Save Davidson "splits the rock"...Beaty Street Luminous Project dies

"You never know which strike will split the rock...but you have to keep striking."

The above quote is a version of the Stonecutters Credo sent to aShortChronicle by Jamie Ramsden, one of the leaders in the Save Davidson movement.  That was back on August 19th.  By that time the activist group had been pounding the rock for months with blow after blow.

Today, the Beaty Street RFP rock split.

Was it the protests, the packed Town Hall meetings, the countless emails, the lemonade stands, the signs, the car magnets, the magnet mobile, the t-shirts, the records requests, the videos, the growing number of Facebook likes, the relentless fact checkers, the SHINE events, the information sessions, the Save Davidson Run for the Green participants, the constant drip of conflicting information, or the Save Davidson funded appraisal?

We may never know why, but today the Town of Davidson posted this...

A great example of citizen activism and perseverance came to fruition today.  An unbelievable amount of dedication and work went into putting a stop to a crazy idea that never should have been allowed to get this far.  Everyone involved needs to take pride in what has been accomplished, take a day or two to breath it all in.  Then, continue to work to make sure it does not happen again.

On November 7th, make sure that happens by getting out to vote.

Save Davidson to present results of independent Beaty Street land appraisal on Thursday

Save Davidson is taking it up a notch in their challenging of Davidson Town Hall's handling of the Beaty Street RFP.  The activist group has commissioned their own professional appraisal of the Beaty Street Property to see if the initial one done by the town passes the smell test.

Thursday night the group will reveal the results at the Homewood Suites in the Circles@30 area.  Here is what the announcement had to say.

As a sign the Town of Davidson knows its original appraisal conducted as part of the RFP process may be flawed, it is currently having it re-done.  As part of the Town initiated appraisal citizens have been encouraging the Town to hold off to ensure it includes the sale of the property for the "Potts Street Project" at the intersection of Potts and 115.  The Potts Street parcel is about the same size as the Beaty Street land and is rumored to be undeter contract for considerably more per acre than Beaty.

While the Potts Street project is also controversial and there are also citizen efforts underway to stop it from going forward, if that sale was to go through it would provide an excellent comp for any sale of the town owned Beaty St.

Regardless, the Beaty Street land is about to get multiple new looks at it from a valuation perspective.

Beaty Street vote: the fix was in before the meeting started

aShortChronicle has obtained the results of a public records request confirming what most people thought after last week's Beaty Street RFP vote.

The "votes" were in fact counted prior to the meeting.

The records request shows a flurry of activity the evening before the vote and the morning of to ensure the development team and staff supporting the project had the votes needed.  These emails show Assistant Town Manager Dawn Blobaum acting as the go-between for the DDP team and the Town Board

Readers will remember that on the Friday before the vote, the town meeting agenda presented an option that had removed the affordable housing component. Then on Monday it became known that was being replaced in favor of a payment in lieu option for that component.

On Tuesday, Commissioners Stacey Anderson, Rodney Graham, and Brian Jenest voted to support a new Luminous option that had on-site AH back in the plan.

So, what happened?

Public records show the following timeline:

Monday, July 10

9:56pm - In an email to the rest of the development team copying Dawn Blobaum, mention is made of nearly having the Beaty Street decision pulled from the agena "again".  It is also stated that "we believe we have reached a consensus with a majority of Commissioners" (emphasis added)

(Note: No emails show how this "consensus" was reached.)

9:58pm - DDP sends email to Dawn Blobaum with new plan that puts on-site affordable housing back in the proposal.

(Note: That is just 2 minutes after the first email.)

Tuesday, July 11

7:02am - Blobaum sends Commissioners the new plan with this request.  "Please let us know if you can support this tonight.

7:32am - Commissioner Stacey Anderson replies "I can support this."

7:36am - Commissioner Rodney Graham replies "Ditto".

7:55am - Commissioner Brian Jenest responds "I support the current proposal."

(Note: There is no comment from Commissioners Beth Cashion and Jim Fuller in the emails.  Both Cashion and Fuller voted "no" on this issue Tuesday evening.)

In these emails Commissioners Graham and Anderson also made other comments.  Graham asked for clarification of possible County support for parks in this area of Davidson, but said his support wasn't "contingent" on getting that update.  Anderson expressed concern for staff's ability to "support the effort that it will take to move this forward including the amount of anticipated public interest".

Later that same day, Commissioners Anderson, Graham, and Jenest stuck with their statements supporting the project - proving that what happened Tuesday evening was little more than kabuki theater.

Commissioner Stacey Anderson's swing vote on Beaty Street...

Commissioner
Stacey Anderson

"So, I have changed my mind during this meeting."

Those were the words Commissioner Stacey Anderson uttered to start her comments as Davidson Commissioners made their closing arguments before voting on the Luminous project and the sale of the Beaty Street property this past Tuesday.  Anderson ultimately voted for the project, and that left many, many people very, very confused.  aShortChronicle went back to the video and listened multiple times to see what might have been missed.  Here is what Anderson said.

"So, I have changed my mind during this meeting.  
But I still think this is the best plan, the best for Davidson"  She goes on to talk about how great she thinks the plan is and about the money it will bring into the town.  She says she thinks it meets all the town core values.  Then she closes with this statement.  "But I don't think the town can take the pressure, the tearing up, the anxiety it is taking to do this. But, aside from that, this is probably the best plan you'll ever see on this property."

Taken all together this certainly sounds like someone who was for the project and then switched to being against the project because of what it is doing to the town.

Anderson's comments came immediately after Commissioner Jim Fuller received major applause for his statements and strong commitment to vote against the project.  They came after hearing dozens of citizens speak against the project.  After she spoke, Commissioner Rodney Graham spoke at length for the project.  Graham, along with Commissioner Brian Jenest also voted for it as well.

Taken all together, Anderson's ultimate vote for the project after her comments actually means she appears to have changed her mind twice.  She was for the project going into the meeting; against the project after hearing from citizens; then she was back to being for the project again just a half hour later when the votes were cast.

Graham and Jenest work in the development industry, and just like sharks bite at the beach in summer, developers build.  Their votes are wholly unsurprising.  What makes Anderson's waffling so difficult to accept on such an impactful vote is that hers was the swing vote.  Her vote made it 3-2 for the project.

Swing votes are important.  By definition, they cause something to go one way or the other.  Commissioner Stacey Anderson, now more than any of the other Commissioners, bears responsibility for the sale of the Beaty Street property and the Luminous project going forward.

As of this posting, Commissioner Anderson has not filed for re-election.  The filing period ends one week from today.

Update: Commissioner Anderson filed for re-election on Friday the 14th.

Big meetings, big decisions, big controversy on docket in Mooresville and Davidson this coming week

Big development related decisions are on the agendas for Mooresville/Davidson on Monday/Tuesday this coming week, and each is likely to yield some controversy.

Social media sites are encouraging people to attend and show their displeasure with the Lake Davidson development rezoning request in Mooresville on Monday and with the Beaty Street RFP developer selection in Davidson on Tuesday.  See here and here for the details on each.

Citizens opposed to both projects have been working diligently - pursuing any and all options to derail these large scale projects that will occur in close proximity to each other, on similar propose6thd timelines, on already overcrowded NC115.  To date, those efforts appear to have fallen largely on deaf ears at local Town Halls.

Enough shenanigans have certainly come out of those halls of power to have earned officials the ire of the people they supposedly represent.  See here, here, here, and  here for examples.

aShortChronicle has received indications that both meetings could see some surprises as activists pull out all the stops before potential votes that could change this portion of the Lake Norman area from bucolic small-town America to Birkdale on steroids.

Stay tuned as this story unfolds over the next few days.

BREAKING NEWS: Davidson Town Hall set to vote on Beaty Street

The agenda for the next meeting of the Davidson Board was published late Friday afternoon.  It contains an item titled:  Consider Approval of Beaty Street Developer.

In government lingo "consider" means "vote".

This comes just 3 weeks after the most watched episode in Davidson Town Hall history where Davidson Commissioners heard from both their former Town Attorney and the grandson of the property owner who sold the majority if the Beaty St property to the town over 30 years ago.

Since then a steady stream of documents have been released by activists confirming the intent of that sale for the land to be used as a park.  There have also been documents showing the Town working with the developers to "drum up" more support for the project known as the Luminous.

At the end of the previous discussion the Board asked the developer to come up with a few changes.  Those are included in the agenda.

Will these incredibly modest and ambiguous changes be enough for Commissioners to vote the proposal through with straight faces?  We will find out Tuesday.  One thing is certain however. For opponents of the project, this skimpy list almost certainly will not be enough to appease their discontent.

Update: Organizers tell aShortChronicle a protest is being planned for Town Hall immediately prior to the Tuesday Board meeting.  Stay tuned for more details.

Beaty Street: Lawyers, threats, and karma at Davidson Town Hall

Davidson Town Hall was the set for some high drama last Tuesday - drama worthy of an episode of Matlock or even the climactic scene from a John Grisham novel.  The action included:

• Three very southern lawyers sitting around a Town Hall conference table sort of sizing each other up while being unfailingly polite.
• A threat to clear the room when the gallery got a little vocal.
• A closing argument one-liner that will forever live in Davidson's collective memory.

The scene starts at the 1hr16min mark of this video from Town Hall.  It has already shattered records for the number of views of anything Davidson Town Hall has on file.

In what appeared to be an orchestrated event intended to finally quash opposition to Town Hall's plans for the 19 acre Beaty Street property, former Town Attorney Rick Kline was summoned to Davidson Town Hall on Tuesday as an "expert witness" of sorts.  Kline was the attorney when the Town of Davidson bought the majority of the Beaty Street land back in 1985.  He should know if the land was intended as a park, right?

Over several minutes of questioning, mostly by Commissioner Jim Fuller, himself an attorney and former judge, Kline recounted the history of the purchase as he remembered it and according to "his file".  Meanwhile, there's a gentleman in the back of the room who has stood multiple times throughout it all as if asking to be recognized.  Who was he?

As the story began to unfold, Kline said he didn't remember the land being purchased with any "strings attached", either "legally or non-legally".  He said that in spite of his own documents referencing a park multiple times.

At that point the attendee in the back of the room who had stood speaks up and says, "I just wanted to let you know I'm here.  I'm Ralph Clontz.  I was there."  To that, the room erupts into applause. Who is Ralph Clontz?  Well, he turns out to be none other than Ralph Clontz III, the grandson of Venie Clontz who sold the property to Davidson over 30 years ago.

Kline proceeds to say all the documents that mention a park were from him as if to parse the fact that references to a park were just his and that there was no obligation for a park because he didn't remember it that way.  That of course flew in the face of at least one document aShortChronicle showed readers in this piece from Tuesday AM.  That document had been circulating  on social media for days.  The crowd grew restless at these conflicting statements by Mr Kline coming on behalf of the Town's position.

In response to the restless audience, one can hear Commissioners tell the crowd to settle down. One of them blurts out "we'll clear the room if we have to!!"  (Has that actually ever happened in Davidson - a real threat to throw the public out of Town Hall???)

Doing the right thing, Commissioner Fuller asks if the Board would "suspend its rules" of normal procedure and allow Mr Clontz to speak.  Having little choice with a room full of people, they allow it.  If the room had been empty who knows what would have as happened.  One can easily see Mr Clontz being asked to "set up an appointment with staff" to discuss in detail - a tactic sometimes employed to keep uncomfortable discussion out of the Board Room.

Instead, the public heard several minutes of quote unquote "testimony" that directly contradicted the Town's star witness, Mr Kline.

Mr Clontz, now the third attorney in the discussion, recounted clearly knowing his grandmother intended to sell that property to Davidson for use as a park.  Saying :  "I know.  It was important to her.  She believed that this was going to be used for a park."  When describing the negotiations between his grandmother and the Town, Ralph Clontz told of the sale being at "somewhat of a discount", saying "she was trying to do something very wonderful for the Town of Davidson - that being a park.  That's what we thought was going to happen."

There were a few more minutes of discussion, then Mr Clontz says  "I just hate for my grandmother to have been so generous and then...poof."

To that Commissioner Jenest interjects that all the proposals discussed include at least some park uses.  After acknowledging that as "good to know" Mr Clontz goes back to the original intent of the sale with this closing line.

"You can decide to ignore the wishes of a little old lady who was very generous if you want to, but...(dramatic pause)...that's some bad karma."

Being legally required and following the original intent of something aren't necessarily the same things.  So, it looks like the Town of Davidson has a decision to make - do what's legal or do what's right.

Whichever one it chooses, the jury (aka the citizens) will be watching closely.

Beaty Street: Newly disclosed documents conflict with Mayor Woods's Statements

Last week just hours before Davidson Town Hall hosted a roundtable discussion in hopes of quieting opponents of the Beaty Street RFP process, documents began circulating online that appeared to contradict the Town Hall party line that no documentation existed showing the property was originally intended to be a park.  Opponents of the RFP process and the planned "Luminous" mixed use project at the 19 acre Beaty Street site have long been saying this property was intended to be a park.  Some have even taken to calling the property "Promised Park" in reference to that original intent, so these documents came as a welcome vindication of that position.

In addition to the documents flying around, the below video of Mayor John Woods from what appears to be a Chat at the Egg was also posted.  In the video after being asked directly about the Beaty property being purchased by the town for a park, Mayor Woods very clearly says no such documentation exists.

Click HERE for video

Mayor Woods's statement that no documentation exists flies in the face of these documents that say otherwise.  These refer to the deed and the purchase contract when the largest portion of the property was purchased by the town in 1985.

Even more revealing of the intent is this letter from December 1984 from the son of the former landowner to the town.

Then, there is also this email from Town staff obtained via public records request.

In an attempt to get some clarity on the issue aShortChronicle asked the Town the following question last Thursday.

"Can the Town comment on the inconsistency between these documents and Mayor Woods's statement in the video."  (Note: at the time of the question, just the first documents were sent.)

Here is the response from Town Attorney Cindy Reid.

"The purchase offer from the Town of Davidson to the seller stated: “There must be no restrictions, easement, zoning, or other governmental regulations that would prevent the reasonable use of the real property for park, play ground or other public recreational purposes.” While this requirement was for the singular purpose of making sure that restrictions did not exist that would prevent the property’s use as a park, no requirement for use as a park was included.  By no means does that language require or commit use of the property as a park.  Conditions requiring no restrictions on property are standard. The property was deeded to the Town of Davidson  without restrictions which means it can be used for any purpose (as long as that purpose meets the underlying zoning requirements)."

You'll notice this response does not really address the question asked, but it does give a lot of insight into how this Town Hall does business.

Also, take a look closely at the above documents regarding the deed and the letter.  The note regarding the deed and the letter are from/to former long-time Davidson Town Attorney, Rick Kline.  Kline resigned his position at the end of June 2016.

Additional public records show Kline was consulted on the Beaty Street RFP before he left.  Furthermore, aShortChronicle has learned through researching this post that the Town has "paid Rick Kline $10,453 since July 1, 2016 for projects related to the planning department, town attorney, and real estate."

So, not only are there documents regarding the intent of this property to be used as a park, but those documents involve a former Town Attorney who has been involved in this project from the RFP stage.

Davidson Commissioners will discuss the project at tonight's Board meeting.  The question before them should be if they will honor the original intent for this property, or will they do what they want?

Beaty Street RFP opposition explained...the process IS the problem

The last post on the delayed vote for the Beaty Street development proposal received a lengthy response on Facebook giving a lot more detail and color behind "why" locals are opposing this Town Hall initiative.  It comes from Eric Giangiordano of thd Hobbs Hill neighborhood.  Giangiordano was one of the citizen participants in the RFP process, so his is an informed opinion on how this process has gone down.  It is lengthy, and has been edited only slightly to remove a couple extraneous comments.

Giangiordano makes a point familiar to readers of aShortChronicle.  It's often not "what" Town Hall does but "how" it does it that riles citizens.

Here's what Giangiordano had to say.

"Regardless of where residents stand on these various issues including the Beaty Street RFP. I'd like to just clarify one specific, yet very important, point - the reason I object to the current agenda for Beaty Street property, and this mirrors the same basis for objection echoed by numerous reside nts and community groups across Davidson (including Hobbs Hill Neighborhood Alliance/HHNA, which I represent) is due to the significantly flawed process, which was erroneous on multiple levels well before the issuance of the RFP, then carried thru the "selection committee" process rife with issues itself (and for which I and a member from North Main participated - and abstained from any vote due to said issues), and certainly preceded the rush to enter contract with DDP.

The fact is that 2 of the major tenets for citizens' rebuke of the original "Catalyst" project can be generally characterized as: (a) They didn't want to see the town sell publicly-owned land to a private developer for density development (b) They expected appropriate engagement and prior public input on the vision/utilization of such publicly-owned land. NEITHER of those criteria were met with the original Catalyst notion put forth by Town and its staff. Yet the Town received one unsolicited offer from Lake Forest Church (which would have involved Blue Heel) to purchase only SOME of the Beaty property for development, NOT all of the land - and the Town did take the correct step to not arbitrarily engage in such sale of the public's land. Yet astoundingly within just MONTHS of that pause/re-evaluation of Catalyst, where the train ran off the tracks was the Town then issued an RFP that was arbitrary in its requirements, vision and goal for the Beaty Street property, and did so proposing what 2 key tenets? (a) Sell the public's land to a private developer for density development (b) NO prior public input on the vision/utilization of Beaty Street, amongst ALL permitted uses by ordinance.

IF a proper, thorough multi-step "prior public input process" is facilitated by the Town, and the consensus/majority of residents determine a certain vision/utilization of the land, my own position is that then whatever that may be should then be pursued with an RFP and/or other appropriate execution plan for realization of such vision.

And of even greater frustration is that lacking any prior public input vision for Beaty Street property, the FACT (and I repeat, FACT), is that the Beaty Street property was originally purchased 30 years ago "for a park", and EVERY one of the Town's public-input derived plans (adopted or otherwise) including the 2010 Comp Plan, 2012 Station Area Plan, 2014 Parks/Rec Master Plan, etc. most often defined "park/community facilities" for Beaty Street, NOT commercial/mixed-use/density node, and certainly not selling the entire properties for such.  So this whole notion that certain residents and groups that are espousing the Beaty Street vision focusing on park/community facilities are biased for only what they personally deem appropriate - well, again that's grossly misrepresentative.  Sure, many of them (myself included) would prefer to see that be the main component of the property as a "green" asset to ALL residents throughout Davidson and one that is within proximity to downtown, but the true underlying rationale is because lacking the Town's proper prior public input to specifically determine such vision, the evidence clearly shows community park/facilities WAS the most common prior preference of the public by the Town's own plans on file.

Yes, various visions of development on the Beaty St. property have also been outlined in some of those plans - but interestingly, more of that was driven by the Town and certain staff, NOT residents - and again, not the way the RFP and current DDP plan represent. As I stated in a board meeting recently, right now we'll never know exactly what the "true consensus vision" of the public for the Beaty Street properties would be, simply because the Town failed entirely to facilitate ever asking residents for their direct input to answer that very question. And then residents should ask, "Exactly who/what was the motivation for NOT doing that to date?" My own thesis is quite simple; if you don't want a particular answer, avoid asking the relevant question...

Final part of my comments here, which I hope clarify some key things for residents; for those including some Town staff alleging that groups such as HHNA simply don't want anything done or developed with the Beaty Street properties, or to keep "it for themselves" as adjacent neighbors, once again such allegations are unilaterally FALSE.  The FACT is that beginning last year, HHNA, not the Town, initiated dialogue about the ultimate disposition of the Beaty Street property during their initial RFP process, and explicitly informed the Town in writing that "certain development" - specifically concentrated on the Northeast quadrant by intersection of NC115/Beaty Street, was consistent with Town plans on file from public input, and thus not opposed - but that the majority of the property should ideally be both preserved AND improved upon as the last major undisturbed natural parcel owned by the public and in proximity to downtown, which had a dearth of such, so that it's ultimate disposition could be realized after 30 years of not doing so.

It's the "WHO, WHAT, WHY" of such disposition that is in dispute here - i.e, the Process."