Oscar-winning documentary filmmaker Barbara Trent ("The Panama Deception") is weighing in on the Greenbridge debate.
Trent, who lives in Orange County, doesn't like the language that critics of the seven- and 10-story towers now under construction downtown are leveling at the developers. The project received little criticism during Town Council meetings, but resentment is rising in the historically black, working-class Northside neighborhood as the towers rise. Many feel excluded and say their history is being erased.
"We all need to see Greenbridge succeed whether we supported it initially or not," Trent writes in a letter being published in Sunday's Chapel Hill News. "I can’t even imagine what a horror its failure would become. Think of an empty, half built building languishing for years instead of whatever vibrant community center we choose to make of it."
Trent urges residents to work through the town to obtain for tax relief for Northside property owners who will see their tax bills rise with the future condominiums, some of them selling for more than $1 million.
"Let’s seed compassion, opportunity and cooperation so we will reap the same," she writes. "Think outcome. That’s what community organizing and being a good neighbor is all about."
Comments
Very persuasive column by Tim Toben
Wed, 04/15/2009 - 07:22 — marcoplosThe column in today's paper by developer Tim Toben revealed that there is much more to this recent furor than late-arrivers to the debate might know.
And beyond the back & forth on the siting & neighborhood issues, we should appreciate the involvement of architect & visonary William McDonough. He may be the "Leonardi da Vinci" of our time.
Claudius, can we print your comments?
Tue, 04/14/2009 - 17:59 — mschultz (author)Would love to publish some of these comments in the paper, but we only print signed comments. If you would like us to print your posts on this or another issue, please call me at 932-2003 or e-mail me at editor@nando.com
A Pattern of Development
Fri, 04/10/2009 - 13:04 — CitizenWillThe concerns of some of the Northside community and other folks extend further than Greenbridge.
I was one of the few folks, especially at the end of the process, to fight the siting of Greenbridge.
As I said then (and many times since), siting Greenbridge at University Square, Eastgate, Conner Dr. or other areas that wouldn't trisect part of Chapel Hill's remaining traditionally diverse community - no problem. Siting it on Rosemary, big problem.
My localized concern wasn't just about accelerating gentrification on that end of Rosemary either. With Greenbridge to the west and the ridiculous boondoggle of the West Franklin 140 (Lot $5) on the east, the current commercial zoning along both sides of Rosemary and the possibility of applying the high density (at any cost) TC-3 zone, this corridor's development could explode in such a way as not only to further damage Northside but to jeopardize a sustainable future for our wider community.
Worse, the way the decision was pushed through, the inability to place this one development within a greater developmental context, demonstrates the majority of current Council's disregard for the wider community.
A recent example? Their "growth at any cost" mentality has led to a zone, RSSC, meant to promote %100 affordable housing being twisted to justify building 360+ luxury condos on Hillsborough St. - a development that will displace 110 affordable apartments to the benefit of the Town's business partner RAM Development.
Now we see moves to convert the Martin Luther King, Jr. corridor into a long stretch of East54 clones in order to justify the call for Federal dollars for a light rail system. Again, a developmental thrust that ignores wider consequences to the community.
So, yes, we will have to live with the looming Greenbridge.
But we should also take some valuable lessons from the way it was approved, the way it was sited and the inability of our current leadership to place its development within a wider context.
Fact Check
Sat, 04/18/2009 - 19:13 — tobentIt would be helpful for all, if folks would do a little research before making inflammatory statements. First, only five of the 98 Greenbridge Condominiums were over $1 million. Three times as many (15) were under $100,000. The vast majority were between $350K and $650K.
Hardly a palace of millionaires.
The buyers thus far in Greenbridge are black, brown, and white, ranging in age from their mid 20's to their early 90's. We have musicians, athletes, writers, doctors, ministers, and military retirees. We have people of all political persuasions. More lovely characters to mix into this already lovely town.
Hardly a palace of white yuppies.
Greenbridge doesn't fit the definition of gentrification, if you look that up, and has had no impact whatsoever on property taxes. Greenbridge has been researching other areas of the country affected by gentrification to find legislation that might protect long-time homeowners from tax increases. Unfortunately, as the article below points out, there are few remaining long-time residents of Northside -- black, white, or brown. Here is a thoughtful article by a UNC Student who did his homework in an article about the real cause of gentrification in Northside.
Facts really can make a difference:
Max Rose, City Editor
Published: Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Updated: Thursday, April 9, 2009
DTH/C. Grant Linderman
David Mason Sr. has lived in the Northside neighborhood since 1960 but high property taxes are jeopardizing his ability to keep his home.
In a few years, there might be little left of the old Northside.
The population is aging, and many of the next generation own houses elsewhere. Student demand is increasing, driving up the price of rent and increasing the price realtors will pay. With expensive sales comes rising property taxes throughout the neighborhood.
So out go the black families who nurtured a community and kept up a University, replaced by students.
Aging owners, eager renters
David Mason Sr. is like many of the remaining Northside homeowners.
A World War II veteran and longtime Carolina Inn employee, he built his Craig Street house in 1960 with a little help from a federal housing program for veterans. The houses next door and across the street were owned by family members.
Now 88, Mason is not getting any younger. His three living sons own their own homes and likely will never move back into the one-story brick home surrounded by a white picket fence.
Mason will live in the house until he dies and he says his sons then will likely sell.
When longtime homeowners sell, realtors are ready to snap up properties.
Developers have bought up dozens of properties, fixing them up and renting to an almost exclusively student audience.
When Mark Patmore moved to the neighborhood about 15 years ago, there were few students.
Patmore now owns and rents out at least a dozen properties in the neighborhood, according to county records. Almost all of his renters are students.
Northside has gone from about 75 percent homeowners to about 75 percent student rentals in the past decade, said Delores Bailey, executive director of Empowerment Inc., a nonprofit that works to provide affordable housing in the neighborhood.
The University has increased enrollment steadily, but it has been unable to house many of the students on campus. There are almost 3,000 more students living off-campus now than 10 years ago.
And many have turned to Northside neighborhood for its proximity to campus and inexpensive rent relative to other options.
“This isn’t a family oriented neighborhood. This is downtown Chapel Hill,” Patmore said.
Patmore continues to find demand for his rentals. He is 100 percent full for this year and already at 90 percent for the next year.
Although the $600 rent per bedroom is relatively cheap for students subsidized with their parents income, it is out of reach for many working families.
So the rental students begin to surround the remaining homeowners, many times without knowing their neighbors.
“When I was coming up, we had neighbors,” said David Mason Jr., 66. “Now, what you have is simply people living next door to each other.”
The impact isn’t just on the neighborhood’s atmosphere.
When a neighboring house is bought, property taxes rise for the longtime residents.
Clementine Self, who grew up in the neighborhood, says she pays from $3,000 to $4,000 per year in taxes for her Broad Street home. Self says she and her neighbors get letters weekly asking to buy the property.
The homeowners then face a choice: sell their homes or pay increasingly unaffordable taxes.
“They weren’t kicked out. It just was a natural evolution of an area,” said Doug Eyer, professor emeritus at the department of geography, who is finishing a book about Chapel Hill.
“The whites have had the money that the blacks haven’t had.”
Maintaining a community
Chapel Hill has little time left to alter the future of Northside.
Should a neighborhood be allowed to die, a casualty to surrounding markets and increased demand? Or is there something worth saving, a middle class neighborhood next to a university that needs janitors and chefs?
The town voted in 2004 to create a neighborhood conservation district, which regulates building heights and forbids building duplexes in Northside. It’s unclear if the town can do anything else to help longtime homeowners.
Empowerment has moved in the last two or three years from attempting to provide home ownership to renting at affordable rates.
Bailey advocates for more, including taxing realtors differently than homeowners.
But the shift from black homeowners to white students doesn’t worry Patmore, who rents to whoever can afford the $600 each month.
“There’s nothing I can do about that,” he said. “It is what it is.”
Most residents say they see the neighborhood moving toward being all white and student-occupied in the next decades. But many say they will remain until death.
“We were taught that your land was what gave you ownership,” Bailey said.
“Do we have to give it up because growth needs to happen?”
Contact the City Editor at citydesk@unc.edu.
As you can see
Sun, 04/19/2009 - 06:04 — elvisboy77Some folks won't be happy unless you give all of your condos away. It is an Orange Progressive thing, they have no concept of capitalism.
I think you have been a model citizen and builder. It is truly a shame that the Town of Chapel Hill did not take you up on your offer to provide energy upgrades to the adjacent low income neighborhood homes.
Go figure.
I hope you sell all of your condos quickly. Once the place is in full swing, people will see that the world is not coming to an end.
Affordability
Sat, 04/18/2009 - 22:14 — CitizenWillNot sure what you found so inflammatory about my statement but I know you are aware that I have had the same concerns - consistently - through out the approval process.
Tim, to buy a $350 to $600K unit must take some significant financial backing. Maybe not millionaires but certainly not of modest means either...
I have focused on a wider definition of diversity than what you cite, not quite sure where your comment about political or racial status comes from.
And, as far as gentrification, I believe Greenbridge , Lot $5 and other proposed and on-going developments are feeding the fire. Not the cause - feeding the fire.
You've also heard me raise concerns not only about housing gentrification but business gentrification. When Greenbridge is finished, the clock will start ticking on redevelopment around its site. This, hopefully, will be a good thing. But will the oriental food store, the local barbershop/salon, bike repair, etc. still be there?
Displacing the current mix of businesses is going to be one consequence, what is the downside and upside of that foreseeable trend? Is the community stronger for it?
Just to reiterate, I believe you and your partners should be commended for the environmental intent behind Greenbridge. I also know you have local roots and want to do the best by the community.
My concern, as you well know, is that we, as a community, didn't evaluate the wider range of trade-offs that came with siting your project at that particular location - a primary nexus of neighborhoods. If we had had a frank, honest evaluation, followed a bit less opaque approval process and still decided to put Greenbridge there, so be it.
We didn't though, and thus the current upset - some of which is patently unfair, some unfounded and some misleading.
That said, I've been accurate, specific and open in my criticism. I will continue to speak to those problems in the Greenbridge and Lot $5 approval processes in order to try to improve the next round of development decisions.
"The vast majority were
Sat, 04/18/2009 - 22:05 — tbuckner"The vast majority were between $350K and $650K."
So the vast majority of these condos are well above the average cost of a home in Chapel Hill. Maybe not a nest of millionaires, but the future residents will certainly be much more affluent than the average town resident. And I believe the 15 that are under $100,000 were mandated by the affordable housing requirement and will be managed by the Orange County Land Trust.
"Greenbridge doesn't fit the definition of gentrification, if you look
that up, and has had no impact whatsoever on property taxes. "
According to Merriam-Webster, gentrification is "the
process of renewal
and rebuilding accompanying the influx of middle-class or affluent
people into deteriorating areas that often displaces poorer residents."
I can't see how anyone can deny that's not what is happening in
Northside with Greenbridge being the final blow.
However, I agree that Greenbridge has not had an impact on property taxes, but that's only because construction hasn't been completed. Property taxes are based on comparables. Take a look at what happened to Northside property taxes the first assessment after Rosemary Square opened.
I don't believe Greenbridge initiated gentrification in Northside. That process began back in the late 1980s. Greenbridge is just the coup de grace. What I hope we all learn from this is that if we value diversity, we need to protect neighborhoods like Pine Knolls that are still home to some of our historically black community. I don't think neighborhood conservation districts are the solution, but I'm not sure what will help.
Bravo, Ms. Trent
Fri, 04/10/2009 - 12:38 — ClaudiusMs. Trent is so right. It's too late to do anything other than accept Greenbridge as a part of our community and make the best of it. The current (and hopefully temporary) rabid anti-growth attitude will only cause more hardships for those of us taxpayers who are not as well off as those who want to keep "the old Chapel Hill just the way it was..."
To many of us oldtimers in the community, that meant elitist, short-sighted and closed-minded to new ideas.
Woo Hoo Gentrification
Sat, 04/11/2009 - 18:39 — tbucknerOf course the people who see themselves losing their homes to gentrification should support the project. Why wouldn't they? It's so much more important to the town to get new millionaire residents than to keep our cultural and social diversity. And really, Northside has a neighborhood conservation district. What more do they want? (she asks with tongue firmly implanted in cheek)
Call me close minded if you like.....I like(d) living in a socially and economically diverse community.
Smaller Is Not Always Better
Mon, 04/13/2009 - 14:37 — Claudius"Call me close minded if you like.....I like(d) living in a socially and economically diverse community."
Sorry to disappoint, tbuckner, but "Old Chapel Hill" was not socially and economically diverse; it was controlled by upper-middle-class whites who wanted to keep it that way. And that sure hasn't changed much.
Allowing more commercial growth and economically-diverse business oportunites is the only way we'll ever get out of the elitist rut we're in. It may not mean 9 or 10 story highrises, but it definitely means expansion. Those who wish to curtail new growth and development in Chapel Hill are destined to remain a part of the past.
I for one would like to be a part of moving us into the excitement of the 21st century, instead of trying to hold us back in the small-minded myopathy of the twentieth.
Larger isn't always exciting
Tue, 04/14/2009 - 18:02 — tbuckner"Allowing more commercial growth and economically-diverse business
oportunites is the only way we'll ever get out of the elitist rut we're
in."
I agree with that statement. But Greenbridge isn't commercial growth. It's condos for rich folks in the middle of a historically black community. We're "elitist" because so much emphasis has been put on building high dollar residential developments over the past 20 years.
"Old Chapel Hill" WAS socially and economically diverse. It may have been controlled by the upper-middle class white folks, but that's a power structure. And even then I believe we had the first black mayor in the state.
We can live in an exciting 21st century community and still be economically and socially diverse. Those aren't mutually exclusive conditions.
Growth that benefits the wider community
Tue, 04/14/2009 - 22:26 — CitizenWillThere is no reason that we can't have growth that complements and supports our community.
I've pushed for a more active development strategy that incorporates more than million dollar condos - a strategy that strengthens not only the whole of Chapel Hill's economy but complements and builds upon what has made Chapel Hill unique. Greenbridge presented an exciting opportunity to trumpet Chapel Hill's forward thinking but, unfortunately, it was sited to the detriment of part of our community.
Again, the emphasis, as Terry notes, on gold-plated condos over economic development that builds upon our historic strengths isn't a sustainable proposition.