Very brief update: CH land transfers
Typing w/one hand, so this won't have much detail. Patrick Baker recommended to the council that they bring the matter to rescind the transfers before the 8/20 city council meeting, and that the city should "reconsider" their previous decision. Work session was packed. Woodard, Stith, and Brown - and perhaps Clement - Seemed to express agreement with Baker's recommendation to rescind and but property back out to bid to the general public. Catotti supported the transfers as is, and felt all city surplus property should go to non-profits. She also berated the neighborhood residents for their "tone" - referring to an email document sent by the neighborhood to county and city that called into question the qualifications of Dominion Ministries. McFadden advised the neighborhood that they needed to get on board the City's 10 yr plan to end homelessness. Bell was inscrutable*.
It was a frustrating session in many ways. Several council members did not seem to appreciate the immense efforts on the part of a neighborhood group that did not exist until ~ a month ago to pull together and fight for their ability to preserve and improve their neighborhood. This isn't some well-organized/funded nbhd. assoc. from an affluent part of town. These residents have been going door-to-door in the heat of the past few days to inform neighbors and collect signatures on a petition.
Kudos to Mike Woodard for his detailed research into the issues, and his strong suggestion that a neighborhood plan needed to happen in C-H.
*As was pointed out by Mike Woodard, Mayor Bell said he supported the Manager's rec. I missed his comment, and regret the error.
Posts
10 comments:
I was present at the city council meeting yesterday. I am surprised (I think), that Dominion's presentation was not mentioned at all in your summary. What about the fact that they indeed came to your neighborhood meeting? What about the supportive comments they received from the County? What about the award they won for exemplary practices?, What about the clarification given re: the demographic of the Level IV residents? What about the fact that this nonprofit has purchased a parcel of land right next to the one in question...so the Level IV will be built in the neighborhood anyway? The $1 parcel would have allowed for a different type of building. I have never blogged before, nor been involved in this process. My hope was...foolish. I thought it would be fair and honest. I urge us all to learn the facts and those that have learned them...share them.
"Anonymous"
I didn't mention anyone's presentation, neighborhood, Dominion, or HFNH, because I am typing with one hand. I will try yo respond.
1) It was not "my" neighborhood meeting. I don't live in or represent Cleveland-Holloway. I do support any neighborhood that seeks to build community, particularly when that is threatened by outsiders. Dominion was at the neighborhood meeting, after this became public. They (you?) had owned the property you allude to since 12/06 and never approached neighbors.
2) The director (or was it AD?) of the Durham Center voiced his support for DM and the facility. In response to a ? from the council, he noted that the board hadn't seen or approved his statement (disclosure which he should have provided up front.)
3) An award was evidently given to DM by the Durham Center. Not sure what this has to do with overconcentration of facilities in Cleveland Holloway or fair treatment of CH residents, which have always been my central points. I frankly have no idea what kind of care DM provides - it is irrelevant to my point.
4) The demographics of the Level 4 center was obfuscation, not clarification. DM made vague statements about a "higher level of care". They at no point mentioned that the youth treated in the facility are locked in because of previous violent behavior and sexual offense.
5) I have previously made clear that DM owns a parcel of land next to the crisis center for victims of sexual offenses and domestic violence. I believe the neighborhood would be quite happy if DM rethought their plans to build on that land, particularly given what they now understand about the neighborhood.
6) Don't understand the 1$ comment. The parcel should have been sold at market rate.
If you expected blogs to be fair, you haven't been on the internet much. And you must not pay much attention to the media, in general. Everyone always feels that they are presented unfairly. As case in point, I just read the article about the meeting in the H-S today, which also made little mention of the presentation. Media, including blogs, always present what they feel is the most relevant info - which in this case is the council's reaction.
As for honest, I don't think you've pointed out anything dishonest or un truthful that I wrote.
GK
I wouldn't characterize Mayor Bell's comments as inscrutable. His last comment was that he supported the Manager's recommendation.
Mike Woodard
Mike
I missed this comment, which I also read in the paper. I will correct. Thanks.
Anon.
And just who might you be? It takes a great deal of chutzpah to post an anoymous comment on this blog questioning Gary's honesty when he scrupulously corrects any errors of fact that are brought to his attention and he allows anyone, even possibly self-interested people like yourself, to post anonymous attacks. If you don't have the courage to put your name on your poison pen, please go elsewhere.
I also do not live in Cleveland-Holloway St. neigborhood, but as an historian I have some interest in historic preservation. I have no financial interest whatsoever in the outcome of this controversy. Can you say the same? Well, we don't know.
I was also present at the City Council meeting and I have some questions about Dominion Ministeries' presentation which you haven't addressed. Evidently an email was sent to Council members questioning Dominion Ministeries finances and professional practices. I haven't read the email, but I was disturbed by Dominion Ministeries' spokeperson's statement that she would not discuss these allegation in public or for the newspapers. Excuse me? This is a public matter. And before the Council gives away land worth possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars to a private organization, everything about that organization needs to be transparent not merely to the Council but to the taxpayers who are financing this. If Dominion Ministeries does not want to disclose their business dealings, then they should find someone else to give them land. As I was leaving last night, a City Councilperson said to me that the Council should look at Dominion Ministeries' tax return. I would encourage the entire City Council and the City Manager to do exactly that. And all of that information should be made public. I assume that Dominion Ministeries has nothing to hide.
Mike
I was very impressed with the statements that you and Eugene Brown made last night, as well as the City Manager's willingness to attempt to treat the Cleveland-Holloway St neighborhood fairly. I particularly like your idea for a neighborhood plan. However, I am worried about the 30 day period for new bids. Is that really enough time to make sure that these parcels are going to be used in the best possible way? Why not make these parcels the centerpiece of a new plan for the neighborhood? I know that the delay would upset some, but those parcels have been vacant for close to forty years. Another year won't hurt, and it might help tremendously. It would also allow time for private developers, the neighborhood, and HFNH to arrive at an agreement that might satisfy everyone.
Gary,
I think it is also worth mentioning that Thomas Stith clearly signaled his opposition to this transfer as well. He often asks questions that other people don't want to hear, but that's how you try to avoid messes like this in the first place.
I was disturbed by the "tone" of Diane Cattoti's comments. If she doesn't understand how emotional and upsetting this issue has to be to people who have poured most of their financial assets as well as their hard labor into these houses, then she's the Marie Antoinette of the City Council. Of course they're mad as hell. Let them eat cake?
And before someone loftily informs me that Marie Antoinette never said that, I know, I know. It's still a hell of a line.
Thanks John. I did mention Stith was one of the council members opposed to the transfers/supported the rec of the city manager. I'll go ahead and mention Scott Harmon as well, who rightly pointed out the inanity of the methods employed here. The city doesn't recognize that the development landscape has changed here - there are opportunities for the private sector to provide affordable housing - even as part of the deals that the city strikes with those developers. Let's not pretend that the non-profits are inherently more noble.
I'd also point out that there is a lot of conflation between affordable housing and specialized facilities here. There is an abundance of affordable housing in C-H. What is being proposed here are specialized programs/facilities - one which would provide apartments for homeless people with varied disabilities, with on-site staff - another which is a locked treatment facility for youth with severe behavioral and emotional problems - including violent behavior or sexual offenses that present a threat to their families or the community. These are far different things than affordable housing. I don't see the relationship between the latter and the city's affordable housing or homelessness goals
This might be a little off-topic (about the land transfers) but looking at the CH website, the neighborhood reminds a lot of the Burch Avenue neighborhood. Mostly, it's the mixed SES and (from the look of the site) some form of community closeness. I wish we had a website.
-Allen
I observed quite a bit at the meeting and saw merit in both the non-profit's and community's commentary that day. However, I must side with the community for several reasons. Among them, the fact that these community members chose to live in a neighborhood that could be perceived as a risky endeavor by many, but done so with the intention of improving a blighted neighborhood. Actually, I was putting in an offer on a home there until the slumlord I was dealing with started changing the rules of the transaction, as sort of expected. But I digress.
Nonetheless, the community should have been notified. Should have been consulted. And DM's indication that they spent money on due diligence due to the legal term 'reliance' is bull hockey to me. It wasn't as if they were in escrow and a deal was signed. I'm sure they knew they were in for a great bargain and by advertising that, it would not only promote the same reaction as was delivered the other day, but it would increase competition in the buying process as, undoubtedly, a developer would have, too, been interested (surely, the list of interest submitted to the city exists, my name may have been included on the list since it was on other lists too -- though the city only contacted me on two properties).
Another addition to my comments, and certainly I could go and on, was Diane Cattoti's lack of empathy for the community members. She is certainly on a crusade indicating that even if the property were sold at market rate, then the money should go directly to non-profit ventures. That was made clear by her own statement. Doesn't she realize that the city is in the middle of a financial crisis? Or is she content on simply taxing the good people of Durham who had enough faith in Durham to invest and promote it? Me, I would never vote her into any public office in this city with as much disregard as she showed for the community that is directly affected by this issue (of course, we are all, too affected in one way or another and we must all support the Cleveland-Holloway community). Not making accusations, but her complete disregard for the community in favor both distinctly and biasedly of the non-profits would give someone the "impression", mind you, that some one has her in their back pocket. Not saying that this is the case. (btw, non-profit doesn't necessarily mean that those running the non-profit aren't making any big bucks -- again, not being accusatory, but truly, all non-profits must make money somewhere and aren't necessarily in it to "lose" money). That latter part in parenthesis was also a digression, I'm sure.
Catotti really did upset me the most! My first introduction to her, really. Not a good start, imho. She too failed to inform the public. She believes that having this Level 5 present in the neighborhood "might" help raise property values (though I wonder how it would affect prop values in Trinity Park, Hope Valley, etc). And she mentioned that providing this property to the non-profit for a dollar was "not about making money for the city." Hmmm. I guess that's what taxes are for.
"It was a frustrating session in many ways. Several council members did not seem to appreciate the immense efforts on the part of a neighborhood group that did not exist until ~ a month ago to pull together and fight for their ability to preserve and improve their neighborhood." GOD bless council member Howard Clement for speaking out his appreciation for this. He offered it up, and that was appreciated. But, if I remember correctly, Cattoti may have blurped out that she did too as if to say to herself, "Whoops, I'd better say something kind to the community members too!"
My last rant is the suggestion for a new 30 bidding process, appraising the property and putting it up for bid again with a minimum bid. Did anyone notice when Mayor Bell jumped in to say that "We" (City of Durham) could price it at any price we like? Of course, this can be taken a couple of different ways, but for the conspiracy theorists, I say watch out! And question what happens should the minimum bid NOT be met? Does it become an all or nothing sort of scenario? If the minimum bid is, say, market value, and that market value is too high for a neighborhood developer to see a realistic return on investment, does it mean that the city takes a huge loss, then, by selling it for a dollar to the non-profit? I would encourage any private appraiser to chime in on it's value, but remember, the city could price it any way they like. And they could intentionally price others out so that it's inevitable that the land will be sold for a buck.
Mind you, I'm not against non-profits. As long as they are effective in helping out more than just a few people. And they have every right to bid on the land too during the 30 day process. They could win. But, of course, they did seem to indicate, at lease allude, to the idea that there could be legal action since they did bring up the "reliance" bit and and that they were the promised buyer of the property and that a lot effort on their part has already taken place. Of course, what they failed to realize was that if they (and the city) had put some effort in notifying the neighbors of their intention to buy (and sell) the land to DM, then they could have dealt with the public objection before they sank any money or effort into such reliance. Or, maybe, just maybe, they were hoping it would just slip by. Hmmm.
BTW, does anyone have a copy of that letter that DM wanted to discuss with council in closed session??? Gary, what are the legal aspects of republishing this letter? Council member Clement indicated that since it was sent to a public official, that it should be on record (at least, that's what I got from his comment on the issue). If so, would it be public domain?
cdlcottlac
I agree with all of your comments - I think 30 days would be too short, but I'll take a rescind over a go forward, I suppose. I thought Diane Catotti's "scolding" (as the N&O put it) comments directed towards the residents of Cleveland-Holloway were inappropriate for a member of the city council. I can understand that challenge of competing interests, but a councilperson is elected to represent the interests of the public. I don't think there is a place for chastizing the public for "the tone" of their views expressed via email. If they were threatening people or breaking up meetings, that is something else entirely, but I found it patronizing. The debate certainly hasn't risen (fallen?) to the level that the Trinity Park listserv did during the Chancellory.
Incidentally, this really would have slipped by. While the HFNH deal on Roxoboro was in the paper, I heard about the Dominion Ministries deal through a source and investigated, then alerted the neighborhood. Oh sure, the vote happened at a public meeting, but no one involved alerted the neighborhood.
I'd request the letter from the Cleveland-Holloway folks; I'm sure they would be happy to send it to you.
GK
Post a Comment