The Uptown Greenville Umbrella Market returns to Five Points Plaza (that’s the parking lot on 5th and Evans) this Wednesday, May 15 from 5-8 p.m, and each Wednesday until the end of September. The market moves to the Tipsy Teapot in case of rain.

If you went to the market last year, you remember the local produce, jewelers, crafters, artisans, live music and J rides. This year, according to market manager, Kelsey Anderson, there are more farmers involved as well as some hands-on vendors like a henna artist and a hula hoop designer.

The Wright Studio with Suzuki students will be the musical act at the first market. Rebekah Todd will return this year (date TBA). With Anderson’s wealth of musical connections, Greenville can count on a great slate of performers.

Get to there early on the 15th for an exciting public art unveiling on the side of Starlight Cafe. The art is a collaboration between Art-Force, Parrott Canvas Company and the artist, Jan-Ru Wan.

So, come out and enjoy the festive atmosphere while supporting local vendors and mingling with your community.

email the author

The Greenville Guardian encourages reader participation. In an effort to promote and maintain civility, thoughtful discussion and the useful exchange of ideas, we require a full name (first and last) and valid email address be ascribed to each comment. Email addresses will not be published.

Click here to watch the video if the embedded one is not functioning (and it doesn’t seem to be).

On April 11, city council made three environmentally friendly votes. One will allow for solar farming in the city; another to begin studying the Tar River to preserve it and promote development and ecotourism; and the third, for council to go paperless.

They also voted to approve a set of parking recommendations for the University area.

Solar Farming

Council unanimously approved a request by Fleming Solar Center, LLC to amend the zoning ordinance and create standards for solar energy facilities on land zoned for residential-agricultural use. Previously, there was no place in the city where a solar farm was allowed to locate.

Requirements for solar farms include a minimum distance of 50 feet from property lines and 100 feet from any residence, noise level not more than 40 db at the property line, ten-foot buffer yard with a minimum of nine evergreen trees or shrubs per 100 linear feet, security fence at least six feet tall, and security lighting on premises.

Companies intending to open a solar farm will have to apply to the Board of Adjustment for a special use permit. The farm must be on at least 30 acres of land zoned for residential-agricultural use.

The city’s Planning and Zoning commission unanimously approved the request at their March 19 meeting.

See the full ordinance, the notes from P&Z’s discussion and a map indicating the land that could potentially be used for solar farming here. Watch the presentation to council, including a description of how the farms work and what they look like, and council’s discussion here.

Tar River Study

“We have a beautiful asset,” Councilor Dennis Mitchell said when he introduced this item to council, “and we need to find a way for others to see it.”

Mitchell’s request “to preserve the river in as much of a natural state as possible, promote development where it’s already been developed–probably redevelop it, and look at ways to promote ecotourism along the river” passed with unanimous approval.

Regarding development along the river, Mitchell is interested in looking for opportunities in blighted areas that are already developed. He cited Ripple City, the neighborhood along the river beside the Town Commons, as one example.

See the council discussion here.

Council Goes Paperless

Rising from his astonishment that the city sends a courier twice a week to drop off information packets at the city councilors’ homes, especially in an age of technology, Mitchell initiated a paperless policy for council.

“Our city hall is wired to be wireless, we have internet access through the city, and each council member has an iPad,” Mitchell said.

Mitchell named a few ways current practices are inefficient: in addition to the paper itself–he estimates council has used at least ten boxes of paper this year alone–there are additional printing costs such as toner, staff hours putting the information together, staff time driving to councilors’ houses, cost of the vehicle, etc..

Councilor Marion Blackburn had several concerns. The first of which is that the seven council members are such a small part of the city’s paper users. “To me,” she said, “for us to move forward with the policy without having done an assessment of the entire city, that would be a concern. I’d like to see us look at it comprehensively.”

Blackburn’s other concerns with Mitchell’s policy include physical issues involved with a lot of computer use, such as tendinitis and eye strain, and the fear of setting up barriers to future councilors. She requested some amendments that allow for more flexibility.

Councilor Max I-don’t-even-know-how-to-use-a-computer Joyner said Blackburn’s amendments “take the teeth out of the policy.” He went on, “If we are trying to save the city some money, operate more efficiently and be more environmentally friendly, then Dennis’ stuff works. If not, we’re just going to keep on the way we’ve been operating. I know I will.”

All councilors except Blackburn voted to adopt the following policy. Mitchell’s original terms are in black; Blackburn’s amendments in blue.

See the council discussion here.

Parking Recommendations Approved

The University Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative committee created to mollify the public outrage over city council’s allowing four unrelated people to live together in the university area instead of three as elsewhere in the city was asked to work on solutions to some of the area’s biggest concerns: parking, trash and noise.

Regularly cited as a problem in the area, the committee came up with the following parking recommendations and voted 5-1 to recommend them to council.

1. Develop standards that will establish rear yard surface and screening parking standards for dwellings in the overlay district. Suggested standards would limit the number of vehicles on site to four (4), require parking to be on an improved surface and with property screening. Currently there are no standards and the committee felt this would improve the visual appearance of structures within the overlay district.

2. Establish the on-street parking areas within the overlay district as an area for controlled residential parking for residents of the overlay district only. After evaluation, the committee felt that limiting the parking to residents within the overlay district only would improve parking for the residents of the area. It is the desire of the committee that efforts to make the change be timed such that needed changes take place in order to implement the new parking restrictions by the beginning of the fall 2013 semester.

The recommendations were approved by council (Kandie Smith, Joyner, Rose Glover and Mitchell in support; Blackburn and Calvin Mercer opposing) with the expectation that the Public Transportation and Parking Commission and the neighborhoods impacted by the changes would give their input.

A formal plan will be presented to city council in June.

Read the explanation given to council here. Watch the council discussion here.

View the full April 11 agenda here.

Council meets again Monday, May 6 at 6 p.m.; Thursday, May 9 at 7 p.m.; and for a stormwater workshop Thursday, May 9 and 5:30 p.m. in the City Hall Conference room 337.

email the author

The Greenville Guardian encourages reader participation. In an effort to promote and maintain civility, thoughtful discussion and the useful exchange of ideas, we require a full name (first and last) and valid email address be ascribed to each comment. Email addresses will not be published.

This city council has made no secret about their  focus on economic development. Part of their efforts include having staff put together some options for economic development incentives, which they did in December 2012.

Of the four options presented in December, council wanted to know more about the Capital Investment Grant program.

Staff returned on April 8 with guidelines for the incentive program and a scoring system for evaluating applicants’ projects. Council voted unanimously to adopt the program as it was presented with a provision that they will have to vote to keep the program going after five years.

The city will award the grants to new businesses and new investments, like relocation and expansion, in existing businesses. The projects will generate new quality job growth, increase the size and diversity of the city’s tax base, transform blighted areas or further the city’s strategic goals.

The program is expected to be self-supporting. That is, property tax revenue will increase because of the projects, and the grants will be funded with money from that increase–possibly up to 75 percent of the net increase. The total amount of grant money disbursed each year will depend on the amount of revenue from the program during the previous year.

Sunset Provision Debate

Councilor Max Joyner moved to adopt the grant program with a review of the Economic Development Initiative zones. He included a sunset provision of five years on the grant program because, “Everything changes, and unless council renews this, in five years, it dies.” He went on, “I hate to keep making these rules that live in perpetuity when things change.”

Calvin Mercer was quick to second Joyner’s motion.

Marion Blackburn had reservations about the sunset clause, “If we’ve gone through all this trouble to develop this program, to institute a sunset into it is not good process. We evaluate it in five years, but to just build in a sunset for the sake of saying you don’t want a rule to exist in perpetuity to me does not make good sense…. We don’t have to doom it right out of the gate.”

Joyner countered, “That’s exactly what the sunset does. In five years you would re-evaluate. If it’s working good, everybody would vote to continue it on….I’m putting a timeline on it where it will be reviewed so we’ll be able to kick the tires, make sure it’s working properly. Any changes that need to be made can be made, and you approve it again. What I’m proposing and what you’re saying are the exact same things.”

Final Votes

Mercer moved to “divide the question,” that is, vote first on the incentive program then have a separate vote on the sunset clause. All voted in favor of dividing the question.

Next, council unanimously voted to adopt the Capital Investment Grant program as it was presented and to evaluate the Economic Development Investment zones every five years.

The third and final vote on the item, to include a five-year sunset provision for the grant program, passed with the support of all councilors except Blackburn.

Watch the video with staff presentation and council discussion; read the full staff report explaining the program’s policy rationale and fiscal approach, project qualification, the scoring system, the application process, and terms and conditions of grant funding.

See the full agenda from the April 8 council meeting here.

email the author

The Greenville Guardian encourages reader participation. In an effort to promote and maintain civility, thoughtful discussion and the useful exchange of ideas, we require a full name (first and last) and valid email address be ascribed to each comment. Email addresses will not be published.

It’s not every day you get to see government officials praying on the steps of the county court house. Just today.

Governor Pat McCrory, Mayor Allen Thomas, Rochelle Brown for N.C. House Representative Brian Brown, Sheriff Neil Elks and others took the microphone to lead the faithful — mostly Christians — who had gathered downtown at noon in prayer.

In addition to songs and a mayoral proclamation, there were prayers for legislators, judges and courts, churches, law enforcement and military, families, youth and education, business and media, the prayer movement, prisoners and nations.

The prayer rally concluded with a pretty cool horn, a shofar, being blown.

Check out the pictures.

In February, four residents told city council they are disenfranchised because, not owning their properties, they cannot vote in their neighborhood associations. They argue a significant portion of the city’s population is cut off — not only from inclusion in their own neighborhoods, but from the city’s Neighborhood Advisory Board (NAB), a panel of citizens representing each of Greenville’s neighborhood associations. The NAB provides advice and formal recommendations to city council on issues important to neighborhoods.

In response to these citizen concerns, district 1 representative Kandie Smith requested what she called a “Neighborhood Advisory Board Ordinance Revision” be placed on the April 8 agenda for discussion.

Placed it was. And discuss they did.

The meeting’s agenda introduced the discussion as follows:

“Council Member Kandie Smith has expressed interest in an ordinance to assure equal rights and equal voting privileges to all property owners and renters immediately upon establishing residency and/or ownership in a designated association area. Council Member Smith would like to eliminate any barriers, economic or otherwise, that prevent equal rights, and to make the same requirement for a neighborhood association to be recognized by the City of Greenville for inclusion in the Neighborhood Advisory Board.”

Equal rights, equal voting privileges: No councilor has denied these are worthy goals for our city.

It’s the part about the city “recognizing” neighborhood associations, based on a city-devised and regulated set of rules, where the problem lies.

A “neighborhood association,” is currently defined in the City Code (Section 2-3-81) as,

“An organized group of residents within a specific neighborhood within the corporate limits of the city and that operates under a formal association [sic] bylaws, holds at least two board or membership meetings a year, has elected officers, maintains records of meetings, maintains an association membership roster, and has placed on file with the Neighborhood Liaison/Ombudsman a current set of bylaws and amendments and a list of current officers. There shall be only one neighborhood association for each neighborhood.”

Though this in itself sounds like the city regulating how a neighborhood association is constituted, neighborhood associations are in fact independent. They are neither government-run nor government-sponsored.

But the city, believing neighborhood associations enhance the city by encouraging a sense of community, established the citizen-led Neighborhood Advisory Board “to preserve and strengthen neighborhoods.” The NAB further defined its charge to building “cooperative relationships between neighbors,… and strong connections among neighborhoods.”

The NAB, in essence, is an interest group. Its interest: Maintaining stable neighborhoods throughout the city. (Read more here.)

Unlike other panels whose members are okay’ed by city council, NAB board members are appointed by their neighborhood associations — which is much closer to direct democracy than councilors okaying appointments. (Read more about the NABs unique, independent status among city boards and commissions here.)

So with that background in place…

Back to the April 8 meeting

During the course of the hour-long discussion, Smith made this motion: “to have staff look at [neighborhood associations] and bring back something that clearly displays inclusion.” Her motion passed in a split vote: Smith, Max Joyner, Rose Glover and Dennis Mitchell in favor; Marion Blackburn and Calvin Mercer opposed. Mitchell added to the motion that the NAB should weigh in on this issue. Glover added that each neighborhood can have more than one neighborhood association — which, like most of her contributions to city council debate, makes absolutely zero sense.

During the discussion, half the council (Blackburn, Mitchell, Mercer) agreed that each neighborhood had its own challenges and that a one-size-fits-all ordinance would not be appropriate.

Let’s compare the explanation of the item as it was given in the agenda with the motion council passed.

Agenda: “To assure equal rights and equal voting privileges to all property owners and renters immediately upon establishing residency and/or ownership in a designated association area.”

Passed: “To have staff look at [neighborhood associations] and bring back something that clearly displays inclusion.”

Unlike the description in the agenda, the motion that passed says nothing about HOW city staff should bring broader representation to the Neighborhood Advisory Board.

At no point in the nearly 60-minute debate did Smith, Blackburn, Joyner, Glover, Mitchell or Mercer say a word about how staff should implement their charge to make the NAB more inclusive. Rather, Smith was explicit: “I’m not telling staff what words to use, that’s up to them as professionals. I hope they’ll do some research to see what other peer cities are doing.”

The only mention of all people being able to vote in their neighborhoods as soon as they establish residency came from Mayor Allen Thomas. “We don’t want exclusionary tactics anywhere in this city for any reason,” said Thomas, “whether they’ve lived there for one day, one month, six months, ten years, renter or homeowner.”

Revisions to “Neighborhood Association” handed to NAB

Carrying out council’s wishes, on April 17, city attorney Dave Holec sent two options for revising the city code’s definition of “Neighborhood Association” to Neighborhood Advisory Board members for their input.

Holec’s options for revision show clear deference to the particular method of implementation found in the agenda and referred to by the mayor, though it was never brought up during the discussion or included in the motion that passed.

Special NAB meeting to discuss ordinance revisions

On April 30, the NAB met in a special session to discuss Holec’s options and put forward a formal recommendation for city council to consider in May when they return to this issue.

Mitchell, present at the meeting, said if the NAB didn’t deliver something to council, one of Holec’s revisions would likely pass.

The board, wanting more time to sort out the complicated issue, will request three months to create a plan and timeline for increasing all residents’ engagement — something they feel they have been working steadily toward for a long time now. Smith, also in attendance, nodded in agreement that she found the three months acceptable.

Putting it together

So, where did the instructions about how to implement the issue of equal representation on the Neighborhood Advisory Board come from?

The instructions were in the agenda item explanation, presumably composed by Smith, who in council discussion said she didn’t want to tell staff how to do it.

The motion council passed said nothing about how to implement the policy.

The language about implementation — mentioned in the agenda description but absent in council deliberations — mysteriously popped up again in Holec’s draft options.

We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: Council’s job is to set policy not implement it. That’s the job of the professional staff.

email the author

The Greenville Guardian encourages reader participation. In an effort to promote and maintain civility, thoughtful discussion and the useful exchange of ideas, we require a full name (first and last) and valid email address be ascribed to each comment. Email addresses will not be published.

These are the topics you’ll hear about at the 3rd Annual Imagine! United Neighborhoods Symposium next Saturday, May 4 at City Hall. This event is sponsored by the Neighborhood Advisory Board and the Human Relations Council.

The symposium is free, but you do need to register so the sponsors can make sure they have enough food to go around. Breakfast and lunch are provided.

Register online or by phone at (252) 329-4486.

Food will be provided by Zaxby’s (4135 S. Memorial Dr.), Peaden’s Restaurant (2399 Memorial Dr.), Wendy’s (3501 US Hwy. 264 East) and McDonald’s.

Symposium Schedule
9:00 am – Welcome – Ann Maxwell, Chair NAB
Greetings – Hon. Allen Thomas, Mayor City of Greenville
9:15 – History of the Town Common – Roger Kammerer, Historian
9:45 – Update on Proposed Transportation Center C. Padgett, Asst. City Mgr.
10:15 – Break
10:30 – Policing Neighborhoods! What new innovations are planned? Chief H. Aden
11:15 – Panel “Picture This Greenville” powerpoint presentation/Q & A (3 Liaisons from 3 different neighborhoods discuss their solutions to community concerns)
11:45 – Lunch & NAB Elections
12:30 pm – Moving toward effective communication and cooperation between homeowners and renters: The model – Sedge-Field Apts./ Williamsburg Manor – Capt. Hardy (GPD Ret.) & Johann Bleicher (Ret.)
Presentation of Awards to Residents of Sedge-Field/Williamsburg Manor
1:00 – Building Neighborhood Dialogue: Opportunities to interact with Immigrant Communities – Dr. Misun Hur (ECU) & Juvencio Rocha Peralta (Association of Mexicans in NC)
1:45 – 2:00 Closing

by Vince Bellis

Controversy concerning the Neighborhood Advisory Board has gotten out of hand. Let’s cut to the chase. The issue of representation on the NAB boils down to achieving a balance between the interests of three populations: short-term residents, often renters; owners of rental property, whether local or not; and long-term residents, often homeowners.

Short-term residents typically occupy a particular dwelling for three or fewer years. They desire a safe, inexpensive and comfortable place to live; they prefer not to get tied down to mortgage payments, home repair or lawn care. Renting instead of purchasing is a way temporary residents avoid these commitments.

Rental landlords have invested in their properties and many maintain them well. Some landlords do not live nearby and find it difficult to adequately monitor their rental units. Other landlords employ management companies to maintain the property. Maintenance and property improvement at rental units varies from very good to just meeting code requirements. Code violations are a recurring problem at a few rental units.

For long-term residents, their home is often their major life investment. They pay a mortgage and want to maintain, or even improve, property value. They desire neighborhood stability and feel their investment is threatened when neighborhoods become unstable. Their sense of community is lost when long-time neighbors and families are replaced by a succession of new residents. Single-family homes converted to rental units, friends moving away and ceasing to participate in neighborhood activities, streets crowded with parked cars, houses and lawns unkempt: these often lead to a feeling of neighborhood instability.

Very few neighborhoods in Greenville currently experience tension between the interests of long and short-term residents. But in neighborhoods where that tension does exist, issues such as the number of persons per rental unit, proximity of bars to residential housing, criminal activity, code violations, parking and trash have occupied much of the community development department, city council, and the NAB’s time.

Although the NAB has no power other than to forward citizen concerns to city council, the board has become a lightning rod since it took several positions on controversial issues. The intent of the NAB is to promote neighborhood stability and to serve as a conduit for neighborhood concerns to reach city council. Some have argued that individuals already have that opportunity via elected city council representatives. While this is true, it has proven useful for neighborhood leaders to consolidate and prioritize neighborhood concerns and then present them in a concise manner in the form of advice to city council.

I have served on the NAB since its inception and am well aware of its weaknesses. The board has been greatly inhibited by a tiered organizational structure and by byzantine bylaws and election procedures that have discouraged participation and have resulted in a high turnover rate among neighborhood liaisons and board members. Recent actions by the city council intended to strengthen the NAB were based on an incomplete understanding of NAB structure and its current leadership, and on an erroneous understanding of the fundamental issue. The changes mandated by the Greenville City Council will make the NAB more cumbersome and even less effective.

Tinkering with bylaws does not address the root problems concerning the structure and operation of the NAB. It is time to review how other cities organize their citizen advisory committees and to consider revisions that will make the NAB truly representative and more effective.

email the author

Vince Bellis is a voting member of the Neighborhood Advisory Board.

The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not meant to represent the NAB or its members.

Read more about this board in the article we published in August 2012.

The Greenville Guardian welcomes other points of view. Please send your letters to the editor.

The Greenville Guardian encourages reader participation. In an effort to promote and maintain civility, thoughtful discussion and the useful exchange of ideas, we require a full name (first and last) and valid email address be ascribed to each comment. Email addresses will not be published.

“An Act to Create Opportunity Scholarships” is the name of  House Bill 944, a voucher program sponsored by first-term Republican North Carolina House member and Greenville resident Brian Brown. The program would provide select students scholarships of up to $4,200 per year, but not more than 90 percent of tuition and fees, to attend private schools.

In response to the bill, Uriah Ward, President of the Young Democrats of Pitt County said, “I would never claim that our education system is totally adequate, but instead of attempting to address our problems as a state and as a county, Brown has elected to provide a solution that only addresses the needs of a select few. When I look at public education I don’t see something we need to save our children from, I see something we can save them with. If you don’t think public education is doing our children service, then let’s work together to fix it so that all of our children can get the education they deserve.”

The average amount spent per student in North Carolina in the 2009-2010 school year was $8,451, an amount putting us in 45th place (out of 50!) in per-student spending nationally.

Who will be eligible to receive an “opportunity scholarship?” The bill tells us an eligible child, “Resides in a household with an income level not in excess of three hundred percent (300%) of the federal poverty level.” So, for instance, according to the poverty guidelines, a child in a family of four ($23,550 is the poverty line) would be eligible for a voucher if that family earns less than $70,650 per year. One of the following must also apply: The child must have attended public school the previous semester, have received a scholarship grant the previous year, be entering kindergarten or first grade, be in foster care, be the child of an active-duty member of the armed forces, or have been adopted within the year before applying for the scholarship.

A sampling of eight private schools in Pitt County reveal tuition costs ranging from $135/month to $10,500/year. Seven of the eight schools are Christian. Some use a “Biblical home-school curriculum” and require teachers and administrators to sign statements of faith.

The voucher program would give $40 million in scholarship grants to private schools in the upcoming 2013-2014 school year and $50 million the year after.

If it passes, the voucher program will be administered by the State Education Assistance Authority, created by the General Assembly in 1965 to administer a higher education loan program. The Authority will be able to retain up to one percent annually for administrative costs.

The bill, co-sponsored by Rob Bryan, R-Mecklenburg; Marcus Brandon, D-Guilford; and Edward Hanes, Jr., D-Forsyth, has been referred to the House Committee on Education and, if approved, will go to Appropriations.

For more information on Brian Brown, the bills he has introduced, his voting record, committees he serves on and reports, click here.

email the author

The Greenville Guardian encourages reader participation. In an effort to promote and maintain civility, thoughtful discussion and the useful exchange of ideas, we require a full name (first and last) and valid email address be ascribed to each comment. Email addresses will not be published.

These kids seem to love it.

The group is small and has room to grow, and the prices are very reasonable. Check it out.

Here are a few pictures from the event.Click to view slideshow.

The Greenville Guardian encourages reader participation. In an effort to promote and maintain civility, thoughtful discussion and the useful exchange of ideas, we require a full name (first and last) and valid email address be ascribed to each comment. Email addresses will not be published.