• All Articles
• Architecture
• Arts
• Business
• Community
• Design
• Development
• Entertainment
• Environment
• Gossip
• Music
• Night Life
• Politics
• Recreation
• Restaurants
• Retail
• Transit

Build the Lightner Center? Mayor Meeker Says Yes, Dude From N&O Says No(t Yet)

• matt w02/08 01:56 PM

  I wasn’t aware that living and/or working in downtown Raleigh was a prerequisite for having an opinion on what the CITY of Raleigh should or should not do.

• gd02/08 02:10 PM

  How come people in Raleigh oppose public art so much? 

  A friend of mine who lived in Chicago talks about how Chicago’s public library is a tourist destination all because of the amazing art collection there.

• Bradley Upchurch02/08 02:31 PM

  I think the problem here is that downtown has been ignored for 30 years and now we have to go back and actually show the yearly 12,000 people moving here that we having a functional and aesthetically pleasing downtown center. Raleigh is trying to define itself and has its own character. This Lightner building may need some updates bases on practical functions but it is a beautiful building and I DO think thats important for our city. I am Raleigh native and growing up I remember downtown not being a place people wanted to travel to as much as they do today. I am proud of that and it is one of the reasons Raleigh seems so promising. Time to stop the sprawl and focus on maintaining the center of our city. I am willing for my property taxes to go up 60 dollars a year if it means that hundreds of people can get jobs working on this building as well as making a new attrative yet functional building to our ever changing downtown.

• gd02/08 03:16 PM

  Bradley Upchurch:  I agree. 60 bucks more a year is well worth it IMO.
  The people who complain about $60/year more have nothing better to do.

• Matthew Eisley02/08 03:33 PM

  Jedidiah,

  In my Faceoff column today, in fact, I don’t say no.  And I don’t say never, unlike several Raleigh City Council members.  I say not now, during a deep recession, if it comes with a property tax increase that many unemployed and recently foreclosed-upon Raleighites can’t handle.  I say wait a year or two, cut out the frills, then build what we can afford.

  If you’ll read the memo from Raleigh City Council members Thomas Crowder, Russ Stephenson, and Bonner Gaylor last week to the city manager, you’ll see that they raised the possibility of backpack bombs, citing an official review of the PSC plan.  Seriously, dude.

  And my point about public art stems from my questioning the wisdom of setting out to draw unnecessary public traffic into the city’s most sensitive building.  The city manager disagrees with me.  And maybe he’s right.  But my take on the inappropriateness of public art in this particular place is logically consistent with my view of the building’s high-security purpose.

  Regards,

  Matthew Eisley

• ROB02/08 03:56 PM

  bradley upchurch you just said it. raleigh needs to be updated. the downtown has been neglected forever and people who dont see this are either blind or just plain retarded! 60 a year more isnt that bad at all. like i said i think their are just too many people who dont wanna see raleigh prosper any just remain a larger version of rocky mount.

• gd02/08 04:14 PM

  A lot of stupid things get said on this site, but Rob, you just took the cake.  Calling Raleigh a larger version of Rocky Mount is damn near retarded.

• JT#202/08 04:27 PM

  Matt Eisley = fear monger.  Bombs in backpacks…LMAO.  Let the Police figure out how to handle their own security…I am sure they are capable and don’t need our lame Council to protect them.  This is politics and nothing more.  If the LC was such a bad idea then Crowder and others should have said so long ago before millions were wasted getting us this far.

• Ken Metzger02/08 04:43 PM

  The bump in the tax rate is to be pushed out for two years.  This would give the economy time to recover while taking advantage of lower construction costs.  Eisley wants to put off the tax burden, but only by waiting to build two years and spend less.  In his case we would simply get less for the same price.  Great idea.

• Matthew Eisley02/08 04:50 PM

  #2JT et al:

  I infer that you’ve not read the Feb. 2 Stephenson/Crowder/Gaylord memo although newraleigh has posted it for days.  LMAO, indeed.

  To wit:

  
  2 February 2010
  Clarence E. Lightner Public Safety Center (CELPSC) Project Memorandum
  From: Councilors Stephenson, Crowder and Gaylord
  To: City Manager & City Council

  ... • Secure Functions versus Public Functions
    The September 2008 Threat Assessment Report Conclusions states “The loading dock, the interior sally port and the public space on the first two floors are three areas primary vulnerabilities in the current design.” (p.8) The report describes hand- delivered bombings as “commonplace” in the U.S. (p.24) and “[w]ith both the exterior grounds and the ground floor of the facility open for un-screened public access, the hand-delivery of an improvised explosive device in these areas such as in a backpack or briefcase is a serious concern. Similar attacks could also be carried out using incendiary devices. If such an attack were carried out, the potential exists for casualties in the immediate vicinity of the event, as well as an increased potential for progressive collapse of the structure if an explosive device was placed near a structural column.” (p.31)
    Our understanding is that that some or all columns have been redesigned to resist hand-delivered explosives, but that un- screened access is still planned for public spaces on the first two floors.

  Still LYAO?

  Matthew Eisley

• smitty02/08 05:25 PM

  Nice faceoff today Matt, you were the clear winner.

• John02/08 06:03 PM

  There’s a strong argument to made for building in a downturn.  Bids are typically tighter as contractors and subcontractors are more agressive to get work.
  As enticing as it is to look at this project in a the vaccuum that is the current recession, I think it’s important to look at this project in the context of Raleigh future vision.  Does it make sense to consolidate the services in one location?  I think so.  Does it make sense to invest for the future growth of the city?  I think so.  If we put off this center yet still need it in the future, it’s likely to cost our citizens more than if we built it sooner.  Then, we’ll end up having the same conversation we are having now.  “Let’s put off this expenditure”...which seems to be the going mantra of almost every public or private business conversation I have heard in the last 3 years.  Guess what happens if we put off spending money?  We dig ourselves a deeper recession.  Whether we like it or not, our entire economic model is based on money being spent. 
  We can haggle over the details regarding how much money gets spent on art.  In my opinion,  that’s a minor issue in the big picture.

  As for the opening comment about the mayor living DT, what sort of comment is that?  Why not just accuse the Mayor of bias because he lives DT?  Frankly, I am sick of anti-DT comments from those who would prefer not one public penny being spent there.  While I don’t think that’s necessarily Jedidiah’s position, it is the position of others and I am really tired of it.  Frankly, every single person who lives in the burbs should want development DT because it generates more tax revenue per acre than suburban type development while NOT sprawling our infrastructure.  We need urbanization of our core and other potential corridors to increase our tax revenues and position the city to take care of infrastructure as it ages.  It’s all fun and games now with much of the city’s suburban areas being fairly new. But, just think about what’s going to need to happen in 20, 30 or 40 years to take care of it. 
  I’m sorry to be long winded but I think development of DT’s core, whether public or private is something that should always be encouragaged and seen as the important step towards Raleigh’s future that it is.

• Tall Buildings Make Me Excited!!02/08 06:04 PM

  Matt W at the top of this string and Matthew Eisley are the only sensical folks on this string.

  
  The 12,000 people figure is laughable. It is a city of nearly 400,000 with a small small small percentage living in downtown.

  
  The point is not to not build the thing, it is to actually think about it and see if savings can be found. And for all of you LYAO at the unlikely event of someone wanting to cause mass destruction, I would think less of 9/11 and more of Oklahoma City.

  
  Safety should be a more integral design aspect than trendy green roofs and the aesthetics of having another tall building.

  
  When you get right down to it, that’s all most of the people commenting on this blog want anyway. An “improvement to the skyline.” Kind of an expensive solution to that made up and superficial problem.

• Betsy02/08 06:12 PM

  There is an essential conflict here between a building that needs to be hardened and secured, and the priority of honoring and embraces the public park across the street with a porous, activity-generating streetfront.  The art lobby will accomplish the second goal only poorly and will likely end up being closed as a public venue at some time not too distant in the future as a security risk. 
  -

  Skim off the fat from the building’s architectural program and build it in a different location.  There are a zillion asphalt parking lots downtown that need a structure like this.
  -
  The south-facing frontage is the best street frontage of any block facing the park.  Use it for uses that can capitalize on and complement the park—high-visitation uses with many openings onto the street.

• Betsy02/08 06:13 PM

  Beg pardon, “priority of honoring and embracING the public park across the street”.

• TriangleExplorer02/08 09:15 PM

  I live in the burbs, but workin in downtown Raleigh. I think this project should get the green light. Maybe there are some bells and whistles that can be cut to cater to people who think it will make a difference, but in the end this building is needed. To those who say “lets wait a few years when the economy is better when we can afford it” I say we can’t afford to wait. The project will only end up costing more if we wait. Materials and labor costs are cheaper now. The tax burden can and will be put off into the future when the economy will be better, but the work shoudl be done now to be the most cost-effective.

  Saying wait is actually worse than saying no, because waiting will cost everyone more money in the end.

• smitty02/08 09:30 PM

  TriangleExplorer, are you sure you aren’t the mayor of Raleigh?

• dwntwndwllr02/09 08:51 AM

  Mind you the “$60” tax increase is in addition to the rate hike/adjustment that is already on the table and had been expected to be instated this next cycle.  Its not as simple as saying, oh its only another $60.

• cm432102/09 10:29 AM

  $5 a month is nothing.  Bring your lunch to work one day.  Don’t buy that pack of smokes.  People complain before even thinking about what the brokedown cost really is.

• ciroc star02/09 10:30 AM

  “The plan includes a nonessential public viewing theater for the 911 center and a public café - yet, incredibly, no security screening for visitors.”

  The public viewing theater would certainly benefit all the elementary schools going on the DTR police & fire station field trip. The current “plan” is jamming 60-70 kids into a cramped holding room where half can’t even see the call center. I think if all of Raleigh were obligated to tour the current facility, there would be much less crying in the beer over marginal property tax increases.

  And speaking of wasting money, how much does Jedidiah get paid for straight up copy-and-pasting an N&O article?!

• smitty02/09 10:55 AM

  If you can’t afford something now, you don’t buy it anyway and hope you make more money in 2 years.  Build it OTB.

• sluggo02/09 12:34 PM

  “trendy green roofs” save you and everyone else money moron. They also extend the life of the roof and the building, soak up c02, elimnate heat sinks, reduce storm water runoff (which is another expense we all pay to mitigate), and on and on..

  Going green isn’t a choice if you know anything about it at all. The whole planet is goign to “go green” because there is no other option since there is nothing that can replace what we get from oil, one to one.

• ct02/09 01:21 PM

  It was ridiculous for Meeker to yank the art. It’s a trivial amount of money, but it goes to show that Meeker has lost his political balance on this entire topic. Reality is, with a 4-4 deadlock on the Council, Lightner is going nowhere—unless Crowder or Stephenson changes position. It’s time to start discussing what happens next. My guess is that you’ll see the project split into a hardened 911/operations center and an administrative office building. The hardened 911/operations center will go ahead, and the administrative office building will be put on hold until the economy improves. Meanwhile there is enough Class A space on the lease market to meet twice Raleigh’s need for administrative space.

• Tall Buildings Make Me Excited!!02/09 04:08 PM

  Would love to see the cost-benefit analysis on the cost of a green roof versus a traditional roof on a building of this scale, Sluggo.

  
  You seem to be an expert (at least compared to my moron status), why don’t you run those number?

• ct02/09 04:10 PM

  Problem is, there isn’t enough experience to define the full life-cycle cost of green roofs… especially not in hurricane-prone or tornado-prone territory.

• John02/09 08:36 PM

  Dear Tall Buildings…
  Bradley Upchurch did not say that 12,000 people were living DT.  He said that 12,000 were moving to the city each year. 
  As the city grows, people will expect more from its center.

• Tall Buildings Make Me Excited!!02/09 08:46 PM

  Oh, I understood it.

  
  The worst part about all these figures is that there is nothing to back them up. Most people who are passionate about downtown have a great feeling about it. Venture OTB and you’ll hear a completely different story.

• ct02/09 08:48 PM

  By March 2011 the Census Bureau should have tract-level population data available. Then we’ll know how many people live in downtown (depending on how you define it), as well as ITB vs OTB. I haven’t seen a map of the 2010 tracts. In 2000, the downtown tract (#501) was defined by Peace St on the north, East St on the east, the railroad tracks on the west, and Lenoir St on the south.

• JZ02/09 09:22 PM

  In a world of ever decreasing economic and material resources, we will see a contraction of built environment. In other words: less sprawl, smarter, denser planning.  This building, despite its fiscal irresponsibility and security weaknesses, recognizes the benefit or having a multiple services in proximity to each other.

  __It substitutes for a non-descript Town Hall as a visible symbol of local government. With Wake County and the State having there’s, its high-time we had ours.
  __It consolidates other city services (such as the Inspection and Planning groups presently on Exchange Plaza, for example) for the efficiencies of proximity.
  __Its design appears to promote positive, transparent government.  A value that may or may not be a Raleigh community value.
  __It projects for the needs of a City that will continue to grow, even if that growth slows due the recession over the next 5 years.
  __Should the design should have been better vetted by Council along with a public process similar to (but not as extreme as) what the Convention Center went through? Yes.
  __Are there wholesale alternatives (including alternate sites) to this direction? Yes.
  __Does scraping $25M worth of master planning and design services seem the best use of public dollars when the building could be modified to address the concerns of the Council and public? No.
  __Roll up your sleeves Mayor Meeker, Mr. Allen and Council Members and sit down with your design team:  Find the right balance that provides a safe, secure, high-performing facility for our future that equally inspires our imagination and aspirations for a cohesive, environmentally-responsible community.

• JZ02/09 09:25 PM

  David and all at NR:  could you offer us a “Review Your Post” Option before we submit our comments?  Sorry for my horrible typos and grammar….its hard to edit in this tiny little blue box…..

• ct02/09 09:38 PM

  JZ, you may turn out to be right in your underlying assumption about sprawl. Or not. The rhetorical glitch is that you’re making an unprovable assertion about the future and then using it as a basis to make decisions now.

  I think it’s more likely that for every housing unit added inside Raleigh in the next decade, there will be at least 3 added in Wake County outside the Raleigh ETJ. Market forces will ultimately decide whether sprawl stops or not.

  There’s no evidence that putting all city employees under one roof increases efficiency. If that were the case, every state would have a capitol building like Louisiana’s (34 stories).

  As for the $25M of sunk cost, at this point the argument has become whether to throw good money after bad. I say, let’s not.

• GrannieGrump02/09 10:19 PM

  The very heart of a city has historically always been populated with its Courthouse, Police Station/Jail, and Government Administration.  In the past, these buildings were monumental - built to last, and built to look at - like the Capitol Building; Meymandi Hall, etc.

  Given Raleigh’s increasing population, the increased public safety load on existing facilities is staggering. 

  Given our representative form of government, I find it brash for a newspaper reporter to think/espouse/encourage a different opinion than that of the representatives we the people have elected - or to think that the argument is between “his” concept vs that of the City Administration. 

  In another city of which I am acquainted, similar concerns have continued to be brought up again and again, by the loud, obstructionist minority in its efforts to prevent Durham from pursuing a vigourous downtown revitalization.  In the end, this public dialogue resulted in nothing! - other than increased project costs because of the delay these obstructionists were allowed to cause.

  I am for the Leightner Center.  It’s needed to;  update one or more old, technologically inept structures; provide a morale boost to the many men and women who put their lives on the line every day of the week - and weekend,  yet are now crammed-in AtE while trying to do their work - to keep saving your butt; as a signal that Raleigh IS on the move as one of America’s top cities - and that as one of its top cities appreciates the advantages that public art provides its citizens as well as the tourism revenues it may generate.

  We could just keep talking about this, but the fact of the matter is that Mayor Meeker was elected to make this decision, along with a number of councilmembers.  No where was a fresh-faced cub reporter elected (or even wanted) to represent us - while the clock keeps ticking on those interest costs….

• JZ02/09 10:37 PM

  Barring the discovery of a legitimate alternative to fossil fuels, peak oil costs will dictate whether shipping from China or Chile will be better than from Charlotte or Richmond.  I do not deny that I’m taking a side with underlying assumptions.  However, I fancy that my position is based on an understanding of the responsible consumption of raw goods, materials, etc. and, thusly, embodied energy. Could we go on like this indefinitely? Perhaps.  I choose to believe we cannot. But even more importantly, that for us continue in this vein—extending infrastructure, paving over open land, increasing impervious surfaces—it is just as fundamentally wasteful as some of those here who feel the Council has been with our tax dollars on this project. Rather, I think our built environment another way:  Our cities and towns are like our bodies.  We know when we’ve eaten poorly or too much, or when we need a workout to keep ourselves in shape.  Heathcare is not about how MUCH we can consume calorically or pharmaceutically, but how we balance those needs responsibly to prolong our quality of life…....One may make the argument that to refurbish the existing facility is more responsible than any LEED-certified new construction and you would be right. But I don’t believe that would be an apples-to-apples comparison in this case. Not all buildings, by default, should be recycled. Certainly not this Police Station.  I believe that this design (among all investments in infill building projects) embraces a fundamental value in cohesive, dense, walk-able communities. 
  I don’t see you point of comparing a State Capitol building with a Local Government’s facility.  The scale and complexity of the two bureacracies make it a stretch IMO.  That would be like saying we should follow the Federal Gov’ts lead and have each ‘department’ housed in a different facility.  The analogy just doesn’t work at the local scale….

  blah blah. rant. rant.  jesus.  i’m goin’ t’ bed….

• Mc02/10 12:40 AM

  I admit to not looking up the full diagram for information on office space sq footage etc, but I did read the memo sent by the Crowder and Stephenson.  They said that the building contains more office space than is needed for the units that require the hardened/secure office space.  What are the projected future needs of those units?  Is it possible that they could expand into the space and shift the administrative units out, but allow those units to occupy the space now so that it didn’t sit empty?

  Also, some see things such as a LEED design as a luxury.  LEED certification isn’t just about sustainability but it is also about taking into account how the building design and reduce the operational costs of a building.  For a building containing the city’s datacenter, that’s even more important because powering and cooling servers is expensive.  You either pay up front to design the space properly (which they seem to be doing) or you pay later.  Pursuing this on our buildings makes a statement that this is something we value.  This is important to us.  How is Raleigh supposed to tell developers that this is something they should pursue but the city isn’t?

• tall Buildings Make Me Excited!!02/10 11:09 AM

  LEED is a given. I believe all new building projects in Raleigh have to be LEED-certified.

  
  With that said, you don’t have to have a green roof to be LEED certified or to even obtain Platinum status.

• Ken Metzger02/10 11:59 AM

  Why would one be for LEED, but not for a green roof?  Both are used to accomplish the same goal of being more eco-friendly.

• JZ02/10 12:14 PM

  A building of this scale will benefit only minimally from a green roof. The facades are more critical to environmental impact.  For the cost, a green roof becomes more of a gesture to the public. One that will be never really seen or experienced.

• ct02/10 01:37 PM

  I don’t know what kind of I.T. environment is provided for City employees, but I hope they have access to decent collaboration tools. If that’s the case, being in the same building doesn’t matter much. A year ago in the private sector, I managed a team spread across the US, Canada, the UK, France, Brazil, Australia, and India. Collaboration tools made it straightforward. They also make it easy to work from home. I wonder, has the City minimized its square footage needs by promoting work-from-home properly?

• Aaron02/10 02:45 PM

  Build it! It’s such a beautiful and well-designed public building, never mind all the technical stuff!

• Todd Morman02/10 06:23 PM

  Eisley’s column in the Midtown section today mentions the plans originally called for a fitness center just for executive brass. If Russell Allen really submitted plans that included a top brass only fitness center to the council in this economic climate, that’s pretty clear evidence of not-quite-optimal judgment. Eisley’s almost comically wrong about delaying (costs will go up when the economy rises, duh), but he’s absolutely right to question the design.

  Does anyone know of any other public safety center in a city our size that includes a public theater and cafe? Honestly curious here.

• Todd Morman02/10 06:28 PM

  Matt Eisley, could you directly address the point about delaying just raising the cost of building? Doesn’t what Ken Metzger noted above cover your objections just fine? Namely, that starting to build now and delaying any property tax change for two years accomplishes everything you say it should but gets a head-start on cheaper costs. It’d be great to see you directly address that point.

• ct02/10 06:41 PM

  Remember the objections when Russell Allen got a raise to over $200,000 a year? Apparently, the money went to his head—thus the “Badge Mahal” seems like a natural outcome. Private restrooms indeed!

  It’s ridiculous for an 800-seat theater to be included in the Lightner design. On the rare occasion that the City truly needs a meeting room of that size, they can walk a few blocks to our $200 million Convention Center.

  Remember, the incremental $60 is not a one-time tax. It will be $60 a year in perpetuity. For someone who lives in Raleigh 25 years (I’ve been here 23 already), that’s a cool $1500 out of one’s pocket… definitely not chump change, and certainly worth arguing over.

• tall Buildings Make Me Excited!!02/10 07:53 PM

  LEED makes sense, but not all sustainable projects do.

  
  We could create our own hydrogen fuel cell system on a massive scale to fuel the building, but that could be a little overkill. Just like the green roof.

• arthurb302/11 11:23 AM

  Maybe everyone is getting side tracked from the point—Is it needed? Is it worth the cost? Can the citizens of Raleigh afford it?

• gd02/11 11:43 AM

  is it needed? according to people who work in the old one and say its too small and way too outdated? yes.

  can we afford it? if you can’t afford 60 more bucks a year, move.

• JZ02/11 11:58 AM

  @arthurb3:  there are some questions that actually had been vetted.  yes its needed…
  _let’s not be talking about the origins of the universe if we just need to know why the sky is blue.

• ct02/11 12:04 PM

  Needed? Part of it, certainly; the rest of it, probably.

  Worth the cost? Definitely not, as the design currently stands.

  Affordability? Sure, but that’s not the point. See #2.

• JZ02/11 12:14 PM

  __Have we entertained the consideration that had Raleigh made better decisions about quality before, we could have been EXPANDING the existing facility rather than rebuilding it?
  __Perhaps we need to couch this discussion in terms of how can we invest appropriately on the front end so as to not repeat the same mistakes of our recent past.  If we Value Engineer this project down to what half the posts on this thread suggest, we’re going to be revisiting this issue in another 30 years.
  __You get what you pay for.  Just sayin’

• Mc02/11 03:50 PM

  JZ, that’s what I was attempting to get at with one of my earlier posts.  Does the office space for the non-critical units located in this building mean that we could move them out at a later point and not have to build a new hardened facility because we out grew this one too soon.

• Betsy02/11 04:17 PM

  Building a facility that requires so much hardening, on site that cries out for a use that emphasizes porosity and public access, is inherently contradictory.  The siting of the building is based on expediency, that is, it is simply convenient that the City owns it already. 

  A moment of strategic thought would reveal that the best streetfront (south-facing frontage on one of our two public squares left from the original five) is not the sensible place for a hardened facility which many people will be entering and leaving in handcuffs.

• Micah02/11 07:22 PM

  I have never seen anyone coming or going from the Police station in handcuffs.  The handcuffed masses are over at the County “Detention Center” (or whatever stupid name they call the JAIL).  Even there you won’t see people being taken in and out of custody as that is done in a locked vehicular area that is out of public view.

• Betsy02/12 11:32 AM

  I said nothing about whether it would occur in public view.

• chris02/12 03:34 PM

  ct - you say that $60 for 25 years will cost you $1500 and that is too much?  Lets use that same logic:  lets say that you make 50k a year and will never get a raise for 25 years.  You will end up with $1.25 mil.  Now does $1500 using your logic really seem much of an impact?

• ct02/12 05:47 PM

  $1500 is $1500. Maybe it’s not much money to you, but it is to me. I spent most of my life working in multinational corporations where we had to fight constantly against the kind of relativistic thinking you propose. Companies that don’t push back against small costs eventually bleed to death. Steve Jobs would kill to save just a dollar in the production cost of an iPhone. Most households that don’t draw a line at some level of incremental expense ultimately reach old age without any liquid assets—and then expect everyone else to bail them out.

• Getting It Together02/14 07:38 PM

  Here’s hoping the comments people make at the upcoming Council meeting are informed by the discussion here.  The improved-skyline argument?  Let’s not mention it again.  Art and a green roof?  Not this time—at this point, those elements seem like bottomless pot holes.  It’s all about establishing real need and guaranteeing real savings.

• rl02/17 03:32 PM

  GTFOHWTS MR CT! 1500 dollars over a period of 25 years! that aint shit! boy you raleigh people are something else with all this unnecessary speculation.

• ncmyk02/17 04:24 PM

  Why would one be for LEED, but not for a green roof?

  i’m a leed ap and wouldn’t recommend a green roof to most of my clients.

  green roofs need more structural support (more materials).  they’ve gotten over most of the issues - leaky roofs, maintenance, and most are somewhat drought resistant.

  instead, i would recommend a white membrane roof that reflects solar heat gain and easily collects rainwater that could be used to irrigate landscaping on the ground (rather than on the roof), flush toilets, or any use for non-potable water.

• Fraiser Lyon03/02 01:53 PM

  The idiots just voted it down.  4-4 vote.  I guess our command station will now be in some currently empty building in Highwoods Office Park.  Lots of money wasted for no return.  Too bad.

• ct03/02 01:56 PM

  See what happens next. This isn’t over by any means. After all, it wasn’t that long ago when Council reversed a 7-1 vote to ban garbage disposals.

• 
  by Jedidiah
  Downtown Raleigh Amphitheater Could Open by May
• A Radical Rebranding
  by Jedidiah
  NCMA gets a New Logo Designed by Pentagram

Posts