Whose House? Cam's House.

Well Mark, if you go back and read some of the allegations hurled at people (and some of it done on this site) because there was a belief that they were simply working at UNC, doing business with UNC or were making a profit on work done at UNC, then you might see why some might be a little reactive to this after-the-fact news. As for your board activities, that should have been disclosed also. I guess this is what Dan Coleman meant about lacking critical information on candidates! And if the assumed to be "all powerful and all knowing" candidate who reports to Runberg knew about this and did not make an issue of it, seems to me it says a lot about her.

Bottom line: Cam should have been more forthright about the process he was undergoin with UNC, as the election fell right into the middle of it.

Who is Mr. Hill? My name is Cam. I guess I mis-spoke when I said "bought" at that point UNC had agreed to buy, today's meeting is to formalize the offer or some such.....I remain baffled by the bureauocracy that is UNC....

I developed a lot of my feelings about UNC's "bullying" from my experience with negotiating with them over this transaction; a guick deal has turned into a long drawn out bore, which has cost me a lot of money unneccessarily. My "favorable deal" is one that I am happy with but it is by no means any kind of windfall.

On August 4th my house was broken into 3 times (in/on one day). This sort of broke my back. My kids were afraid to stay here, their mothers were concerned. I was daunted by the prospect of finishing my addition (Duncan, come see it and decide if it was just an attempt to help my negotiations), my kids wanted to move; I just decided (dispiritedly) to move on......

I joked more than once that if being offered below-market-value money for my house constituted a conflict of interest then I had one....(please notice the word "joke"). It seemd to me that the university did not care at all that I was running for council and indeed was bent on treating me shabbily in spite of this fact. I believe that South building is decidedly unconcerned about the town council.

"Appearances" change depending on your point of view, so I certainly understand people's "questions"......

$350K for a $150K house is not a windfall? Turn my home into a parking lot!

Thanks for your response, Cam. I would offer that as a person who offered himself for elective office, you are in a new category of "citizen," and thus, must be prepared to operate in that environment. You will not get many passes, and when you say you "mis-spoke," you will read about it. Part of your new duties will also involve becoming very familiar with things bureaucratic, from personnel to public finance to state and federal regulations. Those who elected you will not appreciate you being "baffled" as you work to put "Chapel Hill First."

Given the way this has begun to spin, I think some will be sympathic for you but others will say that you should have done more to ensure the voters knew about this. The problem is, if the university is who you said they are and act as you said they do, then some will see your "favorable deal" in that light.

The old news is the new news which is no news at all. This came up from the Memory Hole:

Monday, July 03, 2000

" UNC already owns lots abutting either side of Hill's homestead."

http://www.heraldsun.com/archives/URNDetail.cfm?URN=0338080623

Wednesday, September 19, 2001

Hill: Chapel Hill will not benefit from UNC expansion

http://www.heraldsun.com/archives/URNDetail.cfm?URN=0369862889

Monday, December 02, 2002

Man [Cam} wants parking lot halted

http://www.heraldsun.com/archives/URNDetail.cfm?URN=0401721472

Your harmless drudge at the Ministry of Truth,

Winston

Mr. Hill, can you see why some may think this is a development of concern? You say that you announced at a press conference on October 10th that UNC bought your property; what then is the UNC BOT approving today? Also, do you not think that your public criticism of the "bully" and your private "favorable deal" with UNC might be questioned by some of the voters as an "appearance" issue?

I 'd be a lot more sceptical if the negotiations were still on-going during the final weeks of the election, though I do think the matter should have been disclosed.

Given Mr. Hill's prior and subsequent statements in regards to town/gown relations, surely this is harmless error.

Simon

p.s.

If UNC wants to buy politicians, do they have to put the matter out to bid, or is there a state contract :)

I talked about my selling my house to UNC at the coalition of Neighbors near Campus press conference on October 10th. I said that UNC had bought my entire neighborhood including my house and was going to turn it into a parking lot. I stated numerous times that I was moving to Rosemary St. from Cameron Ave. I made no secret of this deal. As with every thing else about this election the newspapers showed little interest.....

From the Department of Fruitless Speculation On Past Events:

If UNC didn't leak the information before the election, I'd guess it's most likely because they didn't want to queer the deal, assuming that the deal could be abandoned at that point. This would imply that the acquisition of that property trumped any concern they had about an outspoken critic of the University being elected to the Council. And that _might_ imply that Dianne B.'s campaign wasn't as important to the University as was acquiring a parking lot, and it may even imply that her campaign wasn't important to the administration at all. And what all _that_ would imply, chillingly, is that the University doesn't really give a flip who gets elected to the Council because they're pretty confident they'll get their way most of the time no matter what happens in an election.

I'm happy that Cam Hill was elected to the Council, and so I don't want to be seen as piling on him at this point. Still, in the interest of clearing this whole thing up and moving on -- which I have no doubt that Mr. Hill will be able to do satisfactorily -- I'd like to see him address one other thing: the fact that he complained bitterly last November in his Chapel Hill Herald column about the University's plans to build the parking lot, and said that he decided to turn down the University's offer to buy his house because their plans were "10 years and several hundred thousand dollars away." (That's an ambiguous quote, taken out of context, but in its context I interpreted it to mean that their offer wasn't good enough.)

He then took the issue to the Town Council, and urged them to pressure the University to abandon their plans, after finding out that his neighbor had already decided to sell her two lots to the University.

So, this has been going on for at least a year between Hill and the University, and Hill used every means possible -- his column, and appearing as a citizen before the Town Council -- to present his case against the University. I want to believe, and I'm inclined to believe, that this effort of his was an honest opposition to the University's plans to make hash of what he thought was a clear zoning rule. I'm inclined to believe that, in the end, he concluded that he couldn't win and that it was in the best interest of his family to make the deal.

But, in light of the pretty good deal he's received from the University, I'd like to be convinced that his public criticism -- and the addition of some rooms to the house -- wasn't an effort to shore up his bargaining position for an eventual sale or swap. It may be unlikely, but (as they say in the conflict-of-interest arena) there's this appearance problem....

Hey! Don't hate the messenger.

On the bright side property tax to the town and county will see and increase in revenue to help the schools, police, fire etc... with essentially no increase in services by this swap - a plus.

If all of us could arrange such a deal Chapel Hill would be swimming in tax revenue.

Also, I don't think a 1700 sq. foot house if that is correct (on Rosemary) goes for 350K - any realtors out there.

Well soap fans, looks like my recent questions here (10:25 PM 11/10/03 on the "Attack" thread) that elicited no responses got front page coverage in the CHN and the City & State section of the N&O. Yes, Chapel Hillians, there is a Santa Clause, and the real name is UNC-CH! The land/house swap sounds like a pretty good deal and one that is very advantageous for “Mr. UNC-CH Critic.” How can we trust that institution to do the right thing when it does business like this and swaps property with its critic? Can't you just visualize the ads that could have been run on this?

Better yet, we have to wonder if Dan Coleman will write a column Saturday about what might have happened if this had been publicized before folks voted and why the candidate didn't disclose it? We also must wonder about his take on why, if UNC-CH is not to be trusted, they didn’t leak it and help influence the election outcome. Will Dan tell us that as a matter of principle, Cam should have held out to keep UNC-CH from turning more land into parking lots? Will he also offer his insights into what this will mean for the candidate elect’s credibility (or perception thereof) when dealing with UNC-CH as a Town Council member?

Stay tuned for the next installment of “As the Orange is Squeezed,” that popular soap that reveals the nuances of what passes for hardcore politics in these parts. It will be interesting to read the responses from supporters (spin?) as well as from critics (reverse spin?).

What we at the Ministry find amusing is that the land will be used for "transfer station for some sort of multi-modal transportation."

Will it be "state of the art?" http://www.orangepolitics.org/archives/000086.html

Was the zoning managed by Bachman's new employee?

Hint: watch this space http://www.fpc.unc.edu/CIP/Projects.asp?Project=43

And will Cam, Bruce Runberg and Susan Moeser become leaders in a Rosemary Neighborhood Association?

Yours from the Ministry of Truth where we drudge on harmlessly,

Winston

I do agree with you Eric, that this should have been disclosed before the election. It certainly would have been less of a big deal as the papers could simply let voters decide whether it mattered. Hopefully Cam or someone can post about why we're only hearing about it now. It may be due to media lazyness or UNC nefariousness, I'd believe either or both explanations.

One other thing, to be clear.

Here's the conflict-of-interest theory, stated somewhat hyperbolically:

Cam Hill thumps his chest about how tough he's going to be on the university as a member of the council. Simultaneourly, he's negotiating with UNC to get from a $150,000 house to the best deal he can get. UNC, trying to placate Cam Hill a little bit, offers him a $350,000 house in a toney neighborhood. And they sweeten the deal a little by mentioning that the deal doesn't need to be disclosed until mid-November when it goes before the Board of Trustees.

Many of the people who read and post to this site undoubtedly know Cam Hill, and think it very unlikely that he'd be susceptible to such influences. I don't know him, and I'm certainly not suggesting that I think he would actually be susceptible to such influences and temptations. My point is simply that voters should have had an opportunity to know about these negotiations and this deal--especially from a candidate who accused others of conflicts of interest--so that we could inform ourselves and reach our own conclusions before voting.

Thanks, Ruby, for the link.

I disagree with your framing of the issue at the beginning of your post. You say: "(1) Is Cam being hypocritical for criticizing the University and it's associates, and then cutting a deal with them?" To me, the question isn't about hypocrisy. The question is this: In his private negotiations with UNC before the election, Did Cam Hill potentially stand to benefit--or could he reasonably be perceived by a voter as standing to benefit--from the public campaign positions he was taking about UNC's growth and development? We can debate endlessly whether Hill *actually* benefitted from those positions in his private negotations, or whether his positions were in their nature likelier to hinder than to help him in his negotiations. Ruby thinks the disclosure would have had no negative impact. That may well be. But the point is that voters should have had a chance to discuss and reach their own conclusions on that *before* the election.

I worry too that there may have been some effort to delay the disclosure of this deal until after the election. I say right up front that I have no evidence that this happened. But I also know that UNC has recently timed certain disclosures with an eye to their public impact. (I'm referring to the disclosure of Roy Williams's salary on a Friday just a few hours before the midnight coming-out party for the basketabll team.)

Cam Hill undoubtedly had great reasons to take this swap so that he wouldn't be living with parking lots around him. I would have taken the deal too. But I also would have disclosed the negotiations, so that nobody would wonder after the fact about conflicts of interest.

(By the way, I'm assuming from what I've read that Mr. Hill never did disclose these negotiations or this deal before the election. If he did, and the press just didn't report it, then I withdraw everything I'm saying here.)

Looks like a possible Cam Scam
http://www.herald-sun.com/orange/10-517970.html