Category: Charlotte City Council

Mayor Pat on his last council meeting tonight

Tonight will be Pat McCrory’s last real City Council meeting as mayor. Sure, he’ll be there Dec. 7 for the new council swearing-in, but that’s different. He’s been Charlotte mayor longer than anyone – 14 years – and leaves a huge legacy, especially with the city’s transportation and light rail system.

I caught up with him this morning to ask what he was thinking and feeling. Any big to-do planned?

No, he said. “I’m not big on goodbyes. I get too sentimental.”

I asked, What are your thoughts? “A combination of sadness with being very proud. … I’m a very sentimental guy so I don’t like the last of anything.” But, he said, “It’s time to move on.”

He talked a lot about a meeting last week in Greenville, S.C., with a coalition of mayors and academics and business people trying to raise awareness of the existence of an urban mega-region from Atlanta through Raleigh. He and retiring Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin are pushing the effort. The group hashed out a mission statement (“It was like making sausage.”) They’ll probably form a 501(c)3 nonprofit group.

And he raved about downtown Greenville, which has reclaimed the historic Reedy River Falls and built a public garden alongside it with a pedestrian suspension bridge over the river. “Just gorgeous!” McCrory said. “They let people swim in the river and play in the falls!” He told Greenville Mayor Knox White he was envious. But McCrory being McCrory, he added “He’s envious of our light rail.”

McCrory said he met with Mayor-elect Anthony Foxx last week and gave him advice about time-management, ethics, how best to spend his time with national groups, etc.

He intends to stay busy with initiatives such as the Mega-region initiative and with speeches all over the country about Charlotte’s light rail line and the accompanying transit-oriented land use planning. He calls his presentation, “From Mayberry to Metropolis: Creating the Best of Both.,” and says, “We’re seen as a role model for how it’s done.”

He talked – again – about his dislike for the way the federal stimulus money is being spent, and his belief that the council’s vote to pursue a planning and design study for a streetcar was misguided.

And you won’t be surprised to hear that he figures he’ll still be putting in a word here, a word there.

Keep an eye on McCrory. I expect he won’t fade quietly into private life.

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.

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.

Growing church vs. historic bungalows

It was easily the most interesting of the rezoning cases the City Council heard last night – and the one that brings up the trickiest issue of the evening: What rules, if any, should the city have to limit institutions that encroach into neighborhoods? And how do you deal with big ugly surface parking lots? They’re not pedestrian-friendly, nor do they contribute to the much-loved-by-planners “vibrant urban village.” They’re also polluters, due to polluted storm runoff.

A church in the Wilmore neighborhood wants to expand and build a large new building and a big surface parking lot on a street now holding several historic bungalows. (By “historic,” here, I don’t mean designated landmarks or in a designated historic district, simply a neighborhood that dates to the turn of the 19th-20th century and has an ambiance akin to Dilworth, Elizabeth and Wesley Heights.) The church has said it won’t demolish the five houses but will move them to other property it owns.

The matter was a public hearing on zoning case 2008-158. The council vote should come next month.

Several things made this an interesting presentation. First, the council chamber was virtually filled with members of the church, Greater Galilee Baptist Church, whose current sanctuary (shown above, photo courtesy of the church) is on South Mint Street at West Park Avenue.

Second, one speaker in favor of rezoning had a great line: “We, as people, are in noncompliance. With Jesus.”

Yet opponents had some good points: Why should a church be allowed to remove five houses and put up a surface parking lot? As neighbor Chip Cannon put it, this would be putting “a suburban mega-church in the center of a small-scale pedestrian neighborhood.”

Some political realities are in order. This church is African American. Two at-large council members are running for mayor and both want African American votes (though black candidate Anthony Foxx has an edge there). Among nine at-large candidates (for four slots), three of the four Democrats are African American. Two at-large incumbents – Democrat Susan Burgess and Republican Edwin Peacock – will have to vote on this petition. Burgess, in particular, will want as many Democratic votes as she can get in November. If she faces black voters’ triple-shotting for the three black at-large candidates, she’ll have a problem.

Another political reality: No one wants to vote against a church, especially an obviously growing church. Maybe they’d do that in some other city in some other state, but in oh-so-Christian Charlotte? Not on your (eternal) life.

Yet another political reality: How fair would it be to crack down on an African American church when Carolinas Medical Center has been allowed to devour vast tracts of Dilworth with, near as I can tell, hardly a peep of protest from the city? And the affluent and predominantly white Myers Park United Methodist plopped a surface parking lot (nicely landscaped, though) at the prime corner of Providence-Providence-Queens-Queens. No one told them, “No.” (Note to out-of-town readers: That intersection is for real. Don’t even ask.)

Final political reality: I chanced to be sitting near Planning Director Debra Campbell and asked if there were any zoning standards that said you can’t put in a parking lot, and she said, only in the UMUD (uptown) zoning. I asked if planners had considered cracking down on surface parking lots in other zoning categories. She just laughed – heartily, I must add – and said, “No way.”

City weapon against big box blight advances

A Charlotte City Council committee today unanimously approved a proposed new code for nonresidential (i.e. commercial) buildings. This isn’t a building code – those already exist. It’s akin to a housing code, only it applies to buildings that aren’t housing. I’ll add a link soon as the city PR folks send me a pdf version. The draft ordinance isn’t posted online.

It’ll likely be up for final action on Sept. 28.

The issue is important for neighborhoods where retailers have left buildings behind and the buildings sit, empty, for months. (Take a look at the photo above, of the old Albemarle Road Upton’s, built in 1978, photo taken in May.) Sometimes the vacancy occurs because a retail chain goes belly up; other times the company opens a new store, typically on a suburban greenfield site, and leaves the older building. Those vacant and decaying stores have the effect of signalling to other retailers: “Don’t move here, retail doom awaits!” And the aura of decay can send a clear signal to other potential investors, too, of an area in decline.

The new code has been in the works since February 2008, when the council told staff to study and develop one. The council’s Housing and neighborhood Development Committee has reviewed it three times: April, May and July, and a public hearing was Aug. 24.

To their credit, the city planners have begun pushing developers of new big box stores to agree to language in the rezoning agreement that puts some requirements on the retailer if the store goes vacant: keep up the building, help market it to new tenants, don’t put a noncompete clause on the property. But that doesn’t give the city any leverage against abandoned commercial properties built without any such requirements.

The city currently requires vacant nonresidential properties to be secure. The new code would extend to occupied buildings, and would require properties to be sanitary and safe, too. It would require property owners to maintain exterior walls, roofs, windows, etc. Broken windows and doors, holes in roofs and walls, garbage on the site and rodent or insect infestations would be potential violations. Near as I can tell, there’s very little opposition to it from anywhere, so it should pass easily in a few weeks.

(And an aside, to forestall the inevitable suggestions that abandoned big box stores should be turned into public schools: School architects have studied that suggestion and concluded that state building requirements for schools make renovation of old big box stores more expensive than building from scratch. A charter school on North Tryon went into an abandoned K mart, but charter schools don’t have to follow the same building rules as regular public schools. )

What’s wrong with Wright Avenue?

One more thing, before I head away for a week’s furlough. (Look for Naked City to resume on Aug. 10):

City Council member Susan Burgess had a good quip at Monday’s council transportation committee meeting. They were discussing Wright Avenue, a street where the houses were built and sold with Wright Avenue addresses (see photo above), but that block of Wright Avenue was never built before the developer defaulted. (See “The mysterious case of Charlotte’s missing street.”)
The city is trying to decide what it should do. Among the issues are public safety (can police and firefighters find houses with Wright Avenue addresses when there is no Wright Avenue in front of them?), cost, design of said street, who foots the bill and what kind of precedent to set for any future developers who similarly strand homeowners.
Among the options:

1. Build a street on the taxpayers’ dime.

1.A. Build a street and follow the city’s own connectivity rules and connect the new street to the rest of Wright Avenue. That will cost more, because it involves crossing a creek. This is the option the homeowners prefer, although it will destroy the trees and shrubs separating their property from the adjacent Charlotte Swim & Racquet Club surface parking lot.

1B. Build a street but make like a developer and jettison connectivity in order to save money, and thus build a cul-de-sac instead of crossing the creek. Again, the green buffer vanishes.

2. Enlarge the alley behind the homes to allow emergency vehicles access.

3. Build a sidewalk in front of the houses so the residents can walk to the corner of Lomax Avenue and leave the area in front of them green, like a small park. This is the option the swim club prefers.

No decisions were made. But council member Nancy Carter suggested an inexpensive step to help with the problem of police not being able to find the part of Wright Avenue that doesn’t exist, or if it gets built, that doesn’t connect to the rest of Wright Avenue: Consider renaming that part of the street.

Upon which, council member Susan Burgess muttered, “What about ‘Wrong Avenue’?”

Homes built, but no street: Did city goof?

What do you do when the developer who built your house goes out of business before he builds the street your house is supposed to sit on?

A group of homeowners caught in this mess wants the city to help them get their street built. (It probably doesn’t hurt their ability to get the city’s attention that they’ve hired former Mayor Richard Vinroot to be their attorney.)

Deputy City Manager Ron Kimble gave City Council a briefing Monday night. Some of the homeowners were in the audience. The street was to be an extension of Wright Avenue, which now dead-ends at a creek. The houses are near the Lomax Avenue entrance to the Charlotte Swim & Racquet Club off Sharon-Amity Road. Seven houses are built and have been sold. They have an alley in back, and they can roll their garbage bins to Lomax Avenue. The folks living there say their addresses are on Wright Avenue (the phonebook confirms this), and that GPS shows the street having been built. That tends to confuse the police and FedEx. They worry about whether emergency services could find them quickly in the event of a fire, crime or health problem.

But because the subdivision was laid out before the city’s subdivision ordinance was adopted, Kimble said, it didn’t fall under the ordinance’s rules, and the builder, Mick El-Massri, didn’t have to put up a street bond – to ensure the street got built. Now, the developer has defaulted and may be facing bankruptcy, Kimble said. (Locust Lumber Co. now owns some of the unsold property, but a court records search finds dozens of civil suits but no bankruptcy filing for the developer.) The houses are built – and there’s no street.

A second clump of houses by the same developer, Mick El-Massri, sits on another section of unbuilt Wright Avenue off the dead end of Delane. Lisa Hunter, who’s lived in one of the streetless houses for almost three years, said the developer had told her he was going to use the money from selling two of those empty houses to finally build their street. But the city wouldn’t issue a certificate of occupancy – because there was no street built.

I went for a look after the council meeting. The situation is, truly, a mess. Multiple property owners are affected. The city’s street policies call for Wright Avenue to connect over the creek, which will drive up the cost of building it. But the homeowners prefer that to a dead end, they say.

“It was in our contract that the road would be built within a year,” Stacey Searson said. She and her husband Tom have been there about 2 1/2 years. “We thought we were legally protected.”

City officials said they’ll look into the quickest way to get the street built, and into preventing this situation from happening again. Indeed. Here’s the scary part: Kimble said there are little infill lots all over the city that might fall into this same Catch 22.

This meeting is adjourned

You be the judge. Was Mayor Pat McCrory unnecessarily curt, or avoiding a politically sticky situation or just being time-efficient after a long meeting Monday night, when a delegation from the gay/lesbian alliance appeared before Charlotte City Council?

Here’s the background: The council’s 5 p.m. dinner meeting was to be followed by a Citizens Forum, a regular event where the council hears from the public but doesn’t take action or engage in much discussion, though upon occasion a council member will ask questions or make comments. Only one speaker had signed up, a man from Durham.

He turned out to be Joshua Lee Weaver, accompanied by a dozen or so local folks from Charlotte’s gay and lesbian community. He sought the council’s approval of “A Resolution in Support of Civil Marriage for Same-Sex Couples.” (He must have had Charlotte confused with Chapel Hill or something.) With his allotted 4 minutes at the microphone, he asked for their support and read the resolution.

When Weaver finished, Mayor McCrory said quickly: “Thank you very much. This meeting is adjourned.” And council members began packing up. Weaver said something like, “Well, I was hoping for some feedback.” McCrory said he appreciated him being here, but didn’t comment on the substance of the proposal.

Afterward, Weaver said two municipalities had passed the resolution already – Chapel Hill and Carrboro – and Durham was considering it. He said other cities would be asked to pass it but wasn’t sure which he’d approach next.

Observer reporter Julia Oliver asked McCrory after the meeting if he’d put the resolution on the agenda and McCrory said he wouldn’t.

To be fair, McCrory and several council members afterward did go speak to Weaver afterward, and to some in the group accompanying him. I noticed Susan Burgess and Anthony Foxx, and there may have been others. Council member Andy Dulin sent a letter to the Observer today saying he doesn’t support civil unions – “One man, one woman is what I believe” – and noting that none of the seven Democrats at the table said a word to Weaver. He’s right. Of course, the mayor closed the meeting before anyone had time to say a peep.

Mid-Century Modern: Charlotte’s bulldozer bait?

If you think Mid-Century Modern is outdated and ugly, and ought to be torn down, you’re probably over 45.

The nonprofit group Historic Charlotte has put together a Mid-Century Modern home tour this weekend, (here’s a link where you can see a list, a map and buy tickets) featuring 17 homes built from the 1950s to 1970s, to try to show everyone why a lot of younger people are interested in preserving and living in houses from that era. It’s part of a whole month of celebrating Mid-Century Modern.

The houses range from modest to impressive, and with local architects Murray Whisnant and the late Jack Orr Boyte among those represented.

It’s an architectural style and era not beloved around here – until recently. Diane Althouse, executive director of Historic Charlotte, told Tuesday night’s Civic By Design forum that buildings from the era are in greater risk of demolition than others in Charlotte. And of course, we know virtually everything here that doesn’t have preservation in its deed restrictions is at risk of demolition.

Here’s a measure of how unpopular this modern architecture is. Last fall, in an unprecedented move, the City Council in a 6-4 vote, rejected a move to name a 1957, Jack Boyte-designed house in the Cloisters neighborhood a local landmark. The owners wanted the designation; the city-county historic landmarks commission wanted the designation, the state preservation office had concluded the house was eligible. Usually the council doesn’t have a problem, if the preservation experts say something’s worth designating, and the owners concur. But council members just said they didn’t think the house was very attractive.

If you’re old enough to think Mid-Century Modern is ugly, you’re probably old enough to remember when Victorian-style buildings were being demolished because they were “too ugly” and far too many treasures were lost.

I confess to some ambivalence about Modernism. As generally carried out, it’s too bleak and stark. One modernist building amid older, ornate buildings is sleek and elegant. A whole city (or even whole city block) of nothing but square angles, bare concrete and cold glass would be depressing. But the point of preservation isn’t only to preserve buildings we think are pretty. It’s to ensure that eras aren’t obliterated.

And it’s worth pointing out that buildings from this era are coming to be treasured and sought-after. I know of several people who are specifically looking to buy homes from that era.

Helicopter guy rebuffed on rezoning

Quick update on the council action, regarding the proposed solar-energy building on Park Road, whose developer would be the fellow in the much-loved “rogue helicopter” video.

The council members set a new land speed record in turning it down 12-0. Because there was a protest petition in force by adjoining property owners, even the mayor got to help vote it down.

See the post below, or click here, for more information and the video.