Explaining Durham's shortcomings
Sanford tries to explain Durham's limited success when compared to other North Carolina cities such as Charlotte and Raleigh. Poor management decisions, an inconsistent approach to development, and anti-growth sentiment have hobbled the city's progress, Sanford believes.
Citing this Excerpt
Oral History Interview with Terry Sanford, December 16 and 18, 1986. Interview C-0038. Southern Oral History Program Collection (#4007) in the Southern Oral History Program Collection, Southern Historical Collection, Wilson Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Full Text of the Excerpt
- BRENT GLASS:
-
Do you think Durham is unique in that divisiveness that seems to exist in
North Carolina? How knowledgable are you of other cities, and
how would you compare getting things done in Durham as compared to other
municipalities?
- TERRY SANFORD:
-
Durham has had a very difficult time getting its act together.
It's just evident. It's evident that we
didn't get downtown shaped up right compared to say Charlotte
or Raleigh. We didn't pay enough attention to the benefits
that flowed from the Research Triangle Park, and let Raleigh steal most
of them, which they were perfectly justified in doing. We ignored
industrial development or didn't do a good job. We most
likely didn't give the person we hired
to lead that enough support. Now that we're giving him more
support you can see a better job being done.
- BRENT GLASS:
-
Is this with the Chamber you mean?
- TERRY SANFORD:
-
Well, the Chamber's Industrial Development Department. So,
Durham has lagged behind, and maybe now that that's happened
that's to our benefit because we don't have to
make all the same mistakes that others made. On the other hand, there is
still an anti-development sentiment here. I'm totally in
favor of proper planning and environmental controls but
there's a group of people that transcend that to just being
opposed to the moving of any stone or cutting of any tree. Well, we
can't live in a wilderness since we don't live in
a wilderness. We could if we chose, and individually moved to
wildernesses. But if we're going to have a flourishing place
that can support its downtown, that can support the arts, that can
support the things that improve the quality of life, we've
got to have jobs, and especially in this town that could have predicted
that textile jobs and tobacco jobs were going to disappear. We were at
least ten years slow in being aware of that and attempting to do
something about it collectively. So there'll be a lag there
but I think we can catch up.
- BRENT GLASS:
-
How do you respond to the articles that you see where people fear the
Research Triangle-Durham starting to resemble some of the northeastern
metropolitan areas that are choked with traffic and have
various—and there are indications, every once in
a while you read about them in the paper…
- TERRY SANFORD:
-
Oh yeah, we get choked with traffic. I had three cars ahead of me at the
stoplight today.
[END OF TAPE 1, SIDE A]
[TAPE 1, SIDE B]
[START OF TAPE 1, SIDE B]
- TERRY SANFORD:
-
We can escape some of that. Durham can't do it unless it
understands that orderly development is the most legitimate purpose of
the community, and that communities are developed areas in the country.
They're not wild, wilderness areas. So the question is how do
you develop them properly. You don't do it in a haphazard way
as Durham has been inclined to do. Sometimes they'd make good
decisions, sometimes bad decisions—never quite
consistent rationale of how Durham ought to develop.