Commentary: Thoughts on "What Went Wrong With Complete Communities?"

Last week, Chapelboro published a letter from Rod Stevens, the planning consultant hired by Chapel Hill to develop a housing plan that eventually became known as the Complete Community Plan. It’s a plan that I personally supported and continue to support. But as with any project, the success or failure comes with careful and thoughtful implementation.

The plan, as proposed by Jennifer Keesmat (another consultant), consisted of three pilot projects. Each project was to be a small neighborhood of homes, small businesses, and access to a central greenway—a complete community. The vision was that the pilot projects would lead to a more connected, physically cohesive town that could be navigated without so many cars on the road.

Keesmat’s recommendation was to pursue these three “trials” and learn from them. Learning would come from engaging with the greater community on the design of each project followed by the actual implementation where issues such as zoning, business recruitment, housing sizes and pricing, and many other factors would inform not just town policy but also the development of future complete communities projects.

In his letter, Mr. Stevens writes, “As the person who scoped the work of the “Complete Communities” effort…., I had a hand in this failure. That failure has been disappointing, for we dared to hope that we could prototype a new approach that would be a model for public involvement and that would put Chapel Hill on the map as a place building “green.”

The News & Observer interviewed the Chapel Hill mayor and Keesmat for their responses to Stevens’ claim that the Complete Community model is a failure. Not surprisingly, they both disagreed with his assessment.

For those who, like the mayor and expensive consultant, have passed Mr. Steven's critique off as unwarranted, I encourage you to read what he says more deeply. His original plan called for engaging the community in designing the growth we want, not what the paid staff or some high-cost consultant wants. Authentic engagement is not 100 interviews with hand-selected individuals. To be statistically significant and reflective of the entire community, an outreach effort would have reached out to around 6,000 residents. 6,000 may be unrealistic but 100 is not even close. In fact, it introduces significant bias into the planning process.

I don’t agree with Mr. Stevens’ that the project has failed, but it’s been sidetracked and it’s going to take commitment to the original vision to get it back on track. Why hasn’t there been progress on the MLK UNC property pilot project? Where are the plans for that 25-mile greenway? Why is there so much community disgruntlement with the Parkline model project? These are the kinds of questions competent, committed project managers should be asking.

As usual, the town staff want to do everything at once. That’s why the number of planning staff has grown so exponentially over the past several years, even as the town faces significant budget constraints. Someone needs to step in and take leadership. Scale back all the project-by-project proposals around town that don’t align with the Complete Community model and stay focused on the greater vision. As Mr. Stevens’ noted, “With public consensus and good management, Chapel Hill could spend half to two-thirds of what it now does on planning salaries and consulting fees and still achieve its goals.”

Mr. Steven's took an unprecedented risk in publishing his critique and I'm sure it wasn't done without a great deal of inner turmoil. But it was the right thing to do. Consultants may be hired by a "government" but the government is us. They should be accountable to the people of the community, not the town’s paid staff.

Stevens took the time and the risk to be deeply reflective on a project that impacts thousands of Chapel Hillians. His criticisms carry the weight of authenticity. Instead of just reacting, give his words and their meaning some time to soak in and simmer. They are profound.