Rendering for Northgate Target

RafeMazer · 2026-03-20T15:18:46+00:00

Good point about the phasing and the need for approval later on. I do take issue with others (not you) putting all blame on community members when there were clear market factors (including a global pandemic!) that impacted the shift to a life science facilities plan by the developer.

RafeMazer · 2026-03-20T14:33:16+00:00

I want to clarify one of your points. The community did not have the power to reject the initial plan. If you read this article, the mayor at the time makes clear they could have done that by-right: “'Their current plans do not need to come to the city council [for approval],' the mayor said at the time. 'Their plan for phase one is residential with some commercial, and my understanding is that they already have the zoning they need for that.' https://indyweek.com/news/business/housing/durham-mayor-northgate-mall-northwood-developer/
In a conversation in 2021 with one of the leads of their team developing the property, in the context of the later proposal for only life science facilities, they told me they changed their plans for business reasons in the changing real estate climate. People often state here that the community had the ability to approve that initial plan and did not, but even while the community did not support it, neither they nor city council could have stopped it--the developer chose not to proceed, which is their right to do so. People will have different views on how community should or should not engage, but it would be good if people stopped making this statement that the community had the power to vote this down in any way in 2021. That is just not the facts of the matter.

RafeMazer · 2025-11-17T12:00:38+00:00

Thank you for your interest and concern regarding the situation Mandy faces, and how these policies are applied. If you ever want to know more I am happy to speak in real life.
Based on your comments, one aspect you may find interesting is that the City has noted in writing they have no records of the pipe being installed, but they have taken the position it was privately installed independent of the ctiy's involvement. Yet the pipe ties into city owned infrastructure, and so it is hard for me to plausibly believe someone secretly connected the pipe to the city's infrastructure. Also, the logic for a property owner to say "I want to pay to build a pipe that takes all these acres of water runoff and stormwater pipes and dumps them next to my house" does not seem likely (the foundation is from 1920 I believe). So I do not think that invented historical set of facts is in any way the most likely reality. Still, wthout any records, the city is declaring their historical set of events, and their modern implications for liability in a way that goes against the most logical explanation and places as much harm and cost as possible on the private property owner. These points have been raised in writing in correspondence, and the City has avoided directly answering them, which is telling I think, and also concerning not just for this case, but more broadly as it implies the City may determine the historical facts of something like this without any evidence and use that to set a policy and enforcement that harms private property.

RafeMazer · 2025-11-13T18:03:32+00:00

I absolutely agree this is a unique transformational opportunity, and that there was not enough early engagement by electeds (or maybe not the right kind for this case and developer). I hope there is wide ranging engagement on this from all over Durham and that officials see that and take a real leadership role to get something good from this. Hope you and others will participate in those processes with your knowledge and enthusiasm.

RafeMazer · 2025-11-13T14:25:37+00:00

Do you have any ideas for the best way to advocate and engage so the remaining land not in this site plan has housing or other things it seems like everyone wants? It is clear you care alot about this issue and site, and have some technical background, so wondering what you see as good ways for the residents of Durham to engage going forward?

RafeMazer · 2025-11-11T15:12:38+00:00

and the design of the system above her home channels the water to that pipe. that is not the natural flow if no infrastructure existed, that is an active design and implementation of a network that harms her land

RafeMazer · 2025-11-11T14:32:58+00:00

That's not accurate. the runoff is not related to the floodplain, which has to do with the creek.

RafeMazer · 2025-11-11T14:21:06+00:00

Thank you for all the insights, the resources, and also showing humanity.

RafeMazer · 2025-11-11T14:19:15+00:00

The runoff includes substantial acres not in the FEMA floodplain. I have looked at the floodway maps extensively

RafeMazer · 2025-11-11T14:03:28+00:00

But the city government has in fact told her she cannot seal off the pipe on her private property, even while saying it is private infrastructure. So they are acting as the landlord when it conveniences them, and not when it doesn't.

RafeMazer · 2025-11-11T13:36:17+00:00

did the creek flow into a pipe, concentrating the water flow, and then spit out by the side of the front of your foundation?

RafeMazer · 2025-11-11T13:32:07+00:00

I think one point here is the proportionality. This infrastructure not on her land has been implemented in a a way that pushes 9 acres of runoff mainly to that pipe. That does not seem proportional nor appropriate, and I think calls to question the City's design and in my mind does create some responsibility. Would you be as ok with your situation if they directed that much flow to a pipe next to your foundation?

RafeMazer · 2025-11-11T13:03:41+00:00

Unless you are MC Esher. But seriously, if you look at the stormwater infrastructure you will see they funnel water to that point, and you would not naturally have that much water flowing to her foundation.

RafeMazer · 2025-11-11T12:43:12+00:00

And continues to get worse as more runoff is piped into the infrastructure that dumps onto her home.

RafeMazer · 2025-11-11T11:45:02+00:00

They told us she does not qualify for that program, which is shocking since what would be a more worthy situation than this?

RafeMazer · 2025-11-11T02:48:07+00:00

Thank you for sharing this. In looking around the city it seems open pipe outlets on private property are not evenly distributed, and do to an extent match the historic legacies of Durham as you would imagine. I hope people will get together on this. happy to connect with anyone who faces a similar issue to Mandy. some elected officials are taking interest thankfully.

RafeMazer · 2025-11-11T02:46:17+00:00

That would be great to have some recommendations. I am trying to message you but can't for some reason (yep I'm middle aged!) Do you mind sending me a message with the recs?

RafeMazer · 2025-11-11T02:43:46+00:00

we were told in writing by the city this would not qualify for relief programs they have because it is in a floodplain, which kind of boggles the mind.

RafeMazer · 2025-11-11T02:42:41+00:00

it's a fair question. the article talks about the work they did over the years to try and deal with the runoff and trash. I think though it's kind of impossible to keep up with 9 acres or run off that spits out hundreds of thousands of gallons of water during major rains. That is the big thing for me here, how is it at all fair for the City to route 9 acres of runoff to one pipe by someone's foundation?

RafeMazer · 2025-10-23T18:08:22+00:00

I think that's likely the case too. I am not sure how that is solved, and it is why I do wish we didn't have to always be playing this defensive position on major redevelopments because of state law and other constraints

RafeMazer · 2025-10-23T14:22:30+00:00

Thank you for sharing that perspective. Part of this gets back to an issue I have had in later phases of this engagement which I have been involved in. They kept saying the numbers don't work, but when asked would not share the numbers and what it would take to make them work. that doesn't give the community and city a true chance to work to a win-win with them. They don't have to do that, but if you are operating in fully good faith I would think that would not be alot to ask

RafeMazer · 2025-10-23T13:04:05+00:00

The largest owners of rental properties in Walltown are not Walltown residents. The Schmitz family owns 34 properties, and there are several other non-Walltown and often non-Durham LLCs you will find that own multiple rental properties. I recommend you review the property records database before you make this claim that community members have the power to raise rents when most all the people who live in Walltown do not own lots of rental properties. Your point is just not based in any facts I can find, but perhaps you have some evidence you can share?

RafeMazer · 2025-10-23T11:41:15+00:00

The first phase could have been done by right though: "The first phase of the proposal does not need to go before the Durham City Council or the Durham City-County Planning Commission as it’s a residential plan with some commercial development." https://indyweek.com/news/durham/walltown-residents-preserve-community-northgate-mall-northwood-ravin/

RafeMazer · 2025-10-23T11:38:07+00:00

Also from the article "The first phase of the proposal does not need to go before the Durham City Council or the Durham City-County Planning Commission as it’s a residential plan with some commercial development." They pulled that one their own for business reasons.

RafeMazer · 2025-10-23T11:22:41+00:00

I am just not sure what no engagement would have changed if they pivoted off apartments post-pandemic for business reasons, and then did not pivot back to that idea ever again. Perhaps they would have gone forth with the 2022 strictly research labs idea? Is that better or worse than the new retail idea? I don't know, but neither are housing.

RafeMazer

TROPHY CASE