Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents accuse officials of opaque dealings after Mecklenburg County buys park parcel
Summary
Two public commenters told the Matthews Board of Commissioners they believe a developer profited after the county's land purchase; speakers accused town officials of inconsistent statements and raised transparency and campaign-contribution concerns. Commissioner John Urban disputed the suggestion the town concealed county interest and urged further public briefings.
Public commenters at the April 13 Matthews Board of Commissioners meeting sharply criticized how a parcel tied to a past rezoning was handled and urged greater transparency.
Alex Freeman, a resident who spoke during the public comment period, said town communications and staff statements had downplayed Mecklenburg County's interest in a parcel tied to the Lily Town Homes rezoning and urged the board to answer questions about relationships with developers and lobbyists. Freeman said some town statements were inconsistent with later public records and added that he was vindicated by the county's subsequent purchase of nearby property.
"You can't advocate for a project that contradicts the envisioned Matthews plan, push for higher density housing under the banner of affordability, collude with the developers to overcome public opposition, and allow a lobbyist to appear before the board without full transparency about their financial ties," Freeman told the board.
Jim Deadmond, another speaker, cited press reports and said Mecklenburg County had agreed to buy a property for $8.8 million after the developer (identified in public comments) had paid substantially less. Deadmond said the timing of rezoning and the subsequent county purchase raised questions about whether the public missed an opportunity to buy the land earlier and save taxpayer dollars.
Commissioner John Urban responded near the end of the meeting, saying the developer approached both county and town officials about a potential sale and that town leaders did not initiate a purchase. Urban characterized the county transaction as potentially beneficial to the community because it would add acreage to the park system and improve access, and he invited the developer or county to brief the board publicly to clarify details.
What happens next: Speakers asked for more documentation and transparency; the board did not take formal action on those requests at the April 13 meeting but said staff and interested parties could provide additional public briefings or documentation in future meetings.
