Here's a look at today's local headlines:

CHAPEL HILL 2020: Blogger Ruby Sinreich's Tweet about "straight, white affluent men" may have caused a dustup in the town's comprehensive plan talks. But it's not the first time concern about lack of diversity's come up in community conversations about how Chapel Hill should grow. Read Katelyn Ferral's story to learn what the town is doing to bring more voices to the table.     

NO HOME FOR THE HOLIDAYS: Here's an issue the Chapel Hill 2020 folks need to help figure out. When we wrote about Colony Apartments last summer (read my story here), I learned how the Section 8 housing voucher safety net was no longer working for many. Katelyn looked at the situation across the Triangle for today's follow-up. 

It's been a busy week. If you missed it, a jury needed just three hours to convict Laurence Lovette in the murder of Eve Carson. The state Court of Appeals ruled a former Orange County paramedic can be sued in the death of Chapel Hill High football player Atlas Fraley three years ago. And two more rabies cases were confirmed; in one case a dog that was not current on its rabies vaccination had to be killed. 

On our editorial pages, several readers respond (read their letters here) to Chapel Hill developer Carol Ann Zinn's guest column last week (read it here), in which she said anti-growth activists distort the development process and drive up housing costs. Tell us what you think at editor@newsobserver.com. And congratulations to associate editor Dave Hart for winning second place for editorials in the N.C. Press Association contest, announced earlier this week.

Got vintage Aretha playing on the eMac and a big dog at my feet before Christmas dinner this afternoon. I hope you are having a wonderful day, and best wishes for a happy, healthy New Year. Thank you for reading the paper.

Mark           

Sunday’s guest column by Carol Ann Zinn has generated several responses. Zinn recently sold land off N.C. 54 to the UNC Foundation at a major financial loss after failing to win approval for her Aydan Court condominium project (See story here). In her column, she said Chapel Hill’s development process is influenced by no-growth activists and forces developers to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars modifying plans in a lengthy review process that has no guaranted outcome and drives up housing costs.  

Here are a few excerpts from letters that have come in this week. Look for the full versions of these letters Sunday in The Chapel Hill News and at www.chapelhillnews.com.

From Suzanne Haff: "Ms. Zinn has designed and built many wonderful residential communities around Chapel Hill; but, in my opinion, she made a poor choice when she purchased this property –  not a very buildable parcel – and then proceeded to hammer the town with request after request to modify the topography – until it lost all its uniqueness, needed fancy and costly mechanics to control run-off when completed. ...  There is no right as far as I know to do whatever you want to the natural terrain when you purchase a piece of property. She gambled she could convince the council otherwise  and she lost."

From Del Snow: "Carol Ann Zinn is, in fact, an experienced developer with many projects that have been approved in Chapel Hill. Before purchasing the proposed Aydan Court property, she, more than most, should have been clearly aware of all the constraints of the state-designated Significant Natural Heritage Area and the three major ordinances that would have had to be overturned for any development to occur. At every point in the process, these issues were pointed out in staff reports. Our town ordinances are in place to protect our environment, our future, and us. Why did she decide to keep pouring money into a losing proposition in order to force an approval?"

From: Kristina Peterson: "Ms. Zinn should get past this long temper tantrum she’s been having. The development review process does not need to be made easier for flawed development proposals. I am grateful for all the citizen groups and their leaders who give their time freely and generously to support our interests. What would Chapel Hill look like if we hadn’t had heroes like them throughout the years?"

I tell people that IP3 is our office annex, but it's true. It's the best place for a quick conversation. Last week, Dwight Bassett ordered a cheese slice and talked about growth, taxes and driving in from Graham.

Yes, the Chapel Hill economic development officer lives in Alamance County. He couldn't afford what he wanted in Chapel Hill, which meant a lot with room for his woodshop. That's his wooden arm balancing a basketball outside Spanky's. (And yes, he's just as surprised it's still there -- after NCAA tourneys and Halloweens -- as you and I probably are.)

Bassett is concerned because the town and many citizens are now participating in the Chapel Hill 2020 planning process "and there are people in 2020 who think it's an option not to grow the tax base."  He means the commercial tax base, mostly: the kind that gives back to town and county coffers more than it takes in government services. 

Last week I reported how developer Carol Ann Zinn had sold her Aydan Court site to UNC for $410,000 after buying it for just over $1 million four years ago. Zinn was seething in a guest column  Sunday that has generated several responses (see more on that later this week). But many share her point: the town's development review process drives the cost of doing business and turns away opportunity. Two weeks ago we reported how Walmart may come to Chatham County and kill plans for commercial activity in the southern part of town.

When I suggested to Bassett it was another New Hope Commons in the making, his eyes widened. "Exactly," he said.

Nothing like a little holiday advertising to drive up the page count and allow us to bring you even more local news. Today's 16-page A section is packed; here's some of what we've got:

SCHOOL CROWDING: The Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schoools' new elementary won't open for another year and a half. New correspondent Brooks Dareff reports what the school board might do to ease crowding at Carrboro, Glenwood and Seawell in the meantime.

CONDO SITE SOLD: Developer Carol Ann Zin paid $1.14 million for the Aydan Court site off N.C. 54 in 2007. Find out why she sold it to UNC this fall for $410,000. (And she's not happy about it; read her guest column in today's opinion section.)

LONG LEAF GOODBYE: If you've got tickets to "Amahl and the Night Visitors" today (left), you're seeing one of our local opera company's final performaces. What? You didn't know we had an opera company? Read Dave Hart's story.

Anne Blythe says watch for the Lovette trial closing arguments tomorrow. Katelyn Ferral says watch for the town's report on the Yates Motor Co. raid this week. And police have arested a suspect in the mysterious shooting of a Chapel Hill man in his Ashley Forest home last weekend. 

Julie Moore is learning more things about Chapel Hill in today's My View, and Will Allen, Elias Schwartz, Roy Brock, Harvey Carnes, Jill Bone and Robert Dowling have letters in today's edition. What's on your mind?

Thanks for reading,

Mark

The condominium proposal that ended in a fiery showdown last winter between former mayor Kevin Foy and developer Carol Ann Zinn recently reignited over alleged trespassing by Councilman Ed Harrison and a state official on Zinn’s land.

Harrison said he and Misty Buchanan, a botanist with the N.C. Natural Heritage Program, visited the land in February where Zinn had proposed the 58-unit Aydan Court townhouse project. With permission, they had joined a group of consultants hired by UNC-Chapel Hill to assess the natural resources on adjacent land owned by the university and intended for the expansion of the Kenan-Flagler business school’s Paul J. Rizzo Conference Center.

“I said, ‘I think we’re moving off UNC property,’” said Harrison. “They knew this. I told them. I was not the one who did the wandering. They did.”

Two weeks after the second of two visits, Zinn’s lawyer Michael Brough wrote a letter to Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos complaining that Harrison might not be able to consider the merits of any future proposal for Zinn’s land “without having a fixed opinion prior to hearing the matter,” as required by law.

Karpinos agreed that a council member can’t independently investigate property under review for a permit without making the developer aware but since Zinn hasn’t submitted a new proposal, Harrison was in compliance. Anyone can walk on someone else’s land unless the owner tells them otherwise, as with a “No Trespassing” sign, Karpinos said.