Mooresville commissioners will not vote on Monday for the additional funding request by MI-Connection, after all.
While some commissioners expected the vote to be taken Monday, the issue was not included in the town board agenda. The board now expects to vote on the additional funding request in an upcoming budget meeting or the July town board meeting. When the meeting date is set, the town says it will be well publicized.
I'll keep you posted ...
Meanwhile, the Report poll will stay open through Monday, so (in case you haven't already) be sure to cast your vote on whether you think the towns of Mooresville and Davidson should fund the estimated additional $12.5 million.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Should we provide the additional $12.5 million for cable?
Share your opinion by voting in the Report poll, located to the left. The poll will be "open" until Monday, June 2, at 6 p.m., when Mooresville commissioners meet and are expected to vote on the additional estimated $12.5 million funding request from MI-Connection.
***
On a different note, it's now easier than ever to find the Report on the web. Go to http://www.thegattonreport.com, and you should be forwarded right here to the blog.
***
On a different note, it's now easier than ever to find the Report on the web. Go to http://www.thegattonreport.com, and you should be forwarded right here to the blog.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Cable: "Cash cow" turned catastrophe?
Imagine driving by a house and immediately falling in love with it. The listing realtor won’t let you walk through it. But you’re already so enamored with the house – and it looks so sturdy and well groomed from the outside – that you don’t see the need to look into it further. So you buy it, on curb appeal.
Then, you walk inside. You look around and quickly realize that while the potential is there, tapping into that potential will take a significant amount of time, energy and money.
That’s similar to what happened when the towns of Mooresville and Davidson purchased the bankrupt Adelphia cable system.
Despite staunch objection from the public, the Town of Mooresville bonded $80 million to purchase the cable system. The Town of Davidson “co-signed” on the loan and guaranteed repayment of its portion of the cost through subscriber fees. The $80 million was supposed to pay for 10,500 subscribers and system upgrades, with extra cash flow for the first couple years. But when it came time to close on the system, the towns discovered they would actually have to pay for more than 15,000 subscribers, which ate into some of the funds earmarked for upgrades.
Now, the Town of Mooresville is between a rock and a hard place. In order to deliver the upgrades that were originally promised – which would bring the system to a level where it can compete with its market competitors and lay fiber to all businesses and new residential developments – MI-Connection is going to need about $12.5 million more. And it is expected to ask Mooresville commissioners to approve that additional funding on June 2. But first, MI-Connection representatives plan to meet with elected officials from the towns of Mooresville and Davidson tomorrow to answer questions. The meeting is scheduled for 6 p.m. in the MI-Connection office on Broad Street.
If the towns approve the additional $12.5 million, it would put MI-Connection “in the game,” making it more competitive in the video-entertainment world and helping it pave a “highway” for fiber optic to commercial and new residential developments. In other words, the additional funding would nudge MI-Connection to a point that it should be able to provide services currently offered by market competitors.
If the towns do not approve the additional $12.5 million, and the promised upgrades are not completed, the taxpayers of Mooresville and Davidson – financers of what appears to be a defunct cable television system – could be left holding the bag.
One question that has arisen is why the towns’ “due diligence,” did not uncover the 4,500 additional subscribers. Also, why didn’t it become clear through that “due diligence” – instead of after the purchase – that the system was in far worse shape than anyone realized?
Many fingers have been pointed at Time Warner, and the bankruptcy courts would not allow the towns to thoroughly inspect the cable system before purchasing it. Instead, the towns relied on the opinions of consultants who offered a “best guess” of what the system was worth. After the purchase, those consultants said the system was in worse shape than they had guessed. What’s bothersome about such an argument is that good business sense dictates that a person doesn’t buy something – especially $80 million worth of something – site unseen.
Town Finance Director Maia Setzer said she transferred more than $5 million from the $80 million in bond funds to “reimburse” Mecklenburg County and the towns of Mooresville and Davidson for their “due diligence work,” including $1.5 million for Mooresville’s earnest money deposit and $1.5 million for the “transition expenses” incurred by Bristol Virginia Utilities (operators of the cable system) and paid initially by Mooresville. The remaining $2 million, Setzer said, was for “several different vendors’ expenses, including the third-party reviews of our consultant’s numbers as required by the Local Government Commission, legal fees and the bankruptcy trustee in addition to the fees resulting from the issuance of debt.”
So, what did the $5 million in “due diligence” buy us? Basically, a video entertainment company with potential … but without enough funds, or long-term vision, to make that potential a reality.
The town attempted to sell the cable’s purchase plan to the public by touting the economic development made possible through fiber optic that MI-Connection would extend to commercial and new residential developments. But without the $12.5 million, fiber optic will likely not be extended to businesses or new homes, and fiber optic to older homes was apparently not part of the original plan.
If the additional funding isn’t granted, what’s MI-Connection’s “Plan B”? Well, at least as of a couple weeks ago, there isn’t one.
Some have suggested that we could simply sell the cable system. But, going back to the house analogy, once you’ve stepped foot through the front door, you can’t “un-discover” what you’ve discovered. Now that we own a dilapidated cable system – and the veil of “bankruptcy-court secrecy” has been lifted – the entire community is aware of the cable system’s shape, and arguably no one in their right mind would buy it in its current condition for the same price we paid for it.
Taking it a step further, it’s been suggested that the towns could “flip” the system, basically fixing it up to the point that it could sell and potentially bring in a profit. But flipping requires an investment. The towns would still have to sink additional money into the system in order to bring it up to market value … just to make our money back.
But there is some good news, according to a recent MI-Connection press release and the company’s April 2008 financial and statistical reporting package. MI-Connection is making money and recently added 37 new channels, free of charge, to its subscribers, although not all subscribers received all 37 channels. Also, customers who call for service are waiting on the phone for shorter periods of time, and many subscribers are reporting faster Internet connection speeds.
MI-Connection ended the month of April with 16,399 subscribers, representing a net gain of 573 subscribers since December … but a net loss of 203 subscribers since March 31. Also at the end of April, MI-Connection had 136 pending installations … and 127 pending disconnections.
How Mooresville commissioners will vote regarding the additional $12.5 million is anyone’s guess.
When the board voted on the original $80 million acquisition of the cable system, three voted for it – Frank Rader, Mac Herring and Chris Carney – while three voted against it – Mitch Abraham, Thurman Houston and Danny Beaver. Mayor Bill Thunberg broke the tie by voting for the $80 million “investment.”
Miles Atkins won Beaver’s seat in November 2007 and was sworn into office a month later, after the original cable vote. But the only time that the cable deal has been brought up publicly since he took office, Atkins voted against it.
Rader and Herring will very likely vote to provide the additional $12.5 million. Houston and Atkins will likely vote against it. Carney and Abraham are the “wild cards.”
Some members of the town board have adopted a behind-the-scenes directive to “protect the mayor” from having to break a tie. It stands to reason, then, that they may be particularly wary about putting the mayor in the position to break another tie regarding cable.
If Abraham is consistent with his “no” vote and Carney is consistent with his “yes” vote, the mayor will have to break a tie again.
But Carney says he is not in favor of providing the additional $12.5 million until certain conditions are met. First, elected officials must not be on the MI-Connection Board of Directors. Second, the company must implement a marketing plan that reaches out to the area’s commercial developments. And third, MI-Connection must hire a business manager to serve as a liaison between the company, its operators (Bristol Virginia Utilities) and owners (the towns).
If Carney and Abraham join Atkins and Houston in voting against the additional $12.5 million, the measure would die. But if Carney votes against the additional funding, the squeeze is on Abraham, who voted against the original $80 million acquisition of the cable system just before he was up for re-election last November, but who could feasibly be a “closet supporter” of the cable deal … or would vote either way just to keep the mayor from having to break a tie.
We can afford to speculate. When it comes time to vote on June 2, town commissioners can’t.
At the end of the day, if the towns weren’t allowed – as part of their “due diligence” efforts – to fully investigate and inspect the cable system, then they should have simply walked away. They should not have gambled with $80 million – and now potentially $92.5 million or more – of taxpayer money based on a hunch or the “best guess” of “consultants.”
But we can’t go back and change what’s been done. We can’t “un-discover” what’s been discovered.
So far, MI-Connection promised a lot and has delivered a little. The company clearly lacks a public relations/marketing plan, and the advertising/marketing it has undertaken has been, frankly, aesthetically lacking. MI-Connection also does not have long-term market intelligence or the ability to make sound market projections beyond 2011 because the “models” used by the company assume too many variables, including growth projections and companies that could feasibly, and without regulation, overbuild.
Mooresville’s board of commissioners must decide if it truly wants to be in the cable television business – and, if any questions exist, it must decide how we can cut our losses. As AT&T is rumored to be laying fiber optic/cable in the Town of Davidson, the town board must ask itself: Is it enough that MI-Connection is keeping its head above water? With today’s technology being out-of-date tomorrow, and with the unregulated ability for other Internet service providers to overbuild and offer more for less, does MI-Connection have what it takes to stay in the game? And if so, for how long? How deep do the Town of Mooresville’s pockets need to be to play in that kind of game? And at the end of the day, is it truly worth it, or are we out of our depths?
Then, you walk inside. You look around and quickly realize that while the potential is there, tapping into that potential will take a significant amount of time, energy and money.
That’s similar to what happened when the towns of Mooresville and Davidson purchased the bankrupt Adelphia cable system.
Despite staunch objection from the public, the Town of Mooresville bonded $80 million to purchase the cable system. The Town of Davidson “co-signed” on the loan and guaranteed repayment of its portion of the cost through subscriber fees. The $80 million was supposed to pay for 10,500 subscribers and system upgrades, with extra cash flow for the first couple years. But when it came time to close on the system, the towns discovered they would actually have to pay for more than 15,000 subscribers, which ate into some of the funds earmarked for upgrades.
Now, the Town of Mooresville is between a rock and a hard place. In order to deliver the upgrades that were originally promised – which would bring the system to a level where it can compete with its market competitors and lay fiber to all businesses and new residential developments – MI-Connection is going to need about $12.5 million more. And it is expected to ask Mooresville commissioners to approve that additional funding on June 2. But first, MI-Connection representatives plan to meet with elected officials from the towns of Mooresville and Davidson tomorrow to answer questions. The meeting is scheduled for 6 p.m. in the MI-Connection office on Broad Street.
If the towns approve the additional $12.5 million, it would put MI-Connection “in the game,” making it more competitive in the video-entertainment world and helping it pave a “highway” for fiber optic to commercial and new residential developments. In other words, the additional funding would nudge MI-Connection to a point that it should be able to provide services currently offered by market competitors.
If the towns do not approve the additional $12.5 million, and the promised upgrades are not completed, the taxpayers of Mooresville and Davidson – financers of what appears to be a defunct cable television system – could be left holding the bag.
One question that has arisen is why the towns’ “due diligence,” did not uncover the 4,500 additional subscribers. Also, why didn’t it become clear through that “due diligence” – instead of after the purchase – that the system was in far worse shape than anyone realized?
Many fingers have been pointed at Time Warner, and the bankruptcy courts would not allow the towns to thoroughly inspect the cable system before purchasing it. Instead, the towns relied on the opinions of consultants who offered a “best guess” of what the system was worth. After the purchase, those consultants said the system was in worse shape than they had guessed. What’s bothersome about such an argument is that good business sense dictates that a person doesn’t buy something – especially $80 million worth of something – site unseen.
Town Finance Director Maia Setzer said she transferred more than $5 million from the $80 million in bond funds to “reimburse” Mecklenburg County and the towns of Mooresville and Davidson for their “due diligence work,” including $1.5 million for Mooresville’s earnest money deposit and $1.5 million for the “transition expenses” incurred by Bristol Virginia Utilities (operators of the cable system) and paid initially by Mooresville. The remaining $2 million, Setzer said, was for “several different vendors’ expenses, including the third-party reviews of our consultant’s numbers as required by the Local Government Commission, legal fees and the bankruptcy trustee in addition to the fees resulting from the issuance of debt.”
So, what did the $5 million in “due diligence” buy us? Basically, a video entertainment company with potential … but without enough funds, or long-term vision, to make that potential a reality.
The town attempted to sell the cable’s purchase plan to the public by touting the economic development made possible through fiber optic that MI-Connection would extend to commercial and new residential developments. But without the $12.5 million, fiber optic will likely not be extended to businesses or new homes, and fiber optic to older homes was apparently not part of the original plan.
If the additional funding isn’t granted, what’s MI-Connection’s “Plan B”? Well, at least as of a couple weeks ago, there isn’t one.
Some have suggested that we could simply sell the cable system. But, going back to the house analogy, once you’ve stepped foot through the front door, you can’t “un-discover” what you’ve discovered. Now that we own a dilapidated cable system – and the veil of “bankruptcy-court secrecy” has been lifted – the entire community is aware of the cable system’s shape, and arguably no one in their right mind would buy it in its current condition for the same price we paid for it.
Taking it a step further, it’s been suggested that the towns could “flip” the system, basically fixing it up to the point that it could sell and potentially bring in a profit. But flipping requires an investment. The towns would still have to sink additional money into the system in order to bring it up to market value … just to make our money back.
But there is some good news, according to a recent MI-Connection press release and the company’s April 2008 financial and statistical reporting package. MI-Connection is making money and recently added 37 new channels, free of charge, to its subscribers, although not all subscribers received all 37 channels. Also, customers who call for service are waiting on the phone for shorter periods of time, and many subscribers are reporting faster Internet connection speeds.
MI-Connection ended the month of April with 16,399 subscribers, representing a net gain of 573 subscribers since December … but a net loss of 203 subscribers since March 31. Also at the end of April, MI-Connection had 136 pending installations … and 127 pending disconnections.
How Mooresville commissioners will vote regarding the additional $12.5 million is anyone’s guess.
When the board voted on the original $80 million acquisition of the cable system, three voted for it – Frank Rader, Mac Herring and Chris Carney – while three voted against it – Mitch Abraham, Thurman Houston and Danny Beaver. Mayor Bill Thunberg broke the tie by voting for the $80 million “investment.”
Miles Atkins won Beaver’s seat in November 2007 and was sworn into office a month later, after the original cable vote. But the only time that the cable deal has been brought up publicly since he took office, Atkins voted against it.
Rader and Herring will very likely vote to provide the additional $12.5 million. Houston and Atkins will likely vote against it. Carney and Abraham are the “wild cards.”
Some members of the town board have adopted a behind-the-scenes directive to “protect the mayor” from having to break a tie. It stands to reason, then, that they may be particularly wary about putting the mayor in the position to break another tie regarding cable.
If Abraham is consistent with his “no” vote and Carney is consistent with his “yes” vote, the mayor will have to break a tie again.
But Carney says he is not in favor of providing the additional $12.5 million until certain conditions are met. First, elected officials must not be on the MI-Connection Board of Directors. Second, the company must implement a marketing plan that reaches out to the area’s commercial developments. And third, MI-Connection must hire a business manager to serve as a liaison between the company, its operators (Bristol Virginia Utilities) and owners (the towns).
If Carney and Abraham join Atkins and Houston in voting against the additional $12.5 million, the measure would die. But if Carney votes against the additional funding, the squeeze is on Abraham, who voted against the original $80 million acquisition of the cable system just before he was up for re-election last November, but who could feasibly be a “closet supporter” of the cable deal … or would vote either way just to keep the mayor from having to break a tie.
We can afford to speculate. When it comes time to vote on June 2, town commissioners can’t.
At the end of the day, if the towns weren’t allowed – as part of their “due diligence” efforts – to fully investigate and inspect the cable system, then they should have simply walked away. They should not have gambled with $80 million – and now potentially $92.5 million or more – of taxpayer money based on a hunch or the “best guess” of “consultants.”
But we can’t go back and change what’s been done. We can’t “un-discover” what’s been discovered.
So far, MI-Connection promised a lot and has delivered a little. The company clearly lacks a public relations/marketing plan, and the advertising/marketing it has undertaken has been, frankly, aesthetically lacking. MI-Connection also does not have long-term market intelligence or the ability to make sound market projections beyond 2011 because the “models” used by the company assume too many variables, including growth projections and companies that could feasibly, and without regulation, overbuild.
Mooresville’s board of commissioners must decide if it truly wants to be in the cable television business – and, if any questions exist, it must decide how we can cut our losses. As AT&T is rumored to be laying fiber optic/cable in the Town of Davidson, the town board must ask itself: Is it enough that MI-Connection is keeping its head above water? With today’s technology being out-of-date tomorrow, and with the unregulated ability for other Internet service providers to overbuild and offer more for less, does MI-Connection have what it takes to stay in the game? And if so, for how long? How deep do the Town of Mooresville’s pockets need to be to play in that kind of game? And at the end of the day, is it truly worth it, or are we out of our depths?
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Cable meeting scheduled for May 29
MI-Connection officials plan to meet with the towns of Mooresville and Davidson next Thursday to answer questions prior to the towns voting on an estimated additional $12.5 million for upgrades to the cable system.
The Town of Mooresville anticipates voting on the additional funding next month.
Thursday's meeting is scheduled to be held at the MI-Connection office on Broad Street, tentatively at 6 p.m.
The $12.5 million is in addition to the $80 million that the town originally borrowed to purchase the bankrupt Adelphia cable system. (See "More money needed for cable?" March 13.)
The $80 million that the Town of Mooresville bonded -- and Davidson guaranteed repayment of its share through subscriber fees -- was supposed to pay for 10,500 subscribers and system upgrades, with extra cash flow for the first couple years. But when it came time to close on the system, the towns discovered they would actually have to pay for more than 15,000 subscribers, which ate into some of the funds earmarked for upgrades.
In a nutshell, if the new cable system is going to finalize the upgrades that were originally planned and promised, it needs the additional $12.5 million to pay for them.
Stay tuned
Up next in the Report: An overview of the current state of MI-Connection and a glimpse into its future if the additional funding is provided ... and if it isn't.
The Town of Mooresville anticipates voting on the additional funding next month.
Thursday's meeting is scheduled to be held at the MI-Connection office on Broad Street, tentatively at 6 p.m.
The $12.5 million is in addition to the $80 million that the town originally borrowed to purchase the bankrupt Adelphia cable system. (See "More money needed for cable?" March 13.)
The $80 million that the Town of Mooresville bonded -- and Davidson guaranteed repayment of its share through subscriber fees -- was supposed to pay for 10,500 subscribers and system upgrades, with extra cash flow for the first couple years. But when it came time to close on the system, the towns discovered they would actually have to pay for more than 15,000 subscribers, which ate into some of the funds earmarked for upgrades.
In a nutshell, if the new cable system is going to finalize the upgrades that were originally planned and promised, it needs the additional $12.5 million to pay for them.
Stay tuned
Up next in the Report: An overview of the current state of MI-Connection and a glimpse into its future if the additional funding is provided ... and if it isn't.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Public Comments. Period.
Mooresville’s town board reserves 30 minutes at the beginning of every regular monthly meeting for public comments – and, if necessary, an additional 30 minutes at the meeting’s end.
But many of the “rights” granted to the people by the town’s public comment policy – revised most recently in December 2005 – are determined and divvied out at the discretion of the town’s sitting mayor. The policy – and the way Mayor Bill Thunberg interpreted it at the town board meeting earlier this month – was recently the topic of spirited debate among and between Report readers. (See the Comments section, “Resolution passes 4-2,” May 6.)
One commenter, DocW, posed a challenge to other posters: “There is not many meeting I miss, and strangely enough, the number of people talking in the public comments is low, as usually the crowd is, unless there’s one big topic, then they leave afterwards … come on out to a meeting, and speak up and be heard!! There’s plenty of room in the board room.
“Last I knew,” DocW continued, “it was your meeting and you have three minutes to voice your opinions.”
But Mooresville resident Rhett Dusenbury, who signed up to address commissioners immediately before the May 5 town board meeting, didn’t appear to leave the meeting with the same rosy impression.
Dusenbury was allowed to speak at the meeting – four hours after everyone else who had signed up to speak. All the other speakers were allowed to address the board during the meeting’s public comment period at 6 p.m. Thunberg told Dusenbury, however, that he would have to wait to speak until commissioners considered the agenda item about which Dusenbury had signed up to speak … which ended up being around 10 p.m.
On the surface, the argument could be made that Thunberg was being “considerate” of both the speaker and the board by allowing Dusenbury to speak just before a vote on the subject, ensuring the content of his remarks was still fresh on the commissioners’ minds.
On the other hand, the question is why Dusenbury wasn’t allowed to speak, along with the other members of the public, during the town’s prescribed time for public comments at 6 p.m.
N.C. General Statute 160A-81.1 requires the town to hold a public comment period at least once a month and allows the town to adopt “reasonable rules” to govern those periods. The law (below) does not provide a “reasonable rule” for governing comments based on subject matter.
The council shall provide at least one period for public comment per month at a regular meeting of the council. The council may adopt reasonable rules governing the conduct of the public comment period, including, but not limited to, rules (i) fixing the maximum time allotted to each speaker, (ii) providing for the designation of spokesmen for groups of persons supporting or opposing the same positions, (iii) providing for the selection of delegates from groups of persons supporting or opposing the same positions when the number of persons wishing to attend the hearing exceeds the capacity of the hall, and (iv) providing for the maintenance of order and decorum in the conduct of the hearing. The council is not required to provide a public comment period under this section if no regular meeting is held during the month. (2005‑170, s. 3.)
Dusenbury was adhering to what he believed was town policy when he provided on the public comment sign-up sheet his name, address and the subject about which he wished to address the board. That subject, Dusenbury said, was “limiting the mayor’s powers of office to protect the public.” More specifically, he wished to speak about the then-pending resolution to limit the mayor’s authority to sign documents on the town’s behalf – a measure that was passed by a 4-2 vote later that evening. (See “Resolution passes 4-2,” May 6.)
Dusenbury was sixth on the list of people who signed up to speak during the public comment period that evening, and he was the only one who listed the resolution as his subject matter. As Dusenbury approached the podium when it was his turn to speak, the mayor stopped him and said that since his comments were related to an item on the town board agenda, he would have to wait to speak until that item came up for town board discussion.
Dusenbury – who frequently attends town board meetings and has addressed the board in the past (oftentimes disapprovingly) – said he was “surprised” when the mayor did not allow him to speak during the public comment period. He said he’s always believed that the public comment segment of the board meeting was for just that – public comments – “and it was your three minutes to voice your comments, even if they are irrelevant to the agenda items.”
Thunberg’s actions left Dusenbury wondering if the reason the mayor moved him to 10 p.m. was so that fewer people would be present to listen to his remarks, especially considering the subject matter. Dusenbury estimated that 100 people were at the meeting during the public comment period at 6 p.m. while only about 10 were in attendance at 10 p.m. when the mayor finally allowed him to speak.
Though we may never know Thunberg’s true intent in removing Dusenbury from the public comment period, the situation raises serious concerns regarding the town’s public comment policy and the willingness of the mayor to use his “discretion” fairly and for all citizens – including those who are critical of the mayor himself.
One concern is that the mayor can apparently be selective in who he allows to speak during what part of the meeting, which could easily discourage citizens from exercising their right to be heard. Take Dusenbury, for example: He had other business to tend to the Monday night of the town board meeting. It so happened that on that particular evening he was able to leave and return in time to address the board when the agenda item for the resolution came up for discussion. But not every citizen can wait until 10 p.m. to address the board – and neither should they have to.
Town board meetings are held monthly for our elected officials to conduct our business. People who wish to address the board did not run for public office and should not be expected to sit through a four-hour meeting before being “allowed” to speak. Citizens have conveniently been conditioned by our government to think that we are “beneath” the government -- when, in fact, we are the sole source of the government’s power. We elect officials to office, and we hold the power to remove them. A government official making a citizen wait for four hours to be heard is as absurd as a company employee telling the CEO that she’ll have to wait until the end of a business meeting to speak.
Further, making a citizen wait to speak at any time other than the public comment period directly contradicts the very reason the Town of Mooresville established a public comment period in the first place. The purpose of the town’s public comment policy includes this statement: “The Board of Commissioners encourages and welcomes the input of citizens at its regular monthly meetings, and in order to balance the need and desire for such citizen input with the necessity of disposing of its regular Town business during such meetings, the Board is establishing the following policy to encourage open communications with its citizens pursuant to an organized, yet flexible, procedure.”
What if Dusenbury had not provided the subject about which he wished to address the board? Would the mayor have been able to make him wait four hours to speak? (For a complete look at the town’s public comment policy, click on the documents below:)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Section No. 1 of the town’s policy states that citizens who wish to address the town board “regarding a town-related matter” are asked to contact the town clerk or manager by noon on the Monday preceding the town board meeting. Those who sign up to speak in advance “are requested to give their names, addresses and subject matter upon which they wish to speak,” the policy reads. “Failure to provide the information requested may result in delaying the public comment until the requested information is provided.”
Section No. 2 of the policy refers to citizens who, like Dusenbury, did not sign up in advance to speak at the meeting. “Regardless of whether a citizen has requested to speak prior to the regular meeting,” that section states, “ a sign-up sheet for speakers requesting to address the Board at its regular meeting will be placed at the front door of the Board meeting room prior to the said meeting.”
The sign-up sheet has a space for the speaker to list his/her name, address and subject matter – but it does not indicate that providing that information is optional. (Click on the document to see a larger version:)
.JPG)
Asking speakers to provide their name and residency is a given – though, specific to residency, elected officials have been known to dismiss a speaker’s comments if s/he does not live within the city limits … even if that person is connected to town services. But what is the purpose in the asking for a speaker’s subject matter? Further, why would I, and citizens like me, suspect that one possible reason that the government asks for that information is to penalize and/or punish its possible detractors?
Those questions unfortunately catapulted me back to a dark, foreboding time in Mooresville’s history.
Rewind to 2002. Bill Thunberg – at the time a member of the Mooresville Graded School District Board of Education – wrote a letter to the editor of the Mooresville Tribune, published Nov. 20, 2002, following the Tribune’s painful report of what had transpired at a town board meeting when our government denied a local resident the opportunity to speak.
In his letter, Thunberg stated that “the First Amendment right of free speech is not absolute.” (Read the complete letter by clicking on it below:)
.jpg)
Beth Sherrill is the woman who was denied her right to speak by the 2002 town board. Although Sherrill does not live inside town limits, she is nevertheless connected to the town’s sewer system and pays double-rates for municipal sewer services. She had addressed the board at its September and October 2002 meetings about the double rates charged to her and other municipal water/sewer customers who live outside town limits and about specific conflicts of interest that certain town officials had. In the meantime, she had been asking questions of town staff about a $30,000 outstanding water bill owed to the town by developers of the sprawling Morrison Plantation development west of Mooresville.
When Sherrill asked Town Clerk Janet Pope to include her on the November 2002 town board agenda, Pope responded that the mayor (Al Jones), who was out of town, would first have to grant permission for Sherrill to speak. Pope also asked for the subject about which Sherrill wished to speak. Sherrill did not respond, assuming the elected leaders would know her subject matter since she had addressed them at the two prior board meetings.
In the days before the November meeting, Pope said that Sherrill would be denied the opportunity to speak to the board because she did not provide a subject matter and because the town board was "tired of hearing from her."
"We’ve heard her twice, and she doesn’t stick to the subject," Pope said. "It's a closed subject. It's a dead issue." ("Board says it’s tired of hearing from local resident," Mooresville Tribune, Nov. 1, 2002).
Sherrill attended the November meeting anyway. Shortly after it was called to order, she stood to note for the record that she wished to address the board but was being denied the right to do so. She also asked town board members to indicate by a show of hands if they had participated in denying her the right to speak.
Not a single elected official raised a hand or offered a response. But Sherrill did receive a response from two Mooresville police officers. “As she rose,” noted the Nov. 8 2002 Tribune editorial to which Thunberg was responding in his Nov. 20 letter to the editor, “two police officers in the meeting chamber began to slowly walk toward her, an implicit threat because the officers were armed with the ability to arrest.
“It was a display of the outright hostility toward the people that moves our local government,” read the editorial. “It was a moment that captured, sadly, an essential truth about government in Mooresville: Our leaders have alienated themselves from the people, the sole source of their authority.” (To read the entire editorial, click on the document below:)
Thunberg, who had several friends in local government at that time, was clearly angered by the content of the editorial, as evidenced by the letter to the editor that he authored in response to it. In his letter, not only did he attack the local press, but he made plain his feelings about the people’s First Amendment right to free speech, and he stated in no uncertain terms how he feels about Sherrill and other southern Iredell County residents who do not live inside town limits but who still help foot the municipal bills – at double the rate that Mooresville “citizens” pay for the services.
“Mrs. Sherrill is not a citizen of Mooresville,” stated Thunberg. “The town of Mooresville provides water treatment service to her property outside the city limits using the tax money paid by the citizens of Mooresville. She, as a consideration for the goodwill of the tax-paying citizens of Mooresville, should be required to pay more for that service.”
Our future mayor went on to liken the local media – specifically, the Mooresville Tribune – to Socialists and to suggest that we, the people, can “wad the paper up and throw it in the trash” or “wrap fish with it.”
“Just because it is well written and articulate doesn’t mean it’s the truth, or that we have to believe it, subscribe to it or advertise in it,” Thunberg wrote.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, those are the sentiments of our mayor – the same person to whom the town’s public comment policy grants the job of identifying speakers as “having the right to be heard” – the same person who has the sole discretion to “modify” that policy “from time to time, in order to accomplish the purpose” of the policy, which, as stated, is “open communication” – the same person to whom our policy grants the power to establish the order of speakers, and thereby pick and choose who is allowed to speak at 6 p.m. … and who will wait until 10 p.m. – the same person to whom our policy grants the authority to extend the established three-minute time limit for speakers as he, the mayor, “deems reasonably appropriate in order to foster and promote the opportunity for citizen speakers to have open and full access to address the board” – and the same person who has the discretion, per our policy, to determine “the total time available for citizen speakers … based upon the anticipated length of the meeting …”
Is it any wonder that some citizens would be suspicious about this particular mayor having sole discretion over the town’s public comment policy – a policy that was born from the federal lawsuit that Beth Sherrill herself filed against the town after it denied her the opportunity to be heard?
Sherrill summed it up best in her own letter to the Tribune’s editor, published on Sept. 5, 2003 – 10 months after Thunberg’s letter was published and two months before he sought re-election to the Mooresville Graded School District Board of Education.
Responding to Thunberg’s 2002 letter, Sherrill stated: “Mr. Thunberg felt so strongly that I should not have been allowed to speak that in a single sitting, he managed to use the terms ‘Socialist agenda,’ ‘club rhetorical,’ ‘adolescent,’ ‘mundane,’ ‘demeaning,’ ‘self-righteous,’ ‘bias against our society,’ (and) ‘antiglobalist’. Mr. Thunberg’s letter insinuated that the Tribune and/or its writers were anti-capitalist, anti-democratic, dishonorable, unfair, inaccurate, untruthful and that they ‘don’t like Mooresville’ and allow ‘no room for God.’
“All of this harsh terminology, presumably because the local newspaper had dared to stand up for the First Amendment of a Constitution which we expect Mr. Thunberg to uphold as a school board member and role model for our children,” Sherrill continued. “Mr. Thunberg appears more interested in abusing his leadership roles than in serving those he is supposed to be serving.” (Read Sherrill’s entire letter by clicking on the document below:)
.jpg)
Incidentally, Thunberg was not re-elected to the school board that year.
But two years and many thousands of campaign dollars from developers later – and after dropping many hundreds of dollars in the “Fish Wrap’s” coffers for large, colorful campaign ads, then somehow securing the newspaper’s endorsement – Thunberg won his first bid as Mooresville’s mayor. In 2007, with significantly less campaign money but, ironically, yet another Tribune endorsement under his belt, Thunberg won another term as mayor … but by far fewer votes than in 2005 and against a political newcomer. Thunberg’s current term expires in November 2009.
But many of the “rights” granted to the people by the town’s public comment policy – revised most recently in December 2005 – are determined and divvied out at the discretion of the town’s sitting mayor. The policy – and the way Mayor Bill Thunberg interpreted it at the town board meeting earlier this month – was recently the topic of spirited debate among and between Report readers. (See the Comments section, “Resolution passes 4-2,” May 6.)
One commenter, DocW, posed a challenge to other posters: “There is not many meeting I miss, and strangely enough, the number of people talking in the public comments is low, as usually the crowd is, unless there’s one big topic, then they leave afterwards … come on out to a meeting, and speak up and be heard!! There’s plenty of room in the board room.
“Last I knew,” DocW continued, “it was your meeting and you have three minutes to voice your opinions.”
But Mooresville resident Rhett Dusenbury, who signed up to address commissioners immediately before the May 5 town board meeting, didn’t appear to leave the meeting with the same rosy impression.
Dusenbury was allowed to speak at the meeting – four hours after everyone else who had signed up to speak. All the other speakers were allowed to address the board during the meeting’s public comment period at 6 p.m. Thunberg told Dusenbury, however, that he would have to wait to speak until commissioners considered the agenda item about which Dusenbury had signed up to speak … which ended up being around 10 p.m.
On the surface, the argument could be made that Thunberg was being “considerate” of both the speaker and the board by allowing Dusenbury to speak just before a vote on the subject, ensuring the content of his remarks was still fresh on the commissioners’ minds.
On the other hand, the question is why Dusenbury wasn’t allowed to speak, along with the other members of the public, during the town’s prescribed time for public comments at 6 p.m.
N.C. General Statute 160A-81.1 requires the town to hold a public comment period at least once a month and allows the town to adopt “reasonable rules” to govern those periods. The law (below) does not provide a “reasonable rule” for governing comments based on subject matter.
The council shall provide at least one period for public comment per month at a regular meeting of the council. The council may adopt reasonable rules governing the conduct of the public comment period, including, but not limited to, rules (i) fixing the maximum time allotted to each speaker, (ii) providing for the designation of spokesmen for groups of persons supporting or opposing the same positions, (iii) providing for the selection of delegates from groups of persons supporting or opposing the same positions when the number of persons wishing to attend the hearing exceeds the capacity of the hall, and (iv) providing for the maintenance of order and decorum in the conduct of the hearing. The council is not required to provide a public comment period under this section if no regular meeting is held during the month. (2005‑170, s. 3.)
Dusenbury was adhering to what he believed was town policy when he provided on the public comment sign-up sheet his name, address and the subject about which he wished to address the board. That subject, Dusenbury said, was “limiting the mayor’s powers of office to protect the public.” More specifically, he wished to speak about the then-pending resolution to limit the mayor’s authority to sign documents on the town’s behalf – a measure that was passed by a 4-2 vote later that evening. (See “Resolution passes 4-2,” May 6.)
Dusenbury was sixth on the list of people who signed up to speak during the public comment period that evening, and he was the only one who listed the resolution as his subject matter. As Dusenbury approached the podium when it was his turn to speak, the mayor stopped him and said that since his comments were related to an item on the town board agenda, he would have to wait to speak until that item came up for town board discussion.
Dusenbury – who frequently attends town board meetings and has addressed the board in the past (oftentimes disapprovingly) – said he was “surprised” when the mayor did not allow him to speak during the public comment period. He said he’s always believed that the public comment segment of the board meeting was for just that – public comments – “and it was your three minutes to voice your comments, even if they are irrelevant to the agenda items.”
Thunberg’s actions left Dusenbury wondering if the reason the mayor moved him to 10 p.m. was so that fewer people would be present to listen to his remarks, especially considering the subject matter. Dusenbury estimated that 100 people were at the meeting during the public comment period at 6 p.m. while only about 10 were in attendance at 10 p.m. when the mayor finally allowed him to speak.
Though we may never know Thunberg’s true intent in removing Dusenbury from the public comment period, the situation raises serious concerns regarding the town’s public comment policy and the willingness of the mayor to use his “discretion” fairly and for all citizens – including those who are critical of the mayor himself.
One concern is that the mayor can apparently be selective in who he allows to speak during what part of the meeting, which could easily discourage citizens from exercising their right to be heard. Take Dusenbury, for example: He had other business to tend to the Monday night of the town board meeting. It so happened that on that particular evening he was able to leave and return in time to address the board when the agenda item for the resolution came up for discussion. But not every citizen can wait until 10 p.m. to address the board – and neither should they have to.
Town board meetings are held monthly for our elected officials to conduct our business. People who wish to address the board did not run for public office and should not be expected to sit through a four-hour meeting before being “allowed” to speak. Citizens have conveniently been conditioned by our government to think that we are “beneath” the government -- when, in fact, we are the sole source of the government’s power. We elect officials to office, and we hold the power to remove them. A government official making a citizen wait for four hours to be heard is as absurd as a company employee telling the CEO that she’ll have to wait until the end of a business meeting to speak.
Further, making a citizen wait to speak at any time other than the public comment period directly contradicts the very reason the Town of Mooresville established a public comment period in the first place. The purpose of the town’s public comment policy includes this statement: “The Board of Commissioners encourages and welcomes the input of citizens at its regular monthly meetings, and in order to balance the need and desire for such citizen input with the necessity of disposing of its regular Town business during such meetings, the Board is establishing the following policy to encourage open communications with its citizens pursuant to an organized, yet flexible, procedure.”
What if Dusenbury had not provided the subject about which he wished to address the board? Would the mayor have been able to make him wait four hours to speak? (For a complete look at the town’s public comment policy, click on the documents below:)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Section No. 1 of the town’s policy states that citizens who wish to address the town board “regarding a town-related matter” are asked to contact the town clerk or manager by noon on the Monday preceding the town board meeting. Those who sign up to speak in advance “are requested to give their names, addresses and subject matter upon which they wish to speak,” the policy reads. “Failure to provide the information requested may result in delaying the public comment until the requested information is provided.”
Section No. 2 of the policy refers to citizens who, like Dusenbury, did not sign up in advance to speak at the meeting. “Regardless of whether a citizen has requested to speak prior to the regular meeting,” that section states, “ a sign-up sheet for speakers requesting to address the Board at its regular meeting will be placed at the front door of the Board meeting room prior to the said meeting.”
The sign-up sheet has a space for the speaker to list his/her name, address and subject matter – but it does not indicate that providing that information is optional. (Click on the document to see a larger version:)
.JPG)
Asking speakers to provide their name and residency is a given – though, specific to residency, elected officials have been known to dismiss a speaker’s comments if s/he does not live within the city limits … even if that person is connected to town services. But what is the purpose in the asking for a speaker’s subject matter? Further, why would I, and citizens like me, suspect that one possible reason that the government asks for that information is to penalize and/or punish its possible detractors?
Those questions unfortunately catapulted me back to a dark, foreboding time in Mooresville’s history.
Rewind to 2002. Bill Thunberg – at the time a member of the Mooresville Graded School District Board of Education – wrote a letter to the editor of the Mooresville Tribune, published Nov. 20, 2002, following the Tribune’s painful report of what had transpired at a town board meeting when our government denied a local resident the opportunity to speak.
In his letter, Thunberg stated that “the First Amendment right of free speech is not absolute.” (Read the complete letter by clicking on it below:)
.jpg)
Beth Sherrill is the woman who was denied her right to speak by the 2002 town board. Although Sherrill does not live inside town limits, she is nevertheless connected to the town’s sewer system and pays double-rates for municipal sewer services. She had addressed the board at its September and October 2002 meetings about the double rates charged to her and other municipal water/sewer customers who live outside town limits and about specific conflicts of interest that certain town officials had. In the meantime, she had been asking questions of town staff about a $30,000 outstanding water bill owed to the town by developers of the sprawling Morrison Plantation development west of Mooresville.
When Sherrill asked Town Clerk Janet Pope to include her on the November 2002 town board agenda, Pope responded that the mayor (Al Jones), who was out of town, would first have to grant permission for Sherrill to speak. Pope also asked for the subject about which Sherrill wished to speak. Sherrill did not respond, assuming the elected leaders would know her subject matter since she had addressed them at the two prior board meetings.
In the days before the November meeting, Pope said that Sherrill would be denied the opportunity to speak to the board because she did not provide a subject matter and because the town board was "tired of hearing from her."
"We’ve heard her twice, and she doesn’t stick to the subject," Pope said. "It's a closed subject. It's a dead issue." ("Board says it’s tired of hearing from local resident," Mooresville Tribune, Nov. 1, 2002).
Sherrill attended the November meeting anyway. Shortly after it was called to order, she stood to note for the record that she wished to address the board but was being denied the right to do so. She also asked town board members to indicate by a show of hands if they had participated in denying her the right to speak.
Not a single elected official raised a hand or offered a response. But Sherrill did receive a response from two Mooresville police officers. “As she rose,” noted the Nov. 8 2002 Tribune editorial to which Thunberg was responding in his Nov. 20 letter to the editor, “two police officers in the meeting chamber began to slowly walk toward her, an implicit threat because the officers were armed with the ability to arrest.
“It was a display of the outright hostility toward the people that moves our local government,” read the editorial. “It was a moment that captured, sadly, an essential truth about government in Mooresville: Our leaders have alienated themselves from the people, the sole source of their authority.” (To read the entire editorial, click on the document below:)
Thunberg, who had several friends in local government at that time, was clearly angered by the content of the editorial, as evidenced by the letter to the editor that he authored in response to it. In his letter, not only did he attack the local press, but he made plain his feelings about the people’s First Amendment right to free speech, and he stated in no uncertain terms how he feels about Sherrill and other southern Iredell County residents who do not live inside town limits but who still help foot the municipal bills – at double the rate that Mooresville “citizens” pay for the services.
“Mrs. Sherrill is not a citizen of Mooresville,” stated Thunberg. “The town of Mooresville provides water treatment service to her property outside the city limits using the tax money paid by the citizens of Mooresville. She, as a consideration for the goodwill of the tax-paying citizens of Mooresville, should be required to pay more for that service.”
Our future mayor went on to liken the local media – specifically, the Mooresville Tribune – to Socialists and to suggest that we, the people, can “wad the paper up and throw it in the trash” or “wrap fish with it.”
“Just because it is well written and articulate doesn’t mean it’s the truth, or that we have to believe it, subscribe to it or advertise in it,” Thunberg wrote.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, those are the sentiments of our mayor – the same person to whom the town’s public comment policy grants the job of identifying speakers as “having the right to be heard” – the same person who has the sole discretion to “modify” that policy “from time to time, in order to accomplish the purpose” of the policy, which, as stated, is “open communication” – the same person to whom our policy grants the power to establish the order of speakers, and thereby pick and choose who is allowed to speak at 6 p.m. … and who will wait until 10 p.m. – the same person to whom our policy grants the authority to extend the established three-minute time limit for speakers as he, the mayor, “deems reasonably appropriate in order to foster and promote the opportunity for citizen speakers to have open and full access to address the board” – and the same person who has the discretion, per our policy, to determine “the total time available for citizen speakers … based upon the anticipated length of the meeting …”
Is it any wonder that some citizens would be suspicious about this particular mayor having sole discretion over the town’s public comment policy – a policy that was born from the federal lawsuit that Beth Sherrill herself filed against the town after it denied her the opportunity to be heard?
Sherrill summed it up best in her own letter to the Tribune’s editor, published on Sept. 5, 2003 – 10 months after Thunberg’s letter was published and two months before he sought re-election to the Mooresville Graded School District Board of Education.
Responding to Thunberg’s 2002 letter, Sherrill stated: “Mr. Thunberg felt so strongly that I should not have been allowed to speak that in a single sitting, he managed to use the terms ‘Socialist agenda,’ ‘club rhetorical,’ ‘adolescent,’ ‘mundane,’ ‘demeaning,’ ‘self-righteous,’ ‘bias against our society,’ (and) ‘antiglobalist’. Mr. Thunberg’s letter insinuated that the Tribune and/or its writers were anti-capitalist, anti-democratic, dishonorable, unfair, inaccurate, untruthful and that they ‘don’t like Mooresville’ and allow ‘no room for God.’
“All of this harsh terminology, presumably because the local newspaper had dared to stand up for the First Amendment of a Constitution which we expect Mr. Thunberg to uphold as a school board member and role model for our children,” Sherrill continued. “Mr. Thunberg appears more interested in abusing his leadership roles than in serving those he is supposed to be serving.” (Read Sherrill’s entire letter by clicking on the document below:)
.jpg)
Incidentally, Thunberg was not re-elected to the school board that year.
But two years and many thousands of campaign dollars from developers later – and after dropping many hundreds of dollars in the “Fish Wrap’s” coffers for large, colorful campaign ads, then somehow securing the newspaper’s endorsement – Thunberg won his first bid as Mooresville’s mayor. In 2007, with significantly less campaign money but, ironically, yet another Tribune endorsement under his belt, Thunberg won another term as mayor … but by far fewer votes than in 2005 and against a political newcomer. Thunberg’s current term expires in November 2009.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
From Blog to Bloc: The Report hits 10,000
I will likely never forget the moment I became “empowered.”
It was a Wednesday in 2004. That morning, the Tribune had published my first investigative article detailing the results of a financial probe that exposed what our government officials and employees were spending to “wine and dine” on the backs of Mooresville taxpayers.
I was sitting in my car in the parking lot of Town Hall, nearly in tears, knowing that I needed to look through additional files … but realizing that just beyond those doors were some of the people named in my article. Being a non-confrontational person by nature (if you can believe that), I stared at the front doors of Town Hall for what seemed like an eternity, knowing that within moments I would be face-to-face with people who, that very morning, had grown to despise me. And the thought of that, quite frankly, petrified me.
I picked up my cell phone and called a trusted friend. On the phone with that person, right there in the parking lot of Town Hall, it hit me: I own this place. I help pay the salaries of every human being who earns his or her living in this building and wears a town emblem on his or her shirt – some of whom are the very people who spent hundreds of tax dollars on New York strip and lobster while I, and others like me, ate Ramen Noodles for dinner. Why am I petrified to face them? They should be petrified to face me!
In that very moment, I became empowered. It was a life altering moment, and nothing has been the same since. My deepest hope is that others in my community will find their own source of empowerment – and that one place that they find it is right here, in this blog.
Many have been surprised to hear this, but on March 3, I sent an e-mail to only two dozen friends and family members, announcing the creation of The Gatton Report. That was it. I have not advertised or promoted the blog – short of mentioning it in conversations. I truly wanted to gauge community interest in the kind of local-government watchdog news that’s provided here.
When the blog received its 10,000th hit just over two months from the day it was launched, it became abundantly clear that the people within our community and beyond are, in fact, hungry for such information … and for the opportunity to post their questions, comments and opinions without the fear of reprisal that has regrettably permeated our town for many, many years.
Also with the 10,000th hit, I realized that the Report – created solely out of my passion and conviction to inform, educate and empower taxpayers – no longer belongs to me. It belongs to you, the community. And finally, I realized that the Report is now more than “just” a blog. It’s a bloc – a coalition, a community, a movement.
That’s when I began to think: We need something to identify our bloc – a “brand,” a slogan, a mission statement. My intent was to have all that ready for the moment the blog received its 10,000th hit. However – and I’m certainly not complaining – I didn’t expect that moment to come – and go – quite so fast. In fact, as I type, the blog has received a whopping 11,325 hits. So much for “relishing the moment.”
Though I wasn’t able to develop everything I wanted to by the actual 10,000th hit, perhaps you noticed the most recent commemorative “facelift,” featuring the Report’s new “logo within a logo,” which ties in brilliantly with one of the slogans: Your Government Watchdog News, Delivered from the Underground.
+(contrast)+(Medium).jpg)
.JPG)
What, exactly, is the “Underground”? Well, that’s you. I am simply the person offering to bring your information, concerns and grievances to the forefront and to serve as an arm between the taxpayers and our government.
A Report commenter, DocW, asked an interesting question recently when responding to a blog entry: “If a person is alone in the woods and they talk, is there any noise?” If it weren’t for you, I’d be here, behind my computer, typing to myself. Now, don’t get me wrong; I’d still be doing it. But it wouldn’t be half the fun as it is having you with me.
I have truly been humbled by the growth of this blog – and, more importantly, by the outpouring of community encouragement and support, from phone calls and e-mails to equipment donations and grassroots advertising. It is my honor to serve as a voice for our community’s growing population of active and awake citizens who expect openness, honesty and accountability from our government.
A huge thanks to each and every one of you who has made, and will continue to make, the Report such a success.
Sincerely,
Jaime
It was a Wednesday in 2004. That morning, the Tribune had published my first investigative article detailing the results of a financial probe that exposed what our government officials and employees were spending to “wine and dine” on the backs of Mooresville taxpayers.
I was sitting in my car in the parking lot of Town Hall, nearly in tears, knowing that I needed to look through additional files … but realizing that just beyond those doors were some of the people named in my article. Being a non-confrontational person by nature (if you can believe that), I stared at the front doors of Town Hall for what seemed like an eternity, knowing that within moments I would be face-to-face with people who, that very morning, had grown to despise me. And the thought of that, quite frankly, petrified me.
I picked up my cell phone and called a trusted friend. On the phone with that person, right there in the parking lot of Town Hall, it hit me: I own this place. I help pay the salaries of every human being who earns his or her living in this building and wears a town emblem on his or her shirt – some of whom are the very people who spent hundreds of tax dollars on New York strip and lobster while I, and others like me, ate Ramen Noodles for dinner. Why am I petrified to face them? They should be petrified to face me!
In that very moment, I became empowered. It was a life altering moment, and nothing has been the same since. My deepest hope is that others in my community will find their own source of empowerment – and that one place that they find it is right here, in this blog.
Many have been surprised to hear this, but on March 3, I sent an e-mail to only two dozen friends and family members, announcing the creation of The Gatton Report. That was it. I have not advertised or promoted the blog – short of mentioning it in conversations. I truly wanted to gauge community interest in the kind of local-government watchdog news that’s provided here.
When the blog received its 10,000th hit just over two months from the day it was launched, it became abundantly clear that the people within our community and beyond are, in fact, hungry for such information … and for the opportunity to post their questions, comments and opinions without the fear of reprisal that has regrettably permeated our town for many, many years.
Also with the 10,000th hit, I realized that the Report – created solely out of my passion and conviction to inform, educate and empower taxpayers – no longer belongs to me. It belongs to you, the community. And finally, I realized that the Report is now more than “just” a blog. It’s a bloc – a coalition, a community, a movement.
That’s when I began to think: We need something to identify our bloc – a “brand,” a slogan, a mission statement. My intent was to have all that ready for the moment the blog received its 10,000th hit. However – and I’m certainly not complaining – I didn’t expect that moment to come – and go – quite so fast. In fact, as I type, the blog has received a whopping 11,325 hits. So much for “relishing the moment.”
Though I wasn’t able to develop everything I wanted to by the actual 10,000th hit, perhaps you noticed the most recent commemorative “facelift,” featuring the Report’s new “logo within a logo,” which ties in brilliantly with one of the slogans: Your Government Watchdog News, Delivered from the Underground.
+(contrast)+(Medium).jpg)
.JPG)
What, exactly, is the “Underground”? Well, that’s you. I am simply the person offering to bring your information, concerns and grievances to the forefront and to serve as an arm between the taxpayers and our government.
A Report commenter, DocW, asked an interesting question recently when responding to a blog entry: “If a person is alone in the woods and they talk, is there any noise?” If it weren’t for you, I’d be here, behind my computer, typing to myself. Now, don’t get me wrong; I’d still be doing it. But it wouldn’t be half the fun as it is having you with me.
I have truly been humbled by the growth of this blog – and, more importantly, by the outpouring of community encouragement and support, from phone calls and e-mails to equipment donations and grassroots advertising. It is my honor to serve as a voice for our community’s growing population of active and awake citizens who expect openness, honesty and accountability from our government.
A huge thanks to each and every one of you who has made, and will continue to make, the Report such a success.
Sincerely,
Jaime
Saturday, May 10, 2008
"They had their say ... now we have ours": Erskine Smith/Town Voice
“They had their say … now we have ours” is a collaborative column that will appear periodically in the Report, offering a critical analysis of a comment made publicly by a government official or employee. If you would like to participate in a collaborative column, send me an e-mail, including the comment (it must have been made publicly) and sound reasoning for why you took issue with it. If it’s something I think we can develop, we’ll work together via e-mail on writing the column. Readers whose viewpoints are eventually printed, as always, have the option of remaining anonymous.
***
“Dissent is the highest form of patriotism”
(Howard Zinn, often attributed to Thomas Jefferson)
(Howard Zinn, often attributed to Thomas Jefferson)
After reading the section in May’s Town Voice titled “From the Office of the Town Manager,” I sat in disbelief over what I had just witnessed.
I had witnessed the desperate grasping of a public official (Interim Town Manager Erskine Smith), under fire, attempt to free himself from the watchful eyes of the community by shamelessly using the memory of a remarkable young man to disseminate his frustrations against his detractors.
And I had witnessed the blatant abuse of power by this man when he gave himself permission to use public resources to vent his anger and frustration – for surely the silencing of public dissent is not included in his job description and substantial salary.
In his letter to the citizens of Mooresville, Smith began by recounting the untimely and tragic death of a young man in our community, Griff Lyerly, and by reminding us of the majestic words of Marc McClure, one of Griff’s professors.
Unfortunately for us and for Smith, he did not stop there. He went on to conspicuously transplant these ominous words into an otherwise seemingly loving and compassionate piece: “Many men and women have given of themselves to strengthen, serve and protect Mooresville from forces of negativism, intolerance and doubt.”
Smith failed to expound further on these “forces of negativism, intolerance and doubt,” and he failed to tell us who the “men and women” are who, according to him, are valiantly “protecting” us against such menacing forces.
We can only assume that the “forces of negativism” to which Smith refers include the Report and its many readers and supporters, as well as any local activists and outspoken citizens in our community. This assumption is bolstered by the fact that Smith’s name has appeared in various exposé pieces, the most recent being his involvement in a questionable $237,000 “commission” given to his lifelong friend, Jimmy McKnight.
Smith’s vitriolic, unfortunate and awkwardly placed statement was clearly aimed at those who would dare question him and his actions. And it was specifically designed to attempt to squelch opposition and dissent by local citizens and free him from the firm grasp of scrutiny and accountability.
It stands to reason that Smith would like nothing more than for everyone in this community to remain “positive” and “tolerant” as he goes about his business comfortably and without being scrutinized, questioned and exposed. Unfortunately for him, that scenario is not likely to happen, and his wishful thinking has not materialized since the Pandora’s Box was first opened several years ago.
Perhaps most disturbing is an attempt, however subliminal, by Smith to domesticate and indoctrinate the young minds of our community, falsely insinuating to them that a “good citizen” is a quiet and obedient one, even when faced with public officials behaving in self-interest rather than in the interest of their community.
While from one side of his mouth Smith scolds dissenters, from the other side of his mouth he claims to “encourage all citizens to get involved and make Mooresville a better place.” The caveat, we assume, is that we are only invited to “get involved” if we agree to remain quiet about his and other public officials’ misconduct.
For is Smith not in fact telling us that we can only “better” this community if we remain silent to that which is unjust, unfair and improper? Is he not telling us that for us to be better citizens, we must remain tolerant, for example, of his giving away one-quarter-of-a-million dollars of our tax money to his childhood friend, McKnight? Is he not telling us that doubting and questioning our local government constitute the sinister term “forces of negativism”?
Ironically, held within Professor McClure’s words were these: “But like all societies, there are counter forces within and without that seek to erode what you stand for.” It is ultimately up to us, not up to a public official under fire, to decide what our values are, what we stand for, and what exactly we consider the “counter forces” that threaten those values.
I had witnessed the desperate grasping of a public official (Interim Town Manager Erskine Smith), under fire, attempt to free himself from the watchful eyes of the community by shamelessly using the memory of a remarkable young man to disseminate his frustrations against his detractors.
And I had witnessed the blatant abuse of power by this man when he gave himself permission to use public resources to vent his anger and frustration – for surely the silencing of public dissent is not included in his job description and substantial salary.
In his letter to the citizens of Mooresville, Smith began by recounting the untimely and tragic death of a young man in our community, Griff Lyerly, and by reminding us of the majestic words of Marc McClure, one of Griff’s professors.
Unfortunately for us and for Smith, he did not stop there. He went on to conspicuously transplant these ominous words into an otherwise seemingly loving and compassionate piece: “Many men and women have given of themselves to strengthen, serve and protect Mooresville from forces of negativism, intolerance and doubt.”
Smith failed to expound further on these “forces of negativism, intolerance and doubt,” and he failed to tell us who the “men and women” are who, according to him, are valiantly “protecting” us against such menacing forces.
We can only assume that the “forces of negativism” to which Smith refers include the Report and its many readers and supporters, as well as any local activists and outspoken citizens in our community. This assumption is bolstered by the fact that Smith’s name has appeared in various exposé pieces, the most recent being his involvement in a questionable $237,000 “commission” given to his lifelong friend, Jimmy McKnight.
Smith’s vitriolic, unfortunate and awkwardly placed statement was clearly aimed at those who would dare question him and his actions. And it was specifically designed to attempt to squelch opposition and dissent by local citizens and free him from the firm grasp of scrutiny and accountability.
It stands to reason that Smith would like nothing more than for everyone in this community to remain “positive” and “tolerant” as he goes about his business comfortably and without being scrutinized, questioned and exposed. Unfortunately for him, that scenario is not likely to happen, and his wishful thinking has not materialized since the Pandora’s Box was first opened several years ago.
Perhaps most disturbing is an attempt, however subliminal, by Smith to domesticate and indoctrinate the young minds of our community, falsely insinuating to them that a “good citizen” is a quiet and obedient one, even when faced with public officials behaving in self-interest rather than in the interest of their community.
While from one side of his mouth Smith scolds dissenters, from the other side of his mouth he claims to “encourage all citizens to get involved and make Mooresville a better place.” The caveat, we assume, is that we are only invited to “get involved” if we agree to remain quiet about his and other public officials’ misconduct.
For is Smith not in fact telling us that we can only “better” this community if we remain silent to that which is unjust, unfair and improper? Is he not telling us that for us to be better citizens, we must remain tolerant, for example, of his giving away one-quarter-of-a-million dollars of our tax money to his childhood friend, McKnight? Is he not telling us that doubting and questioning our local government constitute the sinister term “forces of negativism”?
Ironically, held within Professor McClure’s words were these: “But like all societies, there are counter forces within and without that seek to erode what you stand for.” It is ultimately up to us, not up to a public official under fire, to decide what our values are, what we stand for, and what exactly we consider the “counter forces” that threaten those values.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
(First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution)
Our forefathers, in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, granted us the right to gather, protest, and question our government when it begins to go awry. There are those of us who believe that the primary duty of a “good citizen” is to be vigilant and expect accountability and honesty from the government and its officials. It is not to stroke the egos of those officials by becoming their yes-men or yes-women. It is not to become blindly loyal and unquestioning, and it is certainly not to allow our silence to be bought with political favors or worse.
At the end of the day, Erskine Smith surrendered to a deeply ingrained sense of self-indulgence and used public funds as well as Griff’s memory to espouse his own brand of good citizenship, one that would conveniently “tolerate” and presumably “trust” government, of which he is a part.
Smith’s soliloquy was a poorly veiled attempt to silence, disparage and discount his dissenters and to stop the tide of exposure that may be coming his way.
But to give the devil his due, he managed to end well with this: “The Athenians were right. Let us leave it better than we found it.”
Unfortunately for Smith, there are many in this community whose idea of leaving it better than they found it may drastically vary from that of his.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Resolution passes 4-2
Mooresville commissioners on Monday passed a resolution defining the mayor's authority to sign documents on the town's behalf.
The measure passed 4-2, with Commissioners Frank Rader and Mitch Abraham opposed. Voting in favor: Commissioner Miles Atkins, who proposed the resolution, along with Commissioners Thurman Houston, Mac Herring and Chris Carney.
The resolution came on the heels of recent Report questions about whether Mooresville Mayor Bill Thunberg operated outside of state law earlier this year when he signed release deeds, without authorization from the town board, on two pieces of property that the South Iredell Community Development Corporation (SICDC) sold in the Mooresville Business Park. (See "Did Mayor operate outside state law?" April 28.)
The resolution defines "the power of the Mayor related to the execution of documents on behalf of the Town that bind the Town contractually, that affect the indebtedness of the Town, or that releases property interests of both real and personal property held by the Town." The resolution does not, however, limit the mayor's authority to "perform those acts that are considered ministerial in nature."
Carney, who made the motion to approve the resolution at last night’s town board meeting, said his reasoning was simple: “State statutes do not give or take away the (authority) of the mayor … there is nowhere in state statutes for us to get direction,” he said. “Passing the resolution lets us address something that the current law did not address. It’s important for us to guarantee the fact that we have processes in place, and this was meant to do that.”
Carney said he believes it’s important that future town boards “look at a situation and think about it from every step of the process, from the purchase to the financing to the eventual release of deeds. And that’s the important part of why this resolution happened.”
He said that Town Attorney Steve Gambill assured commissioners last night that the resolution would not impact the town’s future economic development. Instead, said Carney, “It just puts in place something that can help us ensure that (taxpayer) money in the future will be accounted for.”
Herring said that he doesn’t believe the resolution was necessary per se, but that he voted for it in an effort to be responsive to the public. "I'm not sure that (the resolution) has a significant impact on current day-to-day operations, but I feel it likely does not, as there are no current issues we know of that this affects. Nor do I believe our current mayor had done anything illegal or underhanded. It was simply a 'loophole' that had never been plugged.
"To fix it is sort of a 'retro' thing, like plugging a hole in your old canoe now that you are using a motorboat," Herring added. "It was a vestige of a bygone day that had just run its course.
"However," he said, "I do believe this goes a long way to restoring public trust and providing assurances that we have a 'transparent and responsive' municipal government. That is why I ended up supporting it after much thoughtful discussion."
Likewise, Houston said he supported the resolution "after thoughtful discussion with others" and after realizing that the resolution would not prevent the mayor "from doing his duties."
"I decided to support this resolution because this goes a long way to restore public trust and (show) that the board of commissioners hears the citizens," he said.
Atkins said he proposed the resolution simply because he felt it was “the right thing to do.”
"Proposing a resolution that demonstrated the board's desire to promote transparency and foster public trust seemed to me the right thing to do," Atkins said. "That was the intent and what I hoped to accomplish by making this policy change."
But other commissioners apparently perceived the issue as one about personalities and power.
Abraham said he voted against the resolution not because of its content, but because of “the manner in which it came about.”
“As one of the commissioners said last night, this was a knee-jerk reaction to a unique situation that more than probably will never occur again," Abraham said in an e-mail to the Report this morning. "My 'no' vote was in principle to state my position against this type of reaction and not against the content!! I would hope that my 'no' vote is only construed in this manner, as that was its intent!!!
"We as board members have to trust each other and show diplomacy to each other as we are asked to work together for the best of Mooresville. This does not say that we do not disagree and get into debate on various issues, sometimes heated, but we must be very up front and open with each other as this process occurs.
"Personal agendas and showmanship aside," Abraham continued, "we must come together for the best of Mooresville, through total agreement or through compromise.
"Defining the mayor's roles in the resolution was okay and should show to the public that their electeds are in touch with them on being communicative and open,” Abraham stated, adding, however, “I personally still interpret that the statutes of the state already had us covered on the mayoral duties (authority) of that position and we would have been okay leaving the situation alone, as is."
Rader did not respond to Report e-mails today.
***
A little commentary:
In recent years, a growing number of people in the Mooresville community have been fighting to make our government more open and accountable to the people. Last night’s spirited debate – and eventual adoption of the resolution – is a huge step in the right direction.
The commissioners who voted for the resolution made a bold statement that their job is to protect the taxpayers of this town and not the office of the mayor. And while I disagree with Abraham’s reasoning in voting against the resolution, he promptly and openly explained the rationale behind his vote.
Having an open government does not mean that we must or will agree with every decision a commissioner, or our town board as a whole, makes. But when elected officials remember who they work for and keep us at the forefront of each and every decision they make – when they discuss and debate our business in front of us instead of over the phone, through their Black Berry devices (paid for by our tax dollars) or behind closed doors – when they are open and responsive to the public, regardless of whether we agree or disagree – that is open government.
The measure passed 4-2, with Commissioners Frank Rader and Mitch Abraham opposed. Voting in favor: Commissioner Miles Atkins, who proposed the resolution, along with Commissioners Thurman Houston, Mac Herring and Chris Carney.
The resolution came on the heels of recent Report questions about whether Mooresville Mayor Bill Thunberg operated outside of state law earlier this year when he signed release deeds, without authorization from the town board, on two pieces of property that the South Iredell Community Development Corporation (SICDC) sold in the Mooresville Business Park. (See "Did Mayor operate outside state law?" April 28.)
The resolution defines "the power of the Mayor related to the execution of documents on behalf of the Town that bind the Town contractually, that affect the indebtedness of the Town, or that releases property interests of both real and personal property held by the Town." The resolution does not, however, limit the mayor's authority to "perform those acts that are considered ministerial in nature."
Carney, who made the motion to approve the resolution at last night’s town board meeting, said his reasoning was simple: “State statutes do not give or take away the (authority) of the mayor … there is nowhere in state statutes for us to get direction,” he said. “Passing the resolution lets us address something that the current law did not address. It’s important for us to guarantee the fact that we have processes in place, and this was meant to do that.”
Carney said he believes it’s important that future town boards “look at a situation and think about it from every step of the process, from the purchase to the financing to the eventual release of deeds. And that’s the important part of why this resolution happened.”
He said that Town Attorney Steve Gambill assured commissioners last night that the resolution would not impact the town’s future economic development. Instead, said Carney, “It just puts in place something that can help us ensure that (taxpayer) money in the future will be accounted for.”
Herring said that he doesn’t believe the resolution was necessary per se, but that he voted for it in an effort to be responsive to the public. "I'm not sure that (the resolution) has a significant impact on current day-to-day operations, but I feel it likely does not, as there are no current issues we know of that this affects. Nor do I believe our current mayor had done anything illegal or underhanded. It was simply a 'loophole' that had never been plugged.
"To fix it is sort of a 'retro' thing, like plugging a hole in your old canoe now that you are using a motorboat," Herring added. "It was a vestige of a bygone day that had just run its course.
"However," he said, "I do believe this goes a long way to restoring public trust and providing assurances that we have a 'transparent and responsive' municipal government. That is why I ended up supporting it after much thoughtful discussion."
Likewise, Houston said he supported the resolution "after thoughtful discussion with others" and after realizing that the resolution would not prevent the mayor "from doing his duties."
"I decided to support this resolution because this goes a long way to restore public trust and (show) that the board of commissioners hears the citizens," he said.
Atkins said he proposed the resolution simply because he felt it was “the right thing to do.”
"Proposing a resolution that demonstrated the board's desire to promote transparency and foster public trust seemed to me the right thing to do," Atkins said. "That was the intent and what I hoped to accomplish by making this policy change."
But other commissioners apparently perceived the issue as one about personalities and power.
Abraham said he voted against the resolution not because of its content, but because of “the manner in which it came about.”
“As one of the commissioners said last night, this was a knee-jerk reaction to a unique situation that more than probably will never occur again," Abraham said in an e-mail to the Report this morning. "My 'no' vote was in principle to state my position against this type of reaction and not against the content!! I would hope that my 'no' vote is only construed in this manner, as that was its intent!!!
"We as board members have to trust each other and show diplomacy to each other as we are asked to work together for the best of Mooresville. This does not say that we do not disagree and get into debate on various issues, sometimes heated, but we must be very up front and open with each other as this process occurs.
"Personal agendas and showmanship aside," Abraham continued, "we must come together for the best of Mooresville, through total agreement or through compromise.
"Defining the mayor's roles in the resolution was okay and should show to the public that their electeds are in touch with them on being communicative and open,” Abraham stated, adding, however, “I personally still interpret that the statutes of the state already had us covered on the mayoral duties (authority) of that position and we would have been okay leaving the situation alone, as is."
Rader did not respond to Report e-mails today.
***
A little commentary:
In recent years, a growing number of people in the Mooresville community have been fighting to make our government more open and accountable to the people. Last night’s spirited debate – and eventual adoption of the resolution – is a huge step in the right direction.
The commissioners who voted for the resolution made a bold statement that their job is to protect the taxpayers of this town and not the office of the mayor. And while I disagree with Abraham’s reasoning in voting against the resolution, he promptly and openly explained the rationale behind his vote.
Having an open government does not mean that we must or will agree with every decision a commissioner, or our town board as a whole, makes. But when elected officials remember who they work for and keep us at the forefront of each and every decision they make – when they discuss and debate our business in front of us instead of over the phone, through their Black Berry devices (paid for by our tax dollars) or behind closed doors – when they are open and responsive to the public, regardless of whether we agree or disagree – that is open government.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Town board to discuss defining Mayor's powers
Mooresville commissioners on Monday plan to discuss a resolution that would define the mayor's authority regarding the "execution of documents on behalf of the town."
Town Attorney Steve Gambill, who provided a copy of the proposed resolution to the Report yesterday, said that At-Large Commissioner Miles Atkins had proposed the resolution and asked that it be discussed at the town board's regular monthly meeting on Monday. That meeting is scheduled for 6 p.m. in Town Hall.
The proposed resolution came on the heels of Report questions about whether Mooresville Mayor Bill Thunberg operated outside of state law earlier this year when he signed release deeds, without authorization from the town board, on two pieces of property that the South Iredell Community Development Corporation (SICDC) sold in the Mooresville Business Park. (See "Did Mayor operate outside state law?" April 28.)
The resolution, if adopted, would "define the power of the Mayor related to the execution of documents on behalf of the Town that bind the Town contractually, that affect the indebtedness of the Town, or that releases property interests of both real and personal property held by the Town."
The resolution , however, would not affect or limit the mayor's authority to "perform those acts that are considered ministerial in nature."
To read the full text of the resolution, click on the document below:
.jpg)
Town Attorney Steve Gambill, who provided a copy of the proposed resolution to the Report yesterday, said that At-Large Commissioner Miles Atkins had proposed the resolution and asked that it be discussed at the town board's regular monthly meeting on Monday. That meeting is scheduled for 6 p.m. in Town Hall.
The proposed resolution came on the heels of Report questions about whether Mooresville Mayor Bill Thunberg operated outside of state law earlier this year when he signed release deeds, without authorization from the town board, on two pieces of property that the South Iredell Community Development Corporation (SICDC) sold in the Mooresville Business Park. (See "Did Mayor operate outside state law?" April 28.)
The resolution, if adopted, would "define the power of the Mayor related to the execution of documents on behalf of the Town that bind the Town contractually, that affect the indebtedness of the Town, or that releases property interests of both real and personal property held by the Town."
The resolution , however, would not affect or limit the mayor's authority to "perform those acts that are considered ministerial in nature."
To read the full text of the resolution, click on the document below:
.jpg)
Hillary's Pit Stop in Mooresville
I just recently returned from Sen. Hillary Clinton's Get-Out-the-Vote event at Mooresville's N.C. Auto Racing Hall of Fame. It's not very often that a U.S. Presidential-hopeful comes to town. And regardless of which side of the political fence you fall on, it's more than interesting to witness such an event.
I'll be posting more photos and will write about my experience in the next day or two. In the meantime, here is Clinton with NASCAR legend Junior Johnson and N.C. Governor Mike Easley.
.JPG)
I'll be posting more photos and will write about my experience in the next day or two. In the meantime, here is Clinton with NASCAR legend Junior Johnson and N.C. Governor Mike Easley.
.JPG)
Iredell County Commissioner Ken Robertson responds to Report questions
A quick note: Ken Robertson's computer has been on the fritz, and every e-mail that I sent him with questions for the county commission candidates kept bouncing back to me. Robertson found out about our questions when a reader asked him a couple days ago why his responses had not been included on the blog. And Robertson called me that very evening, expressing interest in responding and asking me to send him a copy of the questions. All that to say that the delay in posting Robertson's responses was due to "technical difficulties" and not a disinterest in answering your questions.
Also, I did not edit your questions for content or take out any questions, even if one had already been asked by someone else. That's why you will see some of the same questions asked twice.
Here are Mooresville resident Ken Robertson's response to your questions.
1.What is your position on the CATS 83X bus line and specifically the need for the county to contribute funding to help support this service for the residents of Mooresville/South Iredell?
The county governments are not funded to provide transportation. We do not build or maintain roads. We are responsible for the schools, emergency services, DSS, and Health. The state and feds have responsibility for transportation. Because we do not have the funding, without cutting into education (50%) of our budget, we are unable to subsidize transportation at this time.
2. What proposed funding solutions do you have to address overall traffic issues in Mooresville/South Iredell?
Same answer as above. We cannot increase taxes enough to build roads. The county budget is about $150 million. The BSR road budget to widen a relatively straight and flat road was almost 50 million (give or take based upon latest estimates)......and that was just to widen one road. So as you see, the county is unable to realistically build roads out of the mess. What we can do is slow the number of residents moving into the county.
3.What is your funding solution and solutions in general for bringing commuter rail into Mooresville/South Iredell? Just as a side note, I am very tired of generic, divisive and non-definitive answers - they are no longer acceptable – we need solutions now.
In order for me to support rail, the CATS group needs to allow the fares to cover the cost. There are 150,000 residents. The CATS own projection for ridership is about 350/day. It is difficult to justify a tax increase on 150,000 people to subsidize transportation for that few.
4. What is your position on our school districts in Mooresville/Iredell County? We currently have two. Do you support keeping both districts? Why or why not?
Keep them both. I think Dr. Edwards is going to do GREAT things in the MGSD. I am VERY impressed. The ISS has made some very real improvements in test scores. So if it ain't broke.....
5. Provide your definition of quality of life for Iredell County residents. Is it different for those in Mooresville/South Iredell vs. the rest of the county?
No difference. Most people want to drive without traffic, see beautiful landscapes (farms, forests, pastures), have a variety of shopping and dining opportunities, low crime, a responsive emergency service, and EXCEPTIONAL schools.
6. Do you believe transportation issues have an impact on the quality of life for Mooresville/Iredell County residents? If so, what are your proposed solutions?
Yes they matter. Details already answered above.
7. How would you go about facilitating a more collaborative and productive working relationship with the Town of Mooresville? What you would do to ensure this is a results-driven relationship? Please be specific in your recommendations.
I think we have a very good working relationship. Although there may be party differences, I really to like and respect all the Town Board members. This is a good group.
8. Why should a resident of south Iredell vote for you? What makes you different from the existing commissioners, and how will you represent the interest of the residents of Mooresville/South Iredell?
I am willing to stand up to the out of state developers who come here build a bunch of houses, then leave us with the mess.
9. Who do you support for N.C. governor?
Pat McCrory
10. Should the County partner with other entities such as municipalities like Mooresville & Charlotte (CATS) to provide for Regional Transportation Initiatives such as Commuter Rail and 83X (Commuter Vans). Why or why not, & which is a priority?
Answered above
11. (a) Should the county release ETJ (Extra Territorial Jurisdiction) to municipalities such as Mooresville, Troutman, & Statesville so that their more "urban" planning codes can control the rapid growth, especially in southern Iredell? Why or why not?
Yes for commercial, no for residential. The county needs to adopt some of the same standards as Mooresville, but within our own system. Why can't the county have the same high standards?
11. (b) What is your position on releasing ETJ of the Highway corridors such as NC Highways 115, 21, 150, 801, 70, 90, etc so that the county's municipalities can more effectively manage the growth and traffic patterns leading to our urban centers?
I am on the HWY3 committee and supported doing exactly that.
12. How can the county best partner to meet regional recreational needs such as parks, programs, etc.? Are there effective partnering opportunities with municipalities? If so, what are they?
The problem isn't relationships or partners, the problem is MONEY. All the county's money.....now and in the future, appears to be destined to doing nothing but building new schools for children who just moved here.....and paying interest on those big bonds. If we want parks, we need money, to get money, we have to slow down the school building program, to slow down the school building program, we need fewer kids to move here.
13. Do you support the county's current 2 School system, or should the Mooresville Graded School System be eliminated and rolled into the Iredell-Statesville School System?
Already answered this one
14. What are you going to do to deal with the near gridlock traffic conditions?
That is a state function. The DOT knows my name, my signature, and they have heard me ask, beg, plead, .......you name it, we have done it.
15. How do you plan to control the rampant over-development of our area?
Change the rules for development.....have developers share the cost for new schools.......maybe leave a tree standing, that would be nice! How about adding a lane along the entire length of the property being developed.....Charlotte does that....when the road is developed....it is already 4 lanes....and YOU did not have to pay for it. That will add cost.....and that will slow it down a bit, but it will also have the folks causing the problem to help SOLVE the problem as we go instead of asking the people who have always lived here, and minded their own business, to pay to fix the mess created by overdevelopment.
16. Taxes continue to rise. Where does it stop?
The taxes will stop rising when the RATE, yes....the RATE of residential population growth slows to a level that enables all the government services to keep up. Until then, and this is a VERY hard truth to swallow........taxes will go up. So be smart, elect folks like me that will enact policies that don't "force" your commissioners to raise your taxes and claim they couldn't do anything about it.
17. What will you do to get our area our fair share of transportation dollars? (Am I the only one who wonders why there are 6-lane highways in BFE North Carolina but not in Mooresville-Davidson-Cornelius?)
Having been beaten about the head and shoulders, almost daily, for 4 years over this issue, I can honestly say there in NOTHING I as one person can do to really honestly make a difference you could see. What I can do is educate people how the system, or the process works. People come to commissioners because we are here, you can literally reach out and touch us. We don't have the FUNDING RESPONSIBILITY, but we are available to hear you, so we listen........what I can tell you is this, the Governor swings a lot of power. That is why I think McCrory is our best bet to solve the transportation issue. He has suffered with us through this transportation funding disaster. I think he will fix it. I can mislead you and tell you I can scream, pull strings, or hold my breath longer than the other commissioner candidates while demanding more money.......but that is a half truth......the whole truth can be won, and the whole truth is this battle will be won or lost on the doorstep of the governor's mansion.
Also, I did not edit your questions for content or take out any questions, even if one had already been asked by someone else. That's why you will see some of the same questions asked twice.
Here are Mooresville resident Ken Robertson's response to your questions.
1.What is your position on the CATS 83X bus line and specifically the need for the county to contribute funding to help support this service for the residents of Mooresville/South Iredell?
The county governments are not funded to provide transportation. We do not build or maintain roads. We are responsible for the schools, emergency services, DSS, and Health. The state and feds have responsibility for transportation. Because we do not have the funding, without cutting into education (50%) of our budget, we are unable to subsidize transportation at this time.
2. What proposed funding solutions do you have to address overall traffic issues in Mooresville/South Iredell?
Same answer as above. We cannot increase taxes enough to build roads. The county budget is about $150 million. The BSR road budget to widen a relatively straight and flat road was almost 50 million (give or take based upon latest estimates)......and that was just to widen one road. So as you see, the county is unable to realistically build roads out of the mess. What we can do is slow the number of residents moving into the county.
3.What is your funding solution and solutions in general for bringing commuter rail into Mooresville/South Iredell? Just as a side note, I am very tired of generic, divisive and non-definitive answers - they are no longer acceptable – we need solutions now.
In order for me to support rail, the CATS group needs to allow the fares to cover the cost. There are 150,000 residents. The CATS own projection for ridership is about 350/day. It is difficult to justify a tax increase on 150,000 people to subsidize transportation for that few.
4. What is your position on our school districts in Mooresville/Iredell County? We currently have two. Do you support keeping both districts? Why or why not?
Keep them both. I think Dr. Edwards is going to do GREAT things in the MGSD. I am VERY impressed. The ISS has made some very real improvements in test scores. So if it ain't broke.....
5. Provide your definition of quality of life for Iredell County residents. Is it different for those in Mooresville/South Iredell vs. the rest of the county?
No difference. Most people want to drive without traffic, see beautiful landscapes (farms, forests, pastures), have a variety of shopping and dining opportunities, low crime, a responsive emergency service, and EXCEPTIONAL schools.
6. Do you believe transportation issues have an impact on the quality of life for Mooresville/Iredell County residents? If so, what are your proposed solutions?
Yes they matter. Details already answered above.
7. How would you go about facilitating a more collaborative and productive working relationship with the Town of Mooresville? What you would do to ensure this is a results-driven relationship? Please be specific in your recommendations.
I think we have a very good working relationship. Although there may be party differences, I really to like and respect all the Town Board members. This is a good group.
8. Why should a resident of south Iredell vote for you? What makes you different from the existing commissioners, and how will you represent the interest of the residents of Mooresville/South Iredell?
I am willing to stand up to the out of state developers who come here build a bunch of houses, then leave us with the mess.
9. Who do you support for N.C. governor?
Pat McCrory
10. Should the County partner with other entities such as municipalities like Mooresville & Charlotte (CATS) to provide for Regional Transportation Initiatives such as Commuter Rail and 83X (Commuter Vans). Why or why not, & which is a priority?
Answered above
11. (a) Should the county release ETJ (Extra Territorial Jurisdiction) to municipalities such as Mooresville, Troutman, & Statesville so that their more "urban" planning codes can control the rapid growth, especially in southern Iredell? Why or why not?
Yes for commercial, no for residential. The county needs to adopt some of the same standards as Mooresville, but within our own system. Why can't the county have the same high standards?
11. (b) What is your position on releasing ETJ of the Highway corridors such as NC Highways 115, 21, 150, 801, 70, 90, etc so that the county's municipalities can more effectively manage the growth and traffic patterns leading to our urban centers?
I am on the HWY3 committee and supported doing exactly that.
12. How can the county best partner to meet regional recreational needs such as parks, programs, etc.? Are there effective partnering opportunities with municipalities? If so, what are they?
The problem isn't relationships or partners, the problem is MONEY. All the county's money.....now and in the future, appears to be destined to doing nothing but building new schools for children who just moved here.....and paying interest on those big bonds. If we want parks, we need money, to get money, we have to slow down the school building program, to slow down the school building program, we need fewer kids to move here.
13. Do you support the county's current 2 School system, or should the Mooresville Graded School System be eliminated and rolled into the Iredell-Statesville School System?
Already answered this one
14. What are you going to do to deal with the near gridlock traffic conditions?
That is a state function. The DOT knows my name, my signature, and they have heard me ask, beg, plead, .......you name it, we have done it.
15. How do you plan to control the rampant over-development of our area?
Change the rules for development.....have developers share the cost for new schools.......maybe leave a tree standing, that would be nice! How about adding a lane along the entire length of the property being developed.....Charlotte does that....when the road is developed....it is already 4 lanes....and YOU did not have to pay for it. That will add cost.....and that will slow it down a bit, but it will also have the folks causing the problem to help SOLVE the problem as we go instead of asking the people who have always lived here, and minded their own business, to pay to fix the mess created by overdevelopment.
16. Taxes continue to rise. Where does it stop?
The taxes will stop rising when the RATE, yes....the RATE of residential population growth slows to a level that enables all the government services to keep up. Until then, and this is a VERY hard truth to swallow........taxes will go up. So be smart, elect folks like me that will enact policies that don't "force" your commissioners to raise your taxes and claim they couldn't do anything about it.
17. What will you do to get our area our fair share of transportation dollars? (Am I the only one who wonders why there are 6-lane highways in BFE North Carolina but not in Mooresville-Davidson-Cornelius?)
Having been beaten about the head and shoulders, almost daily, for 4 years over this issue, I can honestly say there in NOTHING I as one person can do to really honestly make a difference you could see. What I can do is educate people how the system, or the process works. People come to commissioners because we are here, you can literally reach out and touch us. We don't have the FUNDING RESPONSIBILITY, but we are available to hear you, so we listen........what I can tell you is this, the Governor swings a lot of power. That is why I think McCrory is our best bet to solve the transportation issue. He has suffered with us through this transportation funding disaster. I think he will fix it. I can mislead you and tell you I can scream, pull strings, or hold my breath longer than the other commissioner candidates while demanding more money.......but that is a half truth......the whole truth can be won, and the whole truth is this battle will be won or lost on the doorstep of the governor's mansion.
NC House Candidate Grey Mills responds
1. Do you support the county’s current two-school system, or should the Mooresville Graded School System be eliminated and rolled into the Iredell-Statesville Schools System?
I strongly support the county's current two-school system. They should not be consolidated.
2. How can you help fix a “broken” NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT)? There is not adequate funding for local projects, nor for any this side of I-95 (Piedmont and Western NC)? Our “transportation infrastructure” is overburdened as it is. How will you direct NCDOT to address and prioritize our local concerns?
I would start by not allowing hundreds of millions of dollars to be taken out of the Highway Trust Fund to cover the General Fund expenditures. Over the last several years over 1 billion dollars has been siphoned off from the Highway Trust Fund. That would have paid for a lot of transportation infrastructure here and in other areas in the Piedmont and West. My opponent has voted for a budget that robbed the Highway Trust Fund of a hundred million dollars to fund non-transportation expenditures. My opponent also voted for a redistricting plan that significantly weakened Iredell County in Raleigh and made it much more difficult for our priorities to be funded.
3. How will you help insure state cooperation in storm water and water/sewer issues such as interbasin transfers and “regional” cooperative initiatives to provide necessary services for our overburdened infrastructure?
I would convene local and state government leaders into Regional groups to develop infrastructure planning. I would pay for it by using funds in the six hundred million Golden Leaf Foundation. Now it's being used as another Raleigh slush fund. For example, wasting two hundred thousand dollars studying goats. Unlike Karen Ray, I oppose raising taxes.
I strongly support the county's current two-school system. They should not be consolidated.
2. How can you help fix a “broken” NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT)? There is not adequate funding for local projects, nor for any this side of I-95 (Piedmont and Western NC)? Our “transportation infrastructure” is overburdened as it is. How will you direct NCDOT to address and prioritize our local concerns?
I would start by not allowing hundreds of millions of dollars to be taken out of the Highway Trust Fund to cover the General Fund expenditures. Over the last several years over 1 billion dollars has been siphoned off from the Highway Trust Fund. That would have paid for a lot of transportation infrastructure here and in other areas in the Piedmont and West. My opponent has voted for a budget that robbed the Highway Trust Fund of a hundred million dollars to fund non-transportation expenditures. My opponent also voted for a redistricting plan that significantly weakened Iredell County in Raleigh and made it much more difficult for our priorities to be funded.
3. How will you help insure state cooperation in storm water and water/sewer issues such as interbasin transfers and “regional” cooperative initiatives to provide necessary services for our overburdened infrastructure?
I would convene local and state government leaders into Regional groups to develop infrastructure planning. I would pay for it by using funds in the six hundred million Golden Leaf Foundation. Now it's being used as another Raleigh slush fund. For example, wasting two hundred thousand dollars studying goats. Unlike Karen Ray, I oppose raising taxes.
Friday, May 2, 2008
The Report spanks Alan Martin, candidate for DA
I’ve never seen Alan Martin in action in court. But I’ve heard that he often uses the courtroom to hone many of the “skills” that he has learned as an actor in the local theatre community.
Just imagine it: Alan Martin, assistant DA, parading around a courtroom, expressively presenting the state’s case to the men and women on the jury … when all of a sudden he immediately stops in the midst of his argument to ask a tough, pointed question of a suspect on the stand.
I bet Alan Martin can really dish it out. But, unfortunately, it appears he can’t take it. Of the three Republican candidates vying for the DA position for Iredell and Alexander counties, Martin was the only one who did not respond to a single question that the Report recently submitted to the candidates.
It is unfortunate for all of us when a public official chooses to hide from the people. But the person who pays the highest political price – regardless of the election’s outcome – is actually the person who chooses to hide.
Why? Because that person’s non-responsiveness does not make the question go away. And when a question exists to which I want an answer, I don’t typically stop when someone simply ignores me. Instead, I go out and search for the answers myself.
Did I find the actual answers to the questions we asked of Martin? No. But I did accidentally stumble upon some other interesting information.
For instance, Alan Martin has apparently changed his party affiliation eight times in 10 years. According to information provided to the Report, Martin was a Democrat in November 1996. But in November 1998, he was a Republican. In September 2002, he was a Democrat again. But two months later, he was “unaffiliated.” In July 2004, Martin was a Republican again. Four months later – in November 2004 – he was once again “unaffiliated,” which he remained until May 2006, when he turned Republican again. But six months later, he was “unaffiliated” again. In November 2007 – just six months ago – he turned Republican again. He was still a Republican when he registered with the Iredell County Elections Office, from Mecklenburg County, in January 2008.
Martin’s voter registration in Iredell and Mecklenburg counties raises another question: why does the DA-hopeful’s website, www.alanmartinforda.org, claim that “Alan moved to Mooresville, NC in 1996”? If he has lived in Mooresville since 1996, why was he registered to vote in Mecklenburg County from 2002 through 2007? And why, if he has lived in Mooresville since 1996, did he register to vote in Iredell County just four months ago?
The answer is simple: contrary to the information provided on his website, Martin has not lived in Mooresville since 1996. He lived in Davidson. In fact, according to the Register of Deeds, he just bought a home in Mooresville five months ago.
Why is that important? Because his “residency” in Mooresville resonates with Mooresville citizens – many people who “vote their zip code” might be inclined to vote for Martin simply because he’s supposedly “one of us.”
Republicans should also know that on April 12, 2005, an “unaffiliated” Martin authored a letter to the editor of the Charlotte Observer in which he revealed: “I once had a professor, a former N.C. Supreme Court justice, who jokingly said he ‘strongly believed in the two-party system – a great big Democrat Party and an itty-bitty Republican Party.’ Sadly, there is no humor in House Majority Leader Tom DeLay’s support for a free and independent judiciary – as long as all federal judges agree with his radical agenda.”
And interestingly, back to the issue of residency, note that Martin listed Davidson as his town of residence in that 2005 letter to the editor.
But even more telling is this recent mailer that Martin and his camp have mailed to Republican voters:
.jpg)
.jpg)
Negative campaign ads are just a part of the game, and they typically don’t affect me one way or the other. But Martin’s did. Why? Because Sarah Kirkman is Martin’s colleague, his partner. Their job, together, is to protect and defend the people of our community and beyond.
Typically, two candidates are going toe-to-toe when they employ a negative direct-mail campaign. And that means that only one of those two people is eventually elected. But in the DA race, that’s not the case. If Alan Martin is elected our district attorney, Sarah Kirkman would still be an assistant DA in the Iredell County district attorney’s office, but she would be reporting to Martin. Surely Martin, when he approved that sleazy mailer, considered that it could also swing the other way…
Perhaps in no other political race should opponents reject the muck of dirty politics, and instead choose the high road, as much as in the race for district attorney. After all, these are our public defenders. They call investigations. They prosecute criminals. Their integrity, principles and character must be impeccable and must remain securely intact even through political campaigning. The greater good should always trump any egotistical need for “a win.”
Regardless of the outcome of Tuesday’s primary election – which, since a Democrat is not running in the DA race, will decide our next district attorney – Martin and Kirkman will still have to work together in the Iredell County district attorney’s office. And one must wonder to what degree Martin’s mailer will affect that working relationship post-election – and at what cost to the community.
Further, Martin’s approval of the smear campaign against his colleague begs the question: if he stoops to that level in an effort to win an election, to what level will he stoop to win a case as DA?
Just as telling as the mailer – if not more so – is the fact that Martin did not respond to recent and pointed Report questions sent to his campaign e-mail address (See DA hopefuls respond to Report questions, April 30), including some about his past decisions and actions – and inactions – in Mooresville.
We asked Martin why the DAs office did not denounce our police department’s role in nearly botching the notorious Witherspoon murder case and why the DAs office, behind closed doors, offered Misty Witherspoon (who shot and killed her police-officer husband in 2005) a 7-year plea deal. Martin did not respond. (Interestingly, Martin's very own campaign website has a link to the newspaper article I wrote in July 2007, pointing out some of the police department's mistakes. Here's the link: http://www.alanmartinforda.org/news/mooresville/despite_conviction.html .)
We asked Martin why he exonerated our current Interim Town Manager Erskine Smith during the library scandal in 2002, when many people in the community believed that Smith committed obstruction of justice. But at the time, Martin absolved Smith and attempted to justify his actions by telling a local newspaper source that he was in “Lunch Rotary” with Smith, basically suggesting that his relationship with Smith trumped his duties as a public prosecutor. We asked Martin if he believed that he had treated Smith preferentially, and we gave him a platform to calm local citizens’ fear that he would not investigate and fully prosecute white-collar crime. Martin did not respond.
Ironically, current 22nd Prosecutorial District Attorney Garry Frank (Martin’s boss) wrote in a recent endorsement letter for Martin: “The public is not well served if a district attorney yields his or her judgment to political correctness or the influence of powerful individuals.”
I wholeheartedly agree. And that is precisely why, in clear conscience, at least I will not be voting on Tuesday for Alan Martin for DA – and come what may.
Just imagine it: Alan Martin, assistant DA, parading around a courtroom, expressively presenting the state’s case to the men and women on the jury … when all of a sudden he immediately stops in the midst of his argument to ask a tough, pointed question of a suspect on the stand.
I bet Alan Martin can really dish it out. But, unfortunately, it appears he can’t take it. Of the three Republican candidates vying for the DA position for Iredell and Alexander counties, Martin was the only one who did not respond to a single question that the Report recently submitted to the candidates.
It is unfortunate for all of us when a public official chooses to hide from the people. But the person who pays the highest political price – regardless of the election’s outcome – is actually the person who chooses to hide.
Why? Because that person’s non-responsiveness does not make the question go away. And when a question exists to which I want an answer, I don’t typically stop when someone simply ignores me. Instead, I go out and search for the answers myself.
Did I find the actual answers to the questions we asked of Martin? No. But I did accidentally stumble upon some other interesting information.
For instance, Alan Martin has apparently changed his party affiliation eight times in 10 years. According to information provided to the Report, Martin was a Democrat in November 1996. But in November 1998, he was a Republican. In September 2002, he was a Democrat again. But two months later, he was “unaffiliated.” In July 2004, Martin was a Republican again. Four months later – in November 2004 – he was once again “unaffiliated,” which he remained until May 2006, when he turned Republican again. But six months later, he was “unaffiliated” again. In November 2007 – just six months ago – he turned Republican again. He was still a Republican when he registered with the Iredell County Elections Office, from Mecklenburg County, in January 2008.
Martin’s voter registration in Iredell and Mecklenburg counties raises another question: why does the DA-hopeful’s website, www.alanmartinforda.org, claim that “Alan moved to Mooresville, NC in 1996”? If he has lived in Mooresville since 1996, why was he registered to vote in Mecklenburg County from 2002 through 2007? And why, if he has lived in Mooresville since 1996, did he register to vote in Iredell County just four months ago?
The answer is simple: contrary to the information provided on his website, Martin has not lived in Mooresville since 1996. He lived in Davidson. In fact, according to the Register of Deeds, he just bought a home in Mooresville five months ago.
Why is that important? Because his “residency” in Mooresville resonates with Mooresville citizens – many people who “vote their zip code” might be inclined to vote for Martin simply because he’s supposedly “one of us.”
Republicans should also know that on April 12, 2005, an “unaffiliated” Martin authored a letter to the editor of the Charlotte Observer in which he revealed: “I once had a professor, a former N.C. Supreme Court justice, who jokingly said he ‘strongly believed in the two-party system – a great big Democrat Party and an itty-bitty Republican Party.’ Sadly, there is no humor in House Majority Leader Tom DeLay’s support for a free and independent judiciary – as long as all federal judges agree with his radical agenda.”
And interestingly, back to the issue of residency, note that Martin listed Davidson as his town of residence in that 2005 letter to the editor.
But even more telling is this recent mailer that Martin and his camp have mailed to Republican voters:
.jpg)
.jpg)
Negative campaign ads are just a part of the game, and they typically don’t affect me one way or the other. But Martin’s did. Why? Because Sarah Kirkman is Martin’s colleague, his partner. Their job, together, is to protect and defend the people of our community and beyond.
Typically, two candidates are going toe-to-toe when they employ a negative direct-mail campaign. And that means that only one of those two people is eventually elected. But in the DA race, that’s not the case. If Alan Martin is elected our district attorney, Sarah Kirkman would still be an assistant DA in the Iredell County district attorney’s office, but she would be reporting to Martin. Surely Martin, when he approved that sleazy mailer, considered that it could also swing the other way…
Perhaps in no other political race should opponents reject the muck of dirty politics, and instead choose the high road, as much as in the race for district attorney. After all, these are our public defenders. They call investigations. They prosecute criminals. Their integrity, principles and character must be impeccable and must remain securely intact even through political campaigning. The greater good should always trump any egotistical need for “a win.”
Regardless of the outcome of Tuesday’s primary election – which, since a Democrat is not running in the DA race, will decide our next district attorney – Martin and Kirkman will still have to work together in the Iredell County district attorney’s office. And one must wonder to what degree Martin’s mailer will affect that working relationship post-election – and at what cost to the community.
Further, Martin’s approval of the smear campaign against his colleague begs the question: if he stoops to that level in an effort to win an election, to what level will he stoop to win a case as DA?
Just as telling as the mailer – if not more so – is the fact that Martin did not respond to recent and pointed Report questions sent to his campaign e-mail address (See DA hopefuls respond to Report questions, April 30), including some about his past decisions and actions – and inactions – in Mooresville.
We asked Martin why the DAs office did not denounce our police department’s role in nearly botching the notorious Witherspoon murder case and why the DAs office, behind closed doors, offered Misty Witherspoon (who shot and killed her police-officer husband in 2005) a 7-year plea deal. Martin did not respond. (Interestingly, Martin's very own campaign website has a link to the newspaper article I wrote in July 2007, pointing out some of the police department's mistakes. Here's the link: http://www.alanmartinforda.org/news/mooresville/despite_conviction.html .)
We asked Martin why he exonerated our current Interim Town Manager Erskine Smith during the library scandal in 2002, when many people in the community believed that Smith committed obstruction of justice. But at the time, Martin absolved Smith and attempted to justify his actions by telling a local newspaper source that he was in “Lunch Rotary” with Smith, basically suggesting that his relationship with Smith trumped his duties as a public prosecutor. We asked Martin if he believed that he had treated Smith preferentially, and we gave him a platform to calm local citizens’ fear that he would not investigate and fully prosecute white-collar crime. Martin did not respond.
Ironically, current 22nd Prosecutorial District Attorney Garry Frank (Martin’s boss) wrote in a recent endorsement letter for Martin: “The public is not well served if a district attorney yields his or her judgment to political correctness or the influence of powerful individuals.”
I wholeheartedly agree. And that is precisely why, in clear conscience, at least I will not be voting on Tuesday for Alan Martin for DA – and come what may.
NEWS FLASH: Presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton to visit Mooresville tomorrow
Sen. Hillary Clinton will make a "pit stop" in Mooresville tomorrow on her U.S. presidential campaign trail.
The "get-out-the-vote" event will be held at the N.C. Auto Racing Hall of Fame, 119 Knob Hill Road. Doors open at 1:30 p.m., and the event begins at 3:30 p.m. It is free and open to the public.
The "get-out-the-vote" event will be held at the N.C. Auto Racing Hall of Fame, 119 Knob Hill Road. Doors open at 1:30 p.m., and the event begins at 3:30 p.m. It is free and open to the public.
N.C. House Rep. Karen Ray responds to Report questions
Dear Readers:
I did not include Karen Ray and Grey Mills, the two local GOP candidates for the N.C. House of Representatives, when I asked you to submit questions for candidates. But one reader graciously sent questions for the two House candidates, so I sent an e-mail to them two days ago, asking them to respond by noon today. Since it was a last minute request, I did not expect to hear from the candidates. But this morning, Ray e-mailed her responses. If and when Mills responds, I will post his answers.
Here are the questions and Karen Ray's answers:
1. Do you support the county’s current two-school system, or should the Mooresville Graded School System be eliminated and rolled into the Iredell-Statesville Schools System?
I HAVE ALWAYS OPPOSED THE MERGER OR CONSOLIDATION OF THE MOORESVILLE GRADED SCHOOL DISTRICT. I RESPONDED TO SEVERAL HUNDRED CONCERNED PARENTS AND SCHOOL PERSONNEL LAST YEAR THAT MY POSITION IS THAT THE MGSD SHOULD REMAIN AUTONOMOUS.
WE HAVE A FIRST CLASS SCHOOL SYSTEM THAT PROVIDES EXEMPLARY EDUCATION TO OUR STUDENTS, AND I WILL ALWAYS FIGHT ANY MERGER OF THE SYSTEM.
I WORKED CLOSELY A NUMBER OF TIMES IN THE PAST WITH FORMER SUPERINTENDENT SAM HOUSTON, FORMER SUPERINTENDENT JANE CARRIGAN AND OTHERS WHEN THIS ISSUE WAS FILED IN THE LEGISLATURE. THE LAST TIME A BILL WAS FILED TO MERGE THE MGSD WAS IN 1995, HB 649, FILED BY IREDELL COUNTY’S OWN MEMBER, FORMER REPRESENTATIVE FRANK MITCHELL, WHO IS SUPPORTING MY OPPONENT, MR. MILLS, AND WAS A PRIMARY SPONSOR OF THE FUNDRAISER FOR MR. MILLS RECENTLY.
I HAVE ALWAYS FOUGHT FOR THE MGSD AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO ALL I CAN, AS I DID LAST YEAR AND THE TIMES BEFORE, TO PREVENT ANY SUCH LEGISLATION FROM PASSING.
I HAVE GOOD WORKING RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER MEMBERS IN THE LEGISLATURE AND THOSE RELATIONSHIPS ARE IMPORTANT IN OURS EFFORTS TO STOP ANY MERGER OF OUR GREAT SCHOOL SYSTEM. MY CHILDREN ARE GRADUATES OF THE MGSD AND I KNOW FIRSTHAND THE QUALITY OF THE EDUCATION PROVIDED AND THE EXCELLENT TEACHING, COACHING AND ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL.
2. How can you help fix a “broken” NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT)? There is not adequate funding for local projects, nor for any this side of I-95 (Piedmont and Western NC)? Our “transportation infrastructure” is overburdened as it is. How will you direct NCDOT to address and prioritize our local concerns?
FIRST OF ALL, I WILL CONTINUE TO DO WHAT I HAVE DONE IN THE PAST AS OUR STATE REPRESENTATIVE - STAY ON TOP OF THE PROJECTS FOR IREDELL COUNTY, SUCH AS THE WIDENING OF BRAWLEY SCHOOL ROAD, WHICH I WAS ABLE TO SECURE THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDING FOR THE PROJECT THIS YEAR THROUGH DOT, ALONG WITH ADDITIONAL MONIES TO COMPLETE THE RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION.
I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY ACHIEVE TURN LANES AND SIGNALS AT A NUMBER OF LOCATIONS IN OUR AREA THAT WERE NEEDED. I JUST LAST WEEK WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN SIGNALING FOR THE LAKESHORE ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOL INTERSECTION ON PERTH ROAD AFTER BEING CONTACTED BY PARENTS OF STUDENTS AT LAKESHORE. I WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN AUTOMATIC SIGNALING AND GATE ARMS FOR THE RAILROAD CROSSING AT TRIPLETT CHURCH LAST YEAR, A CROSSING THAT HAS NEEDED SIGNALING FOR A LONG TIME DUE TO LACK OF VISIBILITY.
THE NC HOUSE DOES NOT MAKE DECISIONS RELATIVE TO ROAD PROJECTS. THOSE DECISIONS ARE MADE AT A DIFFERENT VENUE. I CAN, HOWEVER, CONTINUE TO ADDRESS OUR NEEDS WITH DOT AND MAKE THE CASE FOR MY CONSTITUENTS OF THE NEED FOR CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS ON OUR ROADS.
I WAS ABLE TO IMPROVE THE SAFETY IN STATESVILLE AT THE I-40 INTERCHANGE AND HIGHWAY 21. I AM WORKING ON HIGHWAY 70 TO MAKE CHANGES THERE AT A DANGEROUS AREA.
I WILL CONTINUE TO DO THE WORK I HAVE DONE IN THE PAST TO IMPROVE TRAFFIC FLOW AND MAKE MORE SAFE THE ROADS WE TRAVEL IN THE DISTRICT I REPRESENT.
SECONDLY, WE MUST WORK TO GAIN LOCAL CONTROL OVER OUR ROADS. DOT IS A MONOLITHIC YELLOW GIANT THAT IS DYSFUNCTIONAL AND NEEDS TO BE DISMANTLED. WE NEED TO RECLASSIFY STATE AND LOCAL ROADS. WE NEED TO RESTRUCTURE THE FUNDING FORMULA TO REFLECT NEED AND REVENUE GENERATING SOURCES. IT IS UNFAIR TO TAKE REVENUE FROM THE REGION THAT IS GENERATING THE MOST AND SPEND IT ON OTHER AREAS WITH LESS PRESSING NEEDS. WE NEED TO REMOVE LOCAL BOARDS THAT SET FUNDING PRIORITIES FROM THE POLITICAL PROCESS OF RALEIGH.
A DECENTRALIZED DOT THAT SETS THE STANDARD, BUT ALLOWS LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT TO SET PRIORITIES AND CHOOSE CONTRACTORS WILL SOLVE MANY OF OUR PROBLEMS.
3. How will you help insure state cooperation in storm water and water/sewer issues such as interbasin transfers and “regional” cooperative initiatives to provide necessary services for our overburdened infrastructure?
WE HAVE TO REALIZE THAT WATER IS A RESOURCE THAT DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THE BOUNDARIES OF CITIES, COUNTIES OR STATES.
IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THE STATE TAKE A LEADERSHIP ROLE IN DEVELOPING A COMPREHENSIVE REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT FULLY INTEGRATES ALL OF OUR NATURAL RESOURCES. THE QUALITY OF OUR TOMORROW WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE DECISIONS WE MAKE TODAY, AND IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT ALL OUR CITIZENS ARE GRANTED THE ASSURANCE OF SAFE AND ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF WATER. THIS IS VERY MUCH A STATE ISSUE THAT REQUIRES ATTENTION BEYOND ANY MUNICIPAL OR LEGISLATIVE BOUNDARIES.
I WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH AREAS IN THE DISTRICT THAT ARE FACING MAJOR CONCERNS OF WATER SHORTAGES, SUCH AS THE BRAWLEY SCHOOL ROAD PENINSULA. I AM CURRENTLY INVOLVED WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF SUBDIVISIONS ON THE PENINSULA, CRESCENT AND MOORESVILLE IN NEGOTIATIONS OF FUTURE WATER RESOURCES.
DEHNR MUST STEP UP ITS ENFORCEMENT OF REGULATIONS AND VIOLATIONS IN SUBDIVISIONS IN AND AROUND LAKE NORMAN DURING CONSTRUCTION. OUR LAKE IS BECOMING MORE AND MORE POLLUTED WITH SILT BECAUSE THE REGULATIONS ARE NOT BEING ENFORCED. DEHNR POINTS THE FINGER AT SOMEONE ELSE AND THE FINGER GETS POINTED BACK AT DEHNR. UNMANAGED STORM WATER AND RUN-OFF DAMAGE AND DESTROY PROPERTY AND PROPERTY VALUES. DEHNR HAS THE MEANS TO ADDRESS THIS ABUSE AND NEEDS TO DO IT.
I WILL CONTINUE TO PRESS THIS ISSUE AND KEEP DEHNR’S FEET TO THE FIRE REGARDING REGULATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT.
I did not include Karen Ray and Grey Mills, the two local GOP candidates for the N.C. House of Representatives, when I asked you to submit questions for candidates. But one reader graciously sent questions for the two House candidates, so I sent an e-mail to them two days ago, asking them to respond by noon today. Since it was a last minute request, I did not expect to hear from the candidates. But this morning, Ray e-mailed her responses. If and when Mills responds, I will post his answers.
Here are the questions and Karen Ray's answers:
1. Do you support the county’s current two-school system, or should the Mooresville Graded School System be eliminated and rolled into the Iredell-Statesville Schools System?
I HAVE ALWAYS OPPOSED THE MERGER OR CONSOLIDATION OF THE MOORESVILLE GRADED SCHOOL DISTRICT. I RESPONDED TO SEVERAL HUNDRED CONCERNED PARENTS AND SCHOOL PERSONNEL LAST YEAR THAT MY POSITION IS THAT THE MGSD SHOULD REMAIN AUTONOMOUS.
WE HAVE A FIRST CLASS SCHOOL SYSTEM THAT PROVIDES EXEMPLARY EDUCATION TO OUR STUDENTS, AND I WILL ALWAYS FIGHT ANY MERGER OF THE SYSTEM.
I WORKED CLOSELY A NUMBER OF TIMES IN THE PAST WITH FORMER SUPERINTENDENT SAM HOUSTON, FORMER SUPERINTENDENT JANE CARRIGAN AND OTHERS WHEN THIS ISSUE WAS FILED IN THE LEGISLATURE. THE LAST TIME A BILL WAS FILED TO MERGE THE MGSD WAS IN 1995, HB 649, FILED BY IREDELL COUNTY’S OWN MEMBER, FORMER REPRESENTATIVE FRANK MITCHELL, WHO IS SUPPORTING MY OPPONENT, MR. MILLS, AND WAS A PRIMARY SPONSOR OF THE FUNDRAISER FOR MR. MILLS RECENTLY.
I HAVE ALWAYS FOUGHT FOR THE MGSD AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO ALL I CAN, AS I DID LAST YEAR AND THE TIMES BEFORE, TO PREVENT ANY SUCH LEGISLATION FROM PASSING.
I HAVE GOOD WORKING RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER MEMBERS IN THE LEGISLATURE AND THOSE RELATIONSHIPS ARE IMPORTANT IN OURS EFFORTS TO STOP ANY MERGER OF OUR GREAT SCHOOL SYSTEM. MY CHILDREN ARE GRADUATES OF THE MGSD AND I KNOW FIRSTHAND THE QUALITY OF THE EDUCATION PROVIDED AND THE EXCELLENT TEACHING, COACHING AND ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL.
2. How can you help fix a “broken” NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT)? There is not adequate funding for local projects, nor for any this side of I-95 (Piedmont and Western NC)? Our “transportation infrastructure” is overburdened as it is. How will you direct NCDOT to address and prioritize our local concerns?
FIRST OF ALL, I WILL CONTINUE TO DO WHAT I HAVE DONE IN THE PAST AS OUR STATE REPRESENTATIVE - STAY ON TOP OF THE PROJECTS FOR IREDELL COUNTY, SUCH AS THE WIDENING OF BRAWLEY SCHOOL ROAD, WHICH I WAS ABLE TO SECURE THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDING FOR THE PROJECT THIS YEAR THROUGH DOT, ALONG WITH ADDITIONAL MONIES TO COMPLETE THE RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION.
I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY ACHIEVE TURN LANES AND SIGNALS AT A NUMBER OF LOCATIONS IN OUR AREA THAT WERE NEEDED. I JUST LAST WEEK WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN SIGNALING FOR THE LAKESHORE ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOL INTERSECTION ON PERTH ROAD AFTER BEING CONTACTED BY PARENTS OF STUDENTS AT LAKESHORE. I WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN AUTOMATIC SIGNALING AND GATE ARMS FOR THE RAILROAD CROSSING AT TRIPLETT CHURCH LAST YEAR, A CROSSING THAT HAS NEEDED SIGNALING FOR A LONG TIME DUE TO LACK OF VISIBILITY.
THE NC HOUSE DOES NOT MAKE DECISIONS RELATIVE TO ROAD PROJECTS. THOSE DECISIONS ARE MADE AT A DIFFERENT VENUE. I CAN, HOWEVER, CONTINUE TO ADDRESS OUR NEEDS WITH DOT AND MAKE THE CASE FOR MY CONSTITUENTS OF THE NEED FOR CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS ON OUR ROADS.
I WAS ABLE TO IMPROVE THE SAFETY IN STATESVILLE AT THE I-40 INTERCHANGE AND HIGHWAY 21. I AM WORKING ON HIGHWAY 70 TO MAKE CHANGES THERE AT A DANGEROUS AREA.
I WILL CONTINUE TO DO THE WORK I HAVE DONE IN THE PAST TO IMPROVE TRAFFIC FLOW AND MAKE MORE SAFE THE ROADS WE TRAVEL IN THE DISTRICT I REPRESENT.
SECONDLY, WE MUST WORK TO GAIN LOCAL CONTROL OVER OUR ROADS. DOT IS A MONOLITHIC YELLOW GIANT THAT IS DYSFUNCTIONAL AND NEEDS TO BE DISMANTLED. WE NEED TO RECLASSIFY STATE AND LOCAL ROADS. WE NEED TO RESTRUCTURE THE FUNDING FORMULA TO REFLECT NEED AND REVENUE GENERATING SOURCES. IT IS UNFAIR TO TAKE REVENUE FROM THE REGION THAT IS GENERATING THE MOST AND SPEND IT ON OTHER AREAS WITH LESS PRESSING NEEDS. WE NEED TO REMOVE LOCAL BOARDS THAT SET FUNDING PRIORITIES FROM THE POLITICAL PROCESS OF RALEIGH.
A DECENTRALIZED DOT THAT SETS THE STANDARD, BUT ALLOWS LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT TO SET PRIORITIES AND CHOOSE CONTRACTORS WILL SOLVE MANY OF OUR PROBLEMS.
3. How will you help insure state cooperation in storm water and water/sewer issues such as interbasin transfers and “regional” cooperative initiatives to provide necessary services for our overburdened infrastructure?
WE HAVE TO REALIZE THAT WATER IS A RESOURCE THAT DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THE BOUNDARIES OF CITIES, COUNTIES OR STATES.
IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THE STATE TAKE A LEADERSHIP ROLE IN DEVELOPING A COMPREHENSIVE REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT FULLY INTEGRATES ALL OF OUR NATURAL RESOURCES. THE QUALITY OF OUR TOMORROW WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE DECISIONS WE MAKE TODAY, AND IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT ALL OUR CITIZENS ARE GRANTED THE ASSURANCE OF SAFE AND ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF WATER. THIS IS VERY MUCH A STATE ISSUE THAT REQUIRES ATTENTION BEYOND ANY MUNICIPAL OR LEGISLATIVE BOUNDARIES.
I WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH AREAS IN THE DISTRICT THAT ARE FACING MAJOR CONCERNS OF WATER SHORTAGES, SUCH AS THE BRAWLEY SCHOOL ROAD PENINSULA. I AM CURRENTLY INVOLVED WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF SUBDIVISIONS ON THE PENINSULA, CRESCENT AND MOORESVILLE IN NEGOTIATIONS OF FUTURE WATER RESOURCES.
DEHNR MUST STEP UP ITS ENFORCEMENT OF REGULATIONS AND VIOLATIONS IN SUBDIVISIONS IN AND AROUND LAKE NORMAN DURING CONSTRUCTION. OUR LAKE IS BECOMING MORE AND MORE POLLUTED WITH SILT BECAUSE THE REGULATIONS ARE NOT BEING ENFORCED. DEHNR POINTS THE FINGER AT SOMEONE ELSE AND THE FINGER GETS POINTED BACK AT DEHNR. UNMANAGED STORM WATER AND RUN-OFF DAMAGE AND DESTROY PROPERTY AND PROPERTY VALUES. DEHNR HAS THE MEANS TO ADDRESS THIS ABUSE AND NEEDS TO DO IT.
I WILL CONTINUE TO PRESS THIS ISSUE AND KEEP DEHNR’S FEET TO THE FIRE REGARDING REGULATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Iredell County Commission Candidate Scott Keadle responds
Here are Mooresville resident Scott Keadle's responses to your questions:
1. What is your position on the CATS 83X bus line and specifically the need for the county to contribute funding to help support this service for the residents of Mooresville/South Iredell?
I am against it.
2. What proposed funding solutions do you have to address overall traffic issues in Mooresville/South Iredell?
The state and federal governments, who take a whole lot more of your money than the county does, have not been sending back nearly as much as you send to them. Unfortunately, the county would not have the resources to devote funding to transportation no matter how high they made the tax rate.
3. What is your funding solution and solutions in general for bringing commuter rail into Mooresville/South Iredell? Just as a side note, I am very tired of generic, divisive and non-definitive answers - they are no longer acceptable – we need solutions now.
Anyone who wants to bring commuter rail to Mooresville (I assume you mean from Charlotte?) will have my blessing, including you. I doubt that you will have enough customers interested to make a profit, but I wish you well and promise not to stifle your business plan with excessive government taxes or regulation. If you are proposing that taxpayers (I assume you are one) in Iredell County be forced to pay for other people’s transportation, I am opposed to that, as are the great majority of the people who pay the bills in Iredell County. I hope that wasn’t too generic, divisive, or non-definitive, although something tells me that you and I have a “divide” when it comes to this issue.
4. What is your position on our school districts in Mooresville/Iredell County? We currently have two. Do you support keeping both districts? Why or why not?
Iredell County schools are among the very best in the state. It is difficult to argue with success. Unless I see a clear need to change the current structure, and at present, I do not, I would not favor a restructuring.
5. Provide your definition of quality of life for Iredell County residents. Is it different for those in Mooresville/South Iredell vs. the rest of the county?
My definition of quality of life is different from yours, and both will be different from the next person who reads this blog. There are undoubtedly some things that you and I, and North and South, have in common, and there are also definite demographic differences that coincide with the geographic differences. I think it would take about 10,000 words to cover this subject, and I’m not sure Jaime has the room on her hard drive. I will say that while some people like an urban atmosphere, others prefer rural or suburban, and some prefer agricultural. I doubt that any of us like traffic, pollution, or crime. I’m sure these things are known to you, but at least now you know that I know them as well.
6. Do you believe transportation issues have an impact on the quality of life for Mooresville/Iredell County residents? If so, what are your proposed solutions?
Absolutely yes. Population and commercial growth has outpaced infrastructure, particularly in the south end of our county, for some time now. County commissioners do not have the financial resources to build roads or address transportation needs directly. Having said that, there is no reason why we cannot use our “bully pulpit” to lobby the state and federal government to get back our fair share of the money we send away for transportation. In addition, we can help the growth problem by discouraging high density development, which has been shown in multiple studies to produce more congestion and pollution.
7. How would you go about facilitating a more collaborative and productive working relationship with the Town of Mooresville? What you would do to ensure this is a results-driven relationship? Please be specific in your recommendations.
Obviously, communication between various government entities is very important, and finding common areas of interest is the key to any relationship. As far as “results-driven”, I cannot be specific in my recommendations unless you are more specific in which results you seek. I can assure you, however, that when the interests of the city and the county are coincidental, I will be on the phone facilitating the deal and bringing interested parties together.
8. Why should a resident of south Iredell vote for you? What makes you different from the existing commissioners, and how will you represent the interest of the residents of Mooresville/South Iredell?
I will represent all of Iredell county if elected, including south Iredell and Mooresville residents. A south Iredell resident should vote for me for the same reason a north Iredell resident should vote for me: I am a reasonably intelligent, reasonably successful person, and I am a conservative who believes in limited government, market solutions, and the ability of the individual to thrive when given the freedom and liberty to do so.
9. Who do you support for N.C. governor?
Any of the Republican candidates would make an excellent governor, especially compared with the current governor or the current Democratic nominees, who will continue to punish Iredell County for its success by withholding funding for education and transportation.
10. Should the County partner with other entities such as municipalities like Mooresville & Charlotte (CATS) to provide for Regional Transportation Initiatives such as Commuter Rail and 83X (Commuter Vans). Why or why not, & which is a priority?
No. I discussed this elsewhere in the blog.
11. Should the county release ETJ (Extra Territorial Jurisdiction) to municipalities such as Mooresville, Troutman, & Statesville so that their more “urban” planning codes can control the rapid growth, especially in southern Iredell? Why or why not? What is your position on releasing ETJ of the Highway corridors such as NC Highways 115, 21, 150, 801, 70, 90, etc so that the county’s municipalities can more effectively manage the growth and traffic patterns leading to our urban centers?
No, “urban” planning is part of the problem that we are currently experiencing with our transportation, education, and the erosion of our tax base. “Urban” planning, or so-called “Smart Growth”, has been a dismal failure everywhere it has been implemented. As a case study, look up the Portland, Oregon area, where “Smart Growth” has resulted in more traffic, more pollution, and multiple crooked deals that have enriched developers (friends and family of government officials) at the expense of taxpayers.
12. How can the county best partner to meet regional recreational needs such as parks, programs, etc.? Are there effective partnering opportunities with municipalities? If so, what are they?
Again, anywhere there are common interests, there are partnering opportunities. The county can best take advantage of these opportunities by electing commissioners who can envision the mutual interests, bring the interested parties to the table, and effectively negotiate a win-win deal. The recreational department is certainly a place where this can be achieved.
13. Do you support the county’s current 2 School system, or should the Mooresville Graded School System be eliminated and rolled into the Iredell-Statesville School System?
In the interest of space, please see question number four.
14. What are you going to do to deal with the near gridlock traffic conditions?
Please see question number three.
15. How do you plan to control the rampant over-development of our area?
We do not have over-development, we have improper development, failure to timely plan for development, and failure to provide timely infrastructure for the development that has occurred. Please see the rest of my answers for insight into my plans.
16. Taxes continue to rise. Where does it stop?
With my election.
17. What will you do to get our area our fair share of transportation dollars? (Am I the only one who wonders why there are 6-lane highways in BFE North Carolina but not in Mooresville-Davidson-Cornelius?)
No, you are not the only one who pretends to wonder the answer to that question. Of course, you know the answer is that there are crooks in Raleigh who take your money and give it to their rich developer friends in other parts of the state. Please see my previous answers for insight as to what I will do, and please vote Republican this November to help end the Democratic reign of terror in Raleigh.
1. What is your position on the CATS 83X bus line and specifically the need for the county to contribute funding to help support this service for the residents of Mooresville/South Iredell?
I am against it.
2. What proposed funding solutions do you have to address overall traffic issues in Mooresville/South Iredell?
The state and federal governments, who take a whole lot more of your money than the county does, have not been sending back nearly as much as you send to them. Unfortunately, the county would not have the resources to devote funding to transportation no matter how high they made the tax rate.
3. What is your funding solution and solutions in general for bringing commuter rail into Mooresville/South Iredell? Just as a side note, I am very tired of generic, divisive and non-definitive answers - they are no longer acceptable – we need solutions now.
Anyone who wants to bring commuter rail to Mooresville (I assume you mean from Charlotte?) will have my blessing, including you. I doubt that you will have enough customers interested to make a profit, but I wish you well and promise not to stifle your business plan with excessive government taxes or regulation. If you are proposing that taxpayers (I assume you are one) in Iredell County be forced to pay for other people’s transportation, I am opposed to that, as are the great majority of the people who pay the bills in Iredell County. I hope that wasn’t too generic, divisive, or non-definitive, although something tells me that you and I have a “divide” when it comes to this issue.
4. What is your position on our school districts in Mooresville/Iredell County? We currently have two. Do you support keeping both districts? Why or why not?
Iredell County schools are among the very best in the state. It is difficult to argue with success. Unless I see a clear need to change the current structure, and at present, I do not, I would not favor a restructuring.
5. Provide your definition of quality of life for Iredell County residents. Is it different for those in Mooresville/South Iredell vs. the rest of the county?
My definition of quality of life is different from yours, and both will be different from the next person who reads this blog. There are undoubtedly some things that you and I, and North and South, have in common, and there are also definite demographic differences that coincide with the geographic differences. I think it would take about 10,000 words to cover this subject, and I’m not sure Jaime has the room on her hard drive. I will say that while some people like an urban atmosphere, others prefer rural or suburban, and some prefer agricultural. I doubt that any of us like traffic, pollution, or crime. I’m sure these things are known to you, but at least now you know that I know them as well.
6. Do you believe transportation issues have an impact on the quality of life for Mooresville/Iredell County residents? If so, what are your proposed solutions?
Absolutely yes. Population and commercial growth has outpaced infrastructure, particularly in the south end of our county, for some time now. County commissioners do not have the financial resources to build roads or address transportation needs directly. Having said that, there is no reason why we cannot use our “bully pulpit” to lobby the state and federal government to get back our fair share of the money we send away for transportation. In addition, we can help the growth problem by discouraging high density development, which has been shown in multiple studies to produce more congestion and pollution.
7. How would you go about facilitating a more collaborative and productive working relationship with the Town of Mooresville? What you would do to ensure this is a results-driven relationship? Please be specific in your recommendations.
Obviously, communication between various government entities is very important, and finding common areas of interest is the key to any relationship. As far as “results-driven”, I cannot be specific in my recommendations unless you are more specific in which results you seek. I can assure you, however, that when the interests of the city and the county are coincidental, I will be on the phone facilitating the deal and bringing interested parties together.
8. Why should a resident of south Iredell vote for you? What makes you different from the existing commissioners, and how will you represent the interest of the residents of Mooresville/South Iredell?
I will represent all of Iredell county if elected, including south Iredell and Mooresville residents. A south Iredell resident should vote for me for the same reason a north Iredell resident should vote for me: I am a reasonably intelligent, reasonably successful person, and I am a conservative who believes in limited government, market solutions, and the ability of the individual to thrive when given the freedom and liberty to do so.
9. Who do you support for N.C. governor?
Any of the Republican candidates would make an excellent governor, especially compared with the current governor or the current Democratic nominees, who will continue to punish Iredell County for its success by withholding funding for education and transportation.
10. Should the County partner with other entities such as municipalities like Mooresville & Charlotte (CATS) to provide for Regional Transportation Initiatives such as Commuter Rail and 83X (Commuter Vans). Why or why not, & which is a priority?
No. I discussed this elsewhere in the blog.
11. Should the county release ETJ (Extra Territorial Jurisdiction) to municipalities such as Mooresville, Troutman, & Statesville so that their more “urban” planning codes can control the rapid growth, especially in southern Iredell? Why or why not? What is your position on releasing ETJ of the Highway corridors such as NC Highways 115, 21, 150, 801, 70, 90, etc so that the county’s municipalities can more effectively manage the growth and traffic patterns leading to our urban centers?
No, “urban” planning is part of the problem that we are currently experiencing with our transportation, education, and the erosion of our tax base. “Urban” planning, or so-called “Smart Growth”, has been a dismal failure everywhere it has been implemented. As a case study, look up the Portland, Oregon area, where “Smart Growth” has resulted in more traffic, more pollution, and multiple crooked deals that have enriched developers (friends and family of government officials) at the expense of taxpayers.
12. How can the county best partner to meet regional recreational needs such as parks, programs, etc.? Are there effective partnering opportunities with municipalities? If so, what are they?
Again, anywhere there are common interests, there are partnering opportunities. The county can best take advantage of these opportunities by electing commissioners who can envision the mutual interests, bring the interested parties to the table, and effectively negotiate a win-win deal. The recreational department is certainly a place where this can be achieved.
13. Do you support the county’s current 2 School system, or should the Mooresville Graded School System be eliminated and rolled into the Iredell-Statesville School System?
In the interest of space, please see question number four.
14. What are you going to do to deal with the near gridlock traffic conditions?
Please see question number three.
15. How do you plan to control the rampant over-development of our area?
We do not have over-development, we have improper development, failure to timely plan for development, and failure to provide timely infrastructure for the development that has occurred. Please see the rest of my answers for insight into my plans.
16. Taxes continue to rise. Where does it stop?
With my election.
17. What will you do to get our area our fair share of transportation dollars? (Am I the only one who wonders why there are 6-lane highways in BFE North Carolina but not in Mooresville-Davidson-Cornelius?)
No, you are not the only one who pretends to wonder the answer to that question. Of course, you know the answer is that there are crooks in Raleigh who take your money and give it to their rich developer friends in other parts of the state. Please see my previous answers for insight as to what I will do, and please vote Republican this November to help end the Democratic reign of terror in Raleigh.
Iredell County Commission Candidate Brad Howard responds
Here are Mooresville resident Brad Howard's responses to your questions:
1. What is your position on the CATS 83X bus line and specifically the need for the county to contribute funding to help support this service for the residents of Mooresville/South Iredell?
Transportation is a definite concern to the citizens of Iredell County. The actual question that should be asked is, “how do we fund our transportation needs for the future, in general?” The answer is, we must look to other regions and study the solutions they have used. “Pennies for Progress” is one example that South Carolina is using. The key is, we must move away from funding these projects with property tax revenues.
2. What proposed funding solutions do you have to address overall traffic issues in Mooresville/South Iredell?
The first question that must be answered is: why is Iredell County not receiving it’s “fair share” of funding from Raleigh?
I would be opposed to increasing Iredell County’s property tax rate to widen roads.
We must look to economic expansion of our commercial regions to help offset the continued strain our rapid haphazard expansion has created.
Another option I will continue investigating is the success in South Carolina of their “pennies for progress” initiative. I will not commit to or against, but will continue to study the possibilities and impacts, the pros and cons.
3. What is your funding solution and solutions in general for bringing commuter rail into Mooresville/South Iredell? Just as a side note, I am very tired of generic, divisive and non-definitive answers - they are no longer acceptable – we need solutions now.
I am opposed to increasing the property tax rate to fund the commuter rail. CATS can’t give Iredell County a firm, realistic cost estimate. I am certainly not going to give CATS and Mecklenburg County a blank check. When CATS can offer a definite funding solution, then bring a proposal back to the table. As it stands today, I will not open Iredell County taxpayers to that uncertain liability.
4. What is your position on our school districts in Mooresville/Iredell County? We currently have two. Do you support keeping both districts? Why or why not?
Absolutely… With 2 districts you breed competition between systems. Competition only makes for better quality in education.
5. Provide your definition of quality of life for Iredell County residents. Is it different for those in Mooresville/South Iredell vs. the rest of the county?
Quality of life is being an integral part of a place where you feel at peace; at home, at work, and at play. It is a place where you can find a job, take in natural beauty; where you enjoy your family, your friends & your neighbors. North Iredell is a generational agricultural economy; Central Iredell is a historically rich industrial based region; South Iredell is host to Lake Norman, motorsports, and corporate work centers. Whatever your definition of quality of life; Iredell County is certainly blessed with an abundance in all regions.
6. Do you believe transportation issues have an impact on the quality of life for Mooresville/Iredell County residents? If so, what are your proposed solutions?
Traffic congestion is a problem being felt in the counties that surround Mecklenburg. One could argue that it is both a blessing and a curse. In North Carolina, we depend on Raleigh to fund our highways. However, as more and more people move here to enjoy our quality of life, and North Carolina fails to respond to our needs, transportation becomes the issue. We address this by adopting a comprehensive land use plan. This is a tool that will help steer growth along existing infrastructure, and protect the farms and green space.
7. How would you go about facilitating a more collaborative and productive working relationship with the Town of Mooresville? What you would do to ensure this is a results-driven relationship? Please be specific in your recommendations.
I will work to build and strengthen the relationship between Iredell County and the municipalities; Statesville, Troutman, & Mooresville. We must focus on solving the real issues, not making quick fixes.
I currently chair the MSIEDC Developer’s Council, which is a collaboration of Iredell County and the municipalities, both school systems and life safety and the development community. The goal is to focus on finding long-term solutions to meet our long term infrastructure needs.
Iredell County and Mooresville’s relationship has grown stronger in the last few years. I believe I could be an integral part of furthering that relationship.
8. Why should a resident of south Iredell vote for you? What makes you different from the existing commissioners, and how will you represent the interest of the residents of Mooresville/South Iredell?
I have a strong, diverse, & successful business background. I am a native of Iredell County. I understand the issues and have witnessed the changes. I not only live in Iredell County, I work and invest in Iredell County, I volunteer my time in Iredell County. I have a conviction to give back and serve the citizens of Iredell County. My family has made its home here for several generations. I have a vested interest in our future with our son, due in August.
9. Who do you support for N.C. governor?
I support any candidate who will be willing to hold Raleigh accountable to the people.
10. Should the County partner with other entities such as municipalities like Mooresville & Charlotte (CATS) to provide for Regional Transportation Initiatives such as Commuter Rail and 83X (Commuter Vans). Why or why not, & which is a priority?
Has CATS figured out how to balance a checkbook…?
I am adamantly opposed to using Iredell County’s citizen’s property tax dollars to fund the commuter rail project. We must work more closely with the state to help us answer our transportation concerns. As a fiscal conservative and responsible steward of the taxpayer’s money, to make this decision the needs versus the wants of our citizens must be carefully measured.
11. Should the county release ETJ (Extra Territorial Jurisdiction) to municipalities such as Mooresville, Troutman, & Statesville so that their more “urban” planning codes can control the rapid growth, especially in southern Iredell? Why or why not? What is your position on releasing ETJ of the Highway corridors such as NC Highways 115, 21, 150, 801, 70, 90, etc so that the county’s municipalities can more effectively manage the growth and traffic patterns leading to our urban centers?
The municipalities should only have ETJ in more urban environments if they demonstrate they have the ability to manage and service it. The county and municipalities must work together closely to better manage the areas that are, or could begin to become, “squeezed” by sprawl… This is the prime argument as to why a strategic comprehensive land use plan must be adopted for Iredell County. This plan will be a tool to protect our strategic highway corridors.
12. How can the county best partner to meet regional recreational needs such as parks, programs, etc.? Are there effective partnering opportunities with municipalities? If so, what are they?
The county should work with the school systems with using their green space and fields in partnership for park space. The county can request developers of large-scale developments set aside land for parks and schools. This would lessen the burden on the county for the need to purchase land in the future.
13. Do you support the county’s current 2 School system, or should the Mooresville Graded School System be eliminated and rolled into the Iredell-Statesville School System?
Absolutely. The 2 school systems create a sense of competition in striving for excellence and quality of education. I am proud to have been a product of both school systems.
14. What are you going to do to deal with the near gridlock traffic conditions?
We must make it a priority for Iredell County to adopt a strategic comprehensive land use plan. This will be a strong tool in out tool chest in managing growth, but we must continue building stronger relationships with Raleigh and hold the politicians accountable to the people.
15. How do you plan to control the rampant over-development of our area?
We must make it a priority for Iredell County to adopt a strategic comprehensive land use plan. This will be a strong tool in out tool chest in managing growth, but we must continue building stronger relationships with Raleigh and hold the politicians accountable to the people.
16. Taxes continue to rise. Where does it stop?
The property tax rate in Iredell County actually decreased 2 cents this year. I can’t speak for the municipalities, but Iredell County has been an effective steward of the taxpayer’s money. As a commissioner you must be willing to acknowledge the needs vs. the wants. Remember, the “government’s” money came from the people. It stops when the commissioners realize they cannot fund every whim of every citizen. The future depends on sound choices and judgments being made.
17. What will you do to get our area our fair share of transportation dollars? (Am I the only one who wonders why there are 6-lane highways in BFE North Carolina but not in Mooresville-Davidson-Cornelius?)
I will work to hold Raleigh and our state politicians accountable. We must become more vocal in expressing where our state tax dollars are being spent. We must hold hands with our western NC regional partners, state and local representatives in counties along the strategic Highway and Interstate corridors that run through our region. Someone must stand up and be willing to lead! I will.
1. What is your position on the CATS 83X bus line and specifically the need for the county to contribute funding to help support this service for the residents of Mooresville/South Iredell?
Transportation is a definite concern to the citizens of Iredell County. The actual question that should be asked is, “how do we fund our transportation needs for the future, in general?” The answer is, we must look to other regions and study the solutions they have used. “Pennies for Progress” is one example that South Carolina is using. The key is, we must move away from funding these projects with property tax revenues.
2. What proposed funding solutions do you have to address overall traffic issues in Mooresville/South Iredell?
The first question that must be answered is: why is Iredell County not receiving it’s “fair share” of funding from Raleigh?
I would be opposed to increasing Iredell County’s property tax rate to widen roads.
We must look to economic expansion of our commercial regions to help offset the continued strain our rapid haphazard expansion has created.
Another option I will continue investigating is the success in South Carolina of their “pennies for progress” initiative. I will not commit to or against, but will continue to study the possibilities and impacts, the pros and cons.
3. What is your funding solution and solutions in general for bringing commuter rail into Mooresville/South Iredell? Just as a side note, I am very tired of generic, divisive and non-definitive answers - they are no longer acceptable – we need solutions now.
I am opposed to increasing the property tax rate to fund the commuter rail. CATS can’t give Iredell County a firm, realistic cost estimate. I am certainly not going to give CATS and Mecklenburg County a blank check. When CATS can offer a definite funding solution, then bring a proposal back to the table. As it stands today, I will not open Iredell County taxpayers to that uncertain liability.
4. What is your position on our school districts in Mooresville/Iredell County? We currently have two. Do you support keeping both districts? Why or why not?
Absolutely… With 2 districts you breed competition between systems. Competition only makes for better quality in education.
5. Provide your definition of quality of life for Iredell County residents. Is it different for those in Mooresville/South Iredell vs. the rest of the county?
Quality of life is being an integral part of a place where you feel at peace; at home, at work, and at play. It is a place where you can find a job, take in natural beauty; where you enjoy your family, your friends & your neighbors. North Iredell is a generational agricultural economy; Central Iredell is a historically rich industrial based region; South Iredell is host to Lake Norman, motorsports, and corporate work centers. Whatever your definition of quality of life; Iredell County is certainly blessed with an abundance in all regions.
6. Do you believe transportation issues have an impact on the quality of life for Mooresville/Iredell County residents? If so, what are your proposed solutions?
Traffic congestion is a problem being felt in the counties that surround Mecklenburg. One could argue that it is both a blessing and a curse. In North Carolina, we depend on Raleigh to fund our highways. However, as more and more people move here to enjoy our quality of life, and North Carolina fails to respond to our needs, transportation becomes the issue. We address this by adopting a comprehensive land use plan. This is a tool that will help steer growth along existing infrastructure, and protect the farms and green space.
7. How would you go about facilitating a more collaborative and productive working relationship with the Town of Mooresville? What you would do to ensure this is a results-driven relationship? Please be specific in your recommendations.
I will work to build and strengthen the relationship between Iredell County and the municipalities; Statesville, Troutman, & Mooresville. We must focus on solving the real issues, not making quick fixes.
I currently chair the MSIEDC Developer’s Council, which is a collaboration of Iredell County and the municipalities, both school systems and life safety and the development community. The goal is to focus on finding long-term solutions to meet our long term infrastructure needs.
Iredell County and Mooresville’s relationship has grown stronger in the last few years. I believe I could be an integral part of furthering that relationship.
8. Why should a resident of south Iredell vote for you? What makes you different from the existing commissioners, and how will you represent the interest of the residents of Mooresville/South Iredell?
I have a strong, diverse, & successful business background. I am a native of Iredell County. I understand the issues and have witnessed the changes. I not only live in Iredell County, I work and invest in Iredell County, I volunteer my time in Iredell County. I have a conviction to give back and serve the citizens of Iredell County. My family has made its home here for several generations. I have a vested interest in our future with our son, due in August.
9. Who do you support for N.C. governor?
I support any candidate who will be willing to hold Raleigh accountable to the people.
10. Should the County partner with other entities such as municipalities like Mooresville & Charlotte (CATS) to provide for Regional Transportation Initiatives such as Commuter Rail and 83X (Commuter Vans). Why or why not, & which is a priority?
Has CATS figured out how to balance a checkbook…?
I am adamantly opposed to using Iredell County’s citizen’s property tax dollars to fund the commuter rail project. We must work more closely with the state to help us answer our transportation concerns. As a fiscal conservative and responsible steward of the taxpayer’s money, to make this decision the needs versus the wants of our citizens must be carefully measured.
11. Should the county release ETJ (Extra Territorial Jurisdiction) to municipalities such as Mooresville, Troutman, & Statesville so that their more “urban” planning codes can control the rapid growth, especially in southern Iredell? Why or why not? What is your position on releasing ETJ of the Highway corridors such as NC Highways 115, 21, 150, 801, 70, 90, etc so that the county’s municipalities can more effectively manage the growth and traffic patterns leading to our urban centers?
The municipalities should only have ETJ in more urban environments if they demonstrate they have the ability to manage and service it. The county and municipalities must work together closely to better manage the areas that are, or could begin to become, “squeezed” by sprawl… This is the prime argument as to why a strategic comprehensive land use plan must be adopted for Iredell County. This plan will be a tool to protect our strategic highway corridors.
12. How can the county best partner to meet regional recreational needs such as parks, programs, etc.? Are there effective partnering opportunities with municipalities? If so, what are they?
The county should work with the school systems with using their green space and fields in partnership for park space. The county can request developers of large-scale developments set aside land for parks and schools. This would lessen the burden on the county for the need to purchase land in the future.
13. Do you support the county’s current 2 School system, or should the Mooresville Graded School System be eliminated and rolled into the Iredell-Statesville School System?
Absolutely. The 2 school systems create a sense of competition in striving for excellence and quality of education. I am proud to have been a product of both school systems.
14. What are you going to do to deal with the near gridlock traffic conditions?
We must make it a priority for Iredell County to adopt a strategic comprehensive land use plan. This will be a strong tool in out tool chest in managing growth, but we must continue building stronger relationships with Raleigh and hold the politicians accountable to the people.
15. How do you plan to control the rampant over-development of our area?
We must make it a priority for Iredell County to adopt a strategic comprehensive land use plan. This will be a strong tool in out tool chest in managing growth, but we must continue building stronger relationships with Raleigh and hold the politicians accountable to the people.
16. Taxes continue to rise. Where does it stop?
The property tax rate in Iredell County actually decreased 2 cents this year. I can’t speak for the municipalities, but Iredell County has been an effective steward of the taxpayer’s money. As a commissioner you must be willing to acknowledge the needs vs. the wants. Remember, the “government’s” money came from the people. It stops when the commissioners realize they cannot fund every whim of every citizen. The future depends on sound choices and judgments being made.
17. What will you do to get our area our fair share of transportation dollars? (Am I the only one who wonders why there are 6-lane highways in BFE North Carolina but not in Mooresville-Davidson-Cornelius?)
I will work to hold Raleigh and our state politicians accountable. We must become more vocal in expressing where our state tax dollars are being spent. We must hold hands with our western NC regional partners, state and local representatives in counties along the strategic Highway and Interstate corridors that run through our region. Someone must stand up and be willing to lead! I will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
