——————– 6 ——————–
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2008 08:39:40 -0700
From: “Locally Grown Art” <>
Subject: RE: Liquor by the drink
Ed writes
“He asks (see below) what we are giving up for the new tax revenues (when new restaurants come in, attracted by legalization of real drinks). I say that, if he (or anybody) thinks/feels we are “giving up” something, he should tell us what that is rather than asking us to speculate.”
It’s called a rhetorical question, The reason in this case for such a question is to allow the reader or listener to come to their own conclusions instead of being told what their conclusion should be. For instance, I listen to both “conservative” and “liberal” radio, journalism, and television. Why? Because I like to get different perspectives and challenge my beliefs. Critical thinking is a great way to grow as a person in my opinion.
If you read julia kennedys post it gives good insight to why I feel like the ways of development in the past has been irresponsible. The goal of big business is profit, not public interest, unless of course you believe that public interest only includes tax revenue, development, and liquor drinks. I believe that if liquor by the drink was passed, it would open the door for chains to come into the area which take money away from the community and create a homogenized landscape. They create the need for more asphalt, more traffic lights, more infrastructure that we currently can not afford. Case in point the current water issue in Pittsboro.
I am for liquor by the drink if we can do it in a way helps local small businesses and encourages new local small business and I am for development that is unique and sustainable. This is what I think of as responsible in the context we speak of. An example of this would be communities and commercial developments that are walkable and encourage the use of bicycles or dense development that preserves greenspace and wildlife habitat, biodiversity and our watersheds. I would love to get into a detailed description of why the majority of developments are environmentally irresponsible, but perhaps that would best be a conversation that we have in person.
Here is great article that was just posted on irresponsible development.
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 10:34:42 -0500
From: “Ann H. Deupree”
Subject: Durham fails to hold the line on Jordan Lake
This is a very worrisome article from the Independent (read the whole article from the link http://localhost/gyrobase/Content?oid=271898) . There is a good map in this article showing the property. We in Chatham County need to be concerned about the effect of this development on our drinking water and express ourselves to the Durham Planners and our
Chatham County Commissioners.
Ann Deupree
Posted on DECEMBER 3, 2008:
DURHAM FAILS TO HOLD THE LINE ON JORDAN LAKE
Developer redraws critical watershed around his 164-acre project
By Matt Saldaña
Durham businessman Neal Hunter drafted ambitious plans for developing 164 acres in southwestern Durham County into high-density housing and commercial space.
But besides the paperwork and political hurdles that normally accompany a proposal to change the zoning designation on a piece of land, there was one other big obstacle lying in the path of his vision: Jordan Lake, a drinking water reservoir whose shores are protected by stringent environmental regulations enacted and enforced by both the county and the state.
The property sits along N.C. 751 within a mile of the lake’s shoreline. That means it falls inside the “critical watershed” where the high-density development proposed by Hunter is prohibited. That is, unless you disagree with where the lake ends.
In 2005, Hunter did just that. He commissioned a private survey that pushed the lake’s 1-mile radius boundary westward by more than 100 acres. The new line conveniently excluded Hunter’s property, clearing the way for the “751 Assemblage” project, which calls for 1,300 dwellings and 600,000 square feet of combined office and retail space.
Hunter submitted the new survey to Durham planning officials, along with a request to relocate the official boundary. In January 2006, they obliged him.
“Most of all of Mr. Hunter’s properties were in the critical watershed. With the adjustment, a large portion—a hundred-plus acres—was removed from the critical watershed area,” Planning Director Steve Medlin said……….
At the Nov. 24 meeting, Heron posed a more sobering question: “Maybe this particular survey will turn out to be correct. But let’s make sure it is. Otherwise, we are opening the door for every developer out there to do their own survey. Then what are we going to have? A cotton-pickin’ mess. And we’ll be drinking that water one day.”
http://localhost/gyrobase/Content?oid=271898
Ed, I am sure you and I want many of the same things from life. Liquor by the drink may not be one of them. I say we break the mold and look to new ideas for the county instead of the same old. I don’t want to live in cary, thats why I live here. And really, just because we have different beliefs doesn’t mean that either of us are wrong, we just value different things in life.
A great book for anyone who is interested in how efficiency and environmental responsibility can be profitable and prosperous, check out amory lovins’ book Natural capitalism, here is a great video interview with him.