[An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that the Rod Stevens Housing Report was authored by the Town Council and UNC, when it was written by Rod Stevens, presented to the Town Council and contains research from UNC. We have also noted that Councilmember Hongbin Gu was in opposition to the East Rosemary Street parking deck.]
One recent afternoon, I returned home to find a shiny doorhanger emblazoned with pretty nature pictures of Chapel Hill at the top. At the bottom were CHALT’s endorsed candidates for the upcoming Mayor and Town Council races in November: Hongbin Gu, Adam Searing and Vimala Rajendran. The flyer includes a list of the candidates’ promises: taking “bold action to address climate change,” providing a “mix of housing,” and nurturing “Chapel Hill’s special character.” Lovely words, but what does this really mean?
Initially, I did not plan on writing about CHALT (Chapel Hill Alliance for a Livable Town) this year, considering last year’s opinions editor Guthrie Richardson’s two thinkpieces’ ample coverage of the infamous Chapel Hill political group. Yet, as CHALT ramps up, with town elections nigh, it’s time to take a stand.
If you’ve followed CHALT’s track record at all, this hypocritical list of commitments would not come as a surprise, but nevertheless a disappointment. As they claim to support real action against climate change, they systematically shut down transit-oriented developments in the name of trees and traffic. While they say they promote mixed-income housing, any projects with a realistic number of affordable units are never worth the disturbance to Chapel Hill’s green “character” and mountain biking trails. Even when they say they support diversity, the projects they target their fire on are largely downtown or in wealthy suburban neighborhoods. Everything they put in words sounds wonderful and great, but are thoroughly undermined by their own actions. As the saying goes, the only thing worse than a liar is a liar who is also a hypocrite.
CHALT is the epitome of moderate liberalism. Like the illusion of natural gas as clean energy, all the appeal is superficial: there are very few who wouldn’t like a “livable town” and everything the group promises. The point is, when you dig even a little bit deeper, it’s clear that their idea of a livable town is the status quo—everyone who can afford a median property of nearly $500,000.
“Take Bold Action to Address Climate Change”
Which candidate to endorse always comes down to, for CHALT, who loves trees the most? And at what cost will they protect the Chapel Hill trees?
Now, I’m not a tree-hater. I love oxygen as much as anyone else alive. But the fact is that protecting the existing forests does nothing to repair the amount of damage we continue to add every day with gasoline and the energy needs of our single-family homes.
According to their website, first on CHALT’s list of “Current Projects” is addressing the effects of climate change, by adding “more green space,” conserving already-protected “Natural Heritage areas” in Meadowmont and “increasing open space requirements.” While these are valid actions to preserve greenery, the first priority should be slowing down the causes of climate change. Otherwise, they will just be plugging one hole while digging a wider one right next to it.
At times, CHALT’s lack of action speaks just as much as their action. We know how damaging car-driving and fossil fuel use is for the environment. It is telling when their “bold action,” usually in the form of dozens of blog posts about a specific development, barely even encompasses mentioning these projects on their website. The silence is complicit in prolonging the unsustainable lifestyle we live now, where every family owns two vehicles to go to a school 10 minutes away from downtown which is 10 minutes away from the grocery store which is 10 minutes away from home.
For instance, the Rosemary Street “CVS” parking building is being taken down and reconstructed into a new 1,100-space, seven-story deck, to be completed in 2022. Strictly speaking about the immediate environmental costs, demolishing a concrete deck to construct a new one, where the debris will likely be trashed, isn’t exactly climate-friendly. It’s part of a much larger project to redevelop East Rosemary Street with parking consolidated in one building and more office space, which could actually be beneficial in creating business downtown.
Regardless, if we are truly trying to build a progressive town less reliant on fossil fuels, we cannot continue to invest in massive parking lots for cars. While Gu, their endorsed candidate for mayor, opposed the project individually, CHALT’s blogs and newsletters are devoid of opposition to this project’s environmental implications in contrast to their detailed analysis of apartment complexes. The project is addressed briefly once to criticize the monetary cost and once to laud the benefits to downtown business and additional greenspaces.
What we need for true “bold action on climate change” is investment in other transit options and dense, mixed-income housing that allows our teachers, UPS workers and first responders to live in town. Housing and climate action are inextricably tied. Sure, this is all policy that might be controversial (to a NIMBY — Not In My Back Yard) and might seem like a wild risk to take, but that’s what bold action means.
“Provide a Mix of Housing”
This statement has to be one of their most egregious claims. No matter how much their priority lists always dutifully include the buzzword “affordable housing,” time and time again CHALT proves that they do not prioritize inclusive housing. Often, they literally value property over people.
For example, the Lullwater development is a proposed apartment complex off of Weaver Dairy Rd, and heavily opposed by CHALT. In a Sept. 22 email to the Mayor and Town Council, a prominent CHALT member and former Town Councilmember Julie McClintock wrote, “There are better uses for this property such as storage units.”
This isn’t the first time CHALT would rather have properties, or businesses, in place of housing. Their arguments that places to live are bad for the environment, or increase traffic, become moot once we circle back and see what CHALT really prefers in their stead.
The selectiveness of CHALT’s aim speaks volumes about our town’s politicking priorities. When they begin lobbying against a development, rest assured that it’ll be near the northeastern side of town, from Estes Drive to Ephesus Church Road, where most CHALT members reside. In the six years they have been active, there is an emphatic silence on the environmental impacts of similar housing projects in the historic Northside and Rogers-Eubanks neighborhoods. If CHALT really stands for a livable town for everyone, why not protest the gentrification of university-adjacent neighborhoods by student rentals?
Not to mention, if the development is a grocery store, it’ll be fine. Wegmans’ 100,000 square feet and 750 parking spaces, all impervious concrete, suddenly aren’t such a problem. Wegmans’ need for a height exemption, to support the “character” of their brand through a decorative tower, is okay. CHALT was willing to negotiate a plan to reduce traffic in the Wegmans area. If it were a proposed apartment complex in its location, requesting additional height, potentially creating more traffic, however, NIMBYs may have come out in uproar.
When they vote against developments like that could provide multiplexes, denser housing, or at least more affordable housing, they foment further what a Rod Stevens report presented to the Town Council, with research from UNC, call Chapel Hill’s increasing similarity to Palo Alto. According to the report, nearly 90 percent of local jobs are filled by commuters and more than two out of three Chapel Hill residents work elsewhere. Many of the daily workers who drive our town forward, sometimes literally, do not live here.
No one blatantly says they are opposed to affordable housing. No one wants to brazenly say they are a NIMBY. But when we look at all of these elected officials sponsored by CHALT who promised to make housing more inclusive, and what excuses they have found every single time, what does that say about who we are believing?
“Nurture Chapel Hill’s special character”
I won’t argue that Chapel Hill does not have unique aspects, some quite positive. I like our parks. I like the resources of the university. I love our library. However, the vagueness of their wording graciously permits me to now examine closely some of our town’s most “special” parts.
CHALT brags about their influence; 16 of the 20 candidates they’ve endorsed have won their seats since 2015. Well, let’s take a step back. Are we satisfied with where we are now? According to the most recent census, our town is 72 percent white. The average household median income is $73,000, more than double the national median. The achievement gap is the second largest in the nation.
Is all of this the special character we want to be nurtured?
If CHALT’s candidates continue to control our town’s politics, we will forever be running on a hamster wheel of housing gaps, gasoline dependence and social inequities. We will constantly be asking ourselves the same question: What is our “liberal” town doing wrong? Yet, the answer will always remain the same: trusting CHALT.
Image created by Caroline Chen/The ECHO.
Great article and very well researched. Chalt is not green, period! I was initially fooled by their website and the members I knew seemed sincere, but now I only get mad when Chalt is mentioned, except when it in the context of your article.
Thanks for all the clarifications. I hope neighbors who still haven’t seen through Chalt’s hypocrisy get to read your article. It is embarrassing to have an organization like that around, but, unfortunately, they are not alone.
Sincerely,
Hans Flinch