Campaign News Coverage Falls Short

I too will exit this discussion. But, Query: Duncan, you have seen fit to excoriate Mike and me based on our responses, yet Mark's 'response', beginning with,

"I feel that IFC is an important institution in our community and that the Kitchen and the Men's Shelter need to find an appropriate home. I have only heard indirectly about plans for a particular location for the Kitchen and I feel that if IFC has a proposal, then they should lay that proposal on the table so that we have something specific to react to...",

seems to give you no dyspepsia. Given your comments regarding the well-known nature of the proposal, and resultant incredulity that one might claim to be unaware of same, I find this curious. Your thoughts?

Cheers,
-Alex

Dan,

I think you should be more specific with your terminology. The legal terms are residence, of which I have 4, including one down the street from Mr. Voyce, and domicile, of which I have 1 in Carrboro.

Vagaries might be misinterpreted as an accusation, and I'm sure that wasn't your intent.

Alex,

The first part of Mark's statement is no more defensible, at least by the standards I've suggested here. You're absolutely right. So yes, I should have lumped you both together, but I was talking to you, and I forgot about Mark. No harm meant.

The second part depends on what one means by a proposal. As has happened at least twice before, the process of developing a formal proposal has been cut short because, as usual, folks who got wind of the planning process decided to raise holy hell about it. I do not know, because I do not work for the IFC nor am I privy to their business, but I'm going to assume that the reason you haven't had the issue in front of the board formally is for the very good reason that they don't yet ave a formal "proposal" -- a request for a variance, for instance -- to offer. It was not the IFC that made this an election issue, it was not the IFC that issued questionnaires on the subject to the candidates. As far as I know, the IFC was still in the planning and consultation process outlined in their memo of March 10, when this issue was forced forward by others this fall.

Surely, you would grant that this has not been the best timing for the project or the IFC. I'm suggesting, in disagreement with the mayor, that this poor timing and what appears to be ham-fistedness is the result not of IFC naivete -- the planning process they've undertaken seems to indicate the opposite -- but of having their planning process cut short by people who wanted this issue on the table before the election. That certainly wasn't the IFC.

Finally -- and I do mean that! -- I suppose my strong feelings about this have less to do with a kitchen on Main Street (although I do think, in principle, it's a workable plan), and more to do with a desire to have this out once and for all.

What I mean is, I'm saddened and sickened that we continue to let the IFC bounce from pillar to post in search of a place to establish itself, and every single time the organization get treated as if they've proposed lacing the drinking water with cholera. And I _do_ mean the organization: it's the IFC that gets blamed in these situations for various transgressions of etiquette or process, even when that process has been cut short by the plague criers.

The IFC isn't blameless -- they've certainly made some mistakes, and those mistakes get magnified because they're a high profile organization with an (unfortunately) controversial mission. But that's the breaks, and they've learned to live with it. But let's be honest -- the IFC hasn't struck out twice, and perhaps three times, in the last two years because they haven't mastered the process, or the intricacies of zoning, or the art of taking a mayor out for coffee. If those really _are_ the reasons, we really should be ashamed that we couldn't overcome them. But I don't think those are the reasons.

I want to have it out, once and for all -- or as the President says, I want an up or down vote -- on whether this community any longer has the will to sacrifice for the shelter and the kitchen. The answer may be no, and if that's the case, it's better to hear it now than to put the IFC through this cat-and-mouse game any longer. If it's the community's will that, as one commentator recently put it, that we no longer "subsidize homelessness," then let's hear it. The IFC people will be horrified to hear me say this, but let's put it on the table: vote it up or down. (And, for all the government geeks out there, yes I realize that there could be no real "vote" -- but you know what I mean.) No more platitudes about the tragedy of poverty prefacing yet another "But....". Let's just say it. If this community has changed that much, well then that's that. Let's be honest about it.

I say this because the IFC deserves better treatment than it's received in the last week, the last month, and the last few years. (It should go without saying that its clients have deserved better treatment, too.) If it's going to continue to be treated as a plague carrier, I don't see why they would keep pressing on. But then, those folks are tougher and more committed than I am.

Enough, I guess. I just hope people don't freak out too much when, while enjoying their denser and more urban core in downtown, they discover that panhandlers have followed the money and the people across the railroad tracks.You can't really blame anyone, I guess; just a fact of urban living. Enjoy!

Duncan--

I'd agree with you about the panhandlers following "the money and the people across the railroad tracks" Except that a large chunk of Carrboro's "Urban Core" is private property (Carr Mill, the strip mall that houses the Artscenter, etc.) ALL of which have signs that state "no soliciting allowed." So I don't think the panhandlers WILL follw. Or if they do, they'll be asked to leave.

I DON'T believe the IFC is the reason downtown CH has panhandlers. I think panhandlers flock to Franklin because:
1) It's a public street so they can't be banned outright
2) People give them money

If folks didn't GIVE to the panhandlers, then they wouldn't BE there. In SF and NY the city found (employed?) people to sit at tables on the streets and collect money for the shelters and soup kitchens. This encouraged folks to put money in their coffers, in lieu of giving to panhandlers. This allowed the more fortunate a way to donate spare change and feel they were "doing something." Also kept the money going to food and shelter. Now, the SMART thing to do , would be for everyone in town to quit giving money to panhandlers, and to support the IFC. (As my husband and I do.) If one doesn't want to do that, one should, at the least, offer to buy the panhandler a meal. As we do as well. In MY experience, the panhandlers usually refuse. Occasionally they accept, and I buy them a sandwich or some such. But at least I know the money has gone to food.

melanie

If one doesn't want to do that, one should, at the least, offer to buy the panhandler a meal. As we do as well. In MY experience, the panhandlers usually refuse.

We have bought many a panhandler a meal. We don't give money because we want to provide sustenance and not drugs/alcohol.

We also try to carry restaurant gift cards in our wallet and car, which we have found are usually welcome and work extremely well.

M

Mark--the restaurant gc is a GREAT idea! I'll add a few to my wallet.

melanie

Dan Coleman states,

“I think the local media are pretty passive when it comes to campaigns. It's possible for candidates to drum up a certain amount of attention but even that can be like pulling teeth. That said, I'm not aware of a single candidate having a press conference or issuing a press release on a campaign matter this year.”

I sent out a press release Dated Sept. 27 trying to generate a discussion on the Sierra Club Executive Committee's record on the environment. I did this because I shared Marty Mandell's concern (expressed in her letter to the editor) that the Sierra Club Executive Board was ill-informed on environmental issues and using “foolish” criteria to endorse candidates.

I spent a lot of time preparing a questionnaire to be filled out by the Sierra Club executive committee and even announced this during the Sierra Club forum. I posted it (and the Executive Board's answer) on my website and www.squeezethepulp.com---and yet there was no coverage by the press OR OrangePolitics—in spite of the fact that OrangePolitics had a thread questioning the Sierra Club's lack of transparency.

I also sent out a press release and appeared before council regarding UNC's request for a SUP to expand the output capacity of their power plant and how this related to the Community Carbon Reduction Project---the press release (dated Sept. 19th 2005) contained the following:

“I am requesting that the council consider making the approval of the special use permit for UNC's power plant development plans contingent on some proposed suggestions.

But first some background

I appeared before the council Sept. 12 requesting that the town not agree to join the community carbon reduction project unless UNC also agreed to join. If our concern is truly about accurate measurement and reduction of local pollution emissions then it is illogical to exclude a coal burning power plant from the equation. Especially since a report entitled “Air and States” by the Center for Environment, Commerce, and Energy noted that in the U.S. automobiles produce 25% of carbon dioxide emissions and power plants produce 40%.

And although UNC's cogeneration power plant has received EPA awards for efficient energy production, it was noted that these type of awards did not have to meet all award standards required by the EPA. And in fact a year prior to receiving an award for efficient energy production UNC was included on an EPA list as one of the power plants releasing levels of pollution that contributed to air pollution in three other states (The Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League Clean Air Campaign Dec. 17, 1999).

The council disregarded my suggested and unanimously agreed to join the carbon reduction project even though UNC is specifically exempted from any carbon emission measurement and reduction plans and does not have to join in the future unless other participants and the Chancellor of the University decides a “partnership is desired.” It should be noted that originally Attachment 2 was written to state that UNC's future participate could occur if other participants and the Chancellor agreed participation was “warranted.” The word warranted was replaced with “desired.”

Just days after the Town agreed to join the carbon reduction plan without requiring UNC's participation, the papers reported UNC was requesting approval of a development/expansion plan that would double the output capacity of its power plant.

So my suggestion is that the town's approval of the special use permit should include a request/requirement that:

1.) UNC provides information on how much coal they burn annually covering the previous five years (to see if, and how much, coal use is increasing) as well as a clear statement as to whether the tons of coal currently burned will increase in order to double power output capacity.
2.) That UNC agrees to join the Town as a full participant in the measurement of carbon emissions and reduction plans under the Community Carbon reduction Project
3.) That the Town requests, receives, and makes available to the public, information from UNC concerning all levels of pollutants currently released by UNC's power plant including but nor limited to carbon dioxide as well as mercury and also projections on any increase in pollutants that will result from increased output.

If the Town, the Director of the Community Carbon Reduction project and UNC are really concerned about accurate measures of air pollution and protecting air quality then it would seem illogical for UNC not to make this information readily available and illogical for UNC and its coal burning power plant not to be included in the carbon reduction program.

One last thought. In discussion regarding changes to OI-4 zoning, UNC officials requested that a provision be added stating UNC would not have to provide “any formal responses to questions on topics such as utility needs, how they plant to pay for projects, and why they need to build utility capacity instead of conserving energy.” Also earlier this year the News & Observer reported that UNC lawyers had joined with others to push for a state law that would allow them to file a lawsuit against citizens requesting access to public documents and meetings.

When it comes to protecting the environment and having access to information that could facilitate change to protect the environment— the above requests by UNC officials are disturbing to say the least. By incorporating my requests into the Special Use Permit process the Town has the opportunity to take a real leadership role not only in protecting air quality but also in indicating they will not support the pursuit of secrecy by public agencies.”

Once again NO REAL COVERAGE and even though I pointed out all the flaws of the CRed program through guest columns and website posts I was only attacked by the OP regulars WHO SUPPORTED THE CRed PROGRAM.

Oh, and I also spent (or I guess wasted) a lot of time trying to push the newspapers and our D.A. and Ron Holdway to investigate and publicize more on the local greyhound abuse issue. It had nothing to do with the campaign but I viewed it as important. After contacting Mark Schultz he referred me to reporter Cheryl Johnson. So in communications in June 2005 with Ms. Johnson I pointed out that the media and Ron Holdway (the investigator) had repeatedly reported that the abusers were actually good hearted rescuers who suffered from OCD “hoarding” disorder even though NO mental health exam had been conducted by any professional.

I also pointed out that even in cases where abuse has occurred because of a mental disorder that leads to hoarding behavior almost always this involves one spouse who has the disorder and another spouse who is NOT disordered but just doesn't care and gladly ignores or assists in the abuse.

I also pointed out that the facts of the case also appeared suspicious due to the following:
Some of the dogs the Wisemans were collecting were co-owned” and held through leasing arrangements with out-of-state people. This usually occurs among people who are using dogs to generate money through racing or breeding/dog shows. And investigator Ron Holdway admitted to me that the Wisemans were showing some of the dogs in dog shows. Although dog racing is illegal in N.C. and several other states due to the history of horrific abuses suffered by dogs used for racing, racing is legal in Fla. and W.Va., two of the states where Holdway admitted the Wisemen had co-owners/lease arrangements with some of the dogs. And there is no federal law governing the interstate transport of dogs used for racing. I also provided an article from the Sandford Herald that reported that in a similar horrific abuse case in North Carolina the guilty parties also claimed they were just good-intentioned rescuers who got in over their heads until a subsequent investigation revealed they were in it for the money and were running an illegal puppy mill.

I also reported to Ms. Johnson my conversation with Ron Holdway back in June where (in my opinion) he seemed uninterested in pursuing any in-depth investigation. In my conversation with Holdway I pointed out that the fact that some of the dogs were co-owned and co-leased with out-of-state owners would seem to indicate a money link and not just a “good-hearted rescuer” situation but Holdway would not concede that co-ownership or leasing was “strange” for dogs that were just pets and not a money making investment. When I stated I had never heard of a pet owner co-owning their dog with someone in another state or “leasing” it WITH NO MONEY FACTOR INVOLVED (i.e. breeding or racing), Holdway was quite insistent that "he couldn't say whether it was common or uncommon."

So after all of this did the Chapel Hill News decide to publish a more in-depth story on the local greyhound abuse? Nope. But not long after The Chapel News did run a story on how many people considered racing greyhounds for money fun.

Quite frankly, as an animal lover and an evironmentalist I am pretty darn discouraged. And, of course, my concerns about waterways and water supply have basically been dismissed as well-----but if anyone is interested I posted a recent picture of University Lake on my website---it's pretty disturbing when you consider the "let's just keep on developing at all costs" mentality of many of our local leaders.

My disappointment in CHN reporting started with the headline 'Crowded Field Running for Four Council Seats' in CH. In 2003 there were 12 candidates, in 2001 I think there were 10. This race, with 7 candidates, has the lowest number I recall in several elections.
I agree Dan, CHN reporter did not check facts to back statements.

Dan--I for one don't believe you have proved any of your allegations about Ed. You've stated your opinions and discounted anyone who disagrees. And you've taken statements and portions of transcripts out of context, thus nullifying your claim that you have "provided ample documentation" on any of your charges against him and his record.

I would love to have a serious discussion on the role of the local media on election coverage as well as non-election issues. It's a topic that we can probably agree on in principle. But using one more of your claims against Ed as the starting point for such an important discussion is just another ploy in your campaign against him.

Dan--take a look at the advertisement listing Ed's supporters. Those are some very powerful names! Are you saying you and Tom J know more than they do? I fully appreciate your right to oppose Ed, Dan. I just wish you would quit representing it as fact rather than opinion.

If we're going to talk about records and the role of the media, I don't believe you ever answered Mary R's question about whether or not you recused yourself in the Sierra Club endorsements. Given your very noticeable support for many of those who did get the endorsements and those who did not, it seems like a fair question to ask someone who represents both the general media as well as the editorial staff of a citizen-run journalistic site such as OP.

I'm sure Will R would be asking these questions if he weren't on the other side of the fence for this election!

Ed Harrison has done so much good for this community. I hope Dan's single-minded campaign against him will backfire on him and result in many votes for Ed Harrison.

On a semi-related note, the City Desk at the Daily Tar Heel is evaluating its coverage so far this semester.

http://apps.dailytarheel.com/blogs/orange.php

Tell us what you think.

Brianna Bishop, City Co-Editor

Dan, While your question is to Brianna, I would like to stress that the goal of the policies that I have advocated for, are not, in my view, or purpose, designed to be transformative, but to provide a structure to accommodate the 'vibrant downtown life that has become a hallmark of the town' while preserving it's essential character and honoring it's heritage.

While the increases in allowable building heights has been the focus of discussions, here's what you CAN't do under the new ordinances: 1. Replacement, or alteration of historic structures: 2 Construction of buildings of greater height than those allowed in adjoining residential districts within a 50 foot 'buffer' zone (Neighborhood protection district regs), and 3, shortly, meet architectural standards which are governed by, and reflective of, the historical architectural character of our downtown. I have advocated for, and helped develop, these essential controls to ensure that we accommodate the evolution of our downtown WITHOUT transforming it's essence. These have been essential components from the beginning.

What it is designed to transform, are less-than-ideal underutilized properties (Namely, oceans of asphalt), into places for people, and not cars.

I think that the DTH recognzed this dynamic, hence their analysis.

Cheers,
Alex

Chris Cameron, the opinion page editor, would be the best person to answer your questions. Those of us on the news side don't play any part in the page's endorsements.

Brianna

Dan, are you having a cranky morning ?

I can help out with business experience.

Last week, for example, I finished an $800,000 project we've been working on for Blackhawk County Iowa with the Homeland Security Department.

Our small business has an annual budget of about $1.4 million.

For years, in the software business, Lexus, was my biggest customer. We designed and implemented their CRM program, their indirect finance product( a software package that shops for purchase and lease incentives) and their customer interface that allows Lexus customers to schedule their own maintence and sales calls from a home computer, web enabled cell phone or PDA. It's state of the art, and about $6.5 million dollars worth of business annually.

Shall I continue?

We would be Ryan and Associates, the consulting firm my husband founded in 1986. My role would b partner/ financial officer, which involves co-ordinating funding of government contracts and sales and accounting of private contracts.

Since I went through a series of mergers and buyouts in the 1990's, I've had positions in key account sales ( $2 million plus), post sale process development, and training director.

Any more questions ?

Wouldn't it be nice if we has financial disclosure laws like federal office holders so you could know what you're getting in a candidate.

Having been a part of the endorsement process, Dan, I can tell you that Alex pretty much nailed it. You got it straight from the candidate's mouth!

Tangentally,

Whassamatter, Dan? Don't like the 'Little Blue Choo'?

"Puritanism: The haunting fear that somewhere, someone might be having a good time" ---H.L. Mencken

Cheers,
Alex

There goes that spelling thing again Alex. I mean really, do we want a mayor who can't spell 'whatsamatter"? Or who doesn't know that it's Little Blue Choo Choo? Honestly......

Dan,

Re: dyspeptic comment about '...kiddie rides at the Music Festival': It's called the 'Little Blue Choo' (Sorry, Terri, No 2nd 'Choo' in the title of the enterprise).

OK, fess up: Who piddled in Dan's cornflakes this morning?

Cheers,
Alex

All kidding aside, I think Dan is asking the most important question to be raised in this election. From my perspective, Alex represents, in some ways, the status quo in Carrboro: public discussions about how to balance needed change and needed growth. The status quo in this instance is change, but change that is collaboratively planned with an intent at protecting that which is most valued--small town feel, arts, walkability, vibrancy, grooviness. (perpetuation/elaboration upon policies initiated by Ellie Kinnaird, continued by Mike Nelson)

I can't compare Alex's perspective on preservation/growth to Mark because I don't have a clear idea of where Mark is. But I think I understand Jacqui's position and Mark seems to be closely allied with her. So to either of you, if I misinterpret, please feel free to correct me. Jacqui seems to represent a minimal-change/ non-status quo position, a position intended to protect what "is" through as little significant change as possible. I frequently agree with Jacqui's votes, but as I've begun looking more deeply into the issue, I understand Alex's position.

So do we have planned growth or do we restrain growth and in essense, leave ourselves open to natural or unplanned growth?
How unfortunate that campaign conversations never really dug into the question of how best to manage growth/change and how current/proposed policies might or might not factor into preserving that which we love about Carrboro.

It's kind of convoluted and I apologize for not having a clearer way of explaining my evolving perceptions.

How about, 'Whatsamatterwitchoo?'

I'll stop b4 the colonel from the Ministry of Silly intervenes:
'Stop it, stop it! That's too silly! There'll be no more silliness here...'

Cheers,
Alex

Ruby,
I was referring to Dan's comment above (in full): 'Tangentially, does the fellow giving kiddie rides at the music festival constitute “greater use of trains”?'.

That clear it up?

Cheers,
Alex

Ruby,

Dan specifically questioned my business experience, so I laid out a readers digest version.

Why is it applicable ? Our town is, in essence, a $16.5 million dollar business. I think it is appropriate to have one member versed in multi-million dollar transactions. Further more, since I have experience co-odinating projects which require federal funding, it gives me a head start on projects like my alternative fuels plan, since there is a lot of federal money available, if you know where to find it.

Like everybody else, I don't know that much about Kevin Wolff.

I like Jeff. I've been to several forums with him, and I find him bright and caring. I think experience in the real global economy, the world in which most of our children will need to function is an invaluable perspective, especially in the Chapelboro insular world of University and non-profit jobs. He brings a different perspective and new ideas to the table, and that is always a good thing, in my opinion.

I'd like offer a different perspective on why we should want a variety of professional experience and social perspectives on elected and appointed governing bodies. Staff are paid to work full time. If you look at how agendas are created, they are developed jointly by the chair/mayor and the chief operating officer. But the content attached to each agenda topic represents what staff believe officials need to know in order to develop policy/make decisions.

If there is no one on the board who understands the topics at a professional level, the risk always exists that other options will be missed or important considerations won't be explored beyond what staff recommend, which is often focussed on technical correctness rather than what is right for the community. The connector road debate in CH is a great example of the difference between staff feelings on how to design a road system and community members with issues with traffic in front of their homes. Having elected officials/appointed board members that can straddle the chasm between staff and citizen can help find resolutions that are acceptable--not necessarily ideal--for everyone involved.

More varied experience on boards/councils can only be a positive IMHO. Will Raymond also emphasizes his business experience; Mark K emphasizes his role as a gay man; Mark C emphasizes his experience in real estate. Why shouldn't we want business experience as part of our diversity profile?

I can tell you that the MBA and MPP programs at Duke are considered sister programs. Qualitative and quantitative research methods, simulation optimization, decision-making algorithms (including sensitivity and risk analyses such as Monte Carlo, Tornado, Crystal Ball, etc.), other statistical analyses, microeconomic considerations.... Arguably, there's more similarity between business and public policy than law and public policy.

BTW, in law this is considered excellent evidence in that I am testifying to an argument that runs counter to my interests.

Dan, you don't call your anti-Harrison posts single-minded? I'd call it a vendetta.

Dan, you asked "What do you call it when Ed tells them that they “don't want to piss him off”?"

I call it someone who is angry (very) that they've been sent an unsolicited e-mail. And don't tell me that you've never gotten angry over unsolicited e-mail or telemarketers. I don't know what Ed meant when he said "I am probably someone you don't want to piss off" and the fact is that YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT HE MEANT EITHER! He could have meant that he was going to report them to some regulatory body or he could have meant that he was going to sue them - whatever. By these last few actions you've made it clear that this is not only a vendetta, but a personal vendetta as well. I can now clearly see why the editors censored your column - your vendetta was obvious to them as well.

Sure says a lot about the staff member at the People's Channel and his/her sense of ethics; continues to say even more about Dan Coleman's "do anything negative that he can" approach to Ed Harrison's campaign by forwarding email that he wrote to someone else. You might not realize how much you might be helping Ed, Dan.

Posting Ed Harrison's personal email address on this website without permission is also just plain wrong.

I'm not certain who "editor" is...but thank you. From the bottom of my heart.

And I think it's poor form to post someone's e-mail address without their permission. But I'm not surprised.

melanie

Just an FYI for readers:
I don't think there's any reason to question the ethics of the Director of the People's Channel (TPC). As part of the franchise agreement with Time Warner Cable, part of the Council's job is to set the public access fee that is part of everyone's cable bill. This is the primary funding source for the People's Channel. Each year the Council holds public forums on the fee. As a matter of fact, this year's forum is Wednesday night (Nov. 9 at 7 pm). It's my understanding that recently, TPC added the Council to its listserv. Although not every organization that the Council has regulatory power over includes Council members on their emails, I receive weekly (and in some cases even more frequently) emails from many of the organizations. I've always thought of it as part of the job.

You all should come out to Wed's forum. The recommendation is to raise the fee from 74 cents to 76 cents. This reflects a 2.29% increase. This increase is in accord with the previous year's inflation rate. The Council can only increase the rate by 3% or the inflation rate, whichever is lower. It is very rare that anyone not associated with the People's Channel actually attends or participates in the forum.

I would agree that the People Channel's ethics shouldn't be questioned. The Technology Advisory Committee had a similar problem with another council member over our listserv. In fact, that incidence led to the manager informing us that we could no longer use the listserv for any "substantive discussions."

While Ed shouldn't have been so snippy (although I imagine he was joking and just doesn't understand that jokes don't come off well in cyberspace), no one should be subscribed to a email list without their knowledge or permission. Mistakes and miscalculations happen without evil intent.