Controversial Durham development gets hearing before lawmakers

Posted June 24, 2013

— The five-year battle over a proposed development in southern Durham County shifted from local government to the General Assembly on Monday, in a standing-room-only committee hearing. 

About two dozen supporters and opponents of the 751 South project sounded off to the House Finance Committee, which is considering legislation that would force Durham to annex the property and extend utilities to it.

The 167-acre development along the Durham-Chatham county line would include about 1,300 homes and 600,000 square feet of office and retail space. Developers say it would also bring about 3,000 jobs.

Opponents say 751 South poses environmental and traffic concerns in a rural area near the northern edge of Jordan Lake. Backers say the community needs the jobs.

The Durham City Council voted earlier this month against providing water and sewer service to the site, so a bill was introduced in the General Assembly that would force the issue.

The Senate, which last year rejected a bill that would have required Durham to annex the 751 South property, has already passed similar legislation this year. When it moved to the House, it got caught up in a fight between Rep. Julia Howard, R-Davie, a co-chairwoman of the House Finance Committee, and Rep. Tim Moore, R-Cleveland, chairman of the House Rules Committee.

House members last week sided with Howard in the dispute, allowing the Finance Committee to hold a public hearing on Senate Bill 315 on Monday.

Site plan for proposed 751 South development in Durham Lawmakers might not take up bill on Durham development

"This would be a huge mistake. It would raise our taxes and divert resources from Durham's reinvigorated downtown and areas still in need of redevelopment," said Kate Fellman, a 751 South opponent.

"I'm a lifelong Republican," Durham resident Kim Pressler told the committee."This a big-government solution if there ever was one–a big government payoff for two land speculators."

"This is meddling, and you know it's wrong. It's un-Republican, it's undemocratic, and it's possibly unconstitutional," said Pressler.

Durham City Councilman Don Moffitt called 751 South "a bad deal for Durham taxpayers."

"The cost of services that will be provided will substantially exceed the revenue from the property for years to come," he said. "I hope you agree this is a local matter. The legislature is not the place to settle local disputes." 

Other speakers against the project said developers are trying to use their political connections and money to overturn the will of Durham residents.

But supporters of the project said there is "broad and diverse" support in Durham to see the project built. 

"We need jobs in North Carolina and in Durham," project supporter Thelma White said to applause. "This project's going to bring over 1,500 jobs."

"This should not be a political issue," said Jackie Wagstaff. "We have one of the highest unemployment rates in Durham, and it's even higher in the black community."

Backer Victoria Peterson dismissed claims that the developers are outsiders. "These are not some jack-leg developers just fell out of the sky," she said. "They have been faithful to our community."

Durham's delegation is divided over the issue.  

The Finance Committee didn't vote on the bill, and it was unclear whether lawmakers would take it up before the end of the legislative session in a few weeks. The state Senate turned down a similar bill in 2012. 


This blog post is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • Viewer Jun 26, 2013

    Many voted for Republicans hoping to reduce big government interference in local affairs. Unless the NC republican party takes a public stand against this interference in local affairs they will lose many votes next time. Some voters have long memories.

  • AliceBToklas Jun 25, 2013

    I'd say, why stop here? Let's abolish all local governments and let everything get decided by the GA. Then they can take calls on trash pickup and street maintenance. Seems the path they are on.

  • rroadrunner99 Jun 25, 2013

    The Developers want this and they will get it, wait and see. Money talks... the rest walks.

  • Deep Thought Jun 25, 2013

    I'm very suspicious of anything the republicans want to, especially when they are not representing the counties that will be affected.

    We only had one republican governor in the 20th century, guess McCrory are working on him being the only one in the 21st century. If that is their plan, it's working well by putting even their own supports against them.

  • Rebelyell55 Jun 25, 2013

    Sure hope it fails and the local goverment keeps control. This could set up a way for the state to take more control over issues down the road. Bad for all NC citizens.

  • floydthebarber Jun 25, 2013

    Seconding the calls for "stay out of local government", the GOP has no business trying to muscle something through legislatively the Citizens of Durham have repeatedly voted down. That tract of land is valuable to the integrity of Jordan lake not to mention how beautiful and green of a gateway it provides crossing thru NC-751 into Durham. Leave it as a rural buffer and focus on the thriving downtown!!!

  • concerncitizen Jun 25, 2013

    This is the very definition of small government. Republicans control all government. It has always been there plan. Up to now they did not have absolute control. Public protest means nothing to them, they say!

  • babbleon1 Jun 25, 2013

    If you want smaller gov't and more local representation (as the GOP claims), then you have to defer this back to the local gov't and abide by their decision. SaveEnergyMan

    Good luck with that.

    It's clear that the NC GOP has no problem with overriding local govt, especially if it's overriding govt in favor of business.

    - Wake Co school board

    - Charlotte airport

    - Asheville water

    - Munincipal broadband (cities can't develop their own broadband when the internet providers aren't doing a good job)

  • eddybal Jun 25, 2013

    This is a local issue. Get big government out of it.

  • SaveEnergyMan Jun 25, 2013

    Totally agree with charlesboyer and SirWired. If you want smaller gov't and more local representation (as the GOP claims), then you have to defer this back to the local gov't and abide by their decision.