People Deserve to Live Near Parks
VERBATIM | Mayor Pro Tempore Mark-Anthony Middleton backs infill development at Sandy Creek, urging urban density to balance growth, housing, and environmental protection in Durham.
VERBATIM is a series that republishes the words of local leaders supporting better cities.
The following was a response to the rezoning case for apartments near the Sandy Creek Trail. While inside the Urban Growth Boundary, opposition argued it was too close to the trail. It was approved 4-3 after debate. His comments are republished in full, with particularly interesting parts in bold.
Thank you, Your Honor, and thank you, colleagues. I want to honor all of you who have come out tonight. I am a serious, huge fan of community organizing and folks organizing to raise their voices for issues and for progress. Because of that, you deserve straight talk. You don't deserve pandering or applause lines; you deserve straight, honest talk about what we're facing as a community.
Sandy Creek is an incredible place, and to be frank, the arguments that I think have been proffered tonight to keep this development from happening — those same arguments could be used if somebody wanted to make a case for us to exercise eminent domain, to move the folks who currently live there away from the park, and just create this corridor. But I would never do that, because I think people deserve to live near parks.
When we voted on the comprehensive plan, we set our city on a trajectory. The evening we voted on it — it was not a unanimous vote — I said that if we keep fidelity with the urban growth boundary, two things are going to happen: we’re going to get closer, and we’re going to get taller. That is the inevitable trajectory of honoring an urban growth boundary and living in a great American city, which is what we are.
I want to thank Council Member Baker, who I think methodically and eloquently laid out the case of what we are headed to and what we must look like. I think about what Central Park in New York looks like — the buildings around it, hopefully more affordable down here. I think about the trails and parks of Minneapolis. We were just in Minneapolis a few months ago for an inner-city visit — the tall buildings around their trails and parks. What are we going to look like as a city if we’re going to honor our urban growth boundary?
So, tall buildings around green space, accessibility — it was interesting to note that some folks talked about the lack of accessibility to the park by virtue of infrastructure and transportation, but yet touted the park as belonging to the community. That’s an interesting kind of juxtaposition: that it's for everybody, but pointing out how everybody can’t get there. The folks who do live near there now are very blessed and fortunate to live near the park. Those things will come, because that is where our city is headed. That is the trajectory we placed ourselves on consciously and deliberately when we voted for an urban growth boundary.
The same arguments that we hear for sprawl and expansion can’t be cut and paste also for infill development. I’m not saying you all have done it, but we’ve had folks come before us who cut and paste the same arguments when we’re going beyond the urban growth boundary, and then bring them within the urban growth boundary. That’s just intellectually not workable.
What we face as a city — we build adjacent to floodplains all the time. We become adept at it. If we’re going to have density in our city, if we’re going to accommodate the folks that are coming — and I don’t pretend to be an expert on these things — but what will we look like? I don’t think 12 high-priced homes, without the guarantees or at least the profits that we have in this development, are in the best interest of the city for the things that are currently zoned there to be built.
I want to associate myself with Council Member Baker’s methodical litany, but I would just go a little further in saying I don’t want to make the perfect the enemy of the good. He laid out a good project. And for what it’s worth, I’ve voted on a lot of these projects. Your voice and your development — I can count on one hand the number of communities that have, because of — and this is commendation, not critique — the number of communities that have had this much contouring and deliberation and give on a project. Solely, not because of us, but because of your organization and your voice and showing up.
The windows for the birds, the proffer for the sidewalks — I’ve seen communities far less organized who’ve had things voted on without continuations, without deliberations, without council members going back and forth with them. And again, this is commendation. I like that, for whatever that’s worth.
I’m going to listen more, but I think Council Member Baker laid the case out as to where we’re going inevitably as a city. I think Council Member Caballero, and all of my colleagues have made excellent points. But the proposition that this development is going to destroy Sandy Creek — I don’t think that’s the case. I’m confident of it, because I can point to any number of developments that we’ve got in the city that are near floodplains where we’ve governed ourselves according to strict guidelines and statutes.
So I’m leaning toward supporting. I think somebody made the point — the "normal four," I don’t know what that means. If you looked at our last meeting, we voted against a pretty large development that was alluded to, for a number of reasons. But one of the main reasons is that we were trying to keep fidelity with the urban growth boundary. But keeping fidelity with the urban growth boundary means that every neighborhood, every ZIP code, every community in Durham is going to feel the impact of growth — including my neighborhood, including my ZIP code.
Someone said it earlier, and I’ll end here: the balance. I think somebody alluded to the balance between accommodating our growth as a city and protecting our natural environment and the blessings we have from nature. And it is a balance. I’ve yet to vote on a perfect development, but I’ve voted on some pretty good ones. From our last meeting to now, this one — at least in my assessment — has only gotten better. We can argue to what degree it’s gotten better, but it has.
So that’s where I am for now, Mr. Mayor. I’ll yield. Thank you, colleagues.