REBIC – Thanks for the Feedback on Project Pain Points, Please Keep it Coming

The invisible workings of advocacy are things we do not frequently discuss. Yes, there are a great many stories of cooperation and public/private wins, but there are also the recurring frustrations brought on by broken systems that adversely affect those in our industry and ultimately the community at large.

Last week — and at other times — we have requested your feedback on some of the most damaging and unnecessary roadblocks that severely escalate costs, extend design timeframes, and result in poorer outcomes for projects and the end users which are ultimately the community members. Some of these challenges arise in Charlotte due to a relatively new Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) that’s been in place a couple of years but has undergone many amendments since its inception. However, many of the same problems are happening all around our region. Even unintentionally, these issues may cause a developer to do a complete “restart” of their planning, often resulting in a project that looks worse, and costs more; a project that could have been elevated if better communication could have been allowed to occur at the onset.

Here is a sampling (so far) of what we’ve identified as major concerns by soliciting comments and compiling them. Please message Rob with important issues we’ve missed: contact Rob.

1. In some jurisdictions, plans are undergoing multiple review cycles, sometimes more than six or seven. In some cases, concerns are raised in later cycles that could have been brought up and resolved earlier on. A possible solution could be a cap of three cycles with the goal being two.
2. In many cases, there is no stated delineation from local government staff between ‘requirements,’ as stated in an ordinance or in statute, versus ‘asks,’ or personal opinions. Many wish list items cause delays and drive up costs. A solution here would be for staff to be very explicit in their comments about requirements vs. suggestions.
3. In our region we have experienced significant growth and economic development over the past several decades. In some cases, local governments have not kept up with adapting to the influx of activity in a timely fashion by updating their technology appropriately. With artificial intelligence technology rapidly expanding and with the other tools that are available, counties and municipalities should actively upgrade their systems to handle the increased workload.
4. Some elected officials and staff refuse to meet with developers and landowners to discuss potential projects prior to a public hearing. This often results in a very unpleasant experience for most involved with projects that simply denied, no matter the actual merits, or ones that have been modified so intensely to meet the needs of so many different “interested parties” that they bear little resemblance to the initial plan and 100% of the time end up with less housing units, thereby completely cutting against the intended purpose of creating housing to meet an undersupply.
5. Fees and costs at times seem inconsistent with the service being provided, when compared to other costs during the process. Many communities are now forcing huge investments (design costs, traffic studies, tree surveys, etc.) early in the process with no certainty the project will even receive an approval to move ahead with construction. It can feel more like a fundraising effort at the local level aimed at shoring up budget deficiencies more than a flat cost for service.
6. Many new staff members throughout various jurisdictions are new to the job and this results in a necessary runway for them to get up to speed. Still, the inconsistency we see in terms of interpretations and at times a difference in treatment from one project to another needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. Perhaps more intensive training for staff and more opportunities for collaboration with the private sector outside of the usual project sphere could result in better communication and ultimately better outcomes.
7. The blatant weaponization of utilities, specifically water and sewer, tends to make proposed projects unnecessarily political as municipalities ignore state guidance around the lawful issuing of utility permits.
8. Policy makers listen to the few loud voices and declare policy without representing the interests of their entire voting public, often to the detriment of the economic health of their counties, cities, and towns.
9. Projects that align with the comprehensive plan and meet proposed benchmarks should be allowed to move forward without delays but often get stalled or outright denied.

Rob’s Take: When my 8-year-old daughter asks me what I do, I often tell her I encourage elected leaders and professional staff to make good decisions and avoid poor ones. This usually elicits a slightly confused look, then an eye roll and an “OK, Daddy, now let’s go do something fun!” The fact is that what many of us do as we engage in government affairs, via advocacy, results in big outcomes. But sadly, those actions are often invisible. By receiving your feedback on the challenges you face, we can follow a direction that helps reach solutions sooner and make the invisible more visible.