Bill seeks to protect waterways by eliminating parking minimums
According to Representative Donnie Loftis of Gaston County and Ryan Carter, the policy director for the Catawba Riverkeeper, that empty space can be a pricey problem.
'No one's benefitting from it,' Carter said. 'When we look around empty parking lots like this one we ask what could go there instead and truthfully, anything is better than an empty parking lot.'
Carter's concern is stormwater runoff. Anytime water is falling on pavement instead of the ground or any other surface that can absorb it, that water collects and flows right into our drains, taking any pollutants on that pavement with it. In many cases, that can include something called 'coal tar sealant,' which has been linked to health concerns like fertility issues, respiratory diseases, and cancers.
'It's this kind of byproduct of coal ash,' Carter said. 'These break down over time and as they break down they get swept in as it rains and end up in our waterways.'
The sealant is already banned in Mecklenburg and Watauga counties, but a bill currently in the statehouse could ban it across North Carolina. The bill would also get rid of requirements that large parking lots be built at all.
SPECIAL SECTION >> Channel 9 Climate Stories
House Bill 369, which Rep. Loftis sponsors, is focused on reducing stormwater pollution by eliminating parking minimums statewide.
'I want to drive right next to the front door too. That's just human nature,' he said. 'But the goal is, to impact a couple of things, the storm water runoff and giving more area for that water to settle before it gets into a storm water creek or stream.'
With the South Fork of the Catawba River running right through his district, Loftis said he wanted to balance the conservation needs of his community and the entire state with the increased economic development it's been seeing. He believes by eliminating requirements for developers to build a minimum number of parking spaces for their projects, it will give developers the freedom to build what the market demands without wasting money or space overbuilding.
'That was a way of getting more grass ground, natural areas that could absorb, hold or slow down this runoff, and at the same time, provide retailers, home builders, apartment developers, the opportunity to lower their cost,' he said.
In theory, this means developers could choose not to build parking at all.
Carter pointed to two Charlotte apartment complexes as an example. The Joinery and Cykel apartments are both near light rail stops and have a limited number of parking spots available to residents. Instead, they offer alternative transportation options like ride or bike shares and use the majority of their space for additional housing or amenities.
RELATED >> Parking-free development aims to fill housing gap, reduce car-dependency
'Developers know exactly how many parking spaces they need,' Carter said.
In Loftis's district, Gastonia eliminated parking minimums in 2021. Loftis said it hasn't eliminated parking altogether but allowed for more choices, for apartment complexes and businesses, especially in denser areas like downtown.
'You don't have to build 1,000 parking spots,' he said. 'You can build 500.'
The bill is currently in the House Transportation Committee and will have to go through two more committees before it makes it to the floor, but Loftis said he's already gotten a lot of bipartisan interest from those with interests in conservation, building and economic development.
'I'm fully prepared to carry this bill all the way through to seeing it passed and working with the Senate,' Loftis said.
(VIDEO: Homeowner in same house for decades never had runoff problem until new homes went up next door)

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


UPI
16 hours ago
- UPI
Justice Department ends 44-year consent decree on civil service exams
Aug. 4 (UPI) -- The Justice Department announced Monday its Civil Rights Division would end a decades-old consent decree, which banned the federal government from using civil service exams to hire qualified candidates. Luevano v. Director, Office of Personnel Management, a 1979 lawsuit filed during the Carter administration, accused the federal government's Professional and Administrative Career Examination -- or PACE -- of discriminating against Black and Hispanic applicants. A consent decree was entered in 1981, making civil service exams obsolete for the next 44 years. In March, the Trump administration filed a motion to terminate it. "For over four decades, this decree has hampered the federal government from hiring the top talent of our nation," said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. "Today, the Justice Department removed that barrier and reopened federal employment opportunities based on merit -- not race." Angel Luevano, who filed the case more than forty years ago, said attorneys for both sides met with the U.S. District Court judge for the District of Columbia last week to resolve the issue. "The Decree has had its usefulness and a tremendous effect on the country," Luevano said. "Millions of minorities and women hold jobs because of that class action lawsuit. It wasn't DEI. It didn't just benefit minorities and women. The alternative Outstanding Scholar Program ... was actually used 70% by Whites." Luevano said he took the PACE exam, before filing the lawsuit, to get into a federal job and achieved a passing grade of 80, but did not get referred to federal openings because only those with 100 on their tests got jobs. "I'm extremely proud of the effect that it has had on federal hires and getting minorities and women into federal jobs," he added. "It affected my decision to join, it was the key for me to join federal civil rights compliance in the Labor Department." On Monday, the Justice Department called the federal government's hiring practices over the last four decades "flawed and outdated theories of diversity, equity and inclusion." "It's simple, competence and merit are the standards by which we should all be judged; nothing more and nothing less," said U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro for the District of Columbia. "It's about time people are judged, not by their identity, but instead 'by the content of their character.'"


Axios
a day ago
- Axios
St. Paul mayoral race heats up as Kaohly Vang Her announces run
DFL State Rep. Kaohly Vang Her officially jumped into the race for St. Paul mayor Monday, becoming incumbent Melvin Carter 's first high-profile challenger. Why it matters: Her's campaign launch wakes up what had been a sleepy mayoral race. Carter has boasted runaway advantages in cash, name recognition and key endorsements — but Her is likely to draw notable support from organized labor. The big picture: A vigorous mayor's race will stir more debate about the challenges St. Paul faces, including rising property taxes, lagging housing development and a struggling downtown. State of play: Two other candidates have already stepped forward to challenge Carter, who has announced his intention to seek a third term but has not officially launched a campaign yet. Biochemist Yan Chen filed to run for the seat on Tuesday. She previously ran for the Ward 1 City Council seat. Small business owner Mike Hilborn has launched a campaign one year after unsuccessfully challenging state Rep. María Isa Pérez-Vega as a Republican in a heavily Democratic district. Zoom in: Her, 52, was born in Laos to parents who arrived in the U.S. as refugees when she was 4. She became a naturalized citizen while in junior high school. The intrigue: Her is running against her former boss; Carter hired her as policy director after first taking office in 2018. Later that year, Her won a seat representing neighborhoods along St. Paul's Summit Avenue in the Minnesota House. In this year's legislative session, Her served as the top DFLer on the House Commerce Finance and Policy committee. Flashback: Her stirred a firestorm on right-wing media earlier this year when she attempted to solicit sympathy for undocumented immigrants by declaring during a floor speech that she and her parents were "illegal" when they came to the U.S. Her later clarified that neither she nor her parents were ever undocumented, but that her father — who worked in the U.S. consulate during the Vietnam War era — had "technically" broken the law by telling a white lie on their refugee application. Her's parents are now citizens.


CNBC
4 days ago
- CNBC
Carter Worth highlights level of support for S&P 500 ETF as market sells off
(Check out Carter's for actionable recommendations and live nightly videos.) Here's a brief examination of key downside levels for the SPDR S & P 500 ETF (SPY). In the context of the current sell-off in the market (the SPY at its low today is -3.16% from Thursday's all-time high of $639.85). Support comes into play (begins) at pre-tariff sell-off all-time high of Feb. 19 at roughly the $631 level. A drawdown to said level would represent a 4.1% decline from Thursday's all-time high. Importantly, support is not a plywood board or a concrete floor, but rather is a mattress top. Support begins at the $631 level, and as is so often the case when a stock, index, currency or commodity sells off to support, said securities will sink into support before finding support (will sink into the mattress further). In fact, support comes into play all the way down to around the $575 level. See second chart below. A drawdown to said level would represent a 10.10% decline from Thursday's all-time high. Meanwhile, the mid-point of support comes into play at the $593 level. A drawdown to $593 would represent a 7.25% decline from Thursday's all-time high. Bottom line, the current sell-off is a mere 3.16% and a mere 2 days in duration. We would anticipate further downside in the days/weeks ahead and would take measures accordingly. DISCLOSURES: None. All opinions expressed by the CNBC Pro contributors are solely their opinions and do not reflect the opinions of CNBC, NBC UNIVERSAL, their parent company or affiliates, and may have been previously disseminated by them on television, radio, internet or another medium. THE ABOVE CONTENT IS SUBJECT TO OUR TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND PRIVACY POLICY . THIS CONTENT IS PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND DOES NOT CONSITUTE FINANCIAL, INVESTMENT, TAX OR LEGAL ADVICE OR A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY ANY SECURITY OR OTHER FINANCIAL ASSET. THE CONTENT IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND DOES NOT REFLECT ANY INDIVIDUAL'S UNIQUE PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES. THE ABOVE CONTENT MIGHT NOT BE SUITABLE FOR YOUR PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES. BEFORE MAKING ANY FINANCIAL DECISIONS, YOU SHOULD STRONGLY CONSIDER SEEKING ADVICE FROM YOUR OWN FINANCIAL OR INVESTMENT ADVISOR. Click here for the full disclaimer.