This story is closed for comments. Comments on WRAL.com news stories are accepted and moderated between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday.

Oldest First
  • davidk_at_unc Jan 17, 2:45 p.m.

    "“Do it privately. Then the city isn’t involved,” Baldwin said. “It’s citizen driven and not government driven.” ... Baldwin also said said she isn’t comfortable with the issue of neighborhood equality. Wealthy neighborhoods would have more money to spend on neighborhood projects while less affluent neighborhoods would not."

    Hmmmm. Sounds like Ms. Baldwin is talking out both sides of her mouth! She was obviously BORN for small town politics!

  • Reformed Liberal Jan 16, 4:22 p.m.

    I see the issue of who is liable but if this project is entirely funded privately, the city should still have oversight. Permits, codes and such due to use of city property.

  • dwntwnboy2 Jan 16, 3:48 p.m.

    There are some issues not addressed in this article. What is the liability for a neighborhood that goes ahead and does something like this- on city property, since the original ideas would have been city funded and paid for. Does this open up the door for the city to cover the downsides of these projects? Someone get's hurt- do they go to the city or the neighbors?

  • ncsulilwolf Jan 16, 3:24 p.m.

    I'm not sure I understand voting "no" without giving it a one year trial? I'd rather vote after I'd seen it attempted, first.

  • Crumps Br0ther Jan 16, 2:43 p.m.

    So those who can afford to improve their neighborhood shouldn't be allowed to because people in other neighborhoods cannot? Yeh, that makes sense.

    wdprice3

    Thats fairness and a level playing field. Barry would be happy about that.

    Im sure Baldwin wouldnt have a problem with a rich neighborhood paying for a poor neighborhood though

  • JustAName Jan 16, 2:11 p.m.

    Of course the sustainability member, Thomas Crowder, wouldn't want the funding to dry up for those sustainable projects.

  • Bartmeister Jan 16, 2:03 p.m.

    Somehow I believe the taxpayer would have eventually been pulled into these programs through repairs and or maintenance issues.

  • hp277 Jan 16, 1:58 p.m.

    This is a good idea and makes sense. Why shouldn't neigborhoods ahve the option to pay for improvements if they want?

  • wdprice3 Jan 16, 1:40 p.m.

    "Baldwin also said said she isn’t comfortable with the issue of neighborhood equality. Wealthy neighborhoods would have more money to spend on neighborhood projects while less affluent neighborhoods would not."

    So those who can afford to improve their neighborhood shouldn't be allowed to because people in other neighborhoods cannot? Yeh, that makes sense.

  • ncpilot2 Jan 16, 1:34 p.m.

    Of course they voted against this great idea to let citizens contribute to their own neighborhood projects so that everyone doesn't have to pay. Why? It's all about control, something politicians just can't live without.

Oldest First