The Committee will study housing needs in North Carolina and obstacles to home ownership. The Committee has been charged with studying and reporting on:

(1) The availability of quality affordable housing in North Carolina and whether North Carolina needs more affordable housing.
(2) Mortgage loan availability and affordability.
(3) The causes of home foreclosures in North Carolina and the appropriate role of State government in helping homeowners remain in their residences.
(4) Mortgage and borrowing trends to help first time homebuyers obtain mortgages.
(5) Ways to collaborate with the State’s banking community to prevent a loss of public confidence in the mortgage lending industry.
(6) The needs of the North Carolina Housing Trust Fund.
(7) Whether the State Fair Housing Act should be amended to prohibit discrimination on the basis of receipt of housing assistance.
(8) Ways to increase the number of North Carolinians who are able to retain equity-building homes through public education, homebuyer preparation, and consumer counseling.
(9) Methods to assist nonprofit corporations and local governments in making certified homebuyer credit counselors available to homebuyers in every region of the State.
(10) The feasibility of creating regional coalitions to identify and reduce barriers to homeownership.
(11) Any other issues the Committee deems relevant to this study.

The full membership of the committee is as follows.
President Pro Tempore Appointments:
Senator Tony Rand, Co-Chair
Senator Joe Sam Queen, Co-Chair
Senator Katie Dorsett
Senator Jim Forrester
Senator Ellie Kinnaird
Senator Floyd McKissick
The Honorable Terry Bellamy, Buncombe County
Mr. Brian Coyle, Wake County
Ms. Elizabeth Cubler, Dare County
Mr. Chris Estes, Wake County

Speaker of the House Appointments:
Representative Alma Adams, Co-Chair
Representative Pryor Gibson, Co-Chair
Representative Bruce Goforth
Representative Larry D. Hall
Representative Pat McElraft
Representative R. Tracy Walker
Mr. Wendell Bullard, Durham County
Mr. Christopher Kukla, Durham County
Ms. Margaret Matrone, Wake County
The Honorable Mark Chilton, Orange County

By Ray Gronberg : The Herald-Sun
gronberg@heraldsun.com
Feb 23, 2008

DURHAM — The state government’s prodding has Durham and other area governments looking more closely at the idea of building a new water intake on Jordan Lake, but it’s also beginning to trigger some pushback.

Opposition is coming from Orange County, where Carrboro Mayor Mark Chilton is arguing officials should “take Jordan Lake off the table” unless other governments enact curbs on suburban, car-dependent growth similar to those his town and Chapel Hill have.

He contends that for now, the infrastructure-dictated limits on the use of Jordan Lake’s supply potential are one of the few constraints that exist on the area’s growth.

And “until our neighbors are exercising the kind of self-restraint that Orange County has been pursuing — and doing so in a legally binding way through joint planning agreements — it doesn’t seem wise to me to give those local governments still more access to drinking water,” Chilton argued in an online Web posting this week.

His comments Friday were equally pointed.

“If we’re going to pay millions and millions of dollars to pull water out of there, and what we’re doing is continuing [to grow as] we’ve always done, and getting to the point where even that isn’t enough, what’s the point?” he said.

Chilton made his comments as Durham officials were finishing the draft of a resolution that would endorse the idea of joining forces with Chatham County, Orange County and the Orange Water and Sewer Authority to develop a second intake.

Jordan Lake is theoretically capable of providing Triangle cities 100 million gallons of water a day. But Cary has the only intake and its associated water plant can treat a maximum 40 million gallons a day.

Placing a second intake — and likely a second water plant — on the west side of the lake could relieve that bottleneck. Regulators in the state Division of Water Resources are pushing the idea because Jordan’s watershed is much larger and therefore more drought-resistant than those of other reservoirs in the area.

Advocates believe there are other advantages, starting with the mere redundancy inherent in having a second intake. Having just one means a breakdown or some other problem at Cary’s intake could have ripple effects throughout the region, Durham Deputy City Manager Ted Voorhees said.

Jordan water could also provide the margin of safety the region needs if changes in global climate invalidate some of the key assumptions engineers made in years past when they were planning the small reservoirs serving most of the area’s cities.

There are researchers who believe “we’re moving out of a period of weather predictability” where planners could rely on conditions staying within a certain range, Voorhees said, echoing the point of an article in the Feb. 1 issue of “Science” magazine.

If they’re right, and local conditions become more extreme, the proper response is to “change the margins of safety [for water supplies] to make them bigger,” particularly by accelerating long-term projects like the second intake, Voorhees said.

Chilton’s views matter because officials in Chapel Hill and Carrboro have stepped in before to deter OWASA — the utility that serves their towns — from joining initiatives that could promote growth in neighboring counties.

The most notable example came in 1988 when Chapel Hill’s Town Council, worried about supply talks between the utility and Chatham County, threatened to fire its five representatives on the OWASA board and replace them with new appointees.

Merely voicing the threat sufficed to squelch those negotiations. The memory of it also deterred cooperation between OWASA and Chatham County throughout the 1990s and the early years of this decade.

But the town’s underlying policy didn’t succeed in its intended purpose of limiting growth in Chatham County. Officials there have approved the construction of thousands of new homes this decade.

This time around, it’s not clear how much leverage Chilton and any like-minded southern Orange officials have, not least because Chapel Hill Mayor Kevin Foy shares at least some of the worries Voorhees mentioned and seems open to at least talking about an intake partnership.

“We don’t know whether we’re looking at long-term change in our weather patterns,” Foy said earlier this month. “If that’s the case, the assessment we’ve made about our water supply is going to be challenged.”

At the same time, Foy said, Chapel Hill has “a very strong interest in making sure growth in this area is done right, at a relatively slow pace that can be absorbed.”

Meanwhile, Chatham County is considering running a pipeline to Cary’s water plant and drawing its share of lake water there, Voorhees said.

Durham needn’t necessarily work with OWASA to draw more water from Jordan. One option available to it is helping pay for an expansion of Cary’s water plant and relying on its existing intake, Voorhees said.

The Chamber has been showing increasing hostility toward the Rural Buffer, claiming among other things that the Rural Buffer severely limits the supply of housing in the two towns and drives land costs up to their dramatic levels. I countered, supported by Bill Strom, that the main cause of high housing prices around here is that it is such a nice place to live. Unless you increased the housing supply around here to the point that the market was dramatically overbuilt, housing prices would remain high no matter what kinds of development restrictions were eliminated.

But the Chamber staff was loathe to admit that private enterprise was at all the source of the problem. I pointed out the prices are pretty much just as high in northeast Chatham County where (until last year) development was allowed to pretty well run hog wild. No, said the Chamber: There are plenty of inexpensive dwellings for sale in Chatham.

So, I did a little search on the MLS that afternoon on dwellings for sale in the Chapel Hill Carrboro City School District at the moment. There are 99 dwellings for sale in the district that are offered at less than $185,000. You can click the following link to see here.

By contrast, in northeast Chatham County including the Town of Pittsboro, the same search revealed only 37 dwellings for sale for under $185,000. You can see them here.

Now, just so you know, I also looked at the top end of the real estate market: There are 125 dwellings for sale over $650,000 in the Chapel Hill School District and there are 126 dwellings over that price for sale in northeast Chatham and Pittsboro. So rampant development in NE Chatham seems to be producing about the same kind of high end housing stock that careful planning is producing in southern Orange County.

While there is no doubt that we have housing affordability issues in Chapel Hill and Carrboro, the fact is that rampant development in Chatham County has produced lots of high end housing and very little affordable development. And that is exactly the same type of development that we are getting in Chapel Hill and Carrboro where development rules are much more strict. It’s just that in Chapel Hill and Carrboro we also are getting greenways, clean drinking water, and compact, transit/pedestrian-friendly development, all while preserving the rural character of the surrounding landscape.

In fact, off the top of my head, I came up with a list of five stores in town that sell socks (Townsend, Bertram & Co., Fleet Feet, Clean Machine, Performance Bikes, and Dollar General). So I rode around town and did a little comparison shopping. I found that the five stores listed all sell men’s socks and that among them they carry 22 different brands of socks – in several dozens different styles – with prices starting at 66 cents a pair.

Then I got to thinking: I wonder if Wal-Mart can really do better? So I got in my car and drove 8 miles through 11 traffic lights to New Hope Commons. And what do you think I found? Wal-Mart sells 11 brands of men’s socks in about 2 dozen styles with prices starting at 63 cents a pair.

Maybe some of this fall’s candidates need to spend a little more time shopping downtown – unless you just can’t spare the extra 3 cents a pair.

There’s been a lot of talk lately about making Carrboro (and Chapel Hill) a more bicycle friendly place, but I want to let you know what the Board of Aldermen and I have been working on:

Short term:
In the last two years, Carrboro has opened a new bike path from near the bypass and South Greensboro to downtown. And we have built a number of new sidewalks around town, including along North Greensboro Street and Eugene Street.

Recent cooperation between Carrboro, Chapel Hill and NCDOT have lead to funding commitments for bicycle accommodations on Estes Drive Extension from Seawell School Road to Estes Park Apartments. Opposite Estes Park we are planning a non-motor vehicle path from Estes to Williams Street along Wilson Park. This path will allow bicyclists to get between Greensboro Street in Carrboro and MLK Blvd in Chapel Hill with a reasonable degree of safety. NCDOT is proceeding toward bidding out the construction of the bike accommodations on Estes.

Mid term:
Carrboro is also planning a greenway that will extend from the Bolin Creek Greenway in Chapel Hill all the way to Homestead Road and from there to Elementary School #10 on Eubanks Road in Carrboro (much of that greenway will be built by private developers such as Winmore or by UNC as part of the Carolina North Development). This greenway will also have spur connections to Seawell School Road and Carolina North itself.

I believe the adopted Chapel Hill greenway plan calls for the eventual connection of these greenways by passing underneath Estes Drive Extension so that cyclists and pedestrians would not necessarily have to compete with cross traffic on Estes. The entire plan would connect from Elementary School #10 in Carrboro to the Chapel Hill Community Center across from University Mall. And I think Chapel Hill is looking at how to connect from there to still other bike/ped corridors regionally.

Carrboro is also working on a Morgan Creek Greenway that will run along the various neighborhoods along the bypass (the greenway will be on the other side of these neighborhoods, away from the highway). The Carrboro Morgan Creek Greenway will connect with the Chapel Hill Morgan Creek Greenway which has already been approved and funded (as I understand it). That greenway will run from Smith Level Road to 15-501 and may allow for some interconnection with existing trails in Southern Village. Both Morgan Creek Greenways will certainly tie in nicely with new bicycle and pedestrian accommodations on Smith Level Road.

Long term:

I have been serving as one of Carrboro’s delegates to the regional committee on spending federal transportation money (called the MPO). On the MPO, I have advocated for reserving all bike and pedestrian eligible money to be spent exclusively on bike and ped projects. That is, there is a pot of money called STPDA funds that can be spent on any transportation project that the MPO thinks is worthy and I have been advocating to get the MPO to commit to spending those STPDA funds EXCLUSIVELY on bike and ped projects.

Also, I helped bridge some major gaps between Durham and Orange Counties earlier this year by pointing out to representatives of both counties on the MPO that we don’t have to fight over bike/ped transportation dollars if we focus on inter-jurisdictional bike/ped projects which benefit both counties. That is, we should not only be spending money to make it easier for bikers to get around within Durham or Chapel Hill or Carrboro, but also among Durham, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro. And Pittsboro and Hillsborough for that matter. And Raleigh and Cary.

The Really Big Picture
The vision I am trying to lay out here is a regional system of bicycle and pedestrian trails that interconnect the entire Triangle community, providing safe opportunities for both recreation and regional commuting. That is a mighty big vision, but all it really takes is the commitment of the elected officials in the different county and municipal governments in the Triangle. And that commitment has to start right here at home.

A system of bike/ped trails that spans the Triangle is really not as far off as it might seem. Nor is the time when we will desperately need such a system. After all, the question is not whether gasoline will cost $5 a gallon, but when.

I would direct readers’ attention to the minutes of the Assembly of Governments meeting for October 30, 1997 at which the local governments discussed the Working Groups recommendations:

http://server1.co.orange.nc.us/MinIndex/Minutes/1990/19971022.pdf

Let me excerpt some highlights from the 11 page document linked above:

The various governments assembled agreed to implement a number of items that were recommended by the Working Group, but the Chapel Hill Town Council members (with a few exceptions) and the Orange County Commissionners (with some exceptions) vigorously opposed a number of the key compensation items that the working group had recommended. The Carrboro Board of Aldermen collectively, along with Council members Joyce Brown and me worked hard to pass as many of the recommendations as we could. Let’s take a look at the contentious issues of the time:

Establishing a Park

The Assembly of Governments refused to adopt item 12 on the compensation package list:

“The Working Group recommends that following the closure of The Eubanks Road landfill, portions of the landfill (as allowed by regulations), the Neville tract, and at least 50 acres of the Green tract will be used for recreation facilities . . . Council member Chilton stated that the park portion of this agreement is a strong moral commitment to establish the park. The capped landfill may not be suitable for recreation purposes. The use of the Greene Tract would be a way of fulfilling a moral commitment . . . A motion was made by Council member Chilton, seconded by Alderman McDuffee, to approve this item, as written. Vote: Motion Did Not Pass”

Tragically, the local governments were not willing to commit to creating a park as had apparently been promised decades before.

Self-determination of the Rogers Road Neighborhood

Nor were the majority of the elected officials willing to allow the neighborhood to decide for itself where the eventual town line ought to be. Here is item 11 from the Working Group’s proposed compensation package:

“The Landfill Owners Group will work with the Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro planning departments to sponsor a public information meeting regarding the planning boundary (future annexation boundary) between Chapel Hill and Carrboro. A “ballot” should be prepared identifying at least three options: 1. Leave the planning boundary as it is, along Rogers Road; 2. Move the planning boundary east, placing the entire Rogers Road neighborhood in Carrboro’s future annexation area; 3. Move the planning boundary west, placing the entire Rogers Road neighborhood in Chapel Hill’s future annexation area (see Hazen and Sawyer report for map). Additional options may be identified and added to the ballot. All households in the area which may potentially be shifted shall be given the opportunity to submit one ballot selecting their preferred option . . . “

Despite impassioned pleas from me and others on the Working Group, the self-determination model was rejected:

“Council member Chilton stated that this was not a recommendation for a legal[ly binding] process. This was created by the Work Group as an information process so that the neighbors could let the units of government know of their preferences . . . Council member Chilton stated that this suggestion originated from a group of neighbors regarding how they would like to pass their ideas onto their elected officials . . . VOTE: Motion Did Not Pass”

Water and Sewer Service

“The Working Group recommends that water and sewer mains be extended to provide service to the area along the entire length of Rogers Road . . .”

The proposal for water and sewer service was quickly rejected by the majority, over my objection. Instead the Assembly of Government pursued a compromise position in which water service only would be provided and a complex conversation ensued. The minutes are very clear though that several of the elected officials present, including me, pushed hard to make a commitment to at least provide water service, but the Assembly of Governments as a whole refused and adjourned for the night. Eventually, I believe, the Assembly of Governments reconvened and approved water service only - but definitely not sewer.

Since 1997

I have to tell you frankly that October 30, 1997 was a very disappointing night for me. I and others on the Working Group had struggled with these issues for months. As the meeting adjourned, one resident of Rogers Road ran over to me and hugged me and Jacquie Gist, telling us how proud she was of how hard we had fought for her community, but I couldn’t share in her happiness. The majority of the elected officials of the County had endorsed only the simplest items in the Compensation Package, and they passed up the opportunity to do anything hard or expensive for the community.

It was an especially disappointing moment for me because it was to be one of the last meetings that I attended as a member of the Chapel Hill Town Council. I left office in early December of 1997 and in 1998 moved to Canada to get married and start my family. What I did not know that night, was that this was not to be the end of my involvement with the Rogers Road community. Not by a long shot.

Sewers for Rogers Road

Four years later, I returned to Orange County with my wife and son and once again began working on affordable housing issues in Chapel Hill and Carrboro as the Director of the non-profit affordable housing organization EmPOWERment, Inc. My role at EmPOWERment put me in touch with the larger affordable housing community, including Habitat for Humanity. I soon began meeting with Habitat’s Buiding Committee including past Habitat board chair Rich Leber. Rich asked me for advice about the direction that Habitat should go with their construction projects and we soon hit upon a remarkable opportunity for Habitat to become more and more involved in construction along Rogers Road.

And I immediately recognized that this was an opportunity to get our local governments to invest in the Rogers Road community in ways that they had refused to 4 years earlier. The minutes of the March 28, 2001 Chapel Hill Town Council meeting reflect that I was one of several speakers who endorsed the funding of a Habitat for Humanity development on Rogers Road: http://townhall.townofchapelhill.org/records/minutes/2001/010328.htm

Also, with the thought in mind that running the sewer lines is only one aspect of the problem, I supported Alderman John Herrera’s plan to increase public subsidies to $2,000 for connecting existing septic systems to sewer lines at the January 25, 2005 Board of Aldermen meeting.

And I advocated for running sewers along Rogers Road on several other occasions both publicly and privately. One specific example was in connection with the proposed construction of a county office building on Eubanks Road at the Board of Aldermen meeting on September 6, 2005: http://townofcarrboro.org/BoA/Minutes/2005/09_06_2005.pdf . . .

Finally, even as I write these words, final surveying is under way to extend OWASA sewers further to the north from Homestead Road. The latest extension will bringing sewer service hundreds of feet closer to many of the homes on Rogers Road.

While our community has a long way yet to go in order to complete the process of making sewers available for everyone on Rogers Road, the fact is that I have spent years hard at work on making it happen. And I do not plan to stop pushing this issue until the residents of Rogers Road are served in a manner that they can afford.

Self-determination for Rogers Road revisited

When the Board of Aldermen began looking at annexing areas along and just off of Rogers Road in 2004, I could not help remembering that night in 1997 when the Assembly of Governments had refused to let Rogers Road neighbors have their own say about what town they wanted to be in.

I brought the matter up at least twice, including at the September 9, 2004 Board of Aldermen meeting. I objected to including the Rogers Road homeowners in Annexation Area B because the matter of the planning boundary in that area was still unresolved from 7 years earlier. Again I refer to the minutes of the meeting: http://townofcarrboro.org/boa/Minutes/2004/09_14_2004.pdf

As the Daily Tar Heel reported it: http://media.www.dailytarheel.com/media/storage/paper885/news/2004/09/22/City/Annexation.Would.Raise.Taxes-1360281.shtml

“”I’ve heard from residents out there (on Rogers Road) before that they don’t want the neighborhood split,” Chilton said. Residents of the community should decide whether they want to be annexed by Carrboro or Chapel Hill, he said. “I guess I don’t see taking steps to annex part of the neighborhood as the first steps in the process of straightening out where the town line ought to be,” Chilton said.”

The Transfer Station

When the County Commissioners were considering where to locate the proposed solid waste transfer station, they asked for my input. On March 13, 2007 I gave them my response and I also posted it here and on OP: http://orangepolitics.org/2007/03/commissioners-discuss-waste-transfer-station-tonight/

The BOCC at first seemed to take some of my comments to heart, declining to make a siting decision at their meeting that week, but at the very next meeting, they utterly ignored my points and the many objections of the neighbors and selected their site on Eubanks Road. Where does that leave us?

The project is being proposed by the Orange County government and is to be located in the zoning jurisdiction of the Town of Chapel Hill. The Board of County Commissioners have the power to decide to proceed with the project or not. The Town Council has the power to review the permits for the project. This matter is far from done and the County has yet to demonstrate that Eubanks Road is the best site - or even the only site available.

In my comments to the BOE, I pointed out that during my Freshman year at Carolina, on my 18th birthday I registered to vote at the Chapel Hill Public Library (then located downtown). On election day I had to figure out where the Lincoln Center was (which I had never heard of) and where Merritt Mill Road was (which I also did not know). My Sophomore year I had moved three blocks away and was very surprised when I arrived at the Lincoln Center and was told that I had to go to Frank Porter Graham School (which I also did not how to find). That was because the campus and the immediately surrounding area are carved up across five different precincts with five different polling sites. The Board of Elections, the student body and our state legislative delegation have all worked hard to simplify the voting process over the course of the last 15 years. I thanked the BOE for its leadership creating a more participatory democracy and pleaded with them to maintain the excellent level of ballot access that the campus early voting site provides for students, faculty, staff and downtown workers and visitors.

The Board of Elections staff said that the Town of Chapel Hill has indicated that it will help provide parking in the Wallace parking deck and some parking along streets adjacent to the Post Office. The building is wheelchair accessible. The Post Office is a familiar landmark for most folks - whether students or not. It is also very accessible to a lot of people by foot, bike or public transportation.

The BOE was very interested in the concerns being rasied by the speakers. They ended up acquiescing to our requests, selecting the Post Office as one of the early voting sites.

________________________________________________________________

In response to student requests, I wrote the following letter to the Board of Elections in late July:

Dear Mr. Garner;

I understand that the Board of Elections is planning to move one of the early voting sites from UNC campus to the Senior Center. I must tell you that I consider this a totally unacceptable proposal.

If the issue with using a campus location is the parking access, then please consider directing voters with automobile needs to the Carrboro Town Hall early voting site.

Many of us have worked long and hard to make our local demcoracy truly inclusive by advocating for UNC student voters. In recent years, the Board of Elections has been a key partner in this effort. Please do not take a step backward by moving away from having an early voting site on campus.

The thousands of students who live on campus by and large do not have cars to drive to the Senior Center to participate in early voting. These same students are carved up across several different polling sites on election day, many of those sites being a remarkable distance from their ordinary travels. The campus early voting site has been a great solution to this problem. Please stick with it.

Sincerely;

Mark Chilton
Mayor of Carrboro

Dear Mr. Chairman and Commissioners;

The Carrboro Board of Aldermen has not collectively come to a conclusion about the proposed Transfer Station, but realizing that you may be making major decisions on March 13, I am writing on my own behalf solely, rather than as a voice for the entire Board. I have struggled a lot with the question of locating a Solid Waste Transfer Station on Eubanks Road, as I know you have as well. Here is what I have concluded about this idea:

1. I do not believe that any genuine commitment was ever made to have the Landfill be the last solid waste facility ever located on Eubanks Road. However, the fundamental fairness issues that are raised by the proposed Transfer Station site are valid. It is clear that at least unconsciously the race and income of the neighbors were factors in siting the landfill on Eubanks Road. To build the Transfer Station there without a systematic site search or any compensation would be eating the fruit of the same poisonous tree, as they say in criminal law.

2. Although the County staff has clearly done a lot of homework on some possible sites, a systematic search has not been made. A site along I-40 or I-85 is obviously desirable, but there must be more possibilities than have been given serious consideration to date. For me, it might be possible to conclude that Eubanks Road is the only feasible site IF a systematic site search came to that conclusion. So far as I can see, that has not happened.

3. The County and Towns have not yet accomplished all of the Compensation Items that were agreed to by the Assembly of Governments in 1997. As a community we need to revisit the issue of compensation for the impacts of the existing landfill. Discussion of a further facility there without having provided the compensation we already agreed to ought to be totally out of the question.

4. If the County Commission decides to proceed with the Eubanks Rd. Site, then I believe that the County needs to undertake an additional round of compensation negotiation with these same neighborhoods and that the County needs to be meaningfully generous in such negotiations.

Finally, I do not want to imply that the above conclusions are easily drawn. I know that all of us are trying to find the best, practical solution for our entire community and I am not writing to criticize anyone who may come to a different conclusion about this matter, but the County Commission asked for my opinion and so, here it is. In short, I respectfully believe you have a lot more homework to do.

Sincerely;

Mark Chilton
Mayor of Carrboro