The Facade Grant Program

The Union County Weekly has an article on the new Facade Grant program that was recently approved by the town board. This grant program makes $7500 available to certain favorably-located area businesses interested in approving their façades, essentially subsidizing exterior repairs or renewal of favorably situated private property with taxpayer money.

Here's Brian Carlton's description:

The project is a scaled down and reworked version of the historic district proposal that failed earlier this year. By turning it into a grant program, the council made it a voluntary process this time around, so only those interested would be impacted. The project sets aside $7,500 from the town’s general fund, to be used as grant funding. If a business or property owner wants to restore his facility to the way it originally looked, he or she can apply to the Waxhaw Historic Preservation Committee. If the application is approved, the committee can authorize different amounts, up to $7,500 towards the restoration. To qualify, the restoration has to cost a minimum of $250.

I am not sure I agree with this description since the failed historic district proposal would've been imposed on homeowners with no subsidization of repairs; it just would've dictated what changes or repairs could be made to homes and business falling within the specified district. If I'm not mistaken, the only taxpayer money used for this program would be the salaries of the bureaucrats that maintain it.

The Facade Grant program, however, takes taxpayer money and uses it help pay for refurbishments to accepted applicants. I'm not sure money should be taken from taxpayers and doled out to individuals to improve the look of their personal property.

Brett Diller, Erin Kirkpatrick, and Martin Lane obviously feel differently as they provided the necessary three votes to pass this program. On the other hand, Phillip Gregory and Joyce Blythe voted against it, but hold back warm and fuzzies for them quite yet if saving taxpayer money is your thing.

The article seems to suggest Phillip Gregory and Joyce Blythe didn't vote against it because of the transfer of taxpayer money to a select few, but because they weren't entirely comfortable with the Waxhaw Historic Preservation Committee (WHPC) running the program. Personally, I have more of an issue with the fact taxpayer money will be subsidizing select individuals rather than who will be overseeing the program. Although I suppose the WHPC might be more inclined to favor historic properties, but that remains to be seen.

In the article, Erin Kirkpatrick is quoted as follows:

“It’s an investment in our economic development,” Waxhaw council member Erin Kirkpatrick said. “It’s money we’re investing to bring people to our downtown corridor.”

I honestly don't see how improving the exterior of buildings downtown will more than nominally improve economic development in Waxhaw. Will a handful of improved façades downtown make a significant impact in how much money is spent in downtown Waxhaw? Is there evidence to suggest it will?

Maybe offering up much more than $7500 will attract more people (and Brenda Stewart's comment beneath the article suggests they're already looking to expand the program before the ink is even dry), but a more significant economic development would be having shops that regular folks can shop at. I realize that's beyond the scope of the town board (or so I would hope), but I consider myself a regular guy and besides the restaurants, there are very few shops in downtown Waxhaw I would need to set foot in.

Like the Waxhaw Fresh Market before it, the loss of Southport Gifts removes another store I'd pop into periodically. Where is one to shop in Waxhaw for gifts and knick-knacks besides antique shops? Stewart's Gallery comes to mind, but my ventures in there have been limited as I've normally watched the kids outside (so they don't break anything) while my wife looks around.

Waxhaw GIS

Waxhaw introduced a web-based GIS (geographic information system) a few months back. The blurb from the town's web site:

The Town of Waxhaw is proud to announce that we now offer web-based GIS mapping through ConnectGIS. You can access this information at http://waxhaw.connectgis.com. This service allows you to look up property information, topography, zoning, future land use designations and view aerial photography. You can also print maps from the website that contain only the information you find useful. In the coming months, staff will be adding information such as floodplain data, subdivision data, sidewalks and other planned pedestrian infrastructure. If you have any questions about the website or if you have any ideas about the information that you would find helpful, please contact Katie Ross at kross@waxhaw.com or 704-843-2195 Ext. 238.

This sounds like a useful idea for the limited handful of people who need or would like access to this type of information. However, those with too many people on their enemies list may not like the fact that a homeowner's address can be easily obtained by those up to no good.

Although it's probably not worth worrying about since unfortunately that information is likely online on numerous other places.

Town censorship

Back before I skedaddled out of town for a short break, there was an article in the Enquirer-Journal describing how the town has begun censoring the town website. A snippet:

Waxhaw commissioners approved a derogatory comments policy for the town’s website at Tuesday night’s meeting.

The move was prompted by a letter with derogatory comments toward members of a committee on the town’s website. The letter cited some members by name and was later taken down.

According to the approved policy, the town manager and supporting staff will review the documents placed on the town’s website and remove any they believe are derogatory. A note will be placed on the website letting people know that the document has been removed, and that it is available by request, Town Manager Mike McLaurin said.

The original letter was included in a recent agenda packet. The letter, from Waxhaw resident Brenda Stewart, discussed a recent approval of a work of art by Tom Risser to be placed in the town. The work commemorates the 2010 train derailment in Waxhaw.

From what I can gather, the town isn't really censoring the town website, but actually censoring what appears to be included in agenda packets that are prepared for various committees. These agenda packets are available for download at the town's website.

In an email, town manager Mike McLaurin stated that future incidents of redacted/censored documents would be noted on the town's website and the unredacted copies are available by contacting the town clerk, Bonnie McManus.

As for the document that started it all, it's a letter from Brenda Stewart regarding the recently unveiled derailment sculpture by Tom Risser. Here's the text of the letter for those interested:

==Page 1==

5/9/11

I am requesting that the town of Waxhaw Board of Commissioners rescind the 4/26/11 decision to place Mr. Risser's 12' wide x 15' tall piece of metal/plastic at the North West Main Street and South Jackson Street location. Due to the reasons stated below another site should be chosen:

1. The permanent metal piece if erected at the Main and Jackson location, without question would be a nuisance to me and my tenants as it would be offensive and annoying. We have the right to quiet enjoyment of our home.
2. The enormous size of the metal piece alone would be irritating to have it perpetually looming over our private residence. The location is less than 50 feet from my private property. This would be emotionally damaging as well to my family and tenant and would also be economically damaging as the sight of this metal piece would reduce the economic value of my property.
3. The town's stated expectation of numerous visitors arriving in vehicles and pedestrian foot traffic would be disruptive to me and my family and my tenant's quiet enjoyment of our home. The congregating of individuals at any time of the day or night would be disruptive to the privacy and quiet enjoyment of our home.
4. I expect late night visits from those who engage in vandalizing such structures and this would endanger our safety and security. The town already has a history of such activities. The metal piece, removed from the downtown business district, would leave it open to those types of activities because of the lack of oversight by police.
5. There are many children in the surrounding neighborhoods who walk to and from the stores on a regular basis. These children are rarely supervised by adults or parents and they certainly would be drawn to the metal piece. They would naturally be inclined to climb and play on the metal piece resulting in possible injury from a fall or may be struck by a vehicle when crossing the street. The chance of this happening if the metal piece were located in the downtown business district would be minimized due to much higher visibility by the police and adults.
6. This is a peaceful residential neighborhood consisting of private homes and churches. There is absolutely no logical reason for placing the metal piece in this location bringing constant vehicle and foot traffic into a community of private homes. That traffic should be generated in the downtown business district to help increase business for the local merchants. The west end of Main Street does not need to be built up or included as stated by the Art Jury Chair Terry Michaelson and the Beautification Committee Chair Jason Loseke. This is the most ridiculous statement I've heard thus far. No one in the west end neighborhood has requested a metal piece or any art for that matter to be placed across from our homes.
7. There isn't any parking at the site. The only parking is over a block away and individuals are not going to park and walk to the site, they will simply pull off the road onto the grass. This will also be disruptive to the quiet enjoyment of our home, cause traffic hazards, and destroy the grass that was recently planted.
8. The town should maintain the greenway, planting trees, flowers and rose bushes and would, in my opinion, be much more appropriate and would enhance this west side neighborhood of private homes and churches.

==Page 2==

5/9/11


9. Because my home is adjacent to the site, me and my family and tenant would be the most affected by the presence of the metal piece.
10. Once again, the town's elected officials and staff should have taken a simple survey of those most affected and then made decisions based on the feedback received.
11. The events leading up to the decision to place the metal piece at the location across from my home are disturbing to say the least. The area located at South Jackson and West North Main was surveyed and staked off with string 2 weeks prior to the subject being placed on the agenda for a vote. At the BOC meeting on 4/24/11 I asked the Mayor, Daune Gardner why the area had been staked off prior to the vote and she stated she did not know what I was talking about. How is it that the mayor would not know about this since she placed the item on the BOC agenda to be voted on mere minutes later? Todd, a town staff person spoke up informing me that the site was staked off just to see how it would look. I stated that I drove around to the other 4 sites and they were not staked off. He said one site had been but kids pulled the stakes up. If this is true why was only one other site staked off and not all 4 "just to see how it would look?" The Town Manager, Mike McLaurin was quoted in the newspaper stating "The sculpture, if approved, WILL BE placed on West North Main Street in the downtown area. The newspaper article was dated 4/24/11 and the vote for this agenda item did not take place until 4/26/11.The fix was in.....the vote was a farce! Why do we even have elected town government? If the town manager's agenda is a foregone conclusion and the BOC majority is Mike's personal rubber stamp then why are you all sitting here tonight?
12. Terry Michelson, the Art Jury Chair and Jason Loseke the Beautification Committee Chair wrote a formal recommendation to the BOC stating that the artist Tom Risser wanted the artwork as close to the derailment site as possible and wanted it readily visible when driving through town. However, when Mr. Risser gave his presentation he denied that he made that statement and said he was okay with any location and even stated he liked the site where the yellow butterfly is and that he was sure the town staff could move the yellow butterfly. The statement in the formal recommendation by Terry and Jason is a lie.

The decision to place the statue in the midst of a neighborhood of private homes and churches is unjust, disrespectful and thoughtless. It is impossible for me to comprehend that those of you who voted in favor of the site truly believed this would be the best of all possible locations for the metal piece. It is my firm belief that you voted to place the metal piece across from my home in retaliation for my yearlong opposition to your pet project, the proposed local historic district. And, for the articles written by me and published in the media telling the truth about how the people of this town have been so poorly served by those in whom we have placed our trust.

Lies and deceit have become your legacy as public servants of Waxhaw. HOW SAD!!!

Honestly, the letter seems rather tame to bother with censoring it. If my understanding is correct, it only would've been included in one of the agenda packets with a bunch of other documents and I can't honestly envision too many people downloading those things in the first place.

I personally would've preferred a rebuttal if one was necessary.

UPDATE: Elections in November

The Enquirer-Journal has an article about seats open for election this fall in Union County. For those following every twist and turn in Waxhaw politics, the election is scheduled for 11/8 and three positions will be open.

The mayor position is up for election as mentioned long ago when Lisa Thornton announced her intention to run for the position.

Two seats on the town board are also up for election -- Martin Lane's & Phillip Gregory's.

I've got emails out to the three of them to see if they all plan on re-running. I vaguely recall Phillip Gregory saying he wouldn't run for another term when filling Brian Haug's old seat, but I couldn't find a quote along those lines when I looked.

UPDATE 6/29: I heard back from Mayor Gardner that she does intend to run for re-election. Does anyone else out there intend to run or can local media start working on their Daune v. Lisa graphic art now?

I still have received no word on whether Martin Lane or Phillip Gregory plan to run for re-election. Maybe they're looking to keep the oppo researchers off their heels for as long as possible. Such is the life of a of a politician in the cutthroat world of Waxhaw politics.

UPDATE 7/3: Yet another update: Martin Lane responded to me last week and while he thought he'd likely run again, he hasn't made an official decision yet. Phillip Gregory also emailed me yesterday to let me know he intends to file for re-election as well.

Bureaucrats run amuk

Can you think of a better title for this?

Historic district guidelines reviewed

I mentioned in March that I planned to review the approved historic district guidelines. Well, I finally got a few minutes of free time to do so, buttwo weeks later, still had not found the time to transcribe my notes to this blog.

But since I never got around to posting them and since the historic district overlay failed to pass, I plan to take a pass on writing them up. Thanks to Commissioners Blythe, Gregory, and Lane for saving me some valuable time.

Historic district vote fails 3-2

The Enquirer-Journal is the first to have the story. A snippet:

Waxhaw commissioners voted 3-2 to reject the proposed historic district overlay.

Though Waxhaw already has national historical recognition, the overlay was being looked at to provide more protection for the town’s historic buildings and character.

Commissioners made their decision Tuesday night after several comments from the public and a long discussion among board members.

Based on the information in the article, it appears Joyce Blythe and Phillip Gregory seem to have two of the three voting against the historic district, while Erin Kirkpatrick likely voted for it.

Anyone know which way Brett Diller and Martin Lane voted?

UPDATE: I heard back from the always helpful Mike McLaurin with the answer to my question: Brett Diller voted for the historic district and Martin Lane voted against it.

Potential vote on historic district tonight

As busy as I am, I forgot all about this. The Enquirer-Journal has the brief write-up on this.

And I had taken the time to go and read through the 50+ pages of regulations and recommendations the town put together if the plan gets passed by the board.

And even though I am not in the affected area (which can be modified by the board as they see fit as long as it does not expand upon the initial boundaries), I am still against it.

See my earlier post of the draft proposal if you're interested. I'll try to put together a post with my thoughts on the new draft, which contained a lot more new material. But I'm not sure I'll be able to get that up tonight. Keeping my fingers crossed.

I just heard back from town manager extraordinaire Mike McLaurin and he thinks the board is prepared to vote. So if you're looking to get in a last minute word, here's who you should contact:

mayor@waxhaw.com
mlane@waxhaw.com
jblythe@waxhaw.com
bdiller@waxhaw.com
ekirkpatrick@waxhaw.com
pgregory@waxhaw.com

If anyone attends the meeting, drop me a line as I'm already spoken for this evening.

It'll be interesting to see what they choose to do a significant majority of those in the proposed area are against the proposal. I've seen little hint of people clamoring for this district to be imposed. We'll see.

OIS moratorium doesn't pass

Per Lori of Waxhaw realty & blogging fame, the moratorium proposed by the mayor (briefly touched upon here) did not pass, compliments of town commissioners Blythe, Lane, and Gregory.

It was somewhat strange that the special meeting was announced and scheduled so quickly (two days notice if I'm not mistaken). It almost begs the question as to why a vote on a potential moratorium in the OIS zoning district was desired so quickly.

By the way, anyone have a map of the OIS zoning district?

UPDATE 5/14: Here's Lacey Hampton's article on the meeting in the Enquirer-Journal.

Blog in the dark

Google's Blogger was down last night up through lunchtime today.

I planned to have something about the pressing meeting proposed by the mayor to impose a moratorium in the OIS zoning (PDF here), but Blogger put a stop to that.

Maybe later today.

UPDATE 11pm: Haven't got around to posting on the proposed moratorium, but I just realized that I've lost at least one post on the Main Street Grill due to the Blogger problems. Hopefully it gets restored eventually.

Be forewarned: school lunches rising

Brian Carlton has an article in the latest issue of the Union County Weekly on the $0.15 increase in school lunches.

Next fall, it will cost 15 cents extra for a student to eat lunch at a public school in Union County. The price hike is due to a federal mandate, which requires the cost to climb.

...

The increase affects students at all schools. This means beginning July 1, elementary school lunches will increase to $1.95 while middle and high school lunches will cost $2.05.

On first reading, I thought this was just do to rising prices of oil, which is increasing the price of all food if you hadn't noticed. After a second look, I see this is due to a federal mandate requiring the cost of school lunches to increase.

It appears this is compliments of the child nutrition bill that was pushed through by President Obama and the Democrats.

And to think I thought the major disadvantage of this bill would be to eliminate the cheese stick dippers, which I hear are rather good. Good enough that I plan to try them myself before the year is out since I am not confident they will be back next year.

Mayor on WFAE's 'Charlotte Talks'

Mayor Daune was on WFAE's 'Charlotte Talks' radio show with Director of Planning Greg Mahar yesterday.

Unlike her appearance on WIXE last week, this one is available online for those that missed it.

A streaming version is available here and a downloadable MP3 version (for posterity's sake of course) can be grabbed here.

Enjoy.

ps. If anyone found an MP3 copy of the mayor and Katie Ross on WIXE, I'd love to hear it.

A little tidbit on historic district

There hasn't been a whole lot of linkable material on the public hearing for the proposed historic district. However, the Union County Weekly ran a letter to the editor from Shell Holston, a historic property owner in last Friday's issue.

Read the whole thing for his description of the hearing, which lasted 5 hours. This jives with my description in my follow-up hearing post.

I confirmed with Katie Ross that 10 of the 12 of those who spoke in favor of the historic district live within the larger proposed historic district. I followed up with a question as to how many of these ten would be subject to the historic district rules (ie. they own a historic property). When I hear back, I will update accordingly.

UPDATE 4/07: Quick as a fiddle, Katie got back to me. Eight of the twelve people who spoke in favor will be subject to the rules imposed by the overlay.

Waxhaw walking survey

Do you walk in Waxhaw? Then perhaps you might be interested in taking this survey for the town of Waxhaw.

The goal of the survey seems to be to determine Waxhaw's walking habits and if there's support for upgrading walking 'facilities.'

But question #6 is probably the one that those with the power of the pocketbook are most interested in:

Would you support public funding for pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks, safer crosswalks, or greenway paths?

The Waxhaw Show

The mayor hinted about meeting some tv execs not too long ago on Facebook. While the rest of us wondered what kind of bawdy reality show might be heading our way, the Union County Weekly breaks the story.

The town of Waxhaw could be the focus of a television show, depending on how much commissioners are willing to pay. The program Life in the Carolinas reached out to Waxhaw Mayor Daune Gardner, expressing their interest in featuring the town in a future show. The catch is that Waxhaw would have to foot part of the bill, which could range from $7,950 to almost $35,000.

Town commissioners voted to open negotiations with the program during their Tuesday, March 22 meeting, after going through the different options. “Life in the Carolinas” is a program that runs on various stations across North and South Carolina. Here in the Charlotte market, it airs on Time Warner Cable Channel 12 Saturdays at 5:30pm, with additional shows on Direct TV and other venues as well.

There are three options available, costing the town from 31% to 139% of the town's yearly economic development budget of $25000.

All commissioners with the exception of Martin Lane voted to open negotiations with "Life in the Carolinas." I think I agree with Martin. He is quoted:

That’s a lot of money,” Waxhaw Mayor Pro Tem Martin Lane said, adding that he thought shows normally sold commercials to handle costs, rather than charge the towns featured in the program. “I don’t think it’s our role to pick up something like this.”

While I'm sure it'd be great to have this show spotlight Waxhaw, it'd be ideal to see some tangible evidence that it would benefit the town. I personally have never heard of this program, so I'm wondering how many others statewide are in the same boat.

And the whole operation reminds me a little of those "Who's Who?" books my wife and I use to get invited to buy that just so happen to feature one of us. They just smelled like a scam.

Read the whole thing.

How'd the public hearing go?

I of course missed last Saturday's public hearing about the proposed historic district. There's been little word how it went thus far.

* I was unable to attend due to multiple baseball practices in multiple locations. My duties of assistant coach and dad come before my duties as Waxhaw blogger. The second practice began at 12pm at Waxhaw Elementary (location of the public hearing) and the parking lot was still full when we arrived and that was approximately 3 hours after the hearing began.

When we left two hours later (me with a new sunburn), it looked like the last of of the Waxhaw town employees were clearing out.

* The mayor was proud of Waxhaw per a Facebook update.

[Daune Gardner] is proud of Waxhaw today! Today's public hearing on the proposed historic district boundaries was well-attended, the speakers were numerous and respectful, the staff handled themselves with great aplomb and the board was attentive and thoughtful. This is how governance is supposed to happen!

* A week later, there have been very few articles on the hearing. In fact, from what I can tell, there was nothing whatsoever in the Union County Weekly or the Enquirer-Journal, at least according to the search utility on their respective websites. There was an article in the Waxhaw Exchange last Sunday, but I was unable to turn it up online.

Being the enterprising town blogger with scanner who occasionally receives his copy of the Waxhaw Exchange, I scanned it up for those unlucky folks who might not have received this issue. Here's a snippet:

Waxhaw residents and landowners voiced their opinions either for or against the town's proposed historic district overlay Saturday at Waxhaw Elementary School.

Beginning at 9 a.m., town staff gave a presentation addressing the purpose of the meeting, aspects of the proposed historic district overlay and concerns some had about it.

"Waxhaw historic preservation has been going on in some fashion since the 1980s," Katie Ross, a planner for the town, said during a PowerPoint presentation.

After the presentation, a number of people took turns discussing why they were either for or against the proposed overlay. Those who wanted to speak, signed up before and during the public hearing on separate signup sheets depending on if they were for or against the proposal. About 44 people were signed up to speak at the start of the meeting. Twelve of the 44 were in favor of the overlay while 32 were against it.

I can't complain much since at least the Waxhaw Exchange covered the hearing, a relatively big Waxhaw event, but I am real curious to know what percentage of those twelve in favor of the historic district actually reside within it.

* After emailing the commissioners and Mayor Gardner, I got a response from the latter regarding when the likely vote by the town commissioners would occur. Per Mayor Gardner, the board may have a discussion regarding the historic district on April 26th, but no vote. The issue will be on the agenda at the May 10th meeting for a possible vote on that date. So if you're looking to browbeat any of the commissioners to see things your way, you've got some time.

Once again, if anyone has some thoughts to share regarding the public hearing, drop me an email or leave a comment. It may be the only way to let the people of Waxhaw know how the hearing went since it doesn't appear to be a high priority for those media organizations covering Waxhaw.

Dog ordinance proposal

The town has released the draft animal control document (PDF) in response to the tragic death of Makayla Woodard.

I haven't had a chance to read through the entire document, but Lori Bee, Waxhaw gadabout and realtor extraordinaire, has already looked through it and posted some thoughts here. There's also a healthy discussion about this on the town's Facebook page as well.

Her initial impression is not positive. A few aspects she finds particular egregious is the current limit of two dogs, the new Waxhaw fees associated with this endeavor, which would apparently be on top of the county fees; and the vague nuisance proposals.

Read the whole thing.

I'm going to try to read the whole thing and comment further, but no promises since I'm still trying to find the time to read the approved guidelines (PDF) for the proposed historic district.

Government spending in action

Only off-topic as much as a train line connecting Raleigh to Charlotte is.

WBTV has the article; read through the whole thing.

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP/WBTV) - North Carolina transportation officials say they've reached an agreement that will allow them to obtain $461 million in federal grants to improve train service.

The agreement will allow faster and more frequent passenger service between Charlotte and Raleigh. State transportation secretary Gene Conti says the agency will seek bids for contracts for tracks, bridges and trains.

Officials say the new service would cut travel time from Charlotte to Raleigh to less than three hours, even with seven stops along the way. However, the ride will only be 13 minutes faster.

The main question this of course raises is whether it's worth nearly half a billion dollars to shave 13 minutes off the route between Charlotte and Raleigh. The other question might be if now is the time to be spending the money on such a task.

March 19th snuck up on me

There's less than an hour until the big historic district meeting at the Waxhaw Elementary gym I mentioned here, here, and here.

I'll be unable to attend since I'll be helping coach some tee ball this morning. If anyone makes it and has any thoughts about the process or tone of the meeting (or anything else for that matter), pass them along so I can share them here. I'm always looking for good anonymous (or not) sources for these town meetings.

I still haven't heard back from Mike McLaurin as to when the commissioners will vote on whether to impose a historic district on some of us. If they want to, it can be as earlier as March 22nd. I sent out another email this morning to all of the commissioners to see if one of them can let me know when that vote will occur.

How Washington ruined your washing machine

I stole that headline -- from this interesting piece about how the federal government ruined washing machines in its bid for energy efficiency.

I was already dreading the day my top-loading machine, bought from Sears in the year 2000 no less, finally gives out and I have to buy one of those newfangled ones. And the information in that article isn't going to make me any happier when that day comes.

So please federal government -- stay away from my internet!



Of course, I'm apt to believe Ringo is right about these sort of things.