That is from the 1997 piece "Bias and Conflicts of Interest in Land-Use Management Decisions" by Professor David Owens with the UNC School of Government. Professor Owens is the long-time faculty land use and zoning expert at the institution.
That idea of fairness and unbiased decision making is particularly important because of how land use decisions impact the lives of citizens. In the conclusion of the article Owens describes the importance this way.
"Governmental land-use decisions have a profound effect on communities and individuals. It is through these decisions that the quality and character of our state's future development will in large part be determined. These decisions also can significantly affect individual landowner's rights. It therefore is imperative that these decisions be made in a fair and impartial manner."
Impartiality is clearly of utmost importance in conditional zonings where ultimately it is up to the Board of Commissioners to decide on just about every detail. Commissioners are effectively like the judge and jury in a trial. However aShortChronicle recently obtained an example where impartiality in conditional zoning questions may not always have been the case here in Davidson.
Prior to the current Griffith Street hotel controversy, the most recent conditional zoning donnybrook in Davidson was the 2015 Narrow Passage development. aShortChronicle recently obtained an email from a public records request showing Commissioner Stacey Anderson forwarding a citizen's email to the attorney for the Narrow Passage developer during the height of the debate. The citizen who had emailed the Town was strongly opposed to the Board granting the variances requested by the development team. This occurred in May of 2015. Ultimately, when Narrow Passage was unanimously approved in August of that same year, it was Anderson who made the motion for the approval.
To be fair, when the citizen sent the email of concerns to the Town, the now defunct DavidsonNews.net was copied, so that would indicate there wasn't a concern about confidentiality. However, aShortChronicle was curious why a sitting Commissioner would proactively send off an email opposing a development to the development team. After looking at numerous records requests over the years, this kind of thing certainly isn't common. Anderson responded last Friday with the following.
"I don’t remember this particular email, it was almost 2 and a half years ago. I think that is important for elected officials to recognize that constitutional rights and transparency should benefit all property owners, not just a select group whether they for or against development, and I am glad I made an effort to share those citizen concerns at that time with the applicant. Elected officials don’t get to choose who gets constitutional rights and who doesn’t."
This response from Anderson of course ignores the fact that nobody's constitutional rights are infringed if a Commissioner doesn't proactively send this type of "helpful" email. A developer has every right to request public records just like anyone else if they want this information. Nor does it explain why all emails on a subject aren't sent to all parties in these types of decisions. If there was a legitimate concern about constitutional rights, there would probably be a law on the books requiring they be sent or easily made available to any interested party. Instead, this looks exactly like what Anderson says Commissioners should not do - deciding who gets something and who doesn't.
It is this kind of flawed thinking, and not just from Commissioner Anderson but from this entire Town Hall administration, that has led to too many justifications of bad behaviour and wrong decisions.
For a comparison, aShortChronicle checked in with candidate Matthew Fort to get his take on sending that kind of email Commissioner Anderson is "glad" she sent. We asked Fort on this specific example because he sites Narrow Passage as the reason he got involved in local politics. Here's what he had to say.
"As a commissioner, I will make an effort to avoid forwarding a citizen’s e-mails to developers or their legal representation without their permission. If there is a need to pass information onto a developer, I would prefer to have that be done through the town staff. That being said, if a developer or their representative asked me a question, I would certainly respond but also make sure to include town staff on my response.
An example of how I have already handled citizen questions through the campaign process is below:
I had a phone call with a citizen who walked me through their concerns regarding the Potts/Sloan/Beaty corridor. I listened to their concerns and then asked if it was ok to use their name in my e-mail to the town staff. After I sent the e-mail to the Town Manager, I forwarded my note to that citizen to keep them informed. Upon receiving a response from the Town Manager, I then forwarded that response to the citizen as well."
So why bring up this situation now?
Well, as mentioned at the beginning, the Griffith Street Hotel proposal currently sits before the Board. It may get voted on at the November 14th meeting - one week after the election, and if this happens, Anderson will get to vote on this conditional proposal even if she is not reelected. However, if it is not voted on by a lame duck Board, whoever is on the Board after that will get to decide.
When choosing your candidates this election season remember there is one incumbent candidate who doesn't seem to "get it" when it comes to handing these types of sensitive issues and at least one challenger candidate who does.
No comments:
Post a Comment