Fayetteville Street Planning Group

• Properties would not be blighted in a rehabilitation area -- but would be improved by existing owners to the city's new proposed standard
• Eminent domain would not be allowed by law in a rehabilitation area
• No one would be forced to sell out now or ever in the future
• Property owners would receive funds to improve their properties just as developers have received from the City of Durham
• Property owners would benefit from increasing property values (more equity) as the area around them improved
• The wealth position of families in this area would increase

Demolition of Fayetteville Street Apartments (aka Fayette Place)

     As the "development pressure" predicted two decades ago has come to Durham's historic Fayetteville Street corridor in rapid succession with back-to-back government-sponsored plans, the demolition of Fayetteville Street Apartments, large-scale rezonings and public works projects, the two questions above should be asked by everyone in evaluating the wisdom of some of these proposals.

    "Development pressure" is a term that describes the push to change the character of any neighborhood from what's there now to something else that's very different from the current neighborhood -- or the in the case of many African American neighborhoods to wipe them out completely.

     Development pressure can occur normally with time passing or it can occur quickly by changing planning and zoning laws. It can also occur as a result of tranportation "improvements" where governments can enforce their right to condemnation through the eminent domain process.

     The changing of planning and zoning laws is not always bad -- except when these changes potentially displace existing populations and structures and replace them with "other" populations and structures totally unlike those that exist now. The changing of planning and zoning laws can also be harmful when the affected populations have been excluded from that process or when the process has been unduly influenced by people who do not live, work or own property in the affected neighborhoods.

    The urban renewal actions of the 1970's fall into this category when the Hayti's residents and businesses were "removed". These types of radical changes that can potentially displace local residents and businesses are what's being proposed now and form the basis of our objections to the way development is being handled along the Fayetteville Street corridor.

     In our "What's Up on Fayetteville Street" pages from prior years, we have chronicled the efforts of Fayetteville Street stakeholders to preserve our history and accomodate neighborhood-friendly development. However, the landscape is not a level playing field -- particularly when government-led interests are calling for many of the adverse changes to the neighbborhoods along the Fayetteville Street corridor. And these changes are not just restricted to in-town Fayetteville Street. There is pressure at Fayetteville Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Parkway that has led to the development of the Lowes and soon-to-be other retail establishments. There is pressure coming from the massive Southpoint Mall as well.

    Development pressure then triggers impacts -- other forces that can harm or benefit the affected areas. And it is is these "impacts", whether from traffic or the environment, which usually lead to the changes that residents experience in their neighborhoods. It is also these same impacts that developers and approving authorities (city council, county commission, planning commission) are slow to discuss -- or worse, are dismissive of when confronted with public requests for information from affected citizens and businesses.

     Lest we be labeled "anti-development", we must say that we are not. We are in favor of development that is scaled to the neighborhoods and businesses that exist now in order to keep those neighborhoods and businesses from being wiped out. But this is not what's being proposed in many cases. The Heritage Square rezoning is one example. At the time that rezoning was approved, zoning laws were in place to protect neighborhoods adjacent to commercial areas by requiring a graduated progression of density (units per acre) and intensity (height). Heritage Square could have been redeveloped to a center 3 times its size under its original zoning which would have fit nicely with the adjacent Fayetteville Street neighborhood. But this is not what happened.

     Instead, the Durham city council approved a rezoning that could create a development 10 times its original size -- or a development the size of Northgate Mall on just 10 acres of land. Northgate sites on about 30 acres so imagine Northgate being squeezed onto the Heritage Square corner. As you can figure, the new Heritage Square site will be tall and imposing and is totally out of character with the surrounding neighborhoods. But what's worse, the potential impacts to traffic, adjacent land and historic structures were never quantifed accurately.

     The Heritage Square rezoning was particularly objectionable given that public officials moved to "save" Ninth Street from the same development pressure approved for Fayetteville Street --  just 3 days after the Heritage Square rezoning was approved. Read the op-ed entitled (Durham's Tale of Two Streets) about this injustice.

Eminent Domain -- Government's Dirty Secret Weapon

     What do the following projects or properties have in common? First read the list of some of the more recent projects/properties:

• Southside/ Rolling Hills Redevelopment Plan
• Alston Avenue Road Widening
• East End Connector
• Fayetteville Street Road Widening at Riddle Road
• NCCU Master Plan
• McDougald Terrace 
• Bob's Gulf Service Station (gone)
• Scarborough & Hargett Funeral Home  (relocated)

     The answer is "eminent domain" --  the power of the government or one of its designated agencies to condemn private property for public use. Three agencies that also have the power of eminent domain include the Durham Housing Authority, NCCU and Triangle Transit Authority (TTA).

     Since the US Supreme Court affirmed the right to use eminent domain for economic development reasons (Kelo vs. New London), many states have moved to tighten their eminent domain laws to varying degrees. North Carolina Urban Redevelopment Law prohibits using eminent domain for economic development but does allow it to remove "blight". 

     However, the blight definition and criteria allow unblighted parcels to be considered blighted under the rule that if 2/3 of the properties in a designated area have been designated as "blighted" then the entire designated area is considered "blighted". It may come as a surprise that properties in good condition can be placed at risk if an entire area is designated as "blighted".

    It may come as another surprise that "blighted" properties suffer a reduction in value. This means several things. If you live in a "blighted area", your property value has just been reduced although you may have spent money improving it. No matter how well you keep your property up and no matter what you do, your value has been decreased by this government action.

    It may come as yet another suprise that the term "fair market value" will hurt your property value.  The reason is that your appraisal is likely to yield less than expected because of the sheer presence of all the other designated "blighted" properties nearby.

   So what's the connection between eminent domain and blight? Blight is the first state-mandated step toward creating a redevelopment area, which then subjects all properties in a "blighted area" to eminent domain -- whether a particular property is in good shape or not. In other words, the blight designation (in North Carolina this is done parcel by parcel) starts the ball rolling for creating a redevelopment plan which then authorizes the use of eminent domain.

     The first step, creating a blighted area, for the Southside/Rolling Hills area occurred on January 12, 2010 through an unadvertised public hearing at the Durham Planning Commission. When community residents discovered that this stealth meeting was being held, residents showed up and protested about the unfairness of the action, the questionable evaluation criteria for the blight designation, questionable map boundaries and the possible conflict of interest of one planning commissoner.

     To watch the Planning Commission's live broacast, go to this link http://www.durhamnc.gov/departments/planning/planning_commission_calendar.cfmand select the Jan. 12, 2010 meeting. The item is “Southside Blight Determination”.

     We have also printed the letter below written to the Durham Planning Commission objecting to the entire blight determination process.  

January 19, 2010

To:                  Durham Planning Commission

From:              Larry Hester

                      Member of Fayetteville Street Planning Group

Subject:           Planning Commission Blight Determination Hearing

Thank you for the opportunity to speak at the Planning Commission’s (Commission) January 12, 2010 blight determination hearing for the Rolling Hills and Southside neighborhoods. While the Southside and Rolling Hills neighborhoods may be candidates for revitalization, we object to the use of the most punitive form of redevelopment for property owners and renters under North Carolina Urban Redevelopment Law (NCGS 160A).  Although the Commission voted to designate 451 parcels as blighted, we have some concerns about the process used to make that determination and the number of structures included.

Ambiguity of the agenda regarding blight determination

It was not clear from the agenda that there would be a vote taken under Item 5.b or that this vote would declare 451 parcels as blighted under NCGS 160A-503. In other words, Item 5.b was not represented as an actionable item slated for a vote.  Moreover, Commissioner Moffit’s statement that this was not a public hearing only reinforced the impression that no action would be taken that night – only the acceptance of a report.

Instead Item 5.b was grouped under “New Business” along with 5.a (Presentation -- Rolling Hills Redevelopment), 5.c (Subcommittee Reports) and 5.d (Announcements), essentially obscuring the intent to vote on this item to the public.

Also the staff report’s use of the words “…accept the Rolling Hills/Southside Determination of Blight Report…” and “…certify the area to be a redevelopment area” in the second paragraph also did not indicate to the public that a vote would be taken.

Lack of notification to property owners

Mr. Larry Jarvis confirmed that no notification was sent to affected property owners of the proposed blighted parcels or to neighborhood organizations listed with the City’s Planning Department, as is the custom when private property rights are affected. Given that a vote was taken under state law subjecting private property to potential eminent domain, property owners have been deprived of due process in not being notified of the state-mandated vote being taken by the Commission about their property.

News reports have suggested that the City made attempts to inform residents at a November design workshop. However these meetings only notified residents about the developer’s plans – not about the state-mandated January 12, 2010 blight hearing.

Ambiguity of maps

Conflicting and ambiguous maps were shown making it unclear just what area the Commission was voting on as blighted. Again, property owners were deprived of due process in objecting to their properties being included within the blighted area.

Eminent Domain

The declaration of blight gave the City of Durham the right to use eminent domain under certain circumstances. However, property owners were denied due process in not being informed of the gravity of the Commission’s vote and in not having the opportunity to object to this declaration in person before the Commission.

Legality about motions made by Planning Commission

We wish to know the outcome of the legal opinion requested by Commissioner Smith about the motion to exclude eminent domain from the designated blighted area.

Ambiguity about condition of properties declared blighted

It was not clear that the legally-mandated threshold for declaring parcels as blighted was achieved, as the consultant admitted that only exterior conditions were considered, some of which could be corrected. Given this admission, it appeared that more parcels were declared blighted than should have been.

Conflict of interest

Commissioner Martin’s disclosure, much to his credit, that he had done appraisal work for either the City or the developer in the designated blighted area may have disqualified his vote on this item. We request a legal opinion on whether conflict of interest applies since no attorney was present to make a determination at the meeting.

Most punitive form of redevelopment selected

We were dismayed that other forms of redevelopment allowed under NCGS 160A were not outlined on page 5 in the staff report under “Alternatives”. NCGS 160A-503.21 also allows for redevelopment to occur in rehabilitation, conservation or reconditioning areas. These forms of redevelopment do not carry the threat of eminent domain and property owners may share in funding to improve their properties at the same time that the City is pursuing its redevelopment efforts.

This means that the City can “… engage in programs of assistance and financing, including the making of loans for rehabilitation, repair, construction, acquisition or reconditioning of residential units….in a redevelopment area.” We see this as a win-win for all property owners in the area, particularly those who do not wish to leave their homes or displace their tenants.

Each of the property owners of the 451 parcels declared blighted had the right to know in advance about the government’s plans to devalue their property under a blight designation and to comment on such a grave designation. None of these owners were notified as the Commission and the City customarily do whenever a vote is taken, thus denying these owners control over their own property. One man’s blight is another man’s treasure and it is also his home. Should you have any questions, I can be reached at 919-680-2878.

Southside stakeholders ask City to make Southside a Rehabilitation Area --  No Eminent Domain Allowed

    In the previous section it was noted that stakeholders from Southside have asked city officials repeatedly to declare Southside/Rolling Hills as a "rehabilation area". The rehabilitation designation would still allow this area to be redeveloped but would remove the threat of eminent domain once and for all -- and most importantly, would allow Southside property owners to receive funding to improve their properties to the city's new design standard.

     At this time in July 2010, the city's plan calls for all 451 parcels in Southside/Rolling Hills to be part of a redevelopment plan. Once this area has been approved as a "redevelopment area", the City of Durham will have the right of eminent domain to potentially force property owners to sell and residents to move from their properties. Although the city has denied its intent to use eminent domain, it refuses to do the one thing that would put an end to the speculation --- use the less punitive "rehabilitation area" that does not allow eminent domain.

    There has been no response from the City of Durham since this request was first made on January 12, 2010 at the Planning Commission hearing. Why won't the city respond to a request that's allowable under the NC Urban Redevelopment Law? Why the silence? Why won't the city consider an option that would beneft current residents and property owners?

     If you can't come up with an answer right away, ask two more questions -- Who benefits?  Who pays?  The answer may become clearer with these two questions in mind.