Many of the same commentary that has been found here, just repeated across the different blog sites. These are both in forum style and are in real-time whereas, this site has screened responses (called, moderation) according to the “rules of civility” found on another page here.
To review, the city council election has three incumbents and 5 challenging candidates for 3 slots on council. This is a 4-year position. The new council will be sworn in at the December meeting of the City Council.
How this election impacts the citizens of Belmont:
- Planning & Zoning concerns are on the table with a need for teeth in the regulations and ordinances
- Strategic Growth Planning is crucial to a patterned response to the needs of the existing community, which includes roads, water, utilities, etc.
- Quality of Life issues such as parks, workforce housing, and recreation are focal points
- The other issues that always present themselves, such as jobs, taxes, etc.
The Belmont Banner published a special on-line page, which surprised us here on the Front Porch. The BannerNews website must be in development stages… anyway, we are glad that this page was set up to be viewed by the public. Please review that page as well.
Encourage our neighbors and friends to get out on Tuesday to vote. With the paving project going on along Central Avenue, some people may be discouraged by the traffic issues in the morning or later in the day. Plan out your Tuesday to take time to vote.
Pictures of the Challenger Candidates:
Pictures of the Incumbents standing for Reelection:
YOUR CHOICE – YOUR FUTURE
The Charlotte Observer gave an update on the development plans of the biggest land area in Belmont in last Sunday’s paper.
State Senator Robert Pittenger purchased the land from Crescent Resources (Duke Power) several years ago. Crescent had years earlier voluntarily annexed the land into the city limits. Pittenger now is planning to sell the land to real estate developers, “…from up north…”, accrding to the article.
This is a BIG test for the power of the Planning & Zoning Board, city staffers, and the City Council. As council candidate Richard Turner suggests, “…give teeth…to land use plan…”.
One of the Front Porch visitors, settin’ over in the rocking chair, has offered her opinions, some of which we had to edit out or she wooda been pickin’ out pricklies from her behind.
Things came through like, ‘be careful”, “plan of action”, “vision”, and, “get people’s support”, among other things.
Words that politicians use, even in their own personal business dealings can and should be parsed. When Pittenger says, “that’s private”, he is saying, “there is no real buyer, I am trying to run up the price on my property”. The term “real estate investor”, means that capitalism is working at its best. But this form of capitalism affects the quality of life in a community he has never lived in, or spent the night in.
We suggest that everyone should be wary about the term “property rights”, especially in this city election.
That’s It ? , that’s all the Observer could write?
They are not “open”, they are contested.
Is this all that we are going to get from the City Council candidates this year?
You have to buy a copy of the Thursday (10/18)Observer to get more information. To be fair, there is a bit more information from the generic questionaire that was sent to all the candidates.
“Burch said council members have the authority to ask developers to leave room for these areas, she said. They haven’t made that request yet though, she said.” WHY haven’t the council members made those requests – YET ?
We are not making this up – these are quotes from the Charlotte Observer.
Irl Dixon: “While some candidates say they are concerned about high property taxes, Dixon said the tax rate dropped last year and he expects it to do the same in the future because of the development of high-end, waterfront homes”.
Does this give credence to the term “economic-genocide” that East-enders and South Point residents are concerned about? Push out the existing homes to build McMansions along the lake, reducing visibility and accessibility. This is a concern here in this community.
Too Late Charlie ! Most of the mills have been torn down or are in the planning stages to be torn down. We cite the examples of the Belmont Hosiery plant – now, called Belmont Reserve. We cite the Imperial Mill – now vacant, and its mill village called Hawthorne. We cite the Acme – now the space for development. This site even had a viable park area that the city acutally refused to use (Woodlawn) in the late 1990’s. How about what once was the Belmont Dyers, now torn down with development plans for high-end housing. Even the cotton warehouse that Stowe Mills used over on Eagle Road (a perfectly good pre-cast concrete structure) was torn down to make way for the clear-cutting that is now known as Eagle Village. Not even going to discuss in any detail the tearing down of the Eagle Mill for $500,000 unsold homes across from Belmont Central.
Ron Foulk: “…61-year-old political newcomer said council members have budget responsibility…”.
He’s not a newcomer — he has run for City council in at least 2 other elections. He also opposed the Amity Acres annexation into the city in the 1990’s. How can you trust someone who will be opposed to future annexations.
Curtis Gaston: “He would favor a building moratorium, especially on large subdivisions.”
Once again, the Pittenger/Duke(Crescent) property is already under design – that’s over 1,000 acres of voluntarily annexed land. The city has had jurisdictional control for over ten years on this property and until it was sold to State Senator Pittenger, nothing was done to guide its development direction. Young Mr. Gaston needs to be more involved. He has promise but will he be committed in the long run?
Martha Stowe: “…It [the land use plan] doesn’t prohibit developers, it just makes sure you’re working in tandem with developers,” she said. “As much development as we’re seeing in Belmont we’re going to have to do something other than what we have done…”
So, what are your plans and ideas?
Richard Turner: “…The recent land-use plan lacks teeth, Turner said, and developers have been able to build as they wanted using conditional zoning. He said the city needs a public facilities ordinance that wouldn’t allow growth beyond the city’s ability to service it…”
Dennis Boyce: “Did not respond”
We hope the BannerNews and the Gazette will expand these questions.
We find it amazing that wherever you see a Burch sign in a yard, there is a Flowers sign right next to it. If it looks like a ticket (signs), sounds like a ticket (identical votes on all issues before council), it’s probably a ticket. Vote for one, get 2. And we thought that the politics in Belmont was “non-partisan”.