On Wednesday, June 1st, Chapel Hill Town Council conducted a Council work session on the future of the Legion tract, a piece of land purchased so that north-east Chapel Hill could have a Town park. The purchase of the land was an accomplishment that required much work by Mayor Hemminger to undo a plan by the previous Council to allow a developer to build high-rent apartments there. The story of how that happened is here.
While Wednesday’s discussion of the Legion property was scheduled long ago, Council member Michael Parker recently initiated a petition to the Council signed by a majority of five Council members. The petition asks the Town Manager to take specific actions that would: (1) sell portions of the Legion property for commercial uses, and (2) reserve average for affordable housing. Given the physical constraints of the property, these requests would result in a much smaller park and the loss of a large stand of mature hardwood trees, and the petition’s content has proved controversial.
Public business, private decisions
Regardless of its content, however, the crafting and execution of Council member Parker’s petition raises grave concerns about due process.
It is the duty of our representatives to make decisions transparently, as demonstrated by North Carolina’s open meeting laws. In this case, what should have been a transparent decision-making process was instead formulated by our elected officials in private emails, texts, and/or phone calls behind closed doors. Compounding this issue is that the petition was presented at a Council work session where customarily the public is not permitted to comment.
The Town Manager was thus presented by Council with a directive crafted in such a way that public input was not taken before the Council members indicated they were ready to move ahead with the Petition.
Ross Thompkins, Manager Jones’ staff representative, responded to Parker’s petition at the Wednesday session. He explained how each request would be dealt with by the staff, including potential uses for the property, and suggested a timeline. See Staff Presentation here. Thompkins then showed a map illustrating how the property would be carved up to accommodate the new developments based on Council requests contained in the petition.
Out of order
It is highly unusual that a Council majority would petition itself, and then that the Town staff would undertake to work behind the scenes on materializing Parker’s plan. In a dramatic departure from procedure and from the treatment of petitions from non-Council members, public resources were expended on Parker’s petition before it was even presented for consideration in a public forum. It is not clear why this directive to staff was framed as a petition given that the petition process itself was almost entirely bypassed.
The purpose of resident petitions is for community members to voice concerns and requests to Council, not for the Town Council to avoid public comment on controversial decisions and short-circuit due process.
Responding to the petition’s requests outside of accepted procedure and without hearing from the public unfortunately makes our Town Manager and his office complicit in failing to follow due process.
“I am putting people on notice”
Residents viewing the video recording of the work session will hear the petition’s five Council members (Michael Parker, Karen Stegman, Camille Berry, Paris Miller-Foushee, and Tai Huynh) express strongly held opinions about the disposition of this Town-owned property for over 90 minutes. No such opportunity was extended to the public – despite strong public interest. In fact, several Town residents requested permission to provide comment at the meeting and were informed by the Mayor that their request would be granted. However, they were then not permitted to speak.
Several Council members also explicitly criticized the public for sending email messages with opposing views. Newly elected Council members Camille Berry and Paris Miller-Foushee were particularly sharp in their condemnation of public feedback with which they disagreed.
Council member Paris Miller-Foushee: “My signing the petition is not a political move. I am putting people on notice to not ever frame my service or leadership or decisions made as a political move.”
It is unfortunate that Berry, Miller-Foushee, and Tai Huynh have refused invitations to visit the property they have formed such strong opinions about. For the last few years, new Council members and many staff members have toured the site with knowledgeable neighbors to understand its unique features, streams, resource conversation district areas, and spectacular stands of hardwood forest. Such a visit would lead to more informed discussion and dialogue.
Council member Camille Berry: “It is not a park so we shouldn’t call it that… We need to look at this without fear. My inbox is filled with fear. How can they say they don’t want to provide affordable housing?”
Update: Since the June 1st Council meeting, Council members Camille Berry reached out to neighbors requesting another opportunity for a tour of the Legion/EphesusPark property. Tour guides for Ms. Berry this week included Friends of Legion Park and other involved Chapel Hill residents. Council members Parker and Miller-Foushee also joined unexpectedly.
False equivalencies
Berry’s comment raises several questions. Most importantly: Is it fair to say that anyone hoping this particular tract will be preserved for its original intent are against affordable housing? Is it misleading to refer to it as a park considering that the property was acquired for that purpose? Additionally, far from a being fringe opinion, Chapel Hill residents identify public parks as the most important Town issue.
One of many concerns with the content of this petition is that it proposes a short-term solution for a long-term problem. Is it good stewardship to sell off public land, our most valuable and limited asset, for private profit and little in return? Does it even accomplish the stated goal of easing our affordable housing crisis? We would argue that it does not.
Despite urgent warning from the Town’s own urban planning consultant in November that the Council must change course, we are poised to do more of the same. Why is it that our Council will not require large new developments to provide adequate affordable housing, but it’s the public’s desire for recreational space that is anti-housing?
Housing and public recreational space are not and should not be made oppositional. As Chapel Hill grows, our new neighbors will also need space to walk, picnic, and let their children play. Far from being a luxury we can’t afford, access to public parks is a well-known equity issue with far-reaching implications for climate resilience and residents’ physical, social, and psychological wellbeing.
A park by any other name…
While Berry contends that the Legion property should not be referred to as a park, her statement and Parker’s petition are both at odds with the Town’s own plans – as guided by the Comprehensive Parks Plan, the Town’s Parks, Recreation and Greenways Advisory Board, and the Legion Park Task Force. While many members of the public might find this surprising, the Council is not bound to follow plans made by prior or current Councils.
While it can be argued that it’s not accurate to call this land a “park” in its current state, the fact remains that it was purchased expressly with the promise that it would become one. That the Town has neglected to devote the resources needed does not change that fact. Insisting that this land not be called a “park” draws attention away from the land’s history and mischaracterizes residents who have been waiting for the park they were promised.
We can do better.
While the Town is not legally obligated to follow through on its prior plans, it should, however, consider whether it is acceptable to change direction on an issue so important to the community without at least a hearing in an open and public session.
We call on the Town to ensure that public policy is not made behind closed doors. Most all communications (including emails) involving elected officials and even advisory board members are a matter of public record.
It’s been a number of years since the Town has sponsored a UNC Institute of Government workshop. There are UNC experts right here in our community who can advise Council members and advisory board members about what is required of a public official and how to comply with ethical guidelines and the NC open meetings laws. Chapel Hill is a community that should strive to more than fulfill its legal obligations of transparency to its residents.
We also encourage Council members and other community members to view illuminating talks about strategies for creating affordable housing by Peter Sabonis and other housing activists in Baltimore. These informative and inspiring workshops can be viewed here, including resource downloads, further reading, and speaker bios. Closed captions and transcripts are available for all sessions.
Other communities have created permanently and deeply affordable housing without depriving their previous and new residents of the green space that is essential for their wellbeing. We can and should follow their example.
Julie McClintock is the author of this post.