P&Z Merrimon

Planning and Zoning Committee
City Hall, 2nd Floor
June 29, 2006, 4:00 PM

Merrimon Avenue Study was under review.

Public Comment: "I think that the Merrimon Avenue Study Group is doing a fine job. I think that CAN is doing a fine job. I just have concerns about the survey. I believe that the survey and the survey process were wildly out of control. I have spoken before city council. I have written about this in local newspapers. I've had my say on this matter and I'd just like to know what members feel about the validity of the Merrimon Ave Survey."

I also gave an on-camera interview with WLOS TV.

Downtown Association

Downtown Association Meeting
The Orange Peel Theater
101 Biltmore Avenue
Asheville, NC

Homelessness
Panhandling
Graffiti: 48 hour removal or pay penalty; punish vandals by sending them to art mural projects.

FCC Meeting

Town Meeting on the Future of Media
Asheville-Buncombe Technical College
Ferguson Auditorium, Laurel Building
June 28, 2006, 6:00 PM

Public Testimony
By Tim Peck

To FCC Commissioners:

Commissioners Copps and Adelstein,

I’m holding here a handout from the organization FreePress.net. [This was handed out at a meeting in Asheville where local educated political activists were coaching “Latinos” on how to lobby the FCC here tonight with prepared talking points.] It says, “In exchange for their free use of the public airwaves, local TV and radio broadcasters are supposed to serve the public interest.”

Hmmm . . . “The public interest.” What is this concept of the Public Interest? Since this is the very basis of the justification for government interference in the media marketplace, I think we should be very clear about what this means.

First, there is no such entity as “the public” that has a right to make legal claims. Only individuals have rights. The idea that there is a “public” that has a prior ownership claim on a spectrum of radio frequencies is a fantasy. I’d like to see that entity: The Public. I’d like to look “the public” in the eye. I’d like shake its hand and to ask “the public” to take hold of a pen and sign a contract agreeing not to violate my rights -- including my right to own media properties.

Second, it follows then that the concept of “the public interest” creates conflict where it otherwise would not exist. As long as we continue to have faith in this phantom called “the public interest” we will continue to have individuals and private groups fighting each other to the death to be recognized as “the public interest.” Just as in the movie Spartacus where everyone in the crowd says, “I am Spartacus,” “No, I am Spartacus,” we have everyone competing for the title of “the public interest.” “I am the public interest.” “No, I am the public interest.” All of those individuals and groups are clamoring to have their own narrow interests protected and promoted over against the interests of other individuals and groups. We cannot possibly give favors to all interests, all at once, and all of the time. Therefore, every individual and group has to lobby the power-brokers for the privilege of being regarded as “the public.” Just look around the room.

This is a condition of conflict created by the government, not the free market. In a free market, individuals own property and cannot be interfered with in the legal use and disposal of that property.

The government seems to reflexively take every opportunity to alienate me from my rights; my rights to liberty, to my life and to the products of my labors, including media properties.

And your transparent attempts tonight are no different. That’s why I’m calling for the abolishment of the FCC.

Thank you.

No Zoning Protest

No Zoning Protest
Buncombe County Courthouse
June 20, 2006, 3:00 PM

The Action Club, Citizens for Change and other concerned citizens marched in a legally-permitted protest at the County Courthouse at 3:00 PM just prior to the commissioner's meeting.

The commissioners voted for a zoning plan and the largest property tax increase in the county's history. The county's revenue-increasing property rate of 53 cents displaces the state's diluted reimbursement of sales taxes collected in Asheville from the city to the county in the amount of $1.52M and forces the city to raise its property tax rate above a 41 cent revenue-neutral to 42.38 cents to make up the loss in revenue.

City Manager Lunch

Attended lunch with the City Manager Gary Jackson with members of the Citizens Academy at 49 Haywood at 12:00 PM.

Activist Training

Attended the GOP Summer 2006 Activist Training Sessions at Western Carolina University, AB Tech-Enka Campus, 1459 Sand Hill Rd, Candler, NC 28715.

• Press & Media Relations –Get the media’s attention.
• Finance 101 – The cure for the empty checking account.
• Victory GOTV – The keys to winning in November.
• County & Precinct Organization – The basics every one should know.
• Voter Vault - Learn about our on-line voter database.
• How to draft a Political Plan – Plan your work and work your plan.
• Election Law – There are no get out of jail free cards in this game.

Wal-Mart Clarification

By Tim Peck
Mountain Guardian
June 16, 2006

Thomas N Rightmyer wrote:

>> The proposal is for a 204K building (larger if I remember
>> correctly that the West Asheville proposal) with 917 parking spaces.
>> Variances asked for included reducing parking space size from 10 to 9
>> 1/2 feet wide and from 20 to 18 ft long. Similar variances were granted
>> for an Ingles' on Long Shoals, reducing the number of spaces by about
>> 10%, reducing the number of loading docks to 6 from the 21 required by
>> county code.

I just want to clarify one point. The Buncombe County Board of Adjustment did not approve the Wal-Mart project. That was not their charge. Wal-Mart has the right to purchase property and build wherever they damn well please as long as they are in conformance with local regulations.

This project is in conformance. The property is already zoned EMP (employment). A favorable traffic impact analysis was performed. The additional conditions imposed were already in the plan. A petition favoring the development was signed by 2,130 people who shop at other Wal-Marts. 380 to 450 jobs will be created.

As Thomas has pointed out above, the only thing Wal-Mart needed was a zoning variance for the width and length of parking spaces (resulting in a smaller parking lot) and a reduction in government-mandated loading docks. This demonstrates the efficiency of the free market over against cookie-cutter government. Wal-Mart does not need more than 6 loading docks to conduct their operations.

Key Point Missed In The Coverage: The public comment and anti-Wal-Mart activism suggesting that the Board should not allow Wal-Mart to build this store was entirely misguided. Had the Buncombe County Board of Adjustment not approved these minor variances, Wal-Mart would have still gone forward with the project on schedule. The BOA was in no position to approve or disapprove of this development! It was only in the position of approving or disapproving the size of a parking space.

The first Wal-Mart in East Asheville was met with massive protests, a 9-hour public hearing, and thousands in vandalism damage. The Wal-Mart proposed for West Asheville was protested by organized groups as well. In those cases, the city held the trump card. Wal-Mart could not go forward with the projects without critical zoning variances. In the case of the Airport Road project Wal-mart held the trump card: private property rights.

Planning & Economic Development Committee

Attended the Asheville City Council Planning and Economic Development meeting at 29 Haywood.

Teleconference on mixed used development in Greenville; Eagle/Market Street Redevelopment: 49 day extension; CAN Recommendations: city responds; Prudential Sign: will meet with Pru; Civic Center Economic Impact Study; HUB Alliance; Economic Impact Study proposal by Dr. Ha. Closed Executive Session on possible litigation from UDO violations.

Board of Adjustment: Wal-Mart

Buncombe County Board of Adjustment
County Courthouse, Room 204
Asheville, NC
June 14, 2006, 12:00 PM

Agenda: Wal-Mart request for three zoning adjustments regarding parking spaces and loading docks.

Thomas N Rightmyer wrote:

The proposal is for a 204K building (larger than the West Asheville proposal) with 917 parking spaces. Variances asked for included reducing parking space size from 10 to 9 1/2 feet wide and from 20 to 18 ft long. Similar variances were granted for an Ingles' on Long Shoals, reducing the number of spaces by about 10%, reducing the number of loading docks to 6 from the 21 required by county code.

I just want to clarify one point. The Buncombe County Board of Adjustment did not approve the Wal-Mart project. That was not their charge. Wal-Mart has the right to purchase property and build wherever they damn well please as long as they are in conformance with local regulations.

This project is in conformance. The property is already zoned EMP (employment). A favorable traffic impact analysis was performed. The additional conditions imposed were already in the plan. A petition favoring the development was signed by 2,130 people who shop at other Wal-Marts. 380 to 450 jobs will be created.

As Thomas has pointed out above, the only thing Wal-Mart needed was a zoning variance for the width and length of parking spaces (resulting in a smaller parking lot) and a reduction in government-mandated loading docks. This demonstrates the efficiency of the free market over against cookie-cutter government. Wal-Mart does not need more than 6 loading docks to conduct their operations.

Key Point Missed In The Coverage: The public comment and anti-Wal-Mart activism suggesting that the Board should not allow Wal-Mart to build this store was entirely misguided. Had the Buncombe County Board of Adjustment not approved these minor variances, Wal-Mart would have still gone forward with the project on schedule. The BOA was in no position to approve or disapprove of this development! It was only in the position of approving or disapproving the size of a parking space.

The first Wal-Mart in East Asheville was met with massive protests, a 9-hour public hearing, and thousands in vandalism damage. The Wal-Mart proposed for West Asheville was protested by organized groups as well. In those cases, the city held the trump card. Wal-Mart could not go forward with the projects without critical zoning variances. In the case of the Airport Road project Wal-mart held the trump card: private property rights.

Further Reading :

Arden Wal-Mart Approved, by Kelby Hartson, AC-T, June 15, 2006

Citizens Academy

Completed the 10-week course of the City of Asheville Citizens Academy, April 13 to June 12, 2006.

"The City of Asheville Citizens Academy is a part of Community Oriented Government, an initiative dedicated to making city services and information more accessible to those that live, work and play in Asheville."

Water Meeting

Water Meeting
City Council, County Commissioners, State legislative delegation
Karpen Hall, Laurel Forum
University of North Carolina
One Univerity Heights, Asheville
June 12, 2006, 10:00 AM

Westfest

Westfest
A Community Celebration in West Asheville
Haywood Road, between Vermont and Oakwood
June 10, 2006
Noon – 7 p.m.

Car Show

Action Club Table
Car Show
Westridge Market Place
Candler
Friday, June 9, 2006
6:00 PM

Police Advisory Meeting

Citizens/Police Advisory Meeting
East Asheville Community Center
904 Tunnel Road, Asheville
June 8, 2006
7:00 PM

Neighborhood Zoning

By Tim Peck
Mountain Guardian
June 8, 2006

Usually, when someone complains about something, I take it that they mean to do something about it. But there is often that person who is all bark and no bite. You know the type. As long as someone else is responsible, they feel confident in noting every fault and recommending remedies for others to carry out. But when asked for solutions and a commitment to achieving them, they go quiet and recede from the field of action, deferring instead to the competent.

Well over a year ago, the Coalition of Asheville Neighborhoods (CAN) took issue with a number of violations of the city’s Uniform Development Code (UDO). It seems that certain developers had built structures that were not in strict conformance with the code. Illegal loading docks drove heavy-duty traffic into quiet side streets; garish commercial signage rose to the status of eyesore; and mature trees began to mysteriously disappear under the cover of night as though sucked back into the earth.

Developers seemed to be insisting that if they could not break the rules outright, could they not at least bend them only enough to rankle the few and thereby avoid penalties and impositions from those with the power to impose them?

The strategy worked. It seemed so much better to ask forgiveness later than to ask for permission now. After all, permission requires declaring your intentions and submitting to a severe approval process, whereas forgiveness comes lightly and after the fact and those bells rarely gets unrung.

So, after a string of absolutions from the cloaked priesthood of city officials, what’s a poor neighborhood association to do?

One solution might be to elect like-minded representatives to city council who would form an effective phalanx against the unsavory encroachments of business and property owners. But then those council members found their zeal for control handcuffed by the law.

Another solution would be to use that law to gain satisfaction by appealing to the city’s Board of Adjustment. Surely if a zoning code had been violated this would be the political body to hear all about it. But the appellants found that they had no standing to appeal the violations. The appeals were not brought in a timely fashion, as they must be, and no proof could be provided that any one of them was a bone fide aggrieved party. To be aggrieved, the appellant must show some quantifiable material harm from the violations. None could and the several complaints were dismissed without a hearing.

Holding out for some opportunity to make their case in a spirit of cooperation, CAN members made several attempts to deliver their message to city council and key staff members using sophisticated slideshow presentations detailing the violations and written recommendations for proceeding with greater care in the future. Alas, the city only seemed interested in the future and countered CAN’s costly recommendations with one of their own: Hire a Neighborhood Coordinator, answerable to the city manager and salaried at taxpayer expense, to act as liaison between community groups and city officials.

With this judo move, the city has appeared conciliatory, has avoided taking responsibility for existing violations, and, by feigning engagement, has given CAN the impression that they are moving toward an amicable solution and has given them the sense that this will be an end to distressing development mishaps. And what is more important, the city has avoided, for now, the prospect of litigation in a year of multimillion-dollar budget deficits.

Add to this the Mayor’s laudable initiatives for community involvement. Twice now Mayor Bellamy has invited the public to city planning forums and encouraged input on the issues uppermost in their minds through a standard consensus-building process. Along with the usual calls for more parks and greater crowding along bus routes, the recurring theme of UDO violations and its enforceability emerged as a common concern that still seemed insoluble.

And there has also been great interest shown in significantly revising the UDO. It is too complicated, too technical and is too open to interpretation. Several measures have come before city council that promise to overhaul the UDO and make it a more meaningful document; including several specific neighborhood re-zoning recommendations.

Clearly the status quo will not do and there has been little enthusiasm that adding a layer of bureaucracy—by purchasing the services of an official Neighborhood Coordinator who is beholden to city government—would truly bring about the transformation in direction that community members clamor for in an idyllic city that is growing faster than its management capabilities.

Several options are open to the city of Asheville and its inhabitants. We can give up and let the city develop as it will as we stand by. We can argue for incremental changes and hope that they will give us what we want while remaining open to the same risks, abuses and frustrations. There is a mix of these two options evident in our current course.

Or we can take decisive action and ensure that the citizens of Asheville take the reigns and lead the city toward fulfilling a shared vision. Toward that end, there are two things that must be done.

First, the city must be taken to court to address all existing code violations. The specific and valid complaints exist in a contest among groups with conflicting interests. The citizens are interested in seeing concrete remedies applied to rectify unlawful action. The city is interested in having the issues quietly go away with little to no cost to bear. The only way to resolve the matter and fully ensure that future incidents do not occur is to adjudicate the matter in an adversarial setting; which is the function the civil court system is instituted to perform. Only when there is a real cost or an impending cost does a liable party make amends.

Second, a new political body must be conceived, established, empanelled and empowered: The Neighborhood Zoning Authority.

The concept of the neighborhood coordinator is not a bad one; the problem is that it’s not good enough. Consider that the coordinator works for the city, is paid for by taxpayers to the tune of $85,000, and does not become a stakeholder by fiat. Further, this solution keeps the planning and development focus city-wide rather than community-based. (Note: As of this writing, the coordinator position is not included in the city budget for FY 2006/2007.)

The Neighborhood Zoning Authority moves radically away from centralization toward localized, neighborhood empowerment by material stakeholders. It is an autonomous body that has authority to plan, establish and enforce its own set of development ordinances within the larger constraints of a limited municipal government in a federalist model.

While city council is busy playing SimCity to the satisfaction of no one, each community could be about the business of SimNeighborhood to the satisfaction of many. The Neighborhood Zoning Authority has the quality of maximizing freedom in an environment of conflicting interests.

We have several neighborhoods that could qualify for becoming a zoning authority: Merrimon, Montford, Broadway, Haw Creek, and Downtown. A Merrimon Neighborhood Zoning Authority, for example, could convene a group responsible for determining the physical boundaries of the neighborhood, the criteria for inclusion, a vision for development and growth, a code of ordinances, and a method of implementation and enforcement. This authority would not be concerned with basic city services but only planning and development issues. And the city could continue to perform the task of technical reviews, only now against a varying set of standards, as specified in a charter with a given NZA.

The benefits would be numerous. This would obviate the need for a city coordinator—and the expense. The direct stakeholders would be actively setting their own course without a city liaison recapitulating communications. Developers and property owners would be able to choose among competing standards. It would minimize bureaucracy. City officials would be able to limit their planning efforts to non-participating neighborhoods and relieve themselves of the burden of oversight over the most vital sectors of town. Transient students from far away colleges would feel less welcome to blithely register their discontent over development projects in neighborhoods they will never invest in.

Finally, community members and leaders would be able to demonstrate their sincerity and commitment to the ideals they espouse and which they struggle to promulgate on an incremental, case-by-case basis. Job descriptions for the volunteer positions implicit in a Neighborhood Zoning Authority would necessarily be simplified; as would any resulting set of codes developed by them as well as their ongoing governance.

The Coalition of Asheville Neighborhoods has acted in good faith and has pursued its ideals and concerns with some vigor. But it has not been, and in my opinion will not be, enough. It has not been my experience that CAN shrinks from a sense of duty and mission, but they do run the risk of having their vision postponed and their grievances swept aside. If their leadership is serious about moving forward in a progressive direction then it will seriously consider the tandem options of litigation and of establishing The Neighborhood Zoning Authority as a practical and earnest approach to community planning and sustainability for the long term.

Public School Forum of NC

Education Briefing for Candidates for the General Assembly
Public School Forum's Institute for Education Policymakers
Crowne Plaza
Asheville, NC
June 2, 2006
1:00 PM

The Public School Forum of NC is a not for profit policy think tank which is a partnership of business leaders, education leaders, and government leaders in North Carolina.


Context of Education in NC

• "Just the Facts" about North Carolina Schools
• Accountability
• Governance

School Finance

• Introduction of the Policymakers Primer
• How NC Schools are Funded
• School Finance
• School Finance Litigation

Teacher Quality

• Profile of NC Teachers
• Supply/Demand Issues
• Teacher Quality
• Recruitment/Retention