Re: [RCAC] Check out http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2009/Bills/Senate/PDF/S44v7.pdf

Mary Belle, I sent this out last evening and will get some information back on Sunday. We are truly about to become a city of lawyers and "just us" is about to become very expensive. The disconnect between the people and their elected leaders is immense and seems to be growing faster than the deficit. ;-) Bill ------------------ Dan & Carrie . Could you take a look at this and let me know if I am in the right Universe. If this does what I think it does, from a 'Raleigh perspective' the brain trust of our community has been rendered impotent. But before I send this out, I would like someone to explain what these folks were trying to accomplish. This bill passed unanimously! Perhaps that is why I am skeptical. ==================== After Mitch Silver's (Director of Planning) announcement to the RCAC this evening who touched on this, I got the email below. The legislative bill was instigated by Ellie Kinnaird - generally a trusted source. But the bottom line here is that citizens will not have access to professional engineers. Speaking from the Coker Towers experience, we defeated Coker Towers by the traffic study that we as citizens were allowed to present to council. I was in the center of that exercise - the initial data presented to City Council was publically declared 'a lie' in a Council meeting by Ed Johnson, the City of Raleigh's head of traffic. Pretty humbling when the work of citizens was classified not just as garbage but as fabricated lies. I like Ed and understand his humanity, respect his knowledge and believe his condemnation of our data/analysis was based on his honest 'belief' system. But after further analysis of our traffic data - the city 'by active observation' verified the data and in time an apology was issued. The entire Coker Tower issue hinged on traffic - and I will not go into the longer lasting results . Meeker, Cowell . Reeves . Cowell . Stein, Janet - Treasurer of the State. Not a bad record for the plebeians. Our experience on Traffic engineering was novice and when we tried to approach legit traffic engineering companies, we were quickly rejected. They had a company to run and employees that depended on the success of their business. As a onetime customer, neighborhood groups trying to get legit traffic analysis had little financial longevity when compared to the development community that paid their way day after day. We were up against Kimberly Horne and there was not any 'professionals' for hire to present the community. We even went to NCSU for assistance, but the reality check was that their graduates would be seeking employment from KH and the bottom line was that assisting a neighborhood organization in traffic studies was not in the interest of the University or their students. We all should understand the practicality of economics. So we actually started from scratch and learned . a trip was a one way destination . like from home to shop, and from home to shop to home would be 2 trips. Can't get any more basic than that. But in several week we were analyzing complex DOT traffic analysis, running the logarithmic calculations and able to present traffic analysis in real time as the developers changed their building densities before Committees - an analysis that took several weeks in the commercial world. Some of our analysis practices became part of the teaching curricula in Civic Engineering. Kiss those days good-bye. From my analysis . the new Kinnaird model is that neighborhoods will need to come up with $thousands of dollars to preserve status quo (read -$K for no profit and assuming that there is a professional like a traffic engineering company that would be available to the development community) verse the developers that have $100K if not millions in potential profit at stake. Investing several thousand for a good chance of turning millions, is a no-brainer; investing thousands for 'status quo' is a hard sell. Can someone explain what the legislature was thinking? Surely I am missing something since this passed unanimously . but the consequence is that in quasi legal system - money wins and common folks will lose and lose big. I could use some 'expert' enlightenment. ;-) Thanks, Bill Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 10:42 AM Subject: Senate Bill 44 Appeals of Quasi-Judicial Decisions of Decision making Boards Of interest to the land development community is Senate Bill 44. (See the link below.) This was brought to our attention by Mitchell Silver, AICP, Planning Director for the City of Raleigh at our NCSS Triangle Chapter meeting. The interpretation which he provided was that if citizens have concerns about traffic and proposed land use, they may only use a professional engineer to submit the evidence to a planning commission. Mitchell reported that proposed legislation is under review by local officials and authorities. http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2009 <http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2009&BillID =SB+44> &BillID=SB+44 Richard J. Homovec, PLS Survey Section 919-996-4119 (W) 919-278-6485 (Cell) Richard.Homovec(a)ci.raleigh.nc.us From: rcac-bounces(a)eastraleigh.org [mailto:rcac-bounces@eastraleigh.org] On Behalf Of Southralcap(a)aol.com Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:06 PM To: rcac(a)eastraleigh.org Subject: [RCAC] Check out http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2009/Bills/Senate/PDF/S44v7.pdf http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2009/Bills/Senate/PDF/S44v7.pdf Here is Senate Bill 44 (in its final form) that Mitchell and Ken were talking about last night - thanks to Richard J. Homovec sending it out to the DDNA today. Mary Belle