The most recent example is City Council’s decision to slash developer’s fees for cutting down trees.

When I was a small child, I remember my grandfather walking to work. The image I have is of him disappearing in the pre-dawn darkness down an unlit dirt road lined with asbestos-shingled houses to a bus stop a quarter-mile away. He never owned a car.

Without knowing, he taught me this: Roads, streetlights, sidewalks and trees are needed most by those who have no voice.

The character of government is defined not by its response to the privileged but by its response to everyone else.

That’s why I write.


If you think that the quality of neighborhoods, preservation of green spaces or revitalization of blighted corridors can be sacrificed at the altar of special interests then you are correct. I wish it weren’t true, but 23 years crafting and advocating for local ordinance reforms have taught me this.

The most recent example is City Council’s decision to slash developer’s fees for cutting down trees that could be 100 years old by 50 percent; yes, 50 percent. The fee was dropped from $100 per-caliper-inch to $50 per-caliper-inch.

Fayetteville’s planning staff and Planning Commission were against it, arguing that a draconian cut would decimate our dwindling tree fund and encourage the sacrifice of very old trees. It didn’t make sense.

Yet council went for it.

When something in politics doesn’t make sense, follow the money. If you do that, then the trail will take you to the Home Builders Association and their financial allies. They are the best-funded and most potent special interest in Fayetteville; there isn’t a close second.

The tree ordinance has always been in their cross-hairs, so it was no surprise that Mayor Mitch Colvin’s special-interest-dominated “citizen's task force” recommended the fee cut. However, council’s decision to follow their recommendation, against ALL other advice, was astounding. Councilwoman Tisha Waddell (Disrict 3) was the lone voice for reason.

It’s the latest evidence that no special interest group has a more regressive impact on the city’s planning and zoning policies than local developers.

That said, I don’t blame them for protecting their self-interests. They aren’t public servants. So their relentless pursuit of City Hall dominance makes sense.

However, I do blame the politicians who protect them, because they bear the blame for sacrificing the public’s interest.

Mayor Tony Chavonne was the most notable exception to the rule that council members can be influenced by pay-for-play distractions. The fact that he was financially and intellectually independent helped.

He understood that progressive ordinances promote progress. That’s why he guided the Unified Development Ordinance, our most important policy reform in 50 years, through council approval.

As a member of the task force that drafted it, I saw the sausage-making first-hand. It took two-and-a-half years for our thoughtfully-selected group of local stakeholders, working diligently with planning staff and nationally recognized planning consultants, to revise the city’s zoning ordinances. It was Mayor Chavonne’s most impactful achievement.

However, it won’t fare well under this mayor if current trends continue.

Soon after taking office, Colvin appointed a “UDO review task force."

From the start it was clear that it was a special interest vehicle disguised as a “task force." I was appointed as a voting member, but as the only voting member who met two criterion, prior UDO experience and independence from special interests, I was a token.

The striking lack of experience and balance was alarming, so I spoke with the mayor. He was undeterred. Nothing changed.

There was no way to effectively advocate for the public’s interest because the deck was stacked. There was no interest in pertinent facts or comparative analysis. After months of pointless insistence on a credible review process it became the ONLY appointed position from which I have resigned.

To raise “official” awareness I wrote a detailed summary of my concerns and requested, in writing, its inclusion in the official minutes. I delivered printed copies of the summary to City Hall, requested they be shared with City Council, and sent a copy to the mayor by email.

Nonetheless, there was no response, written or spoken. None of it became part of the official record, none of it was officially shared with council, none of my concerns were formally addressed.

In a small, but significant way, government integrity collapsed.

It’s worrisome on many levels, but my immediate concern is this — slashing the fee for cutting down old trees isn’t the task force’s most destructive proposal. There is more to come.

One of them guts the UDO provisions for “non-conforming” properties; a highly sought-after goal of special interests. It would dial back the clock for our blighted corridors and throw a wrench in their revitalization prospects. It is the single most destructive proposal I have seen since the UDO’s inception — a fundamentally flawed proposal from a fundamentally flawed process.

In my next piece, I’ll explain how we got here. You will see that the spirit of Boss Hogg lives on.
