Charlotte's Last Chance to Save a Little Green Space

OP - ED By Chip Starr

The Rea Road Gillespie Property is at risk. This land has remained undeveloped for the last forty years. But, as every trial attorney knows there are times when you just need to let the opposition talk:

Example when the developer says “There are no parcels of this size left in Charlotte,” as Russell Ranson with RK Investors recently told reporters. “It’s remarkable to have 50 acres inside of (Interstate 485) that have been undeveloped.”  

Its times like these we just need to let them talk.

Charlotte City Council needs to do the right thing and listen to Mr. Ranson. If they do, they will reject the rezoning request so as to protect this land for future generations.

But that's actually doubtful:

This what they did when Charlotte City Council signed off on a nearly identical "remarkable parcel" just 6/10s of a mile to the west last year.

Above is the 53.98 acre site that will become Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools next high school as it looked in January of 2022.

And below how it looks today.

So much for saving the "tree canopy" and guess who voted in support of the rezoning, in fact gleefully endorsed it? Ed Driggs, and he even commended the property owners for coming together with the developer.

Yes they agreed to have a high school football stadium and "Friday Night Lights" built in their backyard. But the council member is doing a happy dance?

Never mind that the property was zoned R-3 when the homeowners managed to save up enough money for the down payment on their modest homes.

The area to the left will also be wiped out and cleared for an apartment complex. Thank you Ed Driggs.

What is more troubling is that the project built a 1,500 foot retaining wall along the north and east side of the property and back filled the 20 foot tall wall. Which prevents future flood waters from over running the high school property but virtually assures that those same waters spread across a much narrower area than in the past posing a larger risk to the neighboring homes. 

This is not environmentally sustainable nor is it attractive. And the "Tree Save" area on the north edge of the property is actually nothing more than the unbuildable FEMA flood zone. 

The obvious rhetorical question is what is wrong with that? 

Well, for one thing the gratuitous nature in the way developers offer up these "tree save" compromises. Secondly because of the regularity with which this area now floods thanks to endless development, not only is this area unbuildable it also will not sustain the tree canopy as we know it today. Oak, Elm, Poplar and Maple don't tolerate "wet feet" and eventually will succumb to the repetitive and increasing floodwaters. It may take 30 years but one day the entire area will be a waste land of dead trees and marsh.

Do we stop the destruction of our tree canopy and in turn protect our environment? Or do we let greed and some less than honest city council members try to appease us with promises we know are hollow? Are we so hell bent of density saturation that we will ignore the environmental consequences of our actions? 

Well as Ed Driggs likes to say "Developers have rights too".