28 thoughts on “Good places and new spaces

  1. Lynne Kane says:

    An important style & height of buildings point of info I learned by attending the Feb. 15 & 16 presentations/discussion groups at the Friday Center:
    Buildings above 4 stories tall have construction requirements (probably state law) that raise the cost of construction, thus raise unit prices somewhat, though the increased number of available sale or lease units likely offsets the increased construction cost a bit. However, residents and Town Council members should keep this in mind.
    Related info, which I and some residents are already aware of but obviously many in Chapel Hill are not aware of or are oblivious to: a permitting process for building, renovating, expanding in Chapel Hill which takes 3-8 years costs hundreds of thousands, even a million, dollars, so results in higher price units for sale if the project is able to be done at all, with less money put into architectural innovation. Thus, the one owner of several empty buildings on Franklin Street would be reluctant to spend the huge amount of money fighting for renovation (new tenants usually also want internal reconfiguration of a retail or office building) until the Town has a rational permit procedure AND improves street patterns (the shorter more walkable blocks with cut-through streets Franklin-Rosemary Streets) with more parking close to each business location.
    Modestly sized open and/or green spaces within projects add to the appeal, but large open spaces invite vagrants and panhandlers, lose income-producing space for projects, thus discourage many possible projects from ever coming to Chapel Hill.
    Our new expanded Town Library will have larger meeting rooms for “gathering,” the University Square planned renovation will also have an inner courtyard green space, and we must avoid overdoing one kind of space if we are going to achieve balance between “the environment” and economic sustainability and social equity, a balance which has been lacking for over a decade in Chapel Hill.

  2. Lynne Kane says:

    Many grateful thanks to Whit Rummel for the link to the Consultant’s Report, Aug. 2011, which I reviewed and copied/pasted statements into a .doc for my own fast reference as we talk further in Chapel Hill.
    The most significant, repeated recommendation is to establish standards, stop relying on processes, which many have noted lead to delay, excessive costs, and new economic entities going elsewhere.
    There are compelling suggestions about varying kinds of student off-campus housing choices and the need for adequate parking.
    There are very reasoned suggestions for building-forms rather than stringent measurements within a more logically-defined zoning code.
    There are many items that point out how Chapel Hill destroys its own goals. I strongly urge residents to skim through pages 18-50.
    I especially feel the need for this recommendation: “Consider a new alternative buffer process that will allow developers to work with planning staff (rather than the design commission) to propose more flexible alternative buffers and streetscapes. Urban and infill projects are more complex than suburban greenfield projects, and the Town must provide developers with the flexibility needed to build smaller, context appropriate streetscapes and buffers. ”
    This recommendation is also greatly needed: “. Either in the LUMO or in separate by-laws, the Town should amend the required background for the various boards and commissions. This allows the town to make appointments to various boards and commissions that are knowledgeable as to the intent and purpose of their body.”
    The consultants acknowledge Chapel Hill’s intense interest in tree canopy and landscaped parking areas. I add with strong emphasis that tree canopies must not impede lighting of streets and sidewalks (as they particularly do on Franklin St. – so trim trees), and parking area landscape trees for shade should be tall enough to allow good sight lines all around for a safe feeling.

  3. Lynne Kane says:

    My comments after attending almost all the Chapel Hill 2020 meetings so far ended up on “Comment Policy,” which is fine because I have been eager to introduce a holistic approach to Chapel Hill Town Council and activists for years now. My goal-statements “vision” is there along with comments on many of our subtopics.
    I agree that writing/revising/renovating the Town Comprehensive Plan with its LUMO (Land Use Management Ordinance) is the first and ultimate goal of all these informational and resident input meetings.
    To do this, the next highest priority must be to establish our current most-needed priorities for the excellent suggestion of establishing a Priority Budget instead of plugging Town money into all the established subjects in the Town Budget.
    A growing population, no matter what projections you prefer, makes adequate Police and Fire personnel a top need along with a new, larger more adequate Police Department building. The suggestion to work with Carolina North to establish such a building there, still close to MLK Blvd., sounds reasonable to me. This would also free up the great location where the current deteriorating Police Dept. building stands.
    Related to this is the sensible idea of moving and/or consolidating several Police sub-stations which are also on valuable commercial corridors to allow revenue-producing entities to locate in those spots.
    Lighting for safety and easier after-dark movement is the next-highest priority that I see. Chapel Hill’s existing lighting is out-dated, much reduced in output from its original lumens and almost nonexistent in many areas, including residential streets. At age 60 or even before, many people cannot see or drive at night without good lighting. Lack of consistent lighting also deters many working people from taking public transportation during the dark months of the year, because they would have to walk several blocks in near-darkness. Lack of adequate lighting also keeps older residents, who have more free time, from attending some night events in Chapel Hill. Instead they prefer renovated Downtown Durham, SouthPoint, etc.
    Jobs within Chapel Hill is likely the next highest priority, achieved via UNC researchers with spin-offs and an easier, shorter, less costly permitting process for new businesses. If we achieve a broader tax base, our house prices may come down so that workers in Chapel Hill can find “workforce” housing to live and work here. “Affordable” subsidized housing through the Community Land Trust will continue, and we should support those units with enough payments-in-lieu to maintain the affordable housing units we have.
    Regional planning for Rapid Bus Transit and possibly Lite Rail both sound do-able as our population inevitably increases, so our density will increase. My one caution is that the Town must continue to provide for private vehicle travel, for a great number of reasons. We attract many retirees here for the intellectual and cultural events at UNC (as well as Duke U. and even NCSU), and that population wants to go free of schedules (at last) in the safety and comfort of a personal vehicle, door-to-door-to-garage. Most retired couples that I know and have known in 12 years in Chapel Hill have 2 cars, because the wife and husband each have differing interests and schedules, including extra medical appointments. Many younger couples I see have 3 cars, 1 a van or truck for hauling children or large items. Therefore the current plans being shown, concentrating on major corridors and incorporating some retail development with stations sounds correct, as long as no one anticipates that 40%-50% of those who live in Chapel Hill will suddenly use public transit instead of private vehicles most of the time and especially at night.
    Huge amounts of information and data have been presented and made available on Town websites. Rezoning, re-rationalizing our rules and regulations is long overdue. Reality will not wait; it is pressing in upon us, so let’s get this done after all the excellent time-consuming work of all concerned with Chapel Hill 2020.

  4. In reading over the Agenda Items for tonight, I’m in agreement that GPNS.4.0 “Promote UNC; Entrepreneurship should be environmentally and transport friendly” was among our goals. As was the interpretation of it in GPNS.4.1 “[provide a] Range of
    housing options for all income levels, Integrated, Barrier free, Accessible and Open the community”. I don’t, however, see how GPNS.4.2 flows from this. I specifically take exception to the first line “Small area plan for areas surrounding CN”
    Should be catalyst for enhanced opportunities (i.e. educational, commercial, & residential development). Property tax neutral. Are we missing some punctuation here? Perhaps it was intended to say “Small area plans (areas to be specified). Areas surrounding CN should be catalyst for enhanced opportunities…” I think this is important to clarify.

  5. Joy Preslar says:

    I’m not sure this is the proper thread for this, but I feel the need to note the sites that have been targeted by the Occupy groups, all of them. The Plaza in front of the court house/post office feels like “downtown” and invites gathering as much as the Franklin/Columbia intersection, including the Planetarium, the Johnston Center area and McCorkle Place. The Yates Building has become a focal point because it has been empty, and is a locally accessible site.

    I suggest that there be some thought toward town purchase of the properties to convert to a public use. The properties are privately owned, and I understand the socio-economic rebellion occurring when one property owner can afford to let their property collect dust while in such a prime location. It is worth the investment to buy commercially attractive property rather than let individuals hold them until the property value increases so they can make a profit. It is up to the town to recognize the feasibility of investing. I would hate to see situations such as the one surrounding the Colonial Inn in Hillsborough repeat itself in Chapel Hill over a centrally located, empty, deteriorating building. Carrboro could note the availability of the building being targeted for occupation as well, as it is in a prime, central location, location, location.

  6. Whitcomb Rummel says:

    A recent critique of the town’s existing zoning/development ordinance (now available on the town’s website) should be required reading for anyone interested in improving the growth and development process here in Chapel Hill. It was prepared by Code Studio, an urban planning outfit that the town hired. It’s an excellent, objective report that highlights some of the limitations of the plan we have in place now and also provides some good solid ideas for a new one.
    The report can be found at <>
    Once you’re there, just click on “Development Review Assessment”.

  7. Faith M. Thompson says:

    I would like to see buildings in CH limited in height and to my eye more in scale with my “feeling” of the character of Chapel Hill. I think Greenbridge is too tall and the new building to go up on Franklin will be, in my opinion, too tall.

    I also prefer a more traditional brick facade that harmonizes with the “feel” of the university.

    I believe both of these opinions of mine are in the best financial interest of the town and will make the town more appealing to business and resident alike. How can I get my views – which I realize may not be everyone’s view – on the record to be considered and acted upon as part of the new comp plan? Every time I turn around there is another project that is being presented like a done deal by Dwight – and he is working hard, bless his soul – mentioning 7 story buildings. I believe that that height is not good for our town.Thanks for letting me know.

    Suzanne Haff

  8. Amy Ryan says:

    Kimberly Brewer and David Godschalk have recently sent e-mails to the Good Places group proposing topics we should be discussing. Their comments should be published on 2020 Buzz soon; here are my thoughts and additions:

    One way our group can make a huge contribution to the land-use part of the comprehensive plan is to make recommendations about the process we’d like to see for defining the town’s objectives and figuring out how to translate those objectives into specific recommendations for specific places. I’d suggest that we recommend a process that combines the big picture with a closer look at individual neighborhoods:

    Step 1: Developing a town-wide understanding of the growth we can expect and how much of that we want to and are able to accommodate — two different issues.

    Over and over, I’ve heard citizens voicing their desire to retain the village feel of Chapel Hill; if we listen to them it means that the sky is not the limit for development in town and that we’ll need to plan carefully to accommodate future growth so that it won’t be made at the expense of the town’s character or livability or environmental viability. Information on potential population growth, retail/commercial demand, town financial situation, etc. will come from other theme groups, I assume primarily from Community Prosperity, along with their recommendations for the future. At some point, I’d like to find a way for citizens to have direct input in voting for the kind of growth they’d like to see and what trade-offs they’d be willing to make to accommodate that vision.

    Step 2: Adopting a neighborhood-based planning process. Chapel Hill isn’t a place with a single “character,” it’s a collection of individual and diverse neighborhoods (residential and commercial and civic) that together make up the town. The comprehensive plan process should identify important neighborhood planning areas (downtown, CH North, Rams Plaza/University Mall area, Rosemary Street, Northside, etc.), characterize them (what’s there now in terms of function/form, size/density? is it a place of development opportunity or is it a place we want to preserve?), and develop a vision for the future (what do we want to preserve/improve? what important physical attributes should be maintained (architectural style, scale, intensity of use) to preserve physical character?). Kimberly’s suggestion #2 about “stability-repair-redevelopment” would fit in here, as well as suggestion #3 about neighborhood preservation. Again, citizen input would be important.

    Other cities have used this model to help maintain character while enabling change and development. For example, see the neighborhood plans available at the City of Seattle planning department website: http://www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/npi/plans.htm

    Step 3: Integrating the town-wide vision with the neighborhood vision to allocate planned new growth/development in the areas that are most suited for it.

    Step 4: Repair the development review process. Dave’s suggestions (#8) about the LUMO process are well made. Currently, there is too much ad hoc development going on; we need a document that will let us set out our vision for the future and give us a yardstick to measure specific development proposals against.

    In addition to addressing process issues, some additional Big Rocks that I see for our group to work on:

    1. Creating a list of key places that have the largest impact on the town’s character, defining that character, and recommending that it be preserved during subsequent development/improvement. Offhand, my list would include (1) downtown, with its human-scale “urban” feel (2) our major gateways and transit corridors, with their “parkway” character (much of Fordham Blvd., MLK, Highway 54), (3) the Historic District, (4) the Rural Buffer and its open, natural spaces.

    2. Creating a list of new places we’d like to see. Kimberly’s list contains several of these ideas (entrepreneurial spaces, affordable new housing, functional outdoor space).

    I’d add to her recommendations for outdoor space to say that we need more urban civic/public spaces — the town in the past has focused on outdoor recreational space and green space but could benefit from creating more gathering spaces in more developed areas, such as pocket parks, plazas, outdoor eating places.

    There’s been a lot of talk about encouraging start-up businesses — should we be encouraging affordable commercial space in the same way we encourage affordable housing?

    Those are my thoughts for now. Looking forward to the meeting Thursday and seeing where we go from here.

    Amy Ryan

  9. David Godschalk says:

    Places and Spaces Group,
    Kimberly Brewer has suggested the first 6 issues listed below for our group and I have added 2 more.
    Do these cover your concerns? Are there others that you want to consider?
    We will work on this during the second half of the next meeting on December 15.
    Dave

    Good Places, New Spaces (Top Components and Hard Rocks to Address in 2020 Plan )

    1. Carolina North. Identify the role will this major planned development play in meeting housing and office growth needs in the next 20 years (given population projections for the Town).

    2. Stability-Repair-Redevelopment. Identify areas that should be slated for stability, repair, or redevelopment. In areas where we desire redevelopment and repair, determine the desired height and floor area ratio of new buildings (i.e. the building mass and intensity). Generate a clear vision and guidance regarding desired building height downtown and along transportation corridors.

    3. Existing Neighborhoods. Preserve existing neighborhood character and quality of life, including minimizing (and where possible reversing) impacts from rental housing over occupancy and over parking.

    4. Affordable New Housing. Identify ways to maximize undergraduate student housing on UNC property to “make room” for the market range of affordable, owner-occupied and rental units for families, young professionals, disadvantaged, and aging populations. Considering Carolina North, what types and quantities of units are needed in the balance of Chapel Hill to meet projected growth? Determine the desired mix and balance of new housing to commercial and office area.

    5. New Entrepreneurial Space. Identify ways to create or require new, affordable entrepreneurial spaces. Should affordable rental space be required in all new office/commercial development? Should we provide rental subsidies for start-up businesses? Should we relax the regulations in certain Office/Commercial zones to yield cheaper rental space (if so, where)?

    6. Functional Outdoor Space. Plan for spaces that create and link destinations: fixed community spaces (e.g. Carolina Inn and Southern Village music on the lawn), mobile gathering spaces (food trucks and sidewalk music), bike and walking paths that go somewhere, green site design that preserves and mimics nature, and preserved conservation open space (in Town and the Rural Buffer).

    7. Plan the character of future development and redevelopment. In order to resolve the uncertainty about what Chapel Hill wants to occur in the future, determine the form, scale, and nature of desired urban development and redevelopment as part of the visualization process in preparing the comprehensive plan. This should include not just the type and intensity of land use, but the three-dimensional appearance and architectural features of new and redeveloped buildings and site plans in specific types of geographic areas of the town—e.g., downtown, mixed use centers of various types, transit corridors, existing residential neighborhoods, new housing areas, etc. Gear the form and character vision to the particular circumstances of Chapel Hill, including the constraint on its outward expansion posed by the Rural Buffer’s inflexible urban growth boundary and the need to accommodate substantial amounts of off-campus student housing, as well as the opportunity to redevelop some obsolete commercial areas and to create a more transit-friendly network of routes and destinations. This aspect of the plan should lead directly to changes in development regulations.
    8. Eliminate the confusion in the development review process. Replace the existing Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO) with a new type of development regulation that gives citizens, property owners, developers, business interests, and public officials a clear image of what type and form of development and redevelopment will be approved. Change the existing inefficient and ineffective special use permit process to administrative review of applications to ensure that they meet the stated goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. Design the new regulation with extensive public participation and implement it so as to provide certainty to the community about what its future will look like and how it will function and be achieved. Consider the possibility of adopting a form-based code, such as Raleigh is creating.

  10. David Godschalk says:

    Places and Spaces Group,
    There are a couple of relevant planning studies in the online Chapel Hill Economic Development materials ( http://www.townofchapelhill.org/index.aspx?page=63) that point the way toward possible redevelopment of some of our under-used centers.
    Check out:
    • Ephesus Church Road/Fordham Boulevard Small Area Planning and Traffic Analysis. May 16, 2011. This shows the possibility for redeveloping the land and roads in this area to add 1084 residential units, 285,000 Sq. ft. of retail, 386,000 sq. ft. of office, open space, bus rapid transit routes, and a 280,000 sq. ft. hotel. http://www.townofchapelhill.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=9795.
    • Draft Downtown Development Plan, Progress Report. 10 June 2010. This is a 10 year program to provide adequate parking, correct problems in the road and block system, make it easier to develop downtown than in the outskirts, add a bus transfer facility, improve land use, etc. http://www.townofchapelhill.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=6806.
    They present bold ideas that indicate the possibilities for remodeling key areas of town to make them more productive. They help to envision potential changes.
    Consider how they might contribute to our group’s thinking.
    Dave Godschalk

  11. At our December 1st theme group meeting, we agreed to share some ideas online about what the essential elements (or “big rocks”) of our statement and goals should be. I can’t figure out where else to post this but righthere, since the Dec 1 notes are part of a larger page on the Town website and it does not accept comments.

    Here are the words or phrases that I jotted down that I think should be prominent:
    - Sustainable land-use patterns that connect people to each other
    - Development and redevelopment
    - Carolina North
    - Support and enhance downtown as the heart of our community
    - Compact
    - Walkable
    - Green space
    - Neighborhoods
    - Urban

    I look forward to reading and discussing our new statement and goals at this Thursday’s meeting!

  12. Whitcomb Rummel says:

    At the December 1 meeting, we talked about identifying specific areas in town that might be appropriate for infill/redevelopment. I suggest we review the town’s Long Range Transit Plan, which identifies a half-dozen of these areas along major transit routes. This could be a way of selecting new areas for “denser” development, maximizing mass-transit opportunities without threatening existing neighborhoods.

  13. Lennart Holmquist says:

    Missing in most/all discussion of growth in Chapel Hill is the subject of architecture. We need to more fully control the “look and feel” of Chapel Hill moving forward. The quality of architecture, the aesthetics of architecture will large determine the beauty of Chapel Hill now and in the future.

    • Josh Gurlitz says:

      We did this once, even within living memory. In the late 1940’s Chapel Hill engaged an architect and created a design overlay for the downtown. The design was what we would call “Williamsburg” and every downtown building into the early 1950’s was designed in this style. Many examples remain today. Fortunately, the concept did not, because the outcome would have been a set of buildings frozen in time- just like Williamsburg. Instead, the 1950’s saw an explosion of new and wonderful ideas in all social and economic areas. Included were design, population movement and the way our towns and cities worked. The architecture changed to reflect the times. “Beauty” is subjective and beyond legislation. Our Historic Districts have appropriate measures for determining compatibility with context which are legal and effective means to introduce community review of design and we may check them out for direction.

      • Joy Preslar says:

        As much as I love the “Village” feel of the brick walls and narrow streets of Chapel Hill, I realize that we are far past being an actual village as long as we have a Starbucks, Gap, CVS or any other national franchise on Franklin Street. The automobile has changed Franklin Street to a channel for cars with pedestrian access. It is nice to retain as much historic “feel” as we can, and certainly historic preservation is a viable option. We have to acknowledge that traffic concerns on Franklin Street have been addressed by bypassing and re-directing by one-way street traffic diversion, but the design is not ideal. Parking has been addressed with park-and-ride lots and Wallace Parking Deck, but there will be traffic no matter how convenient we make the bus service. Wallace Deck is underutilized as a venue for artists. The court house area has been a traditional public area, but is also underutilized. If we were a village we would have a daily gathering there. We are not Old Salem nor Williamsburg, but we have potential to use our historic heritage more like Hillsborough does, with more activity centered around the intrinsic mixing space between Chapel Hill and the University. We offer the commercial opportunities on Franklin Street to students who walk or bus there, and those residents who work or live near Franklin street. The popularity of Chapel Hill is evidenced by the events that draw thousands of visitors, but the town powers-that-be treat this not as a marketing opportunity but as a nuisance. We have to decide that we have grown and deal with it, realistically.

  14. Pingback: November 19: Reporting Out Results |

  15. Lennart says:

    We need ways for recapturing the village in downtown Chapel Hill. Here are ideas I’ve seen work in other cities:

    1) Allow restaurants to set out small tables on sidewalks for diners. (Yes there is room).
    2) Close off a few streets to traffic downtown to provide a gathering place. Adjacent restaurants can serve food a drink. Example: the short street of Henderson between Franklin and Rosemary, next to the old post office.
    3) Allow food street vendors. Example: hot dog cart, roasting chestnut vendor during cold months (popular in Europe).
    4) Bring back the flower ladies.
    5) Make the parking garage on Rosemary more attractive with better lighting, and improved the looks of the skyway. A little paint can go a long way. Also provide free parking for a certain length of time.

    Downtown Chapel Hill is pretty boring and a bit sterile. Providing places for people to gather, outside seating at restaurants, and street vendors will provide life to downtown. Other towns and cities do it. We can too.

    • Josh Gurlitz says:

      These are all great ideas for the downtown except closing off streets. Closing streets has led to business mortality in many other towns, but creating gathering spaces is very important. We probably need more streets (please check out the Kling-Stubbins downtown evaluation completed recently which compares CH to other successful towns relative to connectivity and street patterns) which include more storefronts and more sidewalks. We definitely need a change in our parking policies. The flower ladies have, with one exception, succumbed to age and too few buyers. We do need a greater population downtown- both workers and residents, to support the next generation of flower ladies, vendors, etc. The suburban visitor is not enough life-support for them to make a living.

  16. Jeanne Brown says:

    As a member of the “Going Places” group, I wish to applaud the facilitation group and staff for such an excellent job with the meeting notes. The notes were presented in a “transcript” format with facilitator questions in italics. I think this type of format ensures that citizen comments are not misconstrued and, because facilitator questions and comments are captured it helps leadership and stakeholders ensure that facilitators are, in fact, remaining neutral. The format made it easy for me, as a stakeholder, to review and seems to provide a way for non-participants to truly get the gist of the two-hour conversation. It appears that several other theme groups did a good job in presenting the notes but, having not participated, I cannot comment on their accuracy. Perhaps guidelines or standards should be set for the note-takers and facilitator group. (Or is this part of the “deciding the rules” conversation that each group should be having?) I do wonder if there should be an “approval” process before notes are published. For instance, are meeting participants given an opportunity to read and comment before posting so that notes are not posted in error. I think many non-participants may choose to read only the notes and might not notice “corrections” below.

  17. Many folks are unable to attend the Theme Meetings as they are scheduled and must rely on the Meeting Notes to catch up on what is discussed. Those who cannot attend, might then make valuable, relevant comments on this Blog. But these notes give barely a clue as to the issues identified and virtually no information on the two hour discussion around them. Is it possible that the format for meeting summaries is too restrictive? I have read Fred Lampe’s comments on the Community Prosperity theme and see that comprehensive note taking may be an issue to be addressed throughout the process.

  18. Julie McClintock says:

    Question: Will any town staff person do a check for irrelevant comments on this blog? I suggest the staff develop ground rules for comment and run them through the theme groups.

    • George Cianciolo says:

      Julie,
      I think we’d be reluctant to start censoring comments unless they are indecent, libelous, or otherwise totally inappropriate. It would mean someone would have to become the judge of “what’s relevant” and that is obviously very subjective, especially in these early stages of the process. I suspect the people participating in the process will themselves be able to do a pretty good job of deciding the relevance of the posts. Hopefully, we will have mostly relevant ones.

      • Joy Preslar says:

        I agree that there is a healthy feel to the freedom of discourse that is part of this process. Relevance of topics discussed becomes obvious as the process continues. I would rather read an extra thought than risk losing the transparency and ease of discussion that has been present.

  19. Dear chapel hill 2020,

    here is what I, Mark Prokop (a Chapel Hill resident), want to see in
    2020 in chapel hill:

    1) I want Food-Aid International to work out of free/donated office space, preferrably along Legion Road, in the office building right behind the SunTrust bank [along 15/501 South], or in the Blue Cross Blue Shield Building [also along 15/501 North] or receive enough financial donations from the community to pay all of our monthly rent at any of those same locations.
    2) I also want to see enough financial donations from the community to
    a) pay my salary as Executive Director
    b) pay for plastic bags and the commercial food ingredients to make our dried food packets,
    c) pay for office furniture, computer, software, office supplies, internet access, cell phone, promotional items (food-aid polo shirts, food-aid t-shirts, food-aid coffee mugs, food-aid. hats, food-aid pens/pencils/pads of paper, bumper stickers, window stickers, etc.)
    d) pay for my travel to Haiti and to other places around the world (and cost of shipping the dried food packets overseas [just like luggage costs with an airline],
    e) pay for the costs of putting on benefit concerts and pay local artists to perform,
    f) etc.

    I also want the community to volunteer to pack the bags and, potentially, take the bags overseas to Haiti and other places around the world.

    Mark Prokop (I am a Chapel Hill resident who is working out of my home) Executive Director Food-Aid International, Inc.

  20. John Schmidt says:

    The October 27th meeting overwhelmngly discussed downtown, with very little discussion of the wider topic of townwide development. I hope this disparity will be addressed in the next meeting. Also, there was no discussion of the “rules” for developing output (voting, concensus, etc)
    and this needs to be addressed in the next meeting. No time was devoted to narrowing the topics in the “word cloud” developed earlier. Instead everything went on as though there was no prior meeting, and much said was repetetive.

Let us know what you think!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s