We offer the following for your consideration:
-- The UNC system, and specifically Chapel Hill, is one of North Carolina's major economic development activities. It is bad policy for the state to cram hundreds of millions of dollars into a community that is bursting at the seams while neglecting other areas that could truly benefit from an infusion of state funded activity.
-- The Triangle currently has the 11th worst air quality in the nation. Our children and elders in particular suffer the consequences. Although the University plan makes some effort to limit the increase in automobile trips (amounting more to thought than thoughtful planning), it is unconscionable to be placing tens of thousands of vehicle trips onto our roads at this time. The Development Plan should be tabled until the plan can comprehensively address the issue of air quality.
-- UNC makes no provision for, and does not even address in passing, the housing and transportation needs of its low-income workers. Perhaps the University's idea of "world class," is to mimic the practices of such corporations as Nike and the Gap, known for their neglect and abuse of low-wage workers. UNC's neglect of the basic needs of low-income workers while building deluxe facilities to attract highly-paid researchers is unconscionable. The planned destruction of Odum Village, as pointed out by the Sierra Club, exemplifies this concern. The Development Plan should be rejected until it addresses the needs of low-income workers.
-- University administrators have stated repeatedly that they serve not just the people of North Carolina, but have a national and global responsibility. Unfortunately, such perspective is selectively applied to areas of short-term economic advantage, while flying in the face of North Carolina GS 161.1-B. It defines the university as "dedicated to the service of North Carolina and its people" and "shall seek an efficient use of available resources to ensure the highest quality in its service to the citizens of the State. Teaching and learning constitute the primary service that the university renders to society." The University is already well along the path of neglecting teaching in favor of grant and profit-oriented research activities. The new plans move it even further in this direction.
-- Moving from the global to the local, we must note that the OI-4 zone requires that the Development Plan provide information that will allow us "to understand specifically what levels of development are being proposed and what impacts would likely accompany the development." We will leave it to others to detail the many ways in which the current Development Plan falls short in this regard.
Finally, let us be clear that the Greens support the University's completion of the various projects authorized by last year's bond referendum. However, those bond-funded projects are only a portion of the Development Plan before you. Who is left, except the Chapel Hill Town Council, who can call on the state to stand up for its people, its workers, its students, and its natural environment? This plan should be rejected.
Amy Levine
Senior
Anthropology and Psychology
