Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 08:54:04 -0500
From: samantha capitol
Subject: PittsboroMatters leadership: “neutral,” dishonest, or misguided?
*According to the dictionary the definition of “neutral” is “neither helping or supporting either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.” Common synonyms are “impartial”, “unbiased” “unprejudiced”, “objective”, “equitable”, “open minded”, “non-partisan”, “disinterested”, “dispassionate”, “detached”, “impersonal”, “unemotional”, “indifferent”, “uncommitted”.The leadership of Pittsboro Matters claims neutrality on the subject of Chatham Park and its de facto mouthpiece, Mr. Jeffrey Starkweather, told the Town of Pittsboro at its November 12th meeting that “…they (Pittsboro Matters) are neither for nor against the project” and that he (Starkweather) has “…talked to hundreds and hundreds of town residents and area residents about the development, making it clear at the start that Pittsboro Matters does not support or oppose the development…” (See the minutes for the Town meeting.)
Fair enough, but its actions speak louder than words and the group appears to be anything but neutral as evidenced by the highly passionate, emotional and very interested protest that occurred on November 25th followed by the hours of public input that was anything but indifferent.The truth is that their position is intellectually dishonest. One is either conditionally or unconditionally for the project and the initial PDD approval or against it. So the group needs to state that they are either FOR approval with conditions or AGAINST approval altogether and drop the lawyerly pretense of phony impartiality.
The meetings and communications of Pittsboro Matters are anything but impartial and the group needs to communicate frankly about this emerging reality within its cadre.For example in its letters, casual conversation, and meetings the concept of affordable housing in Chatham Park is repeatedly misrepresented by the Pittsboro Matters leadership, who claim that Chatham Park has refused to include affordable housing in the Masterplan. In fact, if one looks at the 19 items delineated below that were required to be submitted during the two year period after the PDD approval, the Town of Pittsboro required an affordable housing masterplan, which is bolded as item “g”. Chatham Park Investors LLC (“Applicant”, which includes successors and assigns of Chatham Park Investors LLC) submits the following revisions to its revised PDD Master Plan for Chatham Park submitted October 21, 2013. The PDD Master Plan for Chatham Park submitted October 21, 2013, as revised by these November 21, 2013 Revisions, and as may be amended by any future amendments or revisions, is referred to herein as the “Master Plan”.
1. Within two (2) years following approval of the Master Plan, Applicant will submit the following “Additional Elements” for review by the Town of Pittsboro (the “Town”):
a. Tree Protection Plan.
b. Master Signage Plan.
c. Master Parking and Loading Plan.
d. Master Lighting Plan.
e. Master Landscaping Plan.
f. More Detailed Development Phasing Plan.
g. Affordable Housing Plan.
h. More Detailed Master Public Facilities Plan, which shall address all of the following: 1) Town Administration.2) Police.3) Fire.4) Schools.5) Parks and Recreation.6) Water Supply and Distribution.7) Sewer Collection and Treatment.
i. Master Transit Plan.
j. Master Open Space Plan.
k. Master Stormwater Manual.
l. Master Public Art Plan.
Furthermore, there has been a false narrative promoted by Pittsboro Matters that the efforts of Commissioner Mike Fiocco to coordinate with the representatives of Chatham Park ‘took place in secret’, hinting at some sinister plot involving the “Axis of Evil”, Snidely Whiplash, Tammany Hall, orphans losing their homes, and the defunding of motherhood, apple pie and the American Dream. The truth is that the town staff, its attorney and elected officials have been working on this important request and project in some way, shape or form for many years and it’s the responsibility of its elected officials to do their job and represent the people of Pittsboro who elected them. The group has also made a big deal about the immediate past election and Chatham Park. Ok, so what did Commissioner Fiocco tell the INDY when asked about the project?
Here is the question and the answer:
5. Pittsboro is facing enormous growth issues if Chatham Park is approved and fully built out. What is your opinion about the necessity and appropriateness of this development? How do you propose Pittsboro should accommodate the infrastructure and public safety needs of Chatham Park?Full build out for Chatham Park is estimated to be on the 30 year horizon. It is a great opportunity for Pittsboro to partner with a development team that has invested so greatly in the future of Pittsboro. Given that the developer has committed to rezone the property to a Planned Development District that requires a Master Plan as opposed to developing the assemblage in a piecemeal fashion is an affirmation of the partnership that can be exercised in creating smart growth in the community that both reflects and contributes to the values of the community. Pittsboro’s population has just exceeded 4,000. It is clear that issues of infrastructure development and long term management is a part of the growth proposition that will require a thorough analysis and vetting to be successful.
I will require that the Town and Developer invest the time required to structure and enter into a Development Agreement that addresses these critical financial, functional and environmental issues. Hmmm. Commissioner Fiocco made his views on the project very clear and was the high vote getter of the election.In fact, the plan presented to the Town Board on November 25th encompassed revisions that accounted for a substantial amount of the public input over the previous four months and had provisions for a developer agreement, which required another full public hearing. So what was the fuss really about from the supposedly “neutral” group all about? Process? Policy? Personal agendas? A bad hair day?Finally, it is apparent that the group does not want to discuss the multitude of conditions negotiated in the revised master plan, rather it wants the town to seek outside input. This is not unreasonable, but humorous nonetheless. Whenever outsiders have attempted to weigh in on the project Pittsboro Matters stridently objects to “meddlers from elsewhere” or the “biased hired hands of the developer”, that are unneeded because the group is rich with human capital to assist the town, but when they want to employ “outsiders” the group has no issue with these so called “experts” hired by the town.
Kinda of like the group itself: almost all non-Pittsboro voters who seek to tell the Town of Pittsboro what to do, while conveniently ignoring the reality that while they delay someone pays…and that someone is not them. *