Author: marynewsom

Seeking “stakeholders”

If you’ve been on a “stakeholder committee” for the city of Charlotte (or Mecklenburg County, for that matter) and would be willing to undergo a short interview about your experience, please e-mail me today at mnewsom@charlotteobserver.com I’m writing my Saturday op-ed column about the stakeholder experience. (An aside, I got plenty of reaction to the uptown retail column of last week, but with no access to e-mail for most of the week I couldn’t do a follow-up column. Maybe next week?)

And yes, our e-mail at the Observer is finally back in full this morning. I noticed that without e-mail I did a lot more walking around our office – is e-mail part of what’s making Americans obese? And I noticed that once it was restored in a sort of circa 1993 version, 85 percent of what was in there was Viagra spam, Pfizer spam, “Russian girls” spam, press releases from GOP congressional PR folk and some over-the-transom op-eds offered by PR firms. Ugh.

High-Speed Rail for NC?

Thursday update:
North Carolina’s receiving $545 million from that pool of $8 billion for high-speed rail projects.
Here’s the story that ran today in the Observer and the News & Observer of Raleigh. Here’s the press release from the N.C. DOT.

The DOT reports that North Carolina got $520 million for improvements to tracks that will allow higher speeds between Raleigh and Charlotte and $25 million for projects to improve service reliability from Raleigh north to Virginia. Virginia received $75 million for improvements to the Richmond to Washington section of the Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor.

A rail “fact sheet” from bytrain.org notes that the strategy in North Carolina is to improve the route incrementally by upgrading existing rights of way. (I.e., instead of wholesale replacement of the line or adding hot new technologies. Don’t hold your breath for bullet trains or a French-style TGV.)

Wednesday night post: Apparently, tomorrow’s the day it’s announced who’s getting the $8 billion set aside for high-speed rail projects. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is to appear and “make a Recovery Act announcement” at the Durham train station at 1:15 p.m, says an EPA press release.

Other news media are reporting in from other states. The Orlando Sentinel says President Obama will be in Tampa, and Florida is likely to get $1.25 billion to $1.4 billion. Crain’s Chicago Business says Midwest and California also getting money. Some 13 rail corridors in 31 states will get money. Which has me thinking, the Charlotte-Richmond line might not be getting so many pennies after all.

Pat Simmons of the N.C. DOT rail division wouldn’t confirm anything, but he said the Charlotte-Richmond corridor asked for $5.4 billion for corridor development. The idea would be to make a lot of fixes along the route to trim travel time. And (this is my wish) maybe add a few more trains?

The N&O’s Bruce Siceloff is on the case. He’ll snoop out details, I’m sure. See his Crosstown Traffic blog.

Big News for Buzzers, Letter-Writers

OK, folks, here’s your big chance. The Observer’s e-mail system is down for a second day. We’re told that whenever it comes back, there’s a chance we’ll lose anything sent since Friday.

To you, that means: OPPORTUNITY! That’s because our stash of letters to the editor and Buzz items for the editorial pages is empty. The competition for getting your letters and Buzz items published will be much, much easier. In other words, the lottery odds got better.

Feel free to tell any and all friends, neighbors, family, co-workers and the folks you meet in the grocery store checkout line.

Remember, letters to the editor should be 150 words or less and include your name, address and daytime phone number – we don’t publish them but we use them for verification. Getting your facts straight is a big plus. So is avoiding libel. We reserve the right to edit for brevity, accuracy and correct English. We put a thumb on the scale for letters that are different from our editorial opinions.

Send them to thecharlotteobserver@yahoo.com. Our trusty Forum editors are standing by.

That pane from on high, or down low?

That glass that fell and broke on the sidewalk yesterday? Les Epperson with the City of Charlotte’s solid waste services saw the blogpost and called late yesterday to say he’d send a crew to clean it up and look into what happened. We had a small chat about the famous building in Boston whose glass windows showered passersby – the John Hancock Tower, designed by I.M. Pei and Henry Cobb. Eventually all its window panes had to be replaced, costing $5 million to $7 million.

Epperson called back today. “The glass had the consistency of automobile glass,” he said. It didn’t have a lot of sharp shards, as a glass window from a building would. He thinks it came from a vehicle. Whew!

And to whoever commented that it was not the brightest thing for me to go stand where the glass fell and look up, I must confide that as I was doing so, I thought, “This is not the brightest thing I could be doing …” But journalists are like cats – we can’t switch off the curiosity.

Glass from on high

So I’m out for a late afternoon walk to clear my head, standing on South Tryon getting ready to cross Stonewall Street over to the Gantt Center, and I hear something that sounds like a small explosion. Across the street, just next to the Juan Logan work out front of the Gantt, shards of glass appear to burst from the pavement. Lots of shards.

The wind is gusting mightily – not quite hurricane force winds but maybe 30 or so mph, I’d guess. With some anxiety, I cross the street and look up, and then down at the broken glass, and all around. There are a lot of very small pieces of glass, more than you’d get with a drink bottle. It’s gray, not the color of beer or liquor bottles. I don’t see any obvious gaping holes in the glass facade of the Duke Energy building, but spot some plywood way, way up high. Could the glass have fallen from that high? Seems unlikely. But where else would it have come from?

A woman who is crossing the street toward me, who had been walking up from the other direction, says she couldn’t see where the glass came from either. Like me, she first thought it had come from the artwork in front of the Gantt Center.

I go up to Dean & Deluca, get some decaf – who needs caffeine after that experience? – and walk back to the office, avoiding either side of the block of Tryon in front of the Duke Energy building. The shards are still there. Wherever the glass came from, I think no one realizes it fell, or someone would be out sweeping away the evidence.

Finding that streetcar money

Just finished an interview with Charlotte budget director Ruffin Hall (NOT Ruffin Poole, just in case you’re confused by the Ruffins), to find where in the budget this $12 million was hiding. What $12 million? See yesterday’s post. Or read on.

Of course, it isn’t really hiding. The city staff is pointing to a variety of city funds (listed in the city budget) that still have money in them, funds set aside for just this sort of thing: a project that arises unexpectedly for which elected officials would like to find money.

In this instance, the city is considering whether to set aside $12 million, which it would spend if it gets a $25 million federal grant. The $37 million total would build a 1.5-mile first segment of a proposed 10-mile streetcar line. The City Council is to vote Monday on whether to apply for that grant (plus another one that would add hybrid electric buses). If the city can’t find/isn’t willing to spend the $12 million there’s no point in applying for the grant. Here’s a quick rundown of the $12 million:

First, it is capital expense money. That’s a separate, $803 million budget apart from the overall $1 billion operating budget that pays for things such as police officers and garbage collection. (You may or may not like the idea of spending the $12 million but it isn’t money that could be used to hire more police.) Remember, too, the airport and the water/sewer departments, while counted in the budget, are self-sustaining “enterprise funds.” (Also here’s the perennial reminder: The city doesn’t pay for schools, parks and recreation, welfare, mental health facilities or a variety of other needs paid by the county or state.)

– $2.5 million in streetcar planning funds. Last summer, in a controversial vote, the City Council allocated $8 million for streetcar planning and engineering. The contract came in for less, and $2.5 million is available. You can find it on page 166 of the city budget. Here’s a link. This comes from a pot of money called PAYGO (pay as you go). This budget year the city put roughly $96 million into this fund, which is spent for things like transit maintenance, street improvements, roof replacements, etc.

– $10.5 million in reserve for economic development initiatives. This isn’t PAYGO money. It’s money set aside to repay debt the city might choose to take on. The council’s transportation committee members Thursday said they’d use $5.5 million of this fund. Look on page 163 of the budget.

– $ 7 million in business corridor revitalization funds. These, too are PAYGO funds, as yet unspent. The committee didn’t want to do this.

– $4 million in Smart Growth fund. That brings us to a multimillion “Smart Growth” fund, which the committee recommends using as part of the needed $12 million. Many folks wonder: The city just has $4 million sitting around that we didn’t know about? I asked Hall. It turns out the money isn’t just sitting around in some secret account. It’s been used to help with transit-oriented development along South Boulevard.

Hall said it’s a revolving fund (i.e., the city replenishes it with money the fund itself generates) that the council hasn’t put money into for years. Because it doesn’t get money allocated to it, it’s not a line item on the budget. It would be on the city’s financial statement, he said. Here’s a link to that. I ran out of time to do more than a search for “Smart Growth” which turned up nothing. (Other writing deadlines loom larger and larger as I type this.)

Hall said the Smart Growth fund was used, for instance, when the city spent money for its proposed Scaleybark transit oriented development project. When the city sold the land to a developer (the project is stuck in the recession and is delayed), the money went back into this fund. I have a call in to Economic Development director Tom Flynn, in whose department Hall said, the fund sits. Hall didn’t know whether taking $4 million would drain the fund.
Update: Flynn just called. He says that when Scaleybark Partners, the developer, repays the city in February the Smart Growth fund will have $4 million in it. It was set up as a revolving fund 9 or 10 years ago, he said, to be used for projects of that sort.

Bottom line: Money is fungible. A smart city manager will always keep things flexible enough so he or she can find funds for projects the elected officials want – or for things that arise unexpectedly midyear. I want managers who can do that. At the same time, I think the public (and elected officials) are owed more transparency about how much money is sitting, awaiting expenditure. It’s smart to have some reserve money. It’s also smart, if you’re a council member, to know just what your reserve money is and where it lives in your budget.

Streetcar seems to have momentum

Judging by the votes at a City Council transportation committee meeting this afternoon, the council is likely to vote Monday to apply for a couple of federal grants for transit. One would be for a $15 million project to add more buses on Central Avenue, Beatties Ford Road and out to the airport, essentially doubling the frequency to every 10 minutes. As Patsy Kinsey said – matching what an Observer editorial on Tuesday said – that decision is a “no-brainer.”

The other grant is trickier. It would be for $25 million to build a 1.5-mile section of the city’s proposed streetcar project. This part would go from Presbyterian Hospital down Elizabeth Avenue (where tracks are already laid) and East Trade Street to the Transportation Center. (If you’re not from around here you may not realize Elizabeth and Trade are the same street, with a name change).

The committee voted 3-2 to recommend the city go for the grant. Voting for: committee chairman David Howard, at-large rep Susan Burgess, District 1 rep Kinsey. Voting against: District 7 rep Warren Cooksey, District 4 rep Michael Barnes (who is running for district attorney in November).

Total project cost would be $37 million if the city decided not to buy new streetcars but to use three “replica” (that is, faux historic) trolley cars it owns. How to make up the $12 million difference from the $25M grant? City staff proposed that the council, if it wanted, could use $2.5 million still unspent from a streetcar planning budget line item, $4 million remaining in a “Smart Growth” fund that City Manager Curt Walton said was set up about 10 years ago but never completely spent, and it could take $5.5 million from $10.5 million that remains, unspent, in a reserve fund for economic development. The staff had also pointed to the option to reallocate $7 million from its business corridor revitalization program, but the council members at the committee meeting didn’t like that idea.

Barnes’ objection: Using the economic development money might mean less money available in the future for improvements to the North Tryon Street light rail corridor. Cooksey (who in 2009 voted against spending any city money for the streetcar project) said he worried that it would not be taken well by the city’s partner communities in the Metropolitan Transit Commission. Especially the North Mecklenburg towns still waiting, somewhat patiently, for money to be found to build their commuter rail line. He also said you could do just as much for transportation if you used the “found” money to build sidewalks and bike lanes.

I have to say, it always amazes me how city managers can find little pockets of millions of dollars just when their council member bosses need them. $4 million for “Smart Growth”? Who knew?

Counting likely votes Monday, I’d say the streetcar wins, 7-4. Mayor Anthony Foxx, remember, doesn’t vote on those sorts of things.

Sen. Nesbitt, welcome to Charlotte

Sen. Martin Nesbitt, D-Buncombe, the N.C. Senate’s new majority leader, visited fair Charlotte on Wednesday to meet and greet and, it would seem, reassure the business community that he will be just as business-friendly as his predecessor, Sen. Tony Rand of Fayetteville.

Accompanied by Sen. Malcolm Graham, D-Mecklenburg, Nesbitt stopped by the Observer’s editorial board – for which we are grateful – and as we chatted, before Graham arrived, he talked a bit about the need for better public transit, especially rail. Seems he had gotten caught in a lengthy traffic jam driving I-95 past Washington. “It was a hundred-mile traffic jam, from Baltimore to Richmond,” he said. “We’ve got to find another way.”

But then, he started talking about rail transit and how it hasn’t been successful. Mentioned Charlotte’s new (as of 2007) light rail line and asked how it had worked out. We told him it had beat all its ridership projections and was in most parts deemed a success. “Oh,” he said.

I think Charlotte Area Transit System (aka CATS) leaders might want to buy the man a lunch or three and take him for a spin on the Lynx some rush hour afternoon …

My colleague Jack Betts, who among his many valuable contributions writes the This Old State blog, recalled:

Back in the 1990s when legislators could still accept such trips, the Charlotte Chamber brought legislators to Charlotte for a Hornets basketball game and a tour around town. I wound up strolling around the Blumenthal with Nesbitt and another House appropriations chair, David Diamont of Surry County. It was obvious neither of them got to Charlotte much, and they seemed to be awestruck with all the new buildings, the cultural amenities – including some built with state assistance – and the can-do atmosphere that marked a city clearly on the rise. They were struck by how many things Charlotte had and aspired to, compared with the rest of the state.

The things they saw in Charlotte were not new things that no one from elsewhere wouldn’t have known about, and it struck me that Charlotte was not a part of the state that these legislators visited often.

Nesbitt’s remarks about transit Wednesday seemed to show that he had not spent much time in the Queen City since then, either. It’s not that he doesn’t get around. With a district in Buncombe, a law practice and a stock car racing team he helps his son with, and a legislative concentration on what went wrong with the state’s badly botched mental health reforms, he has stayed busy – and as Senate majority leader he’ll be busier yet.

Betts concluded: “If I were the Charlotte transit folks, I’d have a representative sitting in his office tomorrow morning at 8 a.m.”

No ‘Age of Aquarius’ at planning department

Best line in the agenda for tonight’s City Council zoning meeting, which is a rezoning meeting and the agenda is put together by the city’s planning department. Under item No. 6, regarding zoning petition 2oo9-067:
“The Zoning Committee voted 4-1 to recommend DENIAL of this petition. The following outstanding issues have been addressed: (and then a long list of things such as setbacks, parking counts and buffers)
“14. Astrological Services has been deleted as a permitted use”

Update: I asked Tammie Keplinger of the planning department. Her reply:
“The Zoning Administrator has indicated that astrological services are office uses. It doesn’t need to be specifically listed on the site plan because it would be an allowed use in the O-1(CD) district.”

No word yet about fortune tellers or palm readers, but one could assume they, too, are office uses.

I’ll be at the meeting, “Tweeting” at @marynewsom. Here’s link to the agenda.

EPA video spotlights Charlotte, Dilworth

New video posted on the EPA’s Web site lauds the city’s Urban Street Design Guidelines and the East Boulevard Road Diet, which illustrates the city’s transportation design goals. Check it out. Mayor Anthony Foxx, ex-Mayor Pat McCrory, council member Susan Burgess, ex-council member and current city department head Patrick Mumford and others talk about how great the Urban Street Design Guidelines are.

It stems from the city’s National Award for Smart Growth Achievement, announced in December, in the “Policies and Regulations” category for the USDG.

Yet the developers’ lobby, the local Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition, as well as influential, long-time real estate magnate John Crosland Jr., are still urging the city to dial back – or un-adopt, or never actually codify into ordinances, or otherwise eviscerate – those same USDG. They don’t like the requirements for modestly shorter blocks, or the width of the planting strips (wide enough so street trees will survive) or the general policy to build more streets and sidewalks in new developments. It’ll add cost, they say. And yep, it will.

But what’s the cost of congestion? What’s the cost of not being able to ride a bicycle or walk anywhere? What’s the cost of street trees that die? What’s the cost of having to retrofit streets and build sidewalks into already built neighborhoods – at taxpayer expense. The costs exist. It’s just a question of where you inject them into the growth process: at the start, or later on and spread among a wider group of payers, i.e. us taxpayers.