Fayetteville Street Planning Group

908 Fayetteville Street Suite 201
Durham, NC 27701
ph: 919-680-2878
info@fayettevillestreetgroup.com

What's Up on Fayetteville Street?

If you'd like to keep posted on the latest developments on the Fayetteville Street corridor and its surrounding neighborhoods, check out this page. We will share issues and events of importance to residents, business and property owners and concerned citizens in this section.

If you'd like more information, want an answer to a specific question or just want to communicate about how you feel about issues in the Fayetteville Street community, please contact us at info@fayettevillestreetgroup.com. We will do our best to find the answers, locate the people and the resources that can provide the answers and bring them to you at our weekly meetings.

NCCU master plan needs more sunshine

If silence was golden, NCCU would be the richest university in theland--with UNC not far behind.Unfortunately this platitude does not apply when a public university system supported by taxpayersflat-out refuses to provide information about a master plan of enormous impact to that community.

Community members' requests to NCCU Chancellor Nelms, theNCCU Board of Trustees and UNC President Erskine Bowles as late as December 16, 2008 to rescind/amend the master plan and to have the plan's approval/funding process explainedhave met with silence -- except for Erskine Bowles' dismissive December 16, 2008email that he would not meet with UCP members.

That bit of candor, however,was not enough to offset the outright refusal of publicofficials to provide information about the master plan process that is forecast to displace over 2,000 residents in its full configuration.

Read more about the much-needed accountability from UNC system officials and from NCCU officials on the master plan onthis page.

Gateway Planfor Fayetteville Streetneeds citizen input

Another plan is up for review by the City of Durham -- the Gateway Plan for major entryways into the city from NC 147 and 15-501. Since Fayetteville Street is an important gateway from southern Durham, it's important that the needs of this corridor be included in a meaningful way in the city's plans.

This plan was conceptualized a few years ago where various projects were ranked in order of importance by citizens attending those meetings. Fayetteville Street's exit was not ranked in the top three in priority at that time. This week's meeting presents another opportunity to provide much-needed input on the needs of our corridor to city administrators before the plan becomes finalized sometime in January 2009.

One thing to keep in mind is that there are plans on top of plansfor the Fayetteville Street corridor -- and sometimes coordination suffers because the plans are handled bydifferent government departments and by multiple governments (local, state, federal).

This multiplicity of plans can cause confusion if they are not coordinated properly or aligned with each other for funding and implementation.One example of a potential mismatch is between the streetscape designprojectand the existing gateway plan. Unless the Fayetteville Street gateway project is elevated in priority (i.e. funding for staffm design and construction), it may be out of sync with the streetscape project which overlaps the gateway project at the Fayetteville Street exit off NC 147.

The Planning Departmentwill seek public comments on the gateway plan on Thursday, December 11, 2008 in the lobby of Durham City Hall from 4:30 pm until 6:30 pm.

Historic Commission saysRivera House stays; City finds university guilty of demolition-by-neglect

The Durham Historic Preservation Commission ruled unanimously on December 2, 2008that thehistoric Edwards-Rivera House at 1712 Fayetteville Street cannotbe torn down. The ruling came afterNCCU university officials, neighborhood activists and preservationists testified before the commission.

Even thoughschool officials stated that the university would appeal the ruling about thehouse's historic statusto the State Historic Preservation Commission, this appeal does not absolve NCCU from its responsibility as a property owner to maintain its own property --historic or not. The City of Durham found NCCU guilty of demolition-by-neglect on November 14, 2008.

Although university officials cited letters attesting to the poor condition of the house, preservation commissioners stated that the house's condition did not constitute sufficient criteria for its demolition since itscondition wasone of the compellingreasons for restoring it. The university's logicon this point amounted toblamingthe victim and ignoring its role inthe house's condition.

When a university officialcited a freeze on funds for repairs and reserves asa reason for demolition, another commissioner reasoned that if the university had no money for repairs then it had no money for demolition either. Or conversely, if there is money for demolition, there should be money for repairs. Either way, this logic trail also hit a deadend with the commissioners.

Also, a university's official statement was not true thatthe schoolhad made overtures tothe Fayetteville Street Planning Group and Preservation Durhamto work out alternatives for the house. Members of bothgroups disputed this statementat the hearing.

At first glance, this issue might appear to be abouttearing downone house. But as pointed out before, the issue is much larger. It involvesthe back-door implementation ofthe university's master plan (the housebeing the first victim of the school's expansion plan)and more importantly, it involves the university's having been found guilty of demolition-by-neglect. As a result of that ruling, NCCU has beengiven 90 days to show progress toward making the required repairs(minimally by getting contracts for repair) on the house or risk future actionfrom the City of Durham.

It also appears that the university's rush to tear down the house was an attempt to beat the clock on the demolition-by-neglect violation. A victory by the university at the Historic Preservation Commission would have reduced the demolition-by-neglect ruling to a moot point since theuniversity would have hadthe green lightto tear the housedown. But thehistoric commission found otherwise and now the university mustuse the appeal process.

At this point, it may be instructive toreview what happened (or didn't happen)since the time the universitytook ownership of the house.Since people may wonder howthe house was allowedto deteriorate, we will crank up the way-back machine and review the university'sactions (or lack thereof)regarding the house.We will also inquire aboutwhy the university would use our tax money to implement the most costly alternative for the house.

The universitydid notmaintain a property that it has ownedforover ten years -- regardless of who lived there, who said what about it after ownership changed(meaning Mr. Rivera) andthe alleged intended usefor the house.

Not only is the university guilty of not maintaining its own property, itis guiltyof using faulty logic to justify itslack ofaction of over the past decade to maintain the house. If the demolition of the house was top priority, why did the school wait ten years to tear it down? If tearing the house down was such a priority, why did NCCU locate its alumni affairs office there? If the demolition of the house was the school's intent all along,why did it agree to have thehouse included in the Fayetteville Street Local Historic District three years after taking ownership?And if demolition was the intent, why did the university seek repair estimates rather than demolition estimates?

The university had an opportunity to excludethe house from the local historic districtat theAugust 2000 public hearing(and thereby exempt itfrom the city's limitations on historic district demolition).But it did not do this. By not doing this, the university agreed withplacing the house in the historic district andwith the district's goal of preservingproperties inside its boundary. To now come before the historic preservation commissionandreverse its initial agreement with the historicdistrict's limitations on demolitionis disingenuous, to say the least, on the university's behalf.

The university is also guilty of not using our tax money wisely. A November 4, 1998 memo in the packagepresented by university at the preservation hearing indicated that the school had sought estimates to repair the house - not demolish it -- and to use it as an alumni house.

Based on estimates obtained bythe universityin 1998,the costto repair the house in 1998would have been about$120,000 versus the alleged $ 445,000 pricetagtoday. Had repairs (or even worst case, demolition)been done when originally estimated, the savings to the state and the taxpapyers would have been significant either way.

But this did not happen. In fact, nothing happened and that is the problem. The university failed toput a piece of real estate, paid for by the taxpayers, to its best use at that time. If demolition had really been the objective, there would have been demolition estimates instead of repair estimates. And so it appears that current testimony by university officials that the intent was demolition all along is questionable.

In any event, it is unfortunate that university officials still refuse to have an open and frank discussion with community stakeholders about its plans. The future of an historic community that has contributed much to the university, Durham, the state and nation is at stake and theEdwards-Rivera Housestands atthe flashpoint of these issues.

We feel that there are some win-win scenarios for both town and gown -- but it will take leadership on the university's part to work with, and notdictate to, the surrounding community.

Thus far going head-to-head has been the community's only resort as both university officials and its trustee boardhave refused to providethe community with the requestedinformation on the process for approving and funding its master plan,in addition to questions that preceeded the approval of the plan.

On October 31, 2008 a request was sent to the university's trustee board requesting to speak to that board and to have the approval and funding process for the master plan explained. We feel this is a reasonable request for a taxpayer supported university.

This refusal,combined withthe school's silence onquestions about the master plan'simpacts on nearby neighborhoods, is troubling. The school's master plan in its final configuration is slated to displace 2,579 residents from their homes and remove of967housing units from the market.Should the university also acquire Lincoln Apartments, which we understand the university has expressed an interest in purchasing,the total number of displaced persons would increase to 3,033 and the number of housing units to 1,181.

The number of homestaken and residents displaced byurban renewal pales in comparision to the number of homes forecast for destruction and the number of people forecast for displacementby the NCCU master plan. Durham's Hayti community, Black Durham and Durham arestill suffering from the lasting economic legacy of those decisions. Given this scenario, one historic commission member's warning bears repeating.This time we should know better.

Historic Rivera House demolition hearing set for December 2, 2008

On December 2, 2008 the Durham Historic Preservation Commission will hear NCCUs request to demolish the historic Edwards-Rivera House at 1712 Fayetteville Street. Although the universitys demolition request involves one house, the request also raises other issues that demand an open and frank dialogue between the university and the surrounding community about growth, land use, historic and neighborhood preservation and most of all, respect for the community around the university.

The Edwards-Rivera House will be 100 years old in 2012 an amazing accomplishment in a community ravaged by urban renewal, aggressive code enforcement, demolition and overzealous redevelopment. The house has been home to three African American families since 1912 two who were related by marriage and made significant contributions to NCCU, our city, state and nation.

The irony of the schools request is that destroying the almost-century old house will wipe out any trace of the African Americans who helped build black Durham and the university and in a time where black progress often coexisted with racism, legal constraints and violence. To destroy is to forget, which seems like a strange legacy for an historically black college in a town like Durham, North Carolina.

More is known aboutthe Riverafamily, whose patriarch Alexander "Alex" Rivera was a world-renownphotojournalist who lived in the house until 1996. The Edwards family, whose patriarch Gaston Alonzo Edwards was the first licensed black architect in North Carolina, lived in the house from 1929 to 1972. Edwards' wife Catherine Ruth Edwards founded NCCU's music department. Edwards' daughter Hazel Edwards was Alex Rivera's first wife and theylived inthe house from the late 1940's at the end of Rivera's war duty.And before the Edwards family, the house was first built in 1912 and occupied by the Joseph Harris family.

In May 2008 the State of North Carolina designated the Edwards-Rivera House as having statewide historic significance, granting it legal protection against demolition. Even with the states awarding the house one of the strongest protections it can provide against demolition alongside the houses long and storied history, it appears that the universitys quest to destroy the house is at cross-purposes with the states desire to preserve it -- and with the communitys desire to honor its own history.

Public records dispute statements by a university official in the Nov. 5, 2008 issue of NCCUs Campus Echo that the house was in bad shape when NCCU purchased it in 1997. Alex Rivera lived in the house until NCCU purchased it, indicating that the house was in habitable condition. In 1999 the City of Durham performed legally-required inspections of all homes and structures on Fayetteville Street from Umstead Street to Nelson Street and certified the house as a contributing property to the Fayetteville Street Local Historic District on page 21 of the Fayetteville Street Historic Preservation Plan. The house was also listed as being in sound condition on page 27 of that same document. The houses habitable condition at the time of sale and its subsequent certification as being in sound condition just two years later by the City of Durham provide compelling proof that the house has deteriorated significantly during the decade it has been owned by NCCU.

The universitys demolition request also stands in direct opposition to the communitys desire that its local historic district support vibrant residential neighborhoods, thriving neighborhood shopping districts and become an economic catalyst for national heritage tourism. Years before NCCU rezoned land west of Fayetteville Street, stakeholders in the Fayetteville Street corridor had already anticipated the need for zoning restrictions to protectits residential neighborhoods from destruction from university development. In 2000 the Durham Business & Professional Chain members and other community supporters created Durham's onlyAfrican American local historic district -- the Fayetteville Street Local Historic District -- fromUmstead Street to Nelson Street to help preserve the areas heritage and distinctive architectural styles. Now that local historic district and its history are threatened by the demolition of the same houses it was created to protect.

The demolition of the Edwards-Rivera House is also outlined in the universitys master plan, which this community has opposed since its announcement in 2007. Besides destroying the communitys history and structures, it is particularly disturbing that the university did not evaluate other alternatives or quantify the impacts on the surrounding community before approving the plan. The displacement of 2,579 persons in the plans full configuration, with many of them elderly, is troubling along with the universitys failure to consider the mitigating effects of a satellite campus, distance learning students, high student attrition rate, other on-campus footprints for potential buildings and teacher shortages on the need for more land.

We are dismayed that continued requests for less-disruptive alternatives and information about the master plan approval process have gone unanswered from a taxpayer-supported university. Respect means more than holding meetings. Respect means sharing information about the plans underlying assumptions, impacts, cost, alternatives and approval processes none of which have been forthcoming from the university. Although university officials stated that 500 people have attended their meetings, they failed to mention that most who attended were so upset about the plan that they presented a petition to the trustees with over 500 signatures opposing its approval. Recent requests by community members to speak to the trustee board and to have the master plan approval process explained have also gone unanswered by the university. While we applaud the universitys progress, transparency and honesty should not be absent in its relationship with its neighbors.

The hearing will be held on Tuesday, December 2, 2008 at 8:30 am on the second floor conference room at Durham City Hall.

NCCU, Fayetteville Street projections questionedat transportation public hearing

Fayetteville Street Group members made remarks at the public hearing for the 2035 Long Range Transportation Planon November 12, 2008 at Durham city hall. Although written comments had already been submitted at the end of September to the city staff, members felt that Transportation Advisory Committee members needed to hearcitizens' concerns first hand. Durham members on the advisory committee who were present were Bill Bell, Mike Woodard, Ellen Reckhow and Becky Heron. Themain concerns were:

Growth projections(population, households, employment, student dormitory beds)in the 2035 transportation planappeared to be inconsistentwith thetraffic and other impacts that would be generated by the long list of projects planned for the Fayetteville Street corridor (Heritage Square, Rolling Hills, Southside, Fayette Place, NCCU master plan). Hardly any growth was shown in the transportation plan's projections despite the announcement of all these projects, which would add thousands of people (and vehicles) to the corridor if completed.
Lack of coordination between local and state transportation officials was a concern.One example is the streetscape design process for Fayetteville Street whereno one from NCDOT has attended any of the meetings since the entire process began. Since NCDOT officials have the final say on any work on a state road(and Fayetteville Street is one),their absence from these meetings could cause delays and additional costs to rework the project if they don't agree with the proposed design.
No permanent funding for the streetscape project has been identified.A request was made to include the Fayetteville Street streetscape in the current Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) with sufficient funds to build out the project and solve a host of other physical problems on Fayetteville Street at the same time. It's almost budget time for FY 2009-2010 and there should bea line item somewhere in the city or state budget for this work.
The proposed road diet for Fayetteville Street south of Burlington Avenue should include on-street parking on the west side of Fayetteville Street. Group members requested that the right-of-way be used to allow on-street parking on the west side of Fayetteville Street to support the neighborhood business districts in that area. The expansion of parking would support small business growth and the hiring of more local people -- providing a greater economic stimulus to the community. The need for more jobs and economic growth in this community far outweighs the need for more bike lanes.
The group requested traffic and environmental impact analyses be completed on the entire area (census tracts 12.01, 12.02, 13.01, 13.03, 13.04 and 14) before any other projects, rezonings or plans are approved along Alston Avenue, Fayetteville Street or S. Roxboro Street. Enlarging the scope of the impact analyses would ensure that neighborhood streets and intersections are evaluated along with major nodes along these roads.

It was pointed out that if all the redevelopment projects planned for the Fayetteville Street corridor are real, then the 2035 transportation plan has failed toreflect this growth in their plans.Or conversely, if these plansare not real, then somebody's trying to pull a fast one on the public. Either way, the public is entitled to "truth in planning" and has the right to know what our government(s) are up to regarding the future of our commnity.

It was also apparent from the other speakers' remarks (Farrington Road for example) that the planning process has also not been transparent for other communities. You might recall thattheFarrington Roadneighborhood also opposed the compactneighborhood land use designation-- but theirs was of the suburban tier variety around a proposed rail station at Farrington Road and I-40. Even though our oppositionto compactneighborhoods occured in the urban tier, the message was the same loud and clear--preserve ourneighborhoods as neighborhoods.

Another example of poor coordination involved the NCCU master plan. After approving a master plan based on a projectedstudent enrollment to 13,500 over the next decade, it was startling (and that's putting it mildly) to find that only 424 additional beds have been projected for student growth at NCCU in the long range transportation plan.

We suspected some time ago that NCCU's master plan hadoverstated enrollment projections for a variety of reasons - some of which werespelled outin a February 28, 2008 letter to Chancellor Nelms.Nelms alsosaid as much at the August 11, 2008 UCP meeting -- stating that the school needed these numbers to justify receiving funding for the plan. In light of these inconsistencies we're not sure whom to believe.

These inconsistencies are troubling. It would be tragicif these cumulative impacts created severe negative effects on the surrounding neighborhoods. The reluctance of public officials to provide this information, after repeated requests from the group, is even more troubling. Prudent planning would require that infrastructure capacities be determined before actual growth becomes a reality -- and before residents, businesses and communities may be put in jeopardy from adverse impacts.

Group requests to speak to NCCU trustees

The Fayetteville Street Planning Group along with other members of Unity in the Community for Progress (UCP)sent ane-mail request toKay Thomas, chair of NCCU's trustee board,asking that UCPgroup membersbe put on the board's November agenda tospeak directly to the trustees about rescinding or amending the master plan. The e-mail was dated October 30, 2008.

After not receiving a response to the e-mailto Thomas, the group also sentthe same request to Thomasby letteron November 5, 2008(first-class and certified mail).

The request to Thomaswas a follow-upto two previous requests by the group toChancellor Nelms to rescind or amend the master plan -- first at an August 11, 2008 meeting and second in a September 8, 2008 letter to Nelms. Nelms' September 19, 2008 response to the group's letter stated "I have shared your request with members of the board for their consideration".

The letter to Thomas also asked for an explanation of the approval process for the master plan and whether any other approvalswould berequirednow thatthe trustees haveapproved the plan.

Streetscape features Memorial forLincoln Hospital School of Nursing

Courtesy: E. G. & G.

The latest round of streetscape concepts for the Fayetteville Street corridor included a refinement of the pocket park proposed at thefront of Lincoln Health Centertohighlight and provide access to the Lincoln Hospital School of Nursing Memorial. The concept drawingabove was presented to the Streetscape Advisory Committee at its October 28, 2008 meeting along with drawings for public space venues and streetscape extensionsfor the four other commercial corridors in the streetscape plan.

The 2005 Fayetteville Street Plan originally proposed a pocket park in front of Lincoln Health Center tosolve a multiplicity of problemsthat nowexist in the blockbetween Linwood Avenueand Massey Avenue.The streetscape,alsoa key elementproposed in the Fayetteville Street Plan,presented an opportunity to solve many these problems simulataneously since most of the affected land is government-ownedand wouldinvolve city, countyand state right-of-way:

Provide more visibility and access (including handicapped) to the Lincoln Hospital School of Nursing Memorial
Provide public space for area workers, residents and visitors
Cure drainage problem at Linwood Avenue from Lincoln Health Center
Provide bus pull-offs to enhance pedestrian crossings and aid traffic flow throughboth intersections
Provide area parking for visitors to the memorial and LincolnHealth Center and forlocal businesses
Hide the chain link fence around the Lincoln Health Center parking lot

The coloredconcept drawing featured a number of elementsto enhance the pocket park and solve the problems mentioned above:

Bus pull-off located mid-block between Linwood Ave.and MasseyAve.
Removal ofhedges now blocking the view of the monument
Reuse of the hedgesto screenthe parking lot fence at Lincoln Health Center
Add low retaining wall parallel to the sidewalk
Construct sloped sidewalkswith an 8 foot grade leading to the monument from Linwood Avenue and Massey Avenue
Angled parking on Linwood Avenueand Massey including handicapped spaces on both sides
Add benches
Retain trees for park-like effect
Public sculpture or engraved metal disc as special features at each corner to anchor the park and identify it as a historic destination

Fayetteville Street representatives on the Advisory Committee made the following additional suggestions about the pocket park:

Add lighting throughout the park and uplight the monument
Add a secondbus pull-off in front of W. D. Hill which has a deep setback and plenty of unused land

A discussion of the flooding problem south of Pilot Street was discussed with city public works officials who indicated that they would pushfor a solutionwith NCDOT. Two alternatives were outlined -- buy out existing propertiesor build a detention pond outside the stream area to allow for the slow run off of excess water. Althoughthis area is now in a flood plain, city officials indicated a desire to preserve existing businesses and homesin the area and topursue the second option.

Fayetteville Street representatives also made the following remarks about thestreetscape process:

Concerned that NCDOThas not been a part of the design process thus far and could derail all the plans since this agency has oversight on state roads. City representatives stated that NCDOT would be brought in after the Oct. 14, 2008 meeting but none were present at this meeting nor were any written comments available to the group for review.
A request was made for an official report of allfunds available in the city's budget, bondor capital improvement plan (CIP) to avoid any new taxes or bonds to citizens. Potential funding sources mentionedincluded certificates of participation (COP's), 2/3's bonds, tax levies with upcoming sunset dates and unallocated funds from remaining bonds.

The Advisory Committee also discusseddeadlines for receipt ofcomments on the concept drawings, estimating construction costs, prioritizing theconstruction of thestreetscape should it become funded and methods of funding. While at least one member of the Advisory Committee had no opposition to a tax increase for the work, other members wanted to know the status of all available funds before making afinal recommendation to the city council and to the public.

A Fayetteville Street representative cautioned the group to consider the track record for past bonds where funds were diverted from Fayetteville Streetto other areas. The city's history ofbond administration along with the current economic slowdown were cited asreasons againstasking the public for another tax increase.It wasstated that citizens should not have to pay twice for benefits they never received in the first place.

Another Advisory Committee member asked city officials how the downtown streetscape was funded as a guide to possible funding strategies for the project. No answers were provided. Committee members then asked city officials to also provide:

A report on how the downtown streetscape was funded-- if there was a separate tax, a penny allocation from an existing tax or funds directly from the general fund

The next meeting of the Advisory Committee is scheduled for December 2, 2008 where the consultant will present costs for the proposed streetscapes.

Demolition by Neglect filed against NCCU

On October 20, 2008 the City of Durham's Planning Department heard charges by Fayetteville Street citizens and local preservationiststhat NCCU has notproperly maintained the historic Rivera House at 1712 Fayetteville Street and has allowed it to deterioriate through neglect. NCCU's request to demolish the house is scheduled to be heardon December 2, 2008 byDurham's Historic Preservation Commission.

One ofthe university'sreasonscited for demolishing theRivera Housewas its deteriorating conditionbutcommunity members say that the condition of the houseis a result of a decade of neglect by the university -- and several sources support that conclusion. Other reasons givenfor its demolition have included the need to build aparking lot and construct abuilding called for in the master plan. The latter reasonsfor demolishing the houseseem somewhat contradictory as university officials, including Chancellor Nelms, have publicly stated that thereis nofunding for acquiring properties forthis phase of the master plan.

The demolition by neglect action was taken by local citizensto protectthe housefrom demolition by NCCU and to preserveit as a contributing property to the Fayetteville Street Local Historic District, which is Durham's only African American local historic district. The university's neglect of the house is all the more surprisingin light of theRivera House's designationas havingstatewide historic significance in May of 2008.

But what's most surprising has been the university'sfailure to repair the house to haltits deterioration after receiving written notificationfrom the NC State Construction Officeas late asMarch 17,2008 that:

"It is feasible to renovate the house..." and "The renovation needs to begin within the next few months or the deterioration will become so severe that the house cannot be saved."

The March 2008 memo was the second memo from the State Construction Office to NCCU officials about the Rivera House. The first memo dated July 11, 2007was generatedafteruniversity officials asked the state construction office to "identify the cost and feasibility of renovating this historic structure". The report favored renovation as the most sustainable option:

"In deciding on the future of this structure, please consider State sustainability policy. The guidelines state that renovation of existing buildings is the most sustainable construction...

Sustainable design also promotes strong communities and neighborhoods. Renovation of this house would make a strong commitment to the community and initiate an upward trend in the appearance and value. Demolition of the historic home would leave a vacant lot projecting the image of blight. {emphasis ours}

If the Rivera House location is being considered for a future building on the NCCU master plan, please note that sustainable design policy would favor in-fill development within the existing boudaries of the campus."

A review of the state's assessment in both memosindicated that state sustainability policy favored in-fill development at the campus core (our contentionas wellwith the master plan expansion) and favored the use of sustainable design (renovate rather than demolish to conserve energy and materials). The memos also indicated that demolition of the house would contribute to blight in the local historic district and that renovation was feasible andneeded to get underway"withinthe next fewmonths". The March memo also stated that demolition was a less desirable option from a sustainability viewpoint. Even moving the house would still leave a gap in the historic district and contribute to the blight cited earlierin the memo.

In light of the state's timeline and continued inaction by NCCU, the July 7, 2008 complaint against NCCUwas submitted to theCity of Durhamunder its Unified DevelopmentOrdinance (UDO)Section 3.19 Demolition by Neglect ordinance. This ordinance is applicable to historic properties and properties in local historic districts. These regulations allow any citizen toenter a complaint against a property owner who allows an historicproperty to fall into disrepair. Historic properties under the ordinance include properties that are historic landmarks as well as those identified as "contributing" or "pivotal" in designated historic districts.

The ordinance states that "Owners of certain historic properties are required to maintain their properties and not allow them to fall into disrepair".

The Rivera House more than meets the ordinance's definition of "historic". In addition to its statewide designation as an historic structure, it is located in the Fayetteville Street Historic District, occupies a prominent corner in the districtat Fayetteville Street and Lawson Streetand has been the former homefor two families with close ties to the university- the Edwards and Rivera families.The house was also ranked as a "contributing" architectural structure to the local historic district by the Fayetteville Street Historic DistrictPreservation Plan.

We digress for a moment because of the misunderstanding about what's historic and what's not. Aside from official definition in Durham's UDO, it is generally accepted that a structure over 50 years old qualifies as historic. The Rivera House was built around 1910 - 1915 and from that fact alone it satisfies the definition of historic. However, the house was remodeled in the 1950's and this remodeling qualifies it as historic for a second time.

NCCU purchased the Rivera House in 1997according to a university official at the October 20meeting. Two years after the universitybought the house, the City's Planning Department conducted an inventory of historic properties as part of the Fayetteville Street Historic District Preservation Plan. This inventory listed the Rivera House's condition as "sound" in 1999. Sound properties in that planwere defined as"Those properties that exhibit good visual and structural condition" and "may need minor cosmetic repairs or maintenance".

This statement by city inspectorsestablished the fact that the Rivera House was still in good visual and structural condition two years after NCCU took ownership except for a few minor repair issues. This statement also served as an official benchmark ofthe house'scondition shortly after the time of purchase.

But in theyears that NCCU has owned the Rivera House after the city's1999 inspection, community members alleged that theuniversity allowed the house tofall into disrepair.Communitymembers alsostated that the university's failure to secure and maintain the property allowed it to be vandalized and stripped of major electrical and plumbing systems which hastened its decline.

During the October 20 meeting, Fayetteville Streetcommunity membersand local preservationistsprovided evidenceto document the property's condition and the extent of neglect. Community members cited the conditions from the state's letters as well as a chronology of conditions dating back to the university's initial demolition request. Evidence also includedinterior and exterior pictures of the house's condition.

City planning officialsstated in the September 19, 2008 notification letter to NCCUthat they plan to issue a written ruling within45 days of the university's receipt of the letter.There is also an appeal process in the ordinancewhich would be heard by the Durham Historic Preservation Commission.

The December 2, 2008 meeting will be held in the second floor conference room at City Hall at 8:30 am and all interested citizens are urged to attend.

Group rejects food tax

Members of the Fayetteville Street Group along with other members of Unity in the Community for Progress (UCP) rejected the 1% prepared meals/beverage tax and casta vote against the measure at its October 13, 2008 meeting.While the taxis slated to fund mostlycultural amenities, members opposed any new taxes in uncertain economic times -- particularly atax whose main focuses are entertainment, recreational and other discretionary pursuits.

Worries about possible job layoffs, rising foreclosures, increased property taxes andrecently increased water rates were a few of the concerns cited by manyattending the meeting. Seniors and others on fixed incomes would be hit especially hard. Durham,one memberpointed out, already has one of the highest property tax rates in the state and some residents are still reeling from last year's property re-evaluation by Durham County. The proposed tax would effectively disregard the economic reality of many of Durham's residents -- with countywide poverty having increased from 11.9% (1990 census) to 13.4 % (2000 census).

In addition to concerns about Durham's economy, members also took issue with the structure of the tax. The tax, cast as a way to capture revenue from workerswho liveoutside Durham County, was misguided according to group members. Members felt it would cause "collateral damage"by taxingallDurham residents inan efforttoreach non-residentswith discretionary incomes who work in Durham County.It would have been better, members suggested, to tax meals over a certain dollar amount, such as $ 30.00,than to tax all prepared meals and beverages.

Members worried that themeals tax, along with existing taxes,might not produce the projected amount of revenue as recent media articles havereported. An October 10, 2008Herald-Sun article "City ran a $2.2M deficit in 2007-08" quoted City of Durham Interim Finance Director Keith Herrman as saying:

Sales tax revenue came in $ 3.9 million behind what officials projected in the fiscal 2007-08 budget. Collections of license and permit fees also were off, offering "an early indication" of the economic problems now obvious to everyone, Herrmann said.

And City of Durham Budget Director Bertha Johnsonacknowledged the economic slowdown's effecton tax collectionin another Herald-Sun article "City manager to look for ways to save money":

She also was confident that property tax collections will hold up for now, though they might become a problem in fiscal 2009-10.

This trend suggests that some projects slated for funding by the meals tax might not materialize if collections don't rise to the levels projected. It was also noted that some beneficiaries of the proposed meals tax have received recurring budget and bondfunding from Durham city and county governments over the past decade. While cultural venues are important, members felt it was far more important for local government to focus oncore needs such as public safety, street and infrastrucuturemaintenance and education.

Proposed food tax discussion Oct. 13, 2008

Fayetteville Street Group membersare invitedto attend Monday's meeting about the proposed food tax on October 13, 2008 at 7 PM sponsored by Unity in the Community for Progress (UCP).The meeting is hosted by the Social Action Ministry of Ebenezer Missionary Baptist Church and will be held at Ebenezer Missionary Baptist Church, 2200 S. Alston Avenue in Durham in the Fellowship Hall (lower level). Other items on the agenda include Chancellor Nelms' response to the UCP's request for NCCU to rescind/amend the master plan and the Whitted School Building for a vocational/enrichment center.

The road to perdition

On September 30, 2008 the Fayetteville Street Planning Group submitted comments ontheregional transportation plan for the Durham-Chapel Hill- Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization(DCHC-MPO)area known as the 2035Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). This plan isanother plan thatthe groupreviewed because transportation projectshave historically had some negative impacts onthe development of our community.

Given the importance of transportation to all communities and the harm done to Durham's African American communities by some prior transportation plans and projects, we first reviewed the underlying socioeconomic growth projections that formed the basis for the LRTPand submitted written comments to the City of Durham's transportation department.

A review ofthe LRTP's growth projectionswould help community residents and business ownerstounderstandwhetherourneighborhood streets, turn lanes, intersections, highway access roads, street lights, etc.could handle the increased traffic and other impacts from all the proposed redevelopmentsin the area bounded byFayetteville Street, S. Roxboro Street, Alston Avenue (NC 55) and NC 147. These redevelopment projects include:

Heritage Square
Rolling Hills
Southside/St. Theresa
Fayette Place
NCCU Master Plan
NCC Redevelopment Plan of 1964

In addition to the redevelopments mentioned above, thereis apropsed land use plan under consideration that would also impact the historic neighborhoods of Fayetteville Street. This plan was widely criticized by citizens at the city's presentation in February 2008 andhas greatly expanded its sizefrom its original footprint. It's known as:

NCCU Small Area Plan

This plan from 1964 isa legal redevelopment planand its original intent was to facilitate the growth of North Carolina College (hence the "NCC" in the title) back in the day. The plan is outdated but has never been rescinded or modified -thereby complicating planning in the area around NCCU. We suspected that the inconsistencies between this plan, current city zoning regulations and the NCCU master plan were the real reason for the city's bringing this plan forward in early 2008. So this discussion of plans and plans-on-top-of-plans, along with the new-found zeal with which they are being touted as "good for the community", should beone that we all pay very close attention to.

And the reason that we should pay close attention is because questions we've raised about how these plans will impact our community have gone unanswered by developersand by state and local elected officials for several years now.The central issue here is whether the infrastructureon Fayetteville Street (along with S. Roxboro St. and Alston Ave.) has the ability to absorb all this new growth from these proposed redevelopment plans withoutchanging the character ofour community, displacing residents and businesses and reconfiguring our land and streets again -- as urban renewal did a generation ago.

The ability of a road system to handlevarious types of impacts (in addition to traffic)is known as "roadway capacity".Variousimpact studies are usually performed far in advance to determine whether a system (transportation, water, sewer, housing, etc.) has the capacity to handle increased growth(or load). Prudent planning requires that capacity be determined long before the actual growth becomes a reality -- or people and businesses may be put in jeopardy from adverse conditions.

Prudent planningalsokeeps unbridled growth from overburdening an area that lacks the capacity to shoulder the load.The proliferation ofall these plans along the Fayetteville Street corridor is cause for concern because the combined (cumulative) effectsfor all these plans have yet to be quantified.Growth is desirable but it must be temperedbyour communitys desire for stability,the capacity of the existing infrastructureand neighborhood preservation needs.

There have been recent attempts by local elected officials to approve some development plans withoutfirst securing state approval from NCDOT in areas involving state roads. We feel this is a mistake and could "pave the way" for additional burdens being placed our community -- whereoversight is already lax on development issues.

Indeed, the road to perdition is often paved with intentions --but whether they are good or not remains to be seen.

Transportation planning and redevelopment

The City of Durham's 2030 Comprehensive Plan defines "redevelop" in its glossary in Chapter 18 (Appendices) as the demolition of existing structures:

To demolish existing buildings; or to increase the overall floor area existing in a property; or both; irrespective of whether a change occurs in land use.

In other words, for redevelopment to occur, existing structurescan be torn down and replaced by something else. Of course, Hayti was destroyed and sat for20+ years -- so redevelopment is no guarantee that new development willoccur in a timely manner (think Tin City).And since structures usually (but not always) contain residents, the term redevelopment is another word for the removal of existing people from a targeted area.So whenever the term redevelopment is used, think demolition and removal of whatever or whomever is there now.

So what does this have to do with transportation planning? Everything. That's because there's a fundamental (and common sense) rule in planning that an area's infrastructure (streets, intersections, water, sewer, police, emergency services, fire departments, schools etc.) should be able tosupport any future growth that is projected to occur - whether that growthoccurs through normal population increase or by the redevelopment of existing neighborhoods or land.

A former Durham city council member once proposed that an adequate public facilities ordinance be passed to forceour cityto make sure that there would be sufficient facilities to handle new growth demands.The Duke Chronicle reported in a 1999 article of the interestby some city council membersin ensuring the availability and adequacy of public facilities. The article stated:

" The key to harnessing Durham's unparalleled growth ... is developing an adequate public facilities ordinance, which would limit development in areas where the water, sewage and transportation systems are not yet capable of handling the population explosion."

The ordinance was never passedbut the point is worth noting because it's the job of public officials to ensure that these facilities arein place beforehand to support whatevernew growth is forecast. It would be reckless for public officials to approve new plans without firstknowing whether an area can handle added traffic, has enough water, has enough sewage treatment plants, has enough police, has enough fire stations or has enough schoolsto supportthe new growth. It may be time to revisit this type of ordinance.

Now ask yourself a question. Would the local governmentallowa developer to buildhundreds of new homes without first determining if there's enough water to supply all the new taps (remember the drought)?Wouldthe local government allow a developer to build hundreds new homes without first determining if there were enough fire stations, waste treatment plants or police protectionto ensure public's safety? Wouldthe local governmentallowa developer to build hundreds ofnew homes without having adequate roads, turn lanes, intersections, traffic signals, etc.to handle the new traffic? And would the local government allow a developer to build hundreds of new homes without having enough classrooms for new students? Of course, the answer would be a big resounding "NO".

And why would the answerbe no? Because it would be absolutely unheard of toplace the public in peril by failing to plan for and toprovide adequate public services -- particularly when governments have thetools toanalyze all these types of public service needs way, way, wayin advance of the need for them.

Imagine moving intoyour new home and not having enough water pressure to wash your dishes or flush your toilet. Imagine not having enough police officers to respond to your 911 call. Imagine having to boilyour waterbecause of inadequate sewage treatment. Or imagine little Johnny sitting in a hot trailer or being taught in a closet becausethe new school wasn't built in time. These types of scenarios occur when administrators fail to plan properly and when elected officials fail to exercise oversight in such matters. Should this occur in new home developments, the public outcrywould betremendous and justicewould not be far behind.

But in the case of redevelopment, a different (and indifferent)standard has been used compared to new home developments. Growth is growth andimpacts are impacts -- howeverand whereever they occur -- and there should be no disparity in the way growth is handled anywhere in Durham City or County.

In the case of proposed redevelopment projects along Fayetteville Street, public officials have refused to require developers to provide information about potentialimpacts (traffic, environmental, parking, resident and business displacement, historic landmarksetc.)before approvingredevelopment plans and rezonings. The approval of Heritage Square's rezoning is one example of this trend along withthe approval of NCCU's master plan.

Long range transportation plans

Before getting into the specifics of the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), here's a little background on transportation plans. Since manyof our roads pass through multiple cites and counties, it only makes sense to coordinate various types of transportation needs for those larger regions affected by these roads. The LRTPforecasts needs, identifes projects and lists funding sources for various transportation projects (highways, bus, transit, pedestrian, bicycle etc.) from 2008 through 2035. In North Carolina, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) implements the long range transportation plan for cities and urban areas like Durham.

According to the DCHC MPO website "Transportation projects and services must be in the LRTP in order to receive state and federal funding". This very telling sentence means,as stated earlier about the streetscape project, that if a projecthas not been identified as a line item in the appropriate plan, thenthe project does not exist for all intents and purposes.

This is no doubt because much of a government's work is doneby funding various "plans".Once a particular outcome is desired by government, a planis created by the appropriate government entity (city, county, state, etc.). The plan is then presented in draft form for publicreview andlater presented to receive citizens' comment at a public hearing.Oncethe plan isapproved, it's funded and implemented in the work program of theresponsiblegovernment department.

Although the implementation of these plans canrequire coordination with more than one governmental department, usually one department will take the lead in implementing a particularplan. TheOffice of Economic Development of the City of Durham is the lead department for the streetscape design butit must work withPlanning and Public Works (along with NCDOT and NCCU)so that the plan is consistent withother plans administeredbyother government agencies anddepartments.

A plancan be fundedimmediately or can take several years to completeas funds areallocated in different fiscal years until the project is paid for. You can tell what a government's priorities areby noting what types of plansget created and funded -- and which ones don't.

LRTP comments furnished by the Fayetteville Street Planning Group focused on transportation plansfor the Fayetteville Street corridorin the vicinity ofS. Roxboro Street, Fayetteville Street and Alston Avenue (NC 55)-- which are all state roads.Our main concern was theyet-unknown combinedimpactsof multiple redevelopmentsslated along these state roads -- including but not limited toHeritage Square, Rolling Hills, Southside/St. Theresa, Fayette Place and the NCCU Master Plan.

How many plansare too many?

Earlier this yearon March 30,2008 Fayetteville Street Group members participated in a community-wide discussion sponsored by the UCP on the effects of multiple redevelopment plans concentrated between South Roxboro Street, Fayetteville Street, Alston Avenue (NC 55) and NC 147.A map of a portion of the area isshown below (McDougald Terrace is not shown in its entirety) --showing justhow much ofour community is being carvedup by large redevelopment projects.

When plotted on a map, the geographic scale of the proposed changes is staggering -- covering the area bounded by NC 147, Alston Avenue, Cornwallis Road and the American Tobacco Trail. But the impacts on our communityhave not been assessedbecause public officials have notprovided answersto repeated communityrequests forthis information in advance of voting to approve these plans -- and funding some of them as well.

Knowledge of these plans, coupled with NCCU's recent approval of its master plan, spurred an interest in understanding the cumulative impacts of these developments on Durham's historic African American community --situated between downtown Durham and Southpoint at I-40. The area's moderately priced land and homes make it atarget for redevelopment and potential displacement of existing residents and businesses. These plans also raised concerns about unknown impacts from traffic, environmental issues, zoning, parking, affordable housing and business competition.

The heavy blackline is the boundary for theFayetteville Street Master Plan, which was created by the Fayetteville Street community and submitted to the City of Durham for adoption in 2005. The community's plan was not adopted or given the normal review process for small area/neighborhood plans under the city's UDO guidelines. But since that time, a rash of redevelopment projects from private developers, theCity of Durham and NCCUhave been proposedfor the same area -- with many of them in direct opposition to the community's vision in the Fayetteville Street Plan.

The color-coded areas represent proposed projects or land use changes slated for our community. The map clearly indicatesthat the majority of Fayetteville Street's neighborhoods are slated for some type of major redevelopment action. The proposed projects include:

Heritage Square (red striped)
Rolling Hills (blue striped)
Southside/St. Theresa (purple striped)
NCCU Small Area Plan (green striped)
NCCU Master Plan expansion area (orange striped)
NCCU existing campus (solid orange)
All of McDougald Terrace is not shown but would be orange striped to reflect its inclusion in NCCU's master plan area

These redevelopment areas have raised the following concerns about the LRTP:

Thereisdoubt that the area's infrastructure has the capacity to absorb traffic from multiple redevelopment projects
The reluctance of developers, government administrators and elected officialsto provide detaileddata on the combinedeffects of these developments(when they certainly have the analytical tools to do so) raised concerns about urban renewal, gentrification and the destruction of historic community assets
Potential displacement of long-time residents and business owners by reconfigured land and roads due to increased traffic and other impacts

The NCCU master planin its entiretywill displace 2,579 persons using counts from the 2000 US Census. When combined with projected displacement from the other redevelopment projects, the forced exodus of current residents from this community maytotal over4,000 persons. This scenario certainly begs the question "how many plans are too many?" and demands an answer from public officials.

Transportation projects have harmed Durham's African American community in the past (such as NC 147 through Hayti) andalso represent somecurrent threats(such as the East End Connector). City council members and the NCCU Board ofTrustees declined our community's request to assess the combined impacts of these redevelopment projects before approving the rezoning for Heritage Square and the NCCU master plan.

If roadway and other infrastructure capacities are not sufficient tosupport the projected growth from all these projects, the scale ofredevelopment should be reduced to fit current infrastructure capacity, to complement the communityof whichthese projectswould become a part and to respect the history of one of Durham's oldest neighborhoods.

Residents, business peopleweigh in on streetscape design

Monday night's September 29, 2008 meeting to view preliminary drawingsof Fayetteville Street's proposed streetscape was attended byabout 30people, representing a mix of the area'sbusiness and property owners, residents and citizens with historic ties to the corridor.

The presentation began with a statement by city economic development staff thatthere was no funding planned for the constructionof thestreetscape at this time.It was also revealed that while over$ 300,000 of the 2005 neighborhood bond funds have beenused to design the streetscape for the five commercial corridors, uses for the remaining $ 1.7 millionhave not yet been determined.

At just over four miles, the Fayetteville Street corridor is the longest of the five commercial corridors being designed. The visual presentation used "before" and "after" photos and illustrations to show elements of the new look for the corridor. Five prototype sections and their corresponding design elements were highlighted. The five sectionsare listed belowas well as "before" and "after" photos and illustrationsof some of the sections (courtesy of the City of Durham's Economic Development website and E. G. & G.):

Hayticommercial corridor from NC 147 to Umstead Street
Fayetteville Street local historic district from Umstead St. to Dupree St.
North Carolina Central University from Dupree Street to Burlington Ave. (which includes the remainder of the Fayetteville Street local historic distrct to Nelson Street)
Fayetteville Street from Burlington Avenue to Pilot Street
Fayetteville Street from Pilot Street to Cornwallis Road

"Before" Photo: Hayti Commercial Corridor

"After" Illustration: Hayti Commercial Corridor

"Before" Photo: Fayetteville Street Local Historic District

"After" Illustration: Fayetteville Street Local Historic District

While appreciative of the streetscape's new look, attendees expressed concern that the streetscape be designed and implementedin a contextthat reflects the broader needs of existing stakeholdersthroughout the Fayetteville Street corridor -- those needs having been detailed in the 2005 Fayetteville Street Neighborhood Master Plan. The streetscape should not be an end in itself but a catalyst for achieving goals outlined in the plan such as public safety,economic development,jobs for local residentsand historic preservation.

There werequestions about safety, the need for more lighting, spacing of new outdoor lights (every 75 - 80feet) and the need for a newtraffic signal at theNelson Street intersection.Several business owners reiterated the need to maintain on-street curbside parking on Fayetteville Street from Umstead Street to Massey Avenue and add more parking throughout the corridor.

Othercomments on the physical aspects of the streetscapefocused onthe Linwood Avenue - Fayetteville Street intersection:

Includea pocket parkin front of Lincoln Health Center tocreate visibility and accessfor the memorial to the Lincoln HospitalSchool of Nursing
Create more parking for area businesses throughout the corridor
Fixthe drainage problem from the Lincoln Health Center parcel
City of Durham create cross-easements with W D Hill for more parking
Create a bus bumpout to help traffic flow along Fayetteville Street
Use acorn-style historic lights in the local historic district

Speakers also raised the following concerns during thevisual presentation:

Remove the medianon Fayetteville Street fromMorehead Avenue access road to LakewoodAvenue which wouldblock access to local businesses and hinder movement of emergency vehicles in that section -- or put breaks in the median to facilitate left turns
Opposed to the"road-diet"lane reductionon Fayetteville Street from Burlington Avenue to Pilot Street which would remove on-street parking used on weekends by St. Josephs AME Church and would hurt businesses in that area
Solve the flooding problem on Fayetteville Street south of Pilot Street in conjunction with streetscape improvements
Add the Linwood Avenue intersection as a 6th profile area for the streetscape
Add the Pilot Street intersection as a 7th profile area for the streetscape
Create more visibility for thehistoriccemetery at intersection of Fayetteville Street and theAmerican Tobacco Trail

One speaker's question about about a streetscape forthe South Roxboro Street corridor prompted acity staff persontocomment that South Roxboro Street was not part of thisdesign project. However, another speaker commented that the cityplanning department'swork program(administered throughthe Joint City-County Planning Committee)has placed the South Roxboro Street intersection at a higherpriority in its gateway plan than FayettevilleStreet.This type ofmismatchin prioritizing projectsbetween the city's planning and economic development departments indicates thatbettercoordination is neededto ensure theall resources needed for the streetscape are in alignment with the final goal.

Another speaker asked when the NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT), which has oversight for Fayetteville Street andall otherstate roads, would become involved in the streetscape design. City staff indicated that NCDOT would begin become involved after October 14, 2008.

While guardedly optimistic about the streetscape,residents' views of the illustrationsshared equal billing with worries about gentrification, development pressure, historic preservation and lingeringinfrastructure problems.

Speaker after speakerechoedthe sentimentthat streetscape improvements not become a "Trojan Horse"that wouldinvite big-money interests into the corridor to displace those residents who maintained a presence through the Jim Crow years and after urban renewal --but whoalsolacked capital andstruggled with deteriorating public infrastructuresuch as lack of parking, agingsidewalks and streets and drainage problems.Another speaker remarked that the amount of disinvestment was staggering considering that the granite curbs,never having been upgraded on FayettevilleStreet, were at least 100 years old.Rapidly-increasing propoertytaxes were another worry from development that would be out-of-sync with the neighborhood-scaled business district and residential neighborhoods.

Other speakers commented that streetscape improvements in the historic district should not create an incentive fordemolition ofhistoric structures by North Carolina Central University.Streetscape improvements, speakers stated, should complement the neighborhood-scale of Fayetteville Street's business district and historic residential neighborhoods.

At one point in the presentation, one speaker worried that the Fayetteville Street local historic district would be compromised and weakened by certain streetscape perspectives that suggested a loss of historic homes on Fayetteville Street from Dupree Street to Lawson Street dueto NCCU's desire to demolish those homes. The consultant responded that the scope of the streetscape's work wasonly in the publicright of way and no private property would be affected.

Speakers also urged city officials and the consultantto exercisesensitivity to the needs ofthis historic community,current economic conditions and the financial challenges of business people and residents in this corridor. Economic development incentive packages should be designedwith the needsofthe area'ssmall family-owned businesses inmind who lack the financial strength to take advantage of the large incentive packages usually offered to big developers.

One speaker commented that the streetscape should helpin the creation of a new economic engine for the Fayetteville Street corridor. Just asthe American Tobacco campus is creating a new economicengine for downtown, the corridor needs environmentally-friendly manufacturing to create entry level jobs and pay a decent wageso that residents can walk to work, put money in their pockets, buy homes and support local businesses -- who in turn can grow and hire more local people.This dynamic would create an environment where residents can reinvest in their own community.

Speakers also urged city officials to ensure that area residents have first crack at anylocal jobs created by the construction of the streetscape toreduce the unemployment rate -- stating thatthis bottom-up approachwould putDurham residents back to work.

Fayetteville Street Corridor Streetscape Plan

A special meeting to view thevisual designs for the streetscape for Fayetteville Street will be held Monday, September 29, 2008 at 6 PM at the Hayti Heritage Center, 804 Old Fayetteville Street.

The intersection above at Umstead Street and Fayetteville Street is the beginning of the Fayetteville Street Local Historic District. The local historic district runs from Umstead Street to Nelson Street and was established in 2000 by the Durham Business & Professional Chain and by Fayetteville Street supporters.

Before attending the Sept. 29, 2008 meeting on the proposed streetscape design, bear in mind that only the design of the streetscapehas been funded. City officials have statedthat money for the construction of the streetscape is non-existent and that the design is just the beginning of the process.Of course, this remains to be seen -- as other designsfor Fayetteville Streethave been done and then shelved, such as the Massey Avenue/Fayetteville Street intersection design from 2001 by Kimley Horn Associates. So before the meeting, it might be helpful to have some background about the streetscape design and funding process.

Starting in 1998 Fayetteville Street supporters began lobbying the City of Durham for sidewalk improvements andenhanced police protection for the corridor. A check ofDurham city council minutes will showrepeated requests for these improvements each yearat the time of budget and bond approvals. Two community police officers were approvedbut members feltthat more officers were needed to signal the city's interest in making allneighborhoodsinour cityas safe aspossible.

In 2005 residents, business owners and concerned citizens presented the 119-pageHistoric FayettevilleStreet NeighborhoodMaster Plan to theDurhamcity council and all departments heads with a comprehensiveplanfor rebuildingour community. Akey elementof the plan was a streetscape designed to improve the appearance of the aging corridor andto benefit existingprooperty ownersand businesseson Fayetteville Street. Our initial request for $ 25 million to design and build the streetscape was presented to the council in 2005 but no action was taken to either approve the plan or funding the construction of thestreetscape.

A short time later the city commissioned its own study, the RKG Economic Development Assessment, ofdevelopment opportunities in thefive commercial corridors leading into downtown Durham. Fayetteville Street was one of these corridors andthe RKG studyincorporated many of the recommendations from the FayettevilleStreetPlan into its plan.

Although the city adopted the RKG study, there is an important distinction between it and the Fayetteville Street Plan. The RKG study identified what's called "development opportunities" for developers who are interested in coming into a community, developing specific parcels of land and profiting financially from those investments that had been identified by the city.

TheFayetteville Street Plan, in contrast, is a community development plan that proposed solutionsto internalcommunity problems and outlined ways that local stakeholders could benefit from property and businesses that they already own.This distinction is important because the Fayetteville Street Plangave existing stakeholders priority in benefitting from any public improvements made by the city -- while the RKG study madeno such distinction.

Given that stakeholders on the Fayetteville Street corridor have done the "heavy lifting" after urban renewal destroyed the area's economic engine, the Fayetteville Street Plan placed its emphasis on local stakeholders participating in any type of economicgain that the area would receive.

When the City of Durham issues a Request for Proposal (RFP), which is a cost estimate for professional services,this actionusually signals the go-ahead for that project. But in the case of the RFP for the streetscape design for the five commercial corridors into downtown, which includes Fayetteville Street, the funding sequence was called into question by Fayetteville Street Group members. Group members stated that using bond money asthe source of the design funding, without a dedicated funding commitment in the budget,might not be the best way to proceed.

The city's capital improvement program (CIP) is the usual funding mechanism for large construction projects that the city undertakes. The normal sequence for funding any city capitalproject is to first include it in the CIP in a specific budget year (called a line item) and then allocate funds each year for as long as it would taketo completethe construction of the physical improvements.

The city's operating budget is another source for funding the construction of the streetscape but here again it would require assigning the project a line item for funding in the budget. Other funding sources include bond funding from bonds approved byDurham voters, State of North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) funding and federal Community Block Grant (CBDG) funding.

In the case of the streetscape project, there has been no lineitem identified in the CIP, the operating budget orany bondfor actually building the streetscape -- onlyinitial bond fundingfor its design. In other words, the project could be fully designed with completed construction drawings but languish for years for lack of a dedicated funding source.

Fayetteville Street Group membersspoke at the council's October 18, 2007 work session to ask the council to identify specific funding sources -- before design work began --to ensure that the streetscape would be built once the design was completed.

City Economic and Workforce Development Director Alan DeLisle said that using funds from the 2005 Neighborhod Bond for the design work was just the start of the process for constructing the streetscape for Fayetteville Street. Angier Avenue, West Chapel Hill Street, North Mangum Street and East Main Street. The council took no action on our request for dedicated funding at that work session.

The city created two committees to assist with the management of the design contractand Fayetteville Street members were represented on both of these committees. The selection committee evaluated the RFPs and recommendeda design firm to design the streetscape. The city subsequently awarded the design contract to E. G. & G. Inc. of Akron, Ohio. The boundaries for the Fayetteville Street designrun from NC 147 to Cornwallis Road, making it the longest of the five commercialcorridors.

The second committee was an advisory committee composed of stakeholders from each commercial corridor. This committee was charged with evaluating the consultant's design for each corridor along with the completion schedule for the design work. Several meetingsof the committee have been heldalong with two meetings for the public. The first public meeting for Fayetteville Streetwas heldat the Hayti Heritage Center and was well attended by residents and business people from Fayetteville Street.

Once needs had beenidentified by community stakeholdersin each corridor, existing conditions and needs were incorporated into a needs assessmentreport. The Fayetteville Street Planning Group reviewed the assessment, shared it withgroup membersand made the following observations and comments about Fayetteville Street:

Remove all references to the roundabout from the assessment since the applicant, NCCU, voluntarily removed it as a committed element from the BRITE Center rezoning in April 2006
Bring in state representatives from the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) as soon as possible since this agency has the final word on any work on Fayetteville Street which is a state road. Thus far, no NCDOT representatives have attended any meetings or have issued writtencomments onany of the consultant's documents.
Ensure coordination with NCCU's streetscape plan in itsMaster Plan
Determine whether traffic estimates captured NCCU's proposed enrollment growth (consultant not sure)
Get pdf version of traffic study by SEPI Engineering
Fayetteville Street should receive priority in receiving any funding for the streetscape since two corridors have previously received streetscape funds from the 1996 bond -- North Mangum Street and West Chapel Hill Street
There was a concern that the visual survey used in the needs assessment made references to private properties along the corridor, giving the impression that people's homes and businesses were the subject of the assessment. Several property ownerson Fayetteville Street were taken aback at seeing their homes and businesses pictured in the survey.
There was also concern about survey bias toward people who visited the corridor versus those who were actual property owners. This means that the survey results mightgive more weight to the opinions of otherswith no economic interests on Fayetteville Street and less weight tobonafide property owners.
There were differences in statements attributed to Duke Energy regarding the utility's willingness to bury overhead power lines between city public works staff and the consultant.

In the second round of meetings, advisory committee membersevaluated preliminary drawingsbasedof the ideasgathered fromthe needs assessment and from the physical realities of Fayetteville Street.Fayetteville Street Group representativesprovided the following comments on the visuals presented at the meeting:

Consultant clarified that street widenings were not assumed on the corridor drawings
Buffering at transition from commercial area to residential neighborhoods wasa good idea but not part of the scope of the streetscape plan
Concern expressedabout use of medians on Fayetteville Street particularly where they would prevent left turns to area businesses
Concern expressed about whether the addition of bike lanes would contribute to road widening
Neighborhood businesses would resist removal of on-street parking on Fayetteville Street because of lack of parking throughout the corridor
Conflicting comments were received from NCCU personnel about the need to slow traffic in some areas and the need to speed it up in other places. Fayetteville Street membersstated that bus traffic on the corridor was the culprit -- and not vehicular traffic -- and that bus bumpouts like the one at NCCU would help traffic flow. The consultant also mentioned conducting a traffic warrant study --to determine the best timing for existing signals as well as the need to add additional signals -- would be a recommendation.
NCCU personnel stated that crossing Fayetteville Street was dangerous for students. This statement wasironic as students have crossed Alston Ave. day and night, where there are four lanes of fast traffic,to go to the Burger King for many years without incident.
Discussion on the use of texture and color to create the effect of widening or narrowing Fayetteville Street versus actual road widening

After a review of the visuals by the advisory committee, the city scheduled a second series of public meetings with stakeholders from each corridor. Although the city was asked to reschedule the Sept. 8, 2008 meeting for Fayetteville Street due a conflict with a Unity in the Community (UCP) meeting, the city would not reschedule the meeting-- but did agree to hold a second meeting for Fayetteville Street stakeholders on Monday, September 29, 2008 at 6 PM at the Hayti Heritage Center.

NCCU Master Plan Meeting

Fayetteville Street Group members participated in a meeting on August 11, 2008 hosted by the UCP with NCCU Chancellor Charlie Nelms about the university's master plan. The meeting was attended by over 80 community members at the Stanford L. Warren Library.

Community members first spoke and framed the discussion about the master plan in terms of the potential displacement of residents --many of them elderly, transportation impacts, harm to the local Fayetteville Street business district and the destruction of the Fayetteville Street local historic district. A study profiling characteristics of the elderly population in the census tracts around NCCU was presented along with results from a UCP survey which revealed the overwhelming majority of residents wished to stay in their homes.

The study also revealed that 2,579 residents would be displaced if the entire master planwas implementedby the state and 967 affordable housing units would be removed from the Durham market.

The larger issue with the master plan's displacement of residents and housing units is community preservation. The seniors who built this community kept it stable and growing despite havinghuge disadvantages in our society. The depth of their stability is evident in the higher proportionof seniors in the six census tracts around NCCU,the higher percentage of home ownership in some tracts, the higher percentage of married couples andthegreater tenure(length of timelived at a residence) for both home owners and renters than seniors in the overall Durham County population.

These assets (wealth, age, family structure, home ownership) need to stay invested in our community and carry on to future generations -- not be cut off, uprooted and scattered all over the county. The preservation of our community is what's at stake -- notthe number of land parcels to be purchased. Limiting the master plan discussionto the number of land parcelsto be purchased obscures the value of human capital in our community.

During the meeting,Chancellor Nelms revealed thatthe following factorshad not been considered in the master plan. Group members felt that these factors might reduce the amount of land required for the university's expansion if they had been factored into the master plan's calculations:

The master plan did not take distance learning students in account. These are students who use the internet to take classes and have no need for dormitory or parking space.
The university would not state whether student attrition (those who drop out before graduating) was factored into the enrollment figures presented in the plan
The university would not state how the university planned to meet the requirement for additional instructors for the new students when a teacher shortage has been cited as a statewide problem
The master plan did not take satellite campuses into acount which might reduce pressure for landfrom the surrounding neighborhoods

Chancellor Nelms also revealed that the university probably wouldnever reach the enrollment goals projected in the master plan. This admission prompted a round of questions about the fairness of placing a cloud over residents' properties for an undetermined time which would preventhome ownersfrom benefitting fromany free market financial gainfrom the sale or improvement of their properties.

When combined with his statement about there being no funds for acquisition at this time, group members told the chancellor thatthe master plan effectively created a disincentive for future investment by current or potential property owners in the homes earmarked for acquisition in the plan. And if enrollment projections failed to materialize in the time frames indicated in the plan, the State of North Carolina and the university would have done a tremendous disservice to the historiccommunity surrounding the school.

During the meeting and in response to questions from residents, Chancellor Nelmsalso made several other statements:

NCCU had no plan or interest in acquiring McDougald Terrace
NCCU could not build taller buildings on campus because this would violate City of Durham zoning regulations

Although Nelms stated that he would consider other locations and options, such as Fayetteville Street Apartments (Fayette Place) for expansion, he stated that he would not ask the trustee board to rescind the master plan. In response, community members sent a September 8, 2008 letter to Nelms formally asking him to rescind or amend the plan.

Rivera House Historic Preservationat 1712 Fayetteville Street

Theissue of preserving the Rivera House at 1712 Fayetteville Street is representative of the larger issue of preserving the Fayetteville Street communityfrom many types of threats, including but not limited to gentrification, large-scale commercial and institutional encroachment, selective code enforcement and eminent domain. Before adopting the conventional wisdom that the Rivera House is just another eyesore to be torn down, consider the following issues related to preserving this important historic home.

The Rivera House is located in the northwest quadrant of the Fayetteville Street - Lawson Street intersection and across Fayetteville Street from the Farrison-Newton Communications Building (both shown above).

North Carolina Central University (NCCU) is a state-supported university.Itis alsoa state agency according to Chancellor Charlie Nelms. The Rivera House is currently owned by NCCU and the State of North Carolina.

While NCCU's campus is nowlisted on the National Register of Historic Places, the university's eagerness todemolish not only on-campus historic structures but historic structures in the Fayetteville Street Local Historic District is something of a puzzle.

The first issue thenis that our community's history is being sacrificedfor thebenefit of state government. The state government is encroaching on an historic African American community and our history is disappearing before our eyes. Or to putit another way --our taxes, whichfund the operation of state government andNCCU,are in effect beingused against us to tear down our own community.

The second issue is that the demolition request that NCCU has submitted to the Durham Historic Preservation Commission is just the tipof the iceberg. NCCU's master plan still shows the university acquiring the entire block of homes where the Rivera house now sits.Had it not been for the creation of the Fayetteville Street Local Historic District by Fayetteville Street supporters, the house could have been torn down without any government oversight.

HistoricPreservation Commission approval is required to demolish any structure in a local historic district in Durham and the university had to make application to this commissionto demolish the home. Although the North Carolina state preservation office has ruled that the house cannot be demolished in May 2008, the university has not withdrawn its demolition request. This is contrary to the community's desire to maintain our history and preserve our historically significant structures.

Once demolition begins, the entire historic districtcould be dismantled home by home until nothing is left -- except giganticstate government structures thatwill be out of character with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. What's more, the names of the original builders of these homes and builders ofour community will be gone forever -- and lost to future generations who will not see orknow of their tremendous contributions to the history of Durham.

The third issue is about resolve. African Americans have a proud history in Durham but it will be erased brick by brick if we do notinsist thatthe State of North Carolina and North Carolina Central University do the right thingby working withits neighboringcommunity for the greater good.We feel that there are mutually beneficial solutions for all parties involvedthat have not yet been fullyexplored. But reaching them will require collaboration by all stakeholders.

And the fourth issue is about fairness and economic justice. The Fayetteville Street Group has signaled its desire to work with the university by sharing its master plan with both chancellors Ammons and Nelms. Our group and other concerned citizens have written the chancellor and the trustee board and asked them to rescind or amend the master plan in orderto consider other less land-intensive options for the university's expansion and to take the pressure off surrounding home owners.

Otheruniversitieshave done marvelous work with restoring old structures for new uses (called adaptive reuse)on and around their campuses and have been able to blend the old with the new for some absolutely impressive results. Other UNC campuses, such as UNC and the North Carolina School of Science and Math, have not only sought and incorporated citizen input about their master plans, but have also exhibited a desire to incorporate historic structures into their future plans. We see no reason why this approach would not work at NCCU.

Get updates hereas new information becomes available on preservation initiatives for the Fayetteville Street corridor.

908 Fayetteville Street Suite 201
Durham, NC 27701
ph: 919-680-2878
info@fayettevillestreetgroup.com

Fayetteville Street Planning Group

What's Up on Fayetteville Street?

Contact us at info@fayettevillestreetgroup.com