The Skeen Group's Puzzling Development Approach

Joe Killian, in today's News & Record, tackles the unfolding story of the Skeen Group's role in a proposed development of student housing in the Glenwood neighborhood. Mark Lindsay, with the Skeen Group, says that one way or another, the deal will be done by the end of October because the developer has a timeline of opening the housing in 2011.

They will be presenting their proposals to the GGNA Board of Directors on Thursday, October 15th. In addition, an unidentified group of people has been distributing fliers around the Glenwood neighborhood for a meeting to be held on October 20th at The HIVE to protest the Skeen Group's/Dinerstein's efforts.

The whole process is likely a waste of time. Either Dinerstein, based out of TX, doesn't have a firm grasp of how the local development process works or they are getting bad advice from the Skeen Group. With a Neighborhood Plan in place, attempts to rezone property from its designated future land use, becomes more difficult.

What is especially puzzling is the strategy Skeen Group is employing here. Mark Lindsay indicated he has followed the implementation of the Glenwood Neighborhood Plan - even attending the City Council meeting where it was adopted. Yet, he decided to float the idea among 49 different property owners before floating it in front of the the one group it would need to get buy in from - the Greater Glenwood Neighborhood Association. It seems that a smarter decision would have been to come before the GGNA prior to wasting their own time trying to broker deals among 49 different property owners, but that was their choice.

Why I Can't Vote for Ben Holder

Man rides into Glenwood and comes to the neighborhood meeting and invites everyone to a fish fry without telling them he is running for City Council. That man is Ben Holder and that is a strange way to introduce yourself to your new neighbors.

Man listens to one resident in Warnersville about alleged problems associated with the brand new public art installed on the Greenway that was over a year in the making with the help of the entire Warnersville community. Gathers 17 signatures to present to City Council as proof the neighborhood wants the benches removed. Then states on his own blog:

I also said moving the benches would NOT solve the problem. Guess what? Keeping them there won't solve it either.

Huh? So he was for the benches after he was against them. The bench was public art belonging to the entire community and city, not just 17 residents. He could've have used his energy and effort to protect the benches and keep a conversation going about the bigger public problem. Instead, legitimate users of the Greenway and the people in the Warnersville community who worked alongside the City and Action Greensboro to find an honorable way to portray the history of the community are left with nothing more than a concrete pad. Worse, in my opinion, he rode into Warnersville and ended up pitting neighbor against neighbor - you're either for the benches or you are against them.

It took work to bring a piece of beautiful piece of public art to a part of town that could desperately use some, and Ben played the starring role in having them removed. Ben may be great at digging up dirt, but I'm more interested in having a representative on council that I can trust. There is more than one way to improve the community and work for its residents and I hope Ben will do that - I just don't think City Council is the right arena for him this time.

Lastly, I want a politician to be "for" something, and not just running because he doesn't like our current representative on council. I get the feeling that he is more interested in defeating Dianne Bellamy-Small than he is in listening to all residents.

As far as being a neighbor, I hope that once the election season is over that Ben will take some time to get to know Glenwood and understand its issues and its character...we can always use volunteers to help improve our neighborhood.

N&R Article on Change Coming to Glenwood

Joe Killian, in today's N&R, writes about some of the changes occurring and looming for Glenwood continuing a discussion started here on this blog a few days ago. I'm sure he's right that some people fear the changes; but I'm sure there are several that welcome the changes and others, like me, who are waiting to see how we as a neighborhood can help shape the change that's coming. Rather than change happening to us, I'm hopeful that change will include the existing homeowners in the neighborhood.

Even with our neighborhood plan, there are companies out there including Skeen Group and Ray Realty who believe that rezoning properties for a use other than planned for in the neighborhood plan is just a minor incovenience. Ray Realty is currently advertising their property fronting Freeman Mill as potential for commercial development when our plan clearly states that it is single-family residential, and, of course, Skeen proposed eliminating the zoning associated with 46 homes so that it could propose a massive student housing development which would have required a change in zoning.

And now we also know that many homes that Bulent Bediz owned, including those that he had in his son's name of David Bediz, are going to auction at the courthouse next Wednesday, Oct. 7th. A large number of homes becoming available is usually very attractive to investors especially since many of the Bediz homes are clustered close to each other.

I appreciated that Killian highlighted the fact that, in spite of what Mark Lindsay at the Skeen Group indicated to me, that the words they were using in their letters to residents were attempts instilling fear in the residents. No one likes to be faced with a choice of: If you don't do this now, X will happen. It's a common tactic used among scam artists and Glenwood would do well to keep our eyes and ears open to these sorts of developments.

Continuing Problems with Implementation of RUCO

If you open up a business in Greensboro without a business privilege license, you will get a letter from the City informing you of your requirement to get one.

If you have an overgrown lawn or an abandoned vehicle, you will get a letter from the City informing you of your need to correct the problem.

BUT, if you are renting a property that doesn't have a RUCO certificate, you will NOT get a letter from the City, according to Local Ordinance Enforcement. LOE states that it can not enforce RUCO until someone moves in. Why they don't understand that a letter to the property owner informing them of the need to come into compliance with the certificate requirement would help with compliance, I can't understand.

Imagine renting the property at 912 Haywood which doesn't have a RUCO Certificate, moving in and gettled settled into your new home as a tenant, only to have the City then come in and say the house does not meet minimum housing conditions. Whose life is disrupted? The landlords? No, it is the tenants, who, depending on the amount of repairs needed could be inconvenienced enough that they will need to move out and find a new place. This change in policy would be simple and cost the City practically nothing...in fact, it could save the city some money in enforcement if they can voluntarily get property owners to comply.