January 2004

HippyHillNews.com (yes, for real) reports that Robert Glosson voted in Carrboro!

I know that doesn't sound very exciting, but this is the guy who legally filed to run for Mayor of Carrboro but was later disqualified when the Town Planning Director pointed out that Mr. Glosson lived just barely outside Carrboro's town limits. So if he can't legally run for office, then he certainly shouldn't be able to register and vote there.

This was an honest mistake but given that the error was exposed way back in August, someone should have rectified it by November. I imagine this is probably a case of incompetence more than maliciousness, but that's no excuse. It looks bad for the Board of Elections. Who else is voting in our towns that doesn't live here?

At last Monday's Chapel Hill Town Council meeting, a group of neighborhood activists proposed to shed some light on relations between Council members and high-ranking UNC administrators.

Point:

The coalition's petition called on the council to immediately cease all individual meetings with UNC officials, even though they're legally allowed, and to "recognize that those UNC officials participating in this effort are acting as paid lobbyists and that the town should adopt a regulation requiring registration of lobbyists and the disclosure of their activity." Chapel Hill Herald, 1/15/04

Counterpoint:

Nancy Suttenfield, UNC vice chancellor of finance and administration, said last week that the university recently adopted a policy of pairing top-level administrators and trustees with individual council members.

Tomorrow (1/21/03) the Chapel Hill Town Council will hold public hearings on some major (and some minor) zoning changes. On the table are the creation of the town's first-ever Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD). This NCD would apply to Northside (where I live), and I was on the commitee that developed the proposal. The biggest change is the banning of duplexes (which I opposed). That is probably what most peope will speak about at the hearing, although there are also concerns about the proposed cap of 2,000 square feet per dwelling (which I supported). I think the NCD is sorely needed, and this is a good step. But it doesn't really confront the problems that face our downtown, working-class, near-campus neighborhood. Some people don't think it can address those things. I think it could have... but anyway.

The Chatham County political scene's decay means more than most of us want to admit. We've depended upon that large forested county to stay large, unpopulated, and forested so that we can uphold our own quality of life in southern Orange County. Part of the allure of living in the western edge of the Triangle here is that we can go north, south, or west and hit farmland and rivers and general pastoral ambiance and breathe. That's all about to change in a big way now that the Chatham board of commissioners is firmly under the control of uber-pro-development forces. The county is poised to add a LOT of people over the next 10 years, further clogging all the southern routes into and out of Chapel Hill and creating larger car and water pollution problems for the area in general. And next year's election in Chatham will only decide two seats, both of the seats currently held by those perceived to be least pro-development. It don't look good.