ft
The Daily Tar Heel Monday, October 28, 19357
This editorial comment appeared in the Sunday, October 13th edition of The Village Advocate.
.1 . -1 1
'or more man two years now, me proposed
Rosemary Square project has proceeded deliberate
ly through public discussions and, with great pain to in
volve the public and satisfy each step of the public pro
cess, agreements were made between the town of
Chapel Hill and the private developers. Even the choos
ing of the developer was a public process lasting more
than seven months.
It has now worked its way through at least 25 identi
fiable public actions and approvals over the two
years.
Most important was the agreement, the contract
approved in January of this year, giving the town's
word and its legal commitment to the project.
In this time of changing national priorities and di
minishing federal support to municipalities, local gov
ernments are having to create new avenues to promote
downtown revitalization. This publicprivate partner
ship project, initiated by the town, is an excellent exam
ple. As they crossed into this new territory, the town and
the developers took great care to take information
about this project to the public.
The town did not do its work behind closed doors.
Many of us viewed the three competitive proposals
while their scale models were on display in the Munici
pal Building and the Public Library. Virtually every
civic club in town was visited for a presentation and
scrutiny. A 20-minute video was produced and shown
at these clubs and the library, and repeatedly shown on
the cable system. All of this took place before the con
tract was signed in January.
Despite this, with the spector of an election coming
this fall, it is now apparent that the idea of proceeding
with this long-standing and creatively exciting project is
being made a major issue in the current election cam
paign. Opponents have distorted information, not
sought clarifying data from the town or developer, and
nitpicked at minor elements, all of which have been an
swered in the design to those who would take the trou
ble to ask officials.
Now, nearly a million dollars has already been spent
on the project. The issue then, is not legally or legiti
mately whether, but how, the town and developers are
to proceed in making Rosemary Square a reality. Those
who charge the project had insufficient public airing,
are, to put it charitably, simply mistaken.
The editor of the local paper, a candidate for mayor,
and a slate of the candidates have made the project con
troversial by labeling it as such. Where were they when
these public actions occurred?
October 1983 -Council unanimously authorizes
manager to issue requests for proposals.
November 1983 Manager reported to council on ne
gotiations for purchase of Lot 2, the site west of
NCNB.
December 1983 Council approved parking revenue
bonds for purchase of this portion of Lot 2.
January 1984 Council extended deadline for public
private development proposals from February 1 to
March 1.
February 1984 Council scheduled work session for
April 30 to discuss proposals.
March 1984 Public hearing on three proposals re
ceived March 1 st and published.
April 30, 1984 Work session held by council on
three proposals.
May 29, 1984 Council requested local act from Gen
eral Assembly necessary for project, approved June 22
by General Assembly.
May 1984 Council held a work session and reached
consensus to negotiate with Fraser Company for proj
ect whose scale model had previously been on public
display at town hall and library.
June 1984 Council adopted resolution to authorize
negotiations with Fraser Company for 90 days.
June 1984 Council authorized $10,000 for legal and
financial assistance and negotiations.
September 1984 Council authorized additional 60
days for negotiations with Fraser Company, authorized
additional $30,000 for assistance and negotiations.
November 1984 Manager gave council proposed 60
page development agreement with Fraser Company;
council adopted resolution for the process for consider
ation, authorizing the manager to enter into a contract
to acquire a Pearsall property for additional parking
and to negotiate for Sloan property on Lot 2.
December 1984 Council held work session on pro
posed development agreement.
December 30, 1984 and January 6V 1985 Notices of
January 7 forum published.
January 7, 1985 Council held forum for comments
by citizens on Rosemary Square development agree
ment. January 14, 1985 Council held work session on
issues raised at January 7 forum and work session, au
thorized loans from the General Fund to pay for Pear
sall property.
January 30, 1985 Council unanimously approved
Rosemary Square development, including various con
ditions that must be met for closing.
While the town was considering the project, none of
the present opponents appeared at any of the public
hearings or forums to express a word of opposition.
At the January 7, 1985, public hearing, the only pub
lic concern was expressed by Joe Herzenburg, whose
expressed concern was that not enough public discus
sion had been given to the project's impact on North
Street. '::
On December 9, 1984, it was noted here as a part of a
call for public comment that virtually all of the interest
in the project had been favorable and that it aroused
virtually no opposition.
On February 10, the council's unanimous endorse
ment of Rosemary Square was called "a tribute to the
careful consideration" given the development for more
than a year.
Then, this spring brought a campaign to undo all of
that, which ultimately tied the opposition to this fall's
elections. It is always easy in a political campaign as
well as in any project of this scope to rally
opposition.
Someone noted that if we publicly debated the lo
cation of the University, then voted on whether to move
it, we could fill the editorial page with letters from
people who would do so.
Due process, then, can be thwarted by any who
would hold our leaders hostage to a constant barrage of
twisted information.
Thoughtful citizens of Chapel Hill will not be moved
by hostile generalities about Rosemary Square, but vail
soberly consider its merits, the faith placed in our
elected officials, the painfully long public process that
developed the agreement, and what the alternatives are
if this community attempts to change the rules in mid
game on yet another builderinvestor, this one a con
tractual partner ;with a million dollars invested.
presented by
Ti7V-. nr.rn t ,r
Part of aseries to stimulate public responsibility.
The cost of reprinting this editorial was paid by the Fraser Development Company.
Jim Heavner
President
Aim
Qps
n.
o
o
IP
o IsBrn more Bbout
qtaar
For information
Please stop foy ouir office
NB Plaza Spite 404