neighborhoods to increase housing supply. Opponents and supporters of these changes are labeled NIMBY (not in my backyard) or YIMBY (yes in my back yard). Neighborhoods with HOAs, NCDs or covenants are exempt, which suggests a third label, YIYBY (yes in your backyard).
There is currently a movement to create a third national political party with the provocative name, No Labels. Labels are important, because a label creates a narrative. For example, “anti-development” is a common negative label. In contrast, “progressive”, “smart”, “sustainable”, and “equitable” development are deemed positive. There are also generational labels like “boomer” that are used in a derogatory fashion to paint older homeowners as curmudgeons who resist change.
Labeling others as “anti-development” is misleading and stops dialogue. The fact is, like virtually everyone else, I am for development that brings affordable housing. I am for parks to mitigate climate change, for improved transit, whether by foot, bike or bus, for more greenways to reduce reliance on automobiles, and for supporting local businesses and schools. I am an advocate for those living in affordable housing who were, or soon will be, displaced for upscale apartments and thus denied living in the Blue Hill complete community.
Many oppose the recent rezoning, me among them, and with valid reasons. A primary one – as stated repeatedly by the Planning Department and Council majority – is that the rezoning is for housing choice, not affordability. It’s claimed affordability will “trickle down” in future as supply increases. If rents for our current oversupply of luxury apartments are any indication, that will not be any time soon.
The main beneficiaries of such rezoning will be developers and real estate investors. Take Durham’s planning rules re-write (SCAD). As stated by a former Preservation Durham board member and planning commissioner, “The vast majority of SCAD’s provisions have nothing to do with housing affordability …Instead, they are designed to make redevelopment of Durham more profitable for the development community — usually at the expense of Durham’s existing residential communities.” (The News & Observer, 8/20/23).
The candidates running for mayor in Chapel Hill have different visions, especially around the approved zoning changes. Councilmember Jess Anderson champions the changes; Councilmember Adam Searing opposes them. There are ten candidates for Town Council. As reported by Chapelboro.com, 7/24/2023, “the race may be defined by the groups of candidates running as blocs. One that has already joined together is largely criticizing the council’s more progressive votes and is endorsed by Adam Searing: Breckany Eckhardt, Elizabeth Sharp, Renuka Soll, and David Adams”. This group is therefore seen as not progressive when in fact they favor development that benefits the entire community.
Because of the rezoning issue, this election promises to be highly competitive, even heated.
What if we had an election that was issue-oriented and was:
free from attacking candidates and their supporters who have a different point of view;
free from misinformation, spin and media bias;
free from stealing opponents’ campaign signs, campaign materials or other “dirty tricks”;
free from hijacking narratives with labels.
Free instead to promote honest interactions to find viable solutions.
Guest columns do not reflect the policies or opinions of TLR. Anyone is invited to submit a column –Editor Julia Runk Jones
David Adams is a 39 yr resident of Chapel Hill and a candidate for Chapel Hill Town Council.
More affordable housing and a green community are broadly shared goals in Chapel Hill. The question the town faces is how to promote those goals. The details matter. As David points out, the way “form-based code” was written in Chapel Hill has resulted in less affordable housing, less green space, and little commercial development. Instead, we got more high-rent apartment buildings. The Town of Chapel Hill gave up it’s legal capacity to shape development when it adopted that code. If the proposed changes to the definition of residential zones in Chapel Hill are approved, the town will give up it’s legal leverage to shape development. In a highly desirable housing market like Chapel Hill, market demand support high rents. More units do not lead to lower rents. More diverse and affordable development requires thoughtful and careful use the legal authority the town has. We have seen in Blue Hill the consequenceds of giving away the town’s authority to shape development toward affordable housing and green space.
Well said. The purpose of development must be to improve the well-being of all residents while advancing both dignity and equity in a manner that increases the ability of everyome to meet their fundamental needs, reach their potential, and to thrive.
I support David Adam’s views on housing.
Housing needs to be inclusive and mixed: let’s include market rate, single-family, retail and local business as well as community. There is always an option “C”. However, when we rush development and let corporations take over city planning, we all lose with poor transit, destroyed parks, chaotic infrastructure, and local businesses being pushed out of their locations. Why are we using old school wild west development methods when cutting edge, technology and planning can create sustainable, environmentally, friendly, and enjoyable cities to live?
Excellent points, David. I think we all need to look beyond or underneath the labels, often given by people in opposition, or given to cover up some previous negative situation. In the Ephesus-Fordham district case, when then-new Mayor Hemminger took office, the area was re-named “Blue Hill” at a considerable monetary cost! It’s not only a hill, it is a flood-prone area made worse by significant new construction. Everyone in Chapel Hill would likely say they want affordable housing, but what definition are they using? When developers say they will provide X number of affordable units, either for sale or for rent, what definition are they using? The details matter. To provide affordable housing for 30 to 60% AMI (Area Median Income) is very different from providing it for 80 – 120% AMI! We all need to get to the details under the labels.
Excellent points, David. I think we all need to look beyond or underneath the labels, often given by people in opposition, or given to cover up some previous negative situation. In the Ephesus-Fordham district case, when then-new Mayor Hemminger took office, the area was re-named “Blue Hill” at a considerable monetary cost! It’s not only not a hill, it is a flood-prone area made worse by significant new construction. Everyone in Chapel Hill would likely say they want affordable housing, but what definition are they using? When developers say they will provide X number of affordable units, either for sale or for rent, what definition are they using? The details matter. To provide affordable housing for 30 to 60% AMI (Area Median Income) is very different from providing it for 80 – 120% AMI! We all need to get to the details under the labels.
Good argument, David. It’s especially important, I think, to break the misleading connection between questioning untrammeled development and the label ‘conservative’ or ‘anti-progressive.’ As you make clear, those who support thoughtful, wiser development are not ‘anti-change’ (another reductive label).
I’m very interested looking at the solutions David thinks we can implement and how he believes that they will actually address the housing/land use/transportation problems in town. Where and how will you build housing? What types are you proposing to build? How will that affect prices and transportation infrastructure? If this were easy we would have done something already. I’m all ears and am excited to see some solid policy ideas from those that don’t want to be labeled. Bring it in all its glory and fully explain what you expect to happen. Then the citizens can decide whether your policy holds water or not.
One question: If you want to exempt single family neighborhoods from any changes except one to one replacement with mega mansions, then all other areas will face extreme demand. Yet you also have opposed many many larger developments. So no missing middle and no big developments either? Seems like a recipe to send prices ever higher. Please explain.
I’ll be interested to hear his concrete policy proposals and see how they stack up against others’.
Seeing that people recently tore down lots of pro greenway signs, I think David’s calls for civility are important for everyone to hear. Hopefully we won’t see more “betrayed” signage this year. Still wondering who might have done such a thing.