Remarks by Ed Driggs
37 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 1 of 2
Thank you, Council Member Esmir. Council Member Driggs. So, first of all, you can absolutely ask us to trust you, all right, and hopefully we will. Hold your head high, okay? This is an ordinary course of business request for equipment CMPD needs to carry out the policies that we have set forth for them. It's not an occasion to revisit those policies. And in my view, deferring this, and then with the intent of talking policy, if we defer this, it has to be because we have questions about the terms of the contract. And I don't believe that's the issue here. So I think the more appropriate…
The way we handle that is the items that were pulled for comment, you have the comments, and then you vote on consent.
They're polled for comment, so then you let the member who wants to comment comment on them, and then you have the consent vote, and they would be included in that vote because they weren't polled for a vote.
voted on and it wasn't included in the list.
We don't vote until after the comments. In this case, we voted on a list of consent items before the comments, so now we do have to vote on the ones we haven't voted on yet. Attorney, correct me if I'm wrong.
So I was going to move to adopt a resolution setting a public hearing for November 23rd. Are you making that motion?
All right, so I think we should do that. I've been involved in these discussions. Is there any trust fund ask here?
So in my conversations with them, there was no indication they were basically using the church's resources to subsidize these units in order to achieve a social purpose, which I think we should support. This also says will not have undue impact on city finances or services. So this is another case where a question comes up and we need to address the question. And if there is a committee referral that's called for, that we should do that separately. So I hope we can approve this and then study the circumstances you talked about with the referral.
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Congratulations. Congratulations. Congratulations.
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Thank you, Mayor. I think it's interesting that we have a consensus, possibly unanimous, on the question of the moratorium, right? That's not a controversial thing. The staff recommended it. The business community is generally okay with it. There's not a big pipeline of projects that's going to be held up. So this is something we can do. As far as the legislature is concerned, we know that Senate Bill 730 and House Bill 1189 are currently in rules there, right? And they already have draft language which actually aligns substantially with the concerns that we have. So I would recommend that…
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Yeah, I just wanted to mention years ago we went through a long process of evaluating the city's responsibility for stormwater issues. We identified categories. It has to flood the streets, their conditions. Otherwise, stormwater is the problem of the property owner. This is a rezoning situation. The request is to put a one-family, single-family home on a sliver of land, and I don't know that we can predicate our decision on that on solving the stormwater problem. We should seek to solve the stormwater problem But I think the rights of the owner are such that if there is no rezoning objection…
That takes some... Mayor, I think that was the most discussion per acre that we've had on a recent...
Thank you, Mayor. I think what's clear here is the staff is doing the right thing by pointing out to us this is not consistent with our policy. There is also really no basis in policy for an exception. This is absolutely not addressed. It's too infrequent that we have a situation like this, that we would have a policy around it. So essentially what they're saying is as far as we're concerned, our advice to you is it isn't consistent with your policy. The question that's being put to us is, is it a good deal? So six acres versus making the exception to policy. What if it was 10 acres or three…
Thank you. So I also have council member Mayo.
Luana Mayfield serving you at large and drinks district seven Malcolm Graham, district two, Kimberly Owens, district six.
Thank you, mayor. So this strikes me as a novel application. of the historic designation. The building is not 200 years old. It's an office tower. It will continue to be a commercial property. I think this is a way of achieving a purpose that matters to us. So I appreciate, I guess, the innovation around this. But it seems to me that this use of the historic designation ought to be a policy decision that we make and not a transaction event. I think the parameters here are different from what we typically think about on historic properties, and I would love to have a clearer definition of the…
So I'm certainly in support of the purpose, right? I mean, don't get me wrong about that. I just think this is, like I say, a novel structure, and I wonder if we ought to have more, a better definition of when we want to apply a structure like this. But it's just a question I raised. I'd like to study it a little further before making my own decision. Thank you.
and would achieve our purpose of creating housing at those locations and preserving those buildings. Because we've been struggling for quite a while with the issue of what to do with these buildings. Only about a third of them, according to one study, were even suitable because of their construction for conversion to residential. So I think if we did look at it and say, here's a tax incentive that we're going to offer for building conversions. They don't have to be historic. It might be a better way. This seems to me like a roundabout way that perhaps limits our ability to do the same thing…
I think there is a process issue here. I have to confess I wasn't really briefed on this. I didn't feel I knew all about it. you know, before in time to do the kind of things I like to do with these transactions, analyze the cash flows. And it is novel. This is not a cookie cutter historic. So there's that. My impression from looking at it in the last few days was that this is something we want to do. We do want to convert the building. We want to achieve that purpose. I'm just a little uncomfortable. Like I say, we do historic this time, and then that doesn't work for the next building. So I…
You're saying there's no forfeiture of tax proceeds for the city of Charlotte that helps to realize this project?
I understand that, but what it looks like from reading this was that the historic designation improves the economics, which allows this to move forward, and it probably otherwise it couldn't. So that makes it feel to me like a grant type of transaction, different in character from our usual historic landmark. You know, I like it, and I certainly want this to succeed. You just now, for example, you clarified and explained things minutes before we're supposed to vote. So that's a conversation that would have been good to have sooner and to get these questions out in the open. the question we…