H-S: Bell ignores published list, pushes own paving agenda?

Asphalt is a product of many chemicals, petroleum among them. To those who've followed Durham government for a while, of course, oil and politics are of a similar viscosity: very slick, indeed.

Perhaps, then, yesterday's lead story in the H-S -- well-researched and reported by city politics ace Ray Gronberg -- shouldn't be surprising. Disappointing, yes, but not surprising:

Mayor Bill Bell forced city administrators to jump a road-paving project favored by some of his key supporters ahead of seven others last year's $20 million street bond was supposed to finance.

Bell and City Manager Patrick Baker informed City Council members Thursday that work on a 1,500-foot unpaved stretch of Harvard Avenue would take priority over the seven dirt roads officials last fall promised voters the bond referendum would pave.

Baker said it's likely one or more of those seven will now go unfunded by the 2007 bond, as the Harvard Avenue project could consume about $850,000 of the $2 million officials reserved from it for paving dirt streets.

The article goes on to explain that the seven other projects -- listed in a presentation on the City's web site -- had all been explicitly promised to residents as paving efforts for which the '07 bond funds were allocated. The property abutting each of these projects all signed a petition to the city requesting the paving, something the property owners on Harvard Ave. had not been able to do due to the opposition of a major church on the street.

But add some pressure from Vivian McCoy -- an activist in the NECD neighborhood, who I believe (though haven't confirmed) is also apparently one of the committee members on a shadowy NECD Leadership Committee put together by the City, for which I can't find records of a public process for board application -- and you suddenly get Harvard Ave. back on the list.

At the cost of some of the seven streets that followed the petition process, mind you, and whose residents and neighbors voted for the bond, fully expecting a paving job -- not a snow job.

(McCoy isn't the only prominent Bell backer advocating for this project. According to a Nov. 2007 Gronberg article, the Rev. Mel Whitley -- a fellow Bell backer, NECD leader, and oft-rumored possible candidate for Howard Clement's ward seat if and when the latter decides not to run for re-election -- also lives on Harvard.)

What's really galling about this whole matter, though, is the comment from Mayor Bell that made its way to the end of the Gronberg article:

"When you go out to the community and ask them to support bond referendums and can't deliver on simple things such as street paving, you're going to have problems," he said.

Oh, really now? So when you make promises in the sales pitch for a bond to pave seven streets, and you then "can't deliver" on those streets when residents support that referendum?

How is that not asking for problems down the road?

Mind you, I don't disagree with the fact that Harvard Ave. needs to be paved. It certainly does. And the residents of this street face an injustice, twenty years of advocacy while the large church refuses to support the paving, seeing no benefit to its facility from doing so. (As the H-S noted, the Council voted back in November to move forward with the paving and to assess each landowner, including the church, $45 per linear foot to do so.)

I'd be perfectly happy for the City Council to find dollars out of the general fund for this paving. There's got to be somewhere in there that almost $1 million can be shaken loose.

What's really unbelievable, however, is to see the City prioritizing a certain seven streets and then reneging on that promise.

Not that it should be surprising. We see it happen with the parks and rec master plan, routinely ignored. We see it happen with the bike, ped and sidewalk planning, routinely ignored.

I often hear longtime Durham political watchers grouse over bond issues, saying they won't vote to support another one since the money gets wasted. This isn't a waste -- Harvard Ave. needs to be paved, too -- but it's hard to imagine events like this not raising more cynicism among those inclined to skepticism.

One of the other persistent rumors in Durham politics: that this is Bill Bell's last term as mayor; that it was only his long-standing rivalry with Thomas Stith that brought him to the ballot box.

At the ballot box, I supported Bell in that race, the better of two less-than-perfect candidates.

Yet it's meddling like this -- and there's no better word for it -- that demonstrates why perhaps Durham would be well-served if these rumors were in fact true, and if someone new stepped into the mayor's office.

At his place, Barry noted, tongue in cheek, that this represented a "welcome to Durham" moment for Tom Bonfield. To my mind, it reflects the great challenge Bonfield will have in being the city's CEO in a world when small details like this are routine fodder for loud, everyday lobbying.

Good luck, Mr. Bonfield. You sure as heck are going to need it.

Comments

[Todd Patton]

Durham has more than 20 miles of unpaved dirt streets. Years of neglect of Durham's infrastructure, partly due to arbitrary caps on the property tax like the argument this spring over a half a cent on the rate, have left Durham in a state of disrepair. Most cities Durham's size have all of their streets paved, or are well on their way there. Should Harvard Ave be paved? Of course it should - along with all of other 20+ miles of unpaved streets in town.

Its just a question of when, and in what order. Durham voters were promised in 2007 that these were the streets to be paved with the 2007 bond:

http://www.durhamnc.gov/cip/pdf/bond2007_faq.pdf

"Q: If the bonds are approved, which dirt streets would be paved first?"

"A: The streets slated to be paved with bond funds would be:
- Brenrose Circle
- Swansea Street
- Castell Drive
- Forge Road
- Drake Avenue
- Red Oak Avenue
- Southpark Drive"

I'm not familiar with any of these streets, and don't know where any of them are. But the residents went through the City's process, collected signatures on a petition, probably twisted the arms of a few reluctant proprty owners, and got themselves approved. Then the City Council voted to list these streets as the ones to be paved with the 2007 bond - they are even still listed on the City website right now. The residents did everything that was asked of them, and so these streets should have remained at the top of the priority list.

However, some portion of these streets will now not be paved with 2007 bond money. With this backroom, unprofessional decision from Mayor Bell and City Manager-on-the-way-out Baker, approved by the rest of the City Council, those residents have to wonder why they even bothered to go through the "official" City process. Why should ANY neighborhood bother? After all, the REAL way to get your street paved is to contribute to the Mayor's campaign.

How is it that Mayor Bell forced this change - he has but one vote of seven on the Council (OK - maybe he actully has 2). Care to explain, Council members? And why now? Was the Mayor afraid that if he waited until Mr. Bonfield was in charge, that the new City Manager might just say 'No'?

Here's hoping Mr. Bonfield will have the guts and professionalism to stand up to the Mayor and the Council and argue against politically-based decisions like this. Perhaps he could even ask the Council to reconsider... or maybe some members of the City Council will beat him to it.

[Mike]

Shame on you Mr. Bell, Mr. Baker and City Council. I will never trust any of you. Goes to show Democrats are just like the Republicans.

[katuah]

Unfortunately, this sort of thing predates the current crop of officeholders (or most of them, anyway). Mayor Bell may have committed an egregious and blatant switch this time, but he's merely one of many, the others of which made off unscathed.

I've spoken to many long-time community leaders who can reel off lists of projects all over town that were used to sell bond funding, but then were never actually completed with said bond money after the issue passed. See Northgate Park as one good example. As I understand it, Northgate Park improvements have been used to sell at least two different bond issues, but I know that I've seen nothing of significance new in the park in the eleven years I've lived nearby. Apparently, the "Your Bond Funds At Work" sign is only an indicator that they employed someone to print and go hang up signs. (Placebo renovating?) And no, the Dog Park doesn't count, as that was "sold separately."

The accountability mechanisms are obviously broken, or never worked in the first place. For those more in-the-know than me: is there a way to tie funding to specific projects when the bonds are passed? In a way that could result in legal action if it was not so used? What I'm thinking of would be something like "the $5 million from this bond will be used to do X, Y, and Z projects. If any funds are remaining after the completion of X, Y, and Z projects, it may then be used at the discretion of Council for other projects in the BBBBB Department. Any other use of these funds is prohibited, and should result in return of the funding/immediate repayment of the bonds in the amount of the misused portion." If it's legal to do so, I would recommend adding language like this to every bond issue that comes before Durham's voters, at least until such time as another accountability mechanism can be developed. It's too late for previous bonds, but maybe the issue has finally now reached critical mass for the future.

And yes, Mayor Bell really pulled a stinker with this one. If paving Harvard St is such a big deal, then it should have been easy to get it in the original priority list. It wasn't, and however much injustice is perceived to have been their burden, using bond funds already promised elsewhere is not the way to rectify that.

[Eugene Brown]

Your article and comments are right on target. Obviously this was not our finest hour as a Council and I did not know it had been moved up to the number one priority in spite of our usual time sensitive process. Rest assured that I will not support moving Harvard Ave. to this top position when it comes to Council for a final vote.