Jump to content
@DoubleHeroides: A copy of the resolution passed may be found in the "Agenda Packet" for the meeting on the county web site. It was "watered down" after Nick/Larry started to read the online comments and realized that they were in the minority wrt their original position on the matter.
@dahmuth: Take a look at the web site Paul referenced (OnStageinNC.com) and you'll see that this area is over saturated now with venues. Pinehurst doesn't need to finance a $20M+ PAC with significantly more important other projects, such as a rec center, being held up by council in order to maintain a reasonable village debt balance. Let's see a private fund raising effort if the current study recommends a PAC, duh!, and not place this obligation on the Pinehurst tax payers.
@Tom_Embrey: Come on Tom, just admit that the paper took the original story & posts down. There are too many of us that got the same "page unavailable" message. Saying that there was a broken file link is far more believeable than the excuse you gave. I will give the paper credit for seeing the error in its way and putting the story/posts back up.
@DoubleHeroides: You might think that the council is not spending any money from the town coffers; however, consider the following. The council just did a budget transfer of $25K from the Fund Balance to cover the cost of engineering the street/parking. The council further intends to spend in the next village fiscal year $252K for the street/parking actual construction making it a total of $272K the village is spnding on this project. Also, the initial road planning and cost for New Core was to be borne by the Master project developer and not the village. The current argument that the village was always going to pay for the roads in New Core is totally inaccurate. If you look at the tract of land the brewery is on you'll see that there was no way that the brewery could have provided the necessary parking spaces (29) which is why there have been recent PDO changes that allow the village the ability to do the work and pay for it while attempting to BS everyone it was always to be a village expense.
@wdd101st: The $272K the village is putting into the brewery project is coming from 2 sources. First, the village recently did a budget transfer of $25K from the Fund Balance to cover the engineering work done by an outside firm for the street/parking lot design. The remaining $252K is planned to be in the '12-'13 Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
As for the lot across the street from the brewery it was to have been "The Traditions" townhouse development. The developer is having financial problems which is one of the reasons that there is no construction.
@DoubleHeroides: I used "against" in the context of being against the article, not against the concept. As for the required public hearings, at least one hearing will be held by council wrt the major special use permit required. The second hearing will be held by the Historic Commission to determine if the project is in character with the Historic District. Neither hearing has anthing to do with project funding but rather are requirements found in the Pinehurst Development Ordinance (PDO) found on the village web site. As for the village financial involvement in the project, the argument that the $277K being spent for the parking lot, etc. was always an intended expense doesn't hold water for one simply reason. When New Core was being planned it was assumed that the master project developer would fund the necessary streets, sidewalks, etc. and not Pinehurst. Say what you want; however, anyway you look at it the $277K the village is putting into the project is 1) an economic incentive and 2) necessary, as without it, the brewery doesn't have the necessary parking space the PDO would have required.
If the referenced musician is really serious about the tune he is playing let's see him come up with the $125K needed to help restore the old fire station.
@deidretg: Searching on "brewery" brings up the story from today not the story that had 40 posts against. At a minimum, the Pilot should have provided a link from the story today to the original story and not "nuked" it as they did. Deleting the original story and its 40 posts won't cause all of the many issues raised in the posts to simply go away. My guess is that many of these issues will come up in the required public hearings later this summer.
I believe that the Pilot owes its online readership an explanation as to why it chose to take down and apparently delete their prior article on this topic including the 40 posts against the article. As I remember, even the brewery owner asked in his post that the various posts against the brewery stay up. Apparently, the Pilot decided for the brewery owner, that the posts weren't worth the information they were providing him in advance of the public hearings he faces or the forum it provided him to respond to the various concerns raised.
@oldtimer: Look at this way, if you had almost $900K would you put it into a bar or would you help the Given Library? What's better for the community in total??
Anniversary Announcement | Birthdays Over 80 | Birthdays Under 12 | Engagement Announcement | Site Feedback | Letter to the Editor | User Submitted Photo | Subscription Request | Vacation Start Stops | Wedding Announcement Subscribe | Advertising | Media Kit | About Us | Contact Us | Archives | Search
Physical Address: 145 W. Pennsylvania Avenue, Southern Pines, NC Mailing Address: P.O. Box 58, Southern Pines, NC 28388 910-692-7271 Fax: 910-692-9382