Month: October 2009

Uff-Da! Twin Cities visit ‘audacious’ Charlotte

A large group of folks from Minneapolis-St. Paul were in town Sunday until Tuesday afternoon, on an inter-city Chamber visit. It’s the sort of thing Charlotte civic and business leaders do every year, although this year they stayed home. Here’s a link to the St. Paul Chamber’s Web page, where you can see the agenda.

My friend Curtis Johnson, an educator and author of, among other things, the 2008 Citistates Report, was one of the group. He sent this e-mail report late Tuesday: “The delegation was duly stirred by its contact with Charlotte people. It prompted much discussion about whether Charlotte has audacity and MSP has ambivalence.” He promises more info later.

Is Charlotte audacious? Are the Twin Cities ambivalent?

I sought the opinion of our departmental Minnesotan, editorial cartoonist Kevin Siers, who’s from the Iron Range and lived in MSP for about 10 years.

“Audacious? If you mean Charlotte has more naked self-promotion, then yes,” he said.
“They’re [the Twin Cities] Midwestern, you know.”

For the record, he points out that St. Paul and Minneapolis have distinctly differing personalities. SP is blue-collar, Catholic, and “has more interesting architecture.” Minneapolis is Lutheran and “lots of steel and blue glass.”

Listening to the ‘political slime’ alarm

I’ve interviewed a lot of politicians, and sometimes – not most of the time, but sometimes – you feel as if you want to take a shower afterward. The two who set off that slime-alarm bell most loudly? Jim Black and Mike Easley.

Black, the Matthews optometrist and former N.C. House speaker, is now in prison for a variety of election-related (and cash-in-envelopes-in-the-men’s-room-at-the-Capital-Grille-related) behaviors. Former Gov. Mike Easley is being depicted by Observer and Raleigh News & Observer coverage, not to mention at this week’s state elections board hearings, as extremely challenged in the ethics department.

From now on, I will listen to my instincts more often. There have been some other candidates over the years, some of them still in office, who set off that alarm. I’m not going to say who, because to accuse them of being crooks, without having evidence, would be libel. And it would be unfair, because there is the possibility my slime alarm isn’t 100 percent accurate. (For the record, none of the City Council candidates or mayor candidates on the Nov. 3 ballot set off the slime alarm. I don’t agree with some of them, but that’s different.)
And don’t get me started on the “crazy as a bedbug” alarm. That’s an even longer list …

‘Firebird’ has landed

A large white tent positioned in front of the Bechtler Museum of Modern Art was my clue. I was heading back from the Starbux at The Square and spotted it. Hmmm. It’s right where the Niki de Saint Phalle sculpture The Firebird is supposed to go. Being a snoopy journalist, I concluded it might well be a tent covering the sculpture itself.

I jaywalked across Tryon and noted that the yellow “keep out” plastic tape was down on the sidewalk side, i.e. public right of way, so I walked up and peeked through the openings in the tent. Saw a ga-zillion small mirrors.

The Firebird landed on Saturday, arriving in two pieces, on a truck. (The photo above was taken Saturday by Observer staff photog Yalonda M. James. The man depicted is Andreas Bechtler, whose art collection the museum will house.) It’s now under a tent while it’s being worked on by conservator Lech Juretko, who’ll be cleaning it, replacing damaged tiles, etc. Official unveiling will be Nov. 3 – Election Day.

The Firebird is mirror mosaics over polyester, on steel innards. The late de saint Phalle (1930-2002) created it in 1991. Bechtler press info says it’s 146 inches (12 feet) tall.
I think it is destined to become a Charlotte favorite. As such, it will need a name. Birdie? FB? Sparky?

Commuter rail – westward ho?

Commuter rail to … I bet you’re thinking, ” … to Davidson and North Mecklenburg.” A rail line to the north is one of CATS’ top priorities, to be built as soon as the feds cough up some money to build it.

In Gaston County, though, they’re thinking commuter rail from Charlotte to Gastonia. The Gaston Gazette recently reported on the City of Gastonia’s first estimates of what it would cost to build a commuter line on the old Piedmont & Northern railbed, which runs from Charlotte to Mount Holly and on to Gastonia: $265 million to $300 million.

Part of the route’s right of way – between Mount Holly and Charlotte – is controlled by CSX and carries freight. The N.C. Rail Division of the N.C. DOT owns the 11.6 miles from Mount Holly to Gastonia, plus a 3-mile spur to Belmont. Here’s a link to a map of the P&N line in Gaston County. And here’s a link to the NCDOT’s page showing the rail rights of way it owns. The P&N was built by tobacco and power company magnate James B. Duke, and carried passengers until 1951.

At the moment, of course, there’s no state, federal or local funding for this rail project. And the Charlotte Area Transit System (aka CATS) doesn’t have the P&N line as one of its five proposed transit corridors. It’s just an idea – but one with support among some key Gaston County leaders, who see a stronger connection to Charlotte as a way to boost economic prospects in a county where unemployment last month was 13.3 percent.

Reminder of terminology: “Commuter rail” typically means a passenger train akin to the inter-city Amtrak service, although some commuter rail uses newer technology, and the cars are usually less comfy. Stations are relatively far apart compared with subway, streetcar, light rail service. But don’t call it “heavy rail.” That’s a term for a system with a powerful electric rail down there with the tracks. It’s the “third rail,” the kind you should never, ever touch – hence the expression, “Social Security (or any other untouchable policy) is the third rail of American politics.” Subways, not commuter trains, tend to be “heavy rail.”

Progressive zoning plans – not here

The city of Miami last night adopted a zoning code overhaul, called Miami 21. Here’s the Miami Herald article on it. Why should folks around here care? Here’s why:

The new zoning overhaul is what’s called a “form-based code.” Raleigh is about to write one. Cabarrus County already has one. So does Davidson. Miami is the largest city, so far, to adopt one, but Denver is likely to adopt its own comprehensive form-based code in a matter of months, says blogger Mike Lydon. It’s an approach to zoning that many progressive cities are taking on. Should Charlotte?

A form-based code bases rules that govern planning and zoning on buildings’ form, not their use. In other words, what goes on inside a building (residence? office? store?) is less important than how the building fits in with what’s around it.

For instance, it says parking lots have to be behind new buildings, and the buildings have to sit at the sidewalk – which makes walking down the sidewalk more attractive, thus encouraging people to walk instead of drive.

Form-based codes also generally use an approach with a weird-sounding name that makes plenty of sense – a “transect.” It means you look at which areas are intensely urban, or completely rural, or somewhere in between and design things such as streets, sidewalks, even storm water management, based on how urban or suburban or rural an area is. It prevents, for instance, plopping a highway designed for intercity travel (think I-277) into a dense urban core. To move traffic there, it would say, use a high-capacity boulevard. (Think Champs-Elysee.)

Just as important, when adopted, a form based code is a plan with teeth. It overlays the city’s expectations for urban density or suburban density or rural density onto the whole jurisdiction, complete with the zoning rules that govern those areas. So the “plan” isn’t just a guideline but is a legal requirement. Imagine that!

One of the leaders of Miami’s effort was the dean of the University of Miami School of Architecture, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, a luminary in the New Urbanism movement.

Here’s a link to the Web site for the code itself. And if it rains today and you’re looking for some meaty reading, here’s the pdf for the code itself.

Don’t waste time seeking hubby in CLT, blog says

Faithful reader “Rebecca” shares a link to The Daily Beast’s new city ranking, “Best (and Worst) Cities to Meet Men.”

Our beloved Queen City ranked 26 out of 36. At least we beat San Jose.

“After New York City, Charlotte is the country’s banking capital, making it the home to a number of young yuppies in training,” quoth the Beast. “Though highly educated, the city has a serious shortage of available bachelors. You’d be better off hedging your bets on Wall Street.”
The posting quotes the editor of Creative Loafing, Carlton Hargro: “The men say the women are difficult to date in the sense that people don’t go out as much, and the women say that the guys are in a perpetual state of adolescence and they’re just trying to get laid; they’re not interesting in wining and dining.” Maybe they shoulda asked our “Paid To Party” blogger Sarah Aarthun?

Quips Rebecca: “Apparently we are not only dumb but our men are cheap and immature.” The Daily Beast, you’ll recall, ranked Charlotte at No. 16 among what it deemed the smartest cities.

WashPost on the QC: ‘Bust in Boomtown’

The Washington Post’s Binyamin Appelbaum – whom you might remember as a business-staff reporter at the Observer until 2007 – weighs in today in the Post with a look at Charlotte: “The Bust Hits the Boomtown that Banks Built.”

He writes that the opening of the cultural campus uptown “may be a last hurrah.”

An excerpt:

“Few American cities prospered more over the past two decades than Charlotte, its growth propelled and gilded by Wachovia and its crosstown rival, Bank of America. Executives shoehorned gaudy mansions into old neighborhoods around downtown. Workers poured into vast subdivisions on the city’s ever-expanding periphery. With coffers overflowing, giddy public officials spent tax dollars on a manmade river for whitewater rafting.

“Now Charlotte is suffering. Unemployment has spiked to 12 percent, well above the national average.”

Appelbaum was one of the key investigators in the Observer’s lengthy, multi-year look at mortgage fraud, foreclosures and Beazer Homes. Read the “Sold a Nightmare” series here.

Where developer money flows (updated)

At last week’s East Charlotte candidate forum, one question the neighborhood group asked of all City Council candidates was whether they had received a campaign donation from REBIC, the Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition, a powerful lobby of developers and real estate executives. (Technically the campaign donation is from its PAC known by SPAACE.)

Libertarian Travis Wheat, Democrat Darrin Rankin’s wife (who was representing him) and Republicans Matthew Ridenhour and Jaye Rao reported no REBIC donations as of last week. Democrats Patrick Cannon and David Howard and Republicans Edwin Peacock III and Tariq Scott Bokhari all reported receiving a total of $1,000.

Despite the lack of REBIC money, Rankin’s campaign spending reports show campaign contributions from uber-developer John Crosland ($1,000), uber-lobbyist Bailey Patrick Jr. ($100), developer Howard Bissell III (son of Howard “Smokey” Bissell).

Incumbent Democrat Susan Burgess bragged last week at the forum that she had never gotten a REBIC donation, which she attributed to her positions on environmental and other issues. But a close look at her campaign reports shows generous developer money flowing her way. Here’s a sampling (all are developers unless otherwise noted): Clay Grubb $1,000, David Miller $1,000, Stoney Sellars $1,000, construction magnate Luther Cochrane $750, Smokey Bissell $500, real estate lawyer Collin Brown $500, John Crosland $500, Afshin Ghazi $500, David Haggard $500, Fred Klein $500, Al Levine $500, Daniel Levine $500, Todd Mansfield of Crosland $500, Pat Rodgers of Rodgers Builders $500, real estate lawyer Jeff Brown $400, lawyer Bailey Patrick $200, John Collett $250, Jim Dulin $250, David Furman $250, Peter Pappas $250, “unknown” with Childress Klein gave $250, Ned Curran $150.

Update, 3:55 p.m. Tuesday 10/20: Burgess has added a reply in the comments below. Also, be aware other City Council candidates also get developer money. This is NOT a complete list of any candidate’s donors, but just for starters:

– Edwin Peacock III: $1,000 from John Crosland, $450 from Ghazi, and $1,000 each from Al and Daniel Levine.

– Patrick Cannon $1,000 from Crosland, $500 from Clay Grubb, $400 from Stoney Sellars.

– Tariq Bokhari reports $500 from Crosland, and $150 from lawyer Bailey Patrick.

– David Howard: $1,000 from Crosland.

– Andy Dulin (District 6): $500 from Crosland, plus $1,000 each from the Levines.

– Warren Cooksey (District 7): $250 from Crosland, $500 from Joel Randolph (in Sept. 2008).

Read all the donation reports for yourself: Here’s a link. Be aware that the final reports aren’t due until after the election. And it’s sometimes instructive to see who chips in with donations after it’s clear who’ll be in office. Next campaign finance report due Oct. 26. Then nothing more is due until Jan. 29. It’s remarkably handy for keeping the voting public from learning who might have tossed in a big bundle right before election day.

Weirder Charlotte or Starchier Charlotte?

Uh oh. Trouble ahead for Tom Low’s “Keep Charlotte Starched” (admittedly tongue-in-cheek) campaign. My colleague Jeff Elder reports from this weekend’s Charlotte BarCamp 2 that folks in attendance wanted to start a Make Charlotte Weirder movement. (Of course, Little Shiva beat everyone to this, several years ago, with her WeirdCharlotte.com site)

So, what will it be? Weirder Charlotte? Starched Charlotte? Do we burn the khakis or starch them? Wear jeans instead? Starched jeans?

Which city is starchier – Charlotte or Atlanta? Where does RDU fit in this spectrum? Weirder than Charlotte, more starched than Austin? My two-cents: We should try to shoot the moon (card-playing term, folks, not a NASA attempt) and aim for San Francisco-level weirdness. What with Wells and all.

Is landlord “compromise” in jeopardy?

Based on comments at Monday’s City Council meeting and at the Tuesday City Council candidate forum in East Charlotte, I count at least five council members who have indicated they support a landlord registry program as originally proposed by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department: All residential rental property owners would have to register and pay a small fee.

But the Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition lobbied against that proposal, so the City Council committee studying the matter (Democrats Warren Turner and Patsy Kinsey, and Republicans Edwin Peacock and Andy Dulin) ordered a “compromise.” The compromise would register only the worst of the landlords – worst being the ones at the top of the list for criminal activity, etc.

However, council members Turner, James Mitchell, Michael Barnes and Nancy Carter all said they support full registry, not partial. Anthony Foxx did not stake himself out Monday but asked a question in order to elicit the answer that full registration would noticeably reduce the registration fee, as it would be spread over a much larger number of landlords.

Kinsey, who is on the committee that coughed out the compromise, pointed out that the compromise was the only way to get the proposal out of committee, as they were stalemated.
Susan Burgess said at the forum Tuesday she supports full registration.

If Kinsey OR Foxx were to vote for full registration rather than partial, that measure would pass.

But, as Burgess said when I asked her Tuesday about it, 6-5 isn’t a veto-proof vote. Would the mayor veto it? She said she didn’t know.

For those who haven’t checked in on this issue, the police want a way to get problem landlords to the table to talk with police about measures to reduce crime on their properties. Police also want a way to be able to find out who the property owners are. They say it can be difficult to find telephone numbers or responsive people with some out-of-town property owners. Neighborhood activists over the years say the same thing – some property owners really don’t want to be found.

The question is whether it’s worth the hassle of citywide registration to get to the comparatively few landlords causing problems. REBIC and the apartment association don’t think it is. The police originally said it was. (The staff needed for the program would be funded with the fees.) When told to “compromise,” of course, they dutifully complied.

Key fact: The matter comes before the council in November – after the election. So anything can happen.