Citizen Will

I broke my silence at this evening’s Town Council meeting.

All throughout the Spring I’ve tried to ignore the Council’s accumulating messes. It was difficult.

The Mayor and Council acting “shocked” by the financial predicament we’re in - something I’ve been forecasting for the last 4 years. More “shock” that the drought has real impacts on the community’s growth and well-being. Greater “shock” that gas hit $4 a gallon, the housing market slumped, credit is tightening and many of the other underpinnings of a successful, sustainable community are lacking.

I’ve tried these last 5 years to get them to move on the obvious deficiencies but….

Anyway, the recent mountain of excuses that some of them have spewed about why our Town is ill-prepared and the ascendancy of political gamesmanship over good - transparent, accountable and HONEST - governance was just too much to keep quiet any longer.

Here were my prepared remarks:

The criticism the Council has heard surrounding their attempt to extended health benefits seems to fall into two basic areas: one, it is another example of the current Council’s fiscal irresponsibility and two, the impropriety - really, the sneaky fashion - that the extension was introduced: burying it on the consent agenda - introducing it at an end-of-term meeting - a meeting with plenty of distracting issues - omitting previous public discussion or disclosure.

As you are well aware of, I’ve been pushing for greater transparency and accountability in our local governmental process which is why I think a number of citizens have contacted me to discuss both of these issues.

First - let us be absolutely clear.

While the Council has said that putting forward a self-serving policy with no public oversight was a “mistake” - the papers and radio are full of their abject apologies - let us recognize that while it definitely was a “mistake” it was not - in any fashion - an accident.

Tonight, I’d like to focus on this unfortunate continuation of a troubling trend - a growing use of political gamesmanship by some of the longest serving of the Council to deflect public attention from questionable or controversial issues. What may be excellent strategy to the benefit of a few is terrible public policy.

I’m sure the more experienced of our Council are counting on public concern about this issue to abate over the summer - that is part of the strategy. I’m sure that those that have said it will have little political impact on their re-election are quite correct.

We have seen tempests like the awarding of a no-bid contract to Member Strom’s campaign treasurer blow over. We have seen public outcry over the Mayor’s request to remove term limits from his office quiet quickly. Public concern about the Mayor and Council’s recent handling of the possible conflict of interest that one of the Councilmember’s family had involving RAM Development - the Town’s partner in the fiscally irresponsible Lot #5 project - seem to dissipate rapidly.

Over the many years I have observed this Council, I have noticed more and more of late - a willingness to cut ethical corners, to delay or deny public awareness of problems - to drag their feet on practical, needed improvements increasing transparency in the political process.

Yes, it is easier to cut those corners, to delay bad news - as many of you did when you borrowed from the Town’s rainy day funds, drained our much needed fiscal reserves and put our bond rating in jeopardy.

The pattern these last 4 years has been to deny the known fiscal impact of the bonds, to trivialize the financial jeopardy the Lot #5 boondoggle puts our Town in, to pretend that the cost-overruns on the Town Operations center or the foreseeable increase of gas to $4 a gallon and many other obvious trends were not going to affect this community.

Now we’ve seen the culmination of these self-inflicted “mistakes” in this year’s tax increase. Yet, as another example of the same type of political gamesmanship that brought us the health insurance debacle, the Mayor and others on the Council continue to claim this year’s increase is an aberration - knowing fully well that more bad news is on the horizon.

The measure of ones character, they say, is how you behave when no one is paying attention. I’d add that it is also a measure of ones political character if you not only talk about greater transparency in the political process but actually support it with policy changes.

What to do, then? The majority of this Council accepted the recommendations of the now defunct Technology Advisory board on opening the governmental process - shedding more light in greater detail of our Town’s operations. Stop dragging your feet and implement those recommendations.

As I’ve been asking for the last 5 years, deliver a complete and accurate agenda 7 days prior to a business meeting. No movement on zoning or budgetary items requiring modification within those seven days. Stop burying unpopular items - like the health insurance issue - in parts of the agenda that few rarely review. Don’t mix creation of zoning districts with far-reaching affects in with zoning modifications for a particular project - like you did with Greenbridge - something, by the way, Councilmember Thorpe agreed with.

Overall, you should take the summer to think about what kind of political character you wish to be remembered for. Are you going to take the easy way out - continue your growing reliance of political trickery to the public’s detriment - or are you going to push to make your job more difficult - require and respond to greater public oversight?

I tried to keep it less than 3 minutes as I didn’t want Jim Ward - who had already sternly lectured the citizenry about keeping it short - to give me hell for going 19 seconds too long.

I had to shorten my remarks - not sure how they came out. I’ll post the video when it’s available.

There’s been racial tensions within Chapel Hill’s public works department for many years. During the last ten years I’ve heard and read about some quite troublesome behavior. I faulted former town manager Cal Horton’s “silo” style of management for covering up rather than resolving some rather nasty bits of racism. With Roger Stancil coming on-board (he got some good marks from Fayetteville’s NAACP), a reshuffling of Horton’s old lieutenants and a turnover of management personnel at the top I expected Chapel Hill would finally strengthen some basic job-related protections.

It appears not.

This graffiti (and other samples like it) have appeared in the Town’s new operations center (that costly bus barn) with some regularity over the last 6 months.

This example appears to target a particular employee that has been involved in organizing the workforce.

Tonight, Councilmember Mark Kleinschmidt did a bit of political theater - properly showing his ire at the affront then launching off into a bit of grandstanding about how he’d metaphorically throttle the offender, etc. Colleague Bill Thorpe also rose and said his piece though his was a bit more rambling (both which I’ll post as the video becomes available).

As I sat there through their outrage - and the polite applause that followed (”all good folks hate racism, right?”) - all I could think of is “Where the hell was that outrage before?”

Mark’s been on Council 6 years, Bill Thorpe served back in the bad days and 3 years this term. We’ve had news reports, civil rights lawyers - like Al McSurely, the NAACP’s Fred Battle, citizens and town employees coming before Council complaining about racial tension for years but what progress have we made?

Yes, I know we have a more balanced workforce, etc. but if the Town hasn’t been able to deal with this graffiti for months where does the Town really stand?

The Council needs to get off their seats and up to the Town Operations Center and talk directly with the good folks doing the day-to-day work of running our Town because if this crap is going on in the bathrooms, imagine what other kind problems - racial or otherwise - are going on within the Town’s workforce.

Just got back from the Chapel Hill Library where, at roughly 7:15pm, my wife and I were the 83rd and 84th voters in today’s primary run-off. Heard from a few folks throughout the day that turnout was abysmal. One of the poll-workers told us that there were only 324 early votes STATEWIDE!

Ellie and I are voting fools - I have voted nearly every election since 1980 - but we’re not the only ones in town. Chapel Hill has some very nice neighborhoods, our former one on Barclay Rd. for instance - but we think (like probably a lot of people think about their own neighborhoods) that there’s something special about the Mt. Bolus community.

When we gave the poll-worker our address she said that the folks in our neighborhood had really turned out today. I wasn’t surprised.

Being surrounded by a bunch of frequent voters won’t help our homes resale value or slow the progress of the road’s pine weevil infestation but it reflects a sense of civic responsibility that we should appreciate and applaud more loudly.

[Update:] Quisling Democrats capitulated in a vote 293 to 129. Rep. Price votes NO!!. Good for him.

More here: House Approves Unconstitutional Surveillance Legislation .

Yesterday I couldn’t get an inking of how my local “progressive” Democrat US Rep. David Price would vote on the latest attempt to defend the indefensible. Would he vote to absolve ATT from its culpability? Would he further extend the reach of the US government into our private affairs?

US Sen. Russ Feingold, one heck of a leader, had no such problem:

June 19, 2008

“The proposed FISA deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation. The House and Senate should not be taking up this bill, which effectively guarantees immunity for telecom companies alleged to have participated in the President’s illegal program, and which fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home. Allowing courts to review the question of immunity is meaningless when the same legislation essentially requires the court to grant immunity. And under this bill, the government can still sweep up and keep the international communications of innocent Americans in the U.S. with no connection to suspected terrorists, with very few safeguards to protect against abuse of this power. Instead of cutting bad deals on both FISA and funding for the war in Iraq, Democrats should be standing up to the flawed and dangerous policies of this administration.”

Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) is a member of the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence Committees.

Capitulation.

Damn, David is a nice enough guy. He brings home the goodies more often than not but his inability to take a lead on any of the key issues - the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, illegal domestic surveillance, torture - perverting our nation’s foundations is disheartening.

He can be led to the water, tortuously, but getting him to drink is a hell of a proposition.

Called David Price, my local Congressman, this afternoon to see if he planned to vote NO on tomorrow’s House Bill HR 6304 which proffers blanket immunity to those telecoms, like ATT (Bellsouth, Cingular), that knowingly broke Federal and State wire-tapping laws on behalf of our current lawless madministration.

His current stance: no opinion.

In fact, his office said he won’t be expressing an opinion until after his vote!

Sounds like he’s preparing to defend the indefensible - issuing what the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) calls the ” Congressional seal of approval on illegal surveillance” but maybe we’ll be pleasantly surprised.

What’s the big deal? The millions of folks that are represented by the EFF in a class-action suit against AT&T because their “private domestic communications and communications records were illegally handed over to the National Security Agency (NSA)” won’t get their day in court (more here).

Not all telcos, notably QWEST (here) went along with this incredibly intrusive and illegal operation. Will Price put ATT and Verizon ahead of our citizenry and strip them of their fundamental Constitutional protections?

Contact David and let him know that warrantless searches are not acceptable.

Quick response to the Council’s recent “health” problems.

I appreciate your interest. I’ve had a number of folks ask me if I was surprised by last week’s debacle. I wasn’t. The inclusion of this item on the agenda was no accident and is reflective of this Council’s willingness to manipulate the process to get their way. From my experience, those serving longest are generally the most likely to perform this “sleight of hand” - willing to cut corners at our citizens expense.

For years I’ve asked for a few key reforms that would introduce greater transparency and lessen the political “gamesmanship” that some on the Council have substituted for good governance. In fact, reforming the way agendas are created, published and used has been part of my platform these last two campaigns (might’ve been nice to get a little coverage on that over my going 19 seconds too long answering a forum question ).

Why have I been so concerned? I’ve probably read more agendas, more supporting documents and more published commentary than most citizens - probably more than some of our sitting council members. Trying to respond to these items - many which slip under the medias attention - in less than 2 or 3 days is difficult at best.

How would I change the agenda process?

First, publish a complete agenda 7 days prior to a Council business meeting. Complete means the complete text of ordinances, all appendices, supporting documents and other relevant evidentiary artifacts. The only modifications allowed prior to a meeting would be correcting typographical errors or adding elements to non-substantive items - essentially notifications, commendations, citizen comments, etc.

For deciding issues requiring public hearings, I wouldn’t allow any modifications without an opportunity for further public comment. For example, substantive changes were introduced to RAM Developments’s agreement on Lot #5 minutes before the final Council vote. Neither the press or the wider public had any opportunity to review or comment - positively or negatively - on these changes which had fiscal and policy impacts. That’s a disservice.

I also wouldn’t allow modifications to the budget items requiring approval less than 7 days prior to the vote.

Seven days is not a lot of time for folks holding down a full-time job or with a busy family life. If we want greater transparency and participation, we owe our citizen’s that brief time to digest policy proposals.

Second, I would restrict substantive issues to those parts of the agenda open to public comment and not “hide” them on the agenda. As this latest debacle illustrates, it is easy to “game” the public by burying substantive items in the consent agenda. This isn’t the first time by any stretch. Worse, Mayor Foy has developed a growing tendency to skip citizens who want to speak on consent agenda items.

Third, I wouldn’t hide substantive policy changes by wedging them within other voting contexts.

One recent example, the Council creating a new zoning district for Downtown within a hearing and decision on variances for the Greenbridge development. I’ve had quite a few people express alarm that the height and density limits Downtown were dramatically increased. They were further troubled because it wasn’t obvious that a decision on this fundamental change to our Downtown’s character wasn’t introduced or debated on its own merits.

The timing and placement of this item on the agenda - wedging it in the middle of another set of decisions - was not accidental and was pure political gamesmanship by Mayor Pro Tem Strom and others. Terrible public policy - a repudiation of his and others commitment to open and transparent governance. Bill Thorpe agreed with me that night and said Council shouldn’t continue this practice.

Fourth, I would make sure that decisions on related items are grouped together. For instance, Council approved the contract and modifications to Lot #5’s plaza art project - as part of the consent agenda by the way - before approving the project itself. The timing of the vote on that approval came later the same evening. In other words, the Council created a necessity for further approval of the project by creating a financial obligation.

Following my questioning this approval, one of the members questioned the Town’s attorney on the legality of this out-of-order decision but none challenged the propriety.

There are a few more that have to do with easing citizen access, highlighting changes between different incarnations of agendas, etc. which I probably should ‘blog further on now that you got me started….

Finally, I’ll be coming to next Wednesday’s meeting to challenge Council - again - to fulfill their promise for greater transparency. I will also be asking for a full and complete accounting of how the health insurance item came to appear on the consent agenda. This was no accident or oversight.

By the way, while I wasn’t surprised that political expediency took the upper-hand - an evolving trend among members like Bill Strom - I was delightfully surprised and heartened by the outpouring of citizen concern. It would’ve been nice if these citizens’ critique was met with more solicitude.

Barack Obama swung by Chapel Hill tonight in his on-going attempt to clinch his party’s nomination. As David Price noted, for the first time in decades North Carolina is relevant - and we have an opportunity to push Obama over the top.

As with many political events, the rally, scheduled for 9:30pm kicked off promptly at 10:19pm. The Dean Dome was 3/4’s full - the crowd a mix of college students and locals (with a smattering of notable politicos - Mel Watt, David Price, Hampton Dellinger, Alice Gordon).

If you’ve seen Obama speak before, the stump he gave was fairly familiar - tweaked a bit for both the Tar Heel college and North Carolina “blue” crowd. He butchered Chancellor Moeser’s name (quickly corrected with some input from the crowd). He made a small reference to RTP - proposed cloning its success (I suggest better research by his crew). Spoke of mitigating college tuitions using a Americorp type program ($12K per annum -whew!). Talked about off-shoring of jobs and closing of mills. But mostly it was a speech targeted towards a national audience.

He riffed on McCain - “25 years in Congress” and a $25 gas tax refund “is the best he can do”.

After pummeling McCain a bit, he carefully highlighted the differences between him and Hillary.

Obama painted Hillary as the candidate of lobbyists, special interests and the back room party apparatchik. Contrasting his trip to Wall Street to inform CEOs that their personal tax bills were headed up, that under his administration Federal subsidies for their cash cows would dry up and windfall profits (literally highway robbery) were going to be taxed with Hillary’s Union hall pandering, he made the case for his political courage. And, he noted subtlety, she hasn’t been quite honest.

Which brings me back to our local Board of Commissioners race.

Between the two at-large candidates that I know and have seen in action at close range, Neloa Jones is the hands down best candidate.

She’s united her community, built coalitions and been honest and up-front with her concerns. She’s demonstrated her political courage.

She is no creature of the local “rah rah growth at any cost” political clique.

Neloa has not been missing in action and she hasn’t, like her opponent laid claim to positions she hasn’t fought for - kind of our own homegrown Obama. Sharp, with a real sense of purpose, Neloa is the kind of leader we need for Orange County.

Please, when you go to vote for Obama (or Hillary) cast a vote for Neloa.

Here’s some action from tonight’s rally. All photos compliments of my son Elijah.

(more…)

Forty years since Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated. As you might guess, I’ve been encouraged by his words and his actions for more than four decades.

The night before his death Dr. King observed a nation in distress:

The nation is sick. Trouble is in the land. Confusion all around. That’s a strange statement. But I know, somehow, that only when it is dark enough, can you see the stars.

He rejected the quelling of dissent:

All we say to America is, “Be true to what you said on paper.” If I lived in China or even Russia, or any totalitarian country, maybe I could understand the denial of certain basic First Amendment privileges, because they hadn’t committed themselves to that over there. But somewhere I read of the freedom of assembly. Somewhere I read of the freedom of speech. Somewhere I read of the freedom of the press. Somewhere I read that the greatness of America is the right to protest for right. And so just as I say, we aren’t going to let any injunction turn us around. We are going on.

But, in the end, he was silenced.

Though it seems we’ve come a long way from the days of Crow, recent reminders, like the racist subtext flowing through the local blog-o-sphere after Eve Carson’s murder or the continued government supported gentrification of Chapel Hill demonstrates how far we’ve yet to go…

What would Martin make of our world today? Principled dissent is no longer an American bedrock principle. Surveillance, wiretapping, water boarding part of our everyday experience. “Incarceration over education” ( 1 in 9 young black males according to the recent Pew report), poverty surging and a war even more ridiculously off-kilter than Vietnam ever was…

Martin said that night (I’ve been to the mountaintop) that we should “develop a kind of dangerous unselfishness”, to help folks not questioning “If I stop to help this man in need, what will happen to me?” but rather “If I do no stop to help the sanitation workers, what will happen to them?” That’s the question.

That is the question, as ever, before us this tragic fortieth anniversary.

(more…)

“Murder does not come often to Chapel Hill” sums up what I’ve heard frequently today in the wake of Eve Carson’s tragic death.

The Mayor said it. WCHL’s Ron Stutts and Natasha Vukelic repeated the sentiment on my drive home. Chief Curran, at the 5:30 CHPD, said it was one reason Eve Carson remained unidentified for some time.

Murder, at least for now, does appear to come infrequently to Chapel Hill but it does come, and more often than our media and elected leadership admit. I’ve lived here for nearly two decades - been around Chapel Hill for nearly three - and no matter how much I want our community to be and to be seen as safe and secure, our brushes with serious crime are coming more frequently and often more violently.

In the last few weeks, two domestic disputes, one in Northside and one at Carrboro’s Carrboro Plaza ended in the murder of two of our local citizens.

Not to diminish the Carson’s terrible loss, but where was our community’s outrage, sorrow, grief and calls-to-action for the deaths of 51 year-old Marshall Ralph Brown (shot in the back by stepson 27-year-old William Albert Stroud) or 59 year-old James Imonti ( by his 65 year-old father-in-law)?

Was it because Eve Carson’s death was apparently random, not as mundane as long simmering family disputes? Was her death any more random or less tragic than those of the 2005’s murder of the Sapikowski’s, blasted by their son over an argument about his grades and a girlfriend? Brutal, terrible but so was that of 2006’s Kedrain Swann’s at the ill-fated Avalon night club.

Was it that she was young, accomplished and so full of promise and these folks seem to have made less of splash in our local community?

“Murder does not come often to Chapel Hill” comes from Sylvia Colwell’s analysis of the troubling media coverage of another Chapel Hill murder of young woman of great promise.

July 15, 1993, roughly 6am, Kristin Lodge-Miller, 26, a speech therapist with a promising future was gunned down on Estes by 18 year-old Anthony Georg Simpson. Simpson pumped 5 bullets into Kristin, the final a head shot as she lay dying on the side of Estes [B on MAP]. He didn’t care that morning commuters saw his callous act.

Random, brutal, senseless.

This happened a short distance from where my wife and I lived. The murder, the ensuing media circus and the trial stirred ire within our community. There were calls to regulate or ban handguns.

What lessons were to be learned?

In the years since, folks, as is natural, have forgotten Kristin. The informal memorial of flowers and mementos decorating the shoulder of Estes was removed. The remnants washed away. Her friends and few others seem to remember or care about that Chapel Hill murder anymore.

I still remember though.

Is there anything to learn from Eve’s death? Chancellor Moeser’s kind comments this afternoon [MP3] made clear there was plenty to learn from Eve’s devotion to the “Carolina Way”. But what of her death?

I know one lesson to take away from today’s commentary. Chapel Hill is changing.

Random acts of violence and simmering domestic disputes that chaotically flare into fatal confrontations are nearly impossible to prevent but complacency does a disservice to our community. As the story of Ms. Carson’s death unrolls, I hope what the world will see a realistic Chapel Hill.

Maintaining the pretense, especially in the face of so many near misses these last few years, is also disservice to folks like Eve, James, Marshall, Kedrain, Kristin.

[UPDATE 5:31pm] Over at the impromptu memorial behind the “Y”, WTVD 11 is reporting that the SUV has been found and is currently being processed by the CHPD crime unit.

[UPDATE 5:50] Further coverage from 1360 WCHL.

[UPDATE: 6:16PM] The Chancellor’s remarks via 1360WCHL.com here [MP3].

ORIGINAL POST

The young woman found fatally shot on the corner of Hillcrest Road and Hillcrest Circle [MAP + street view] around 5 a.m. Wednesday, Mar. 5th as Eve Carson, UNC’s 2008 Student Body President.

I had the pleasure of meeting Eve during last Fall’s election, she seemed to be a real champion of the “Carolina Way”.

Photo: DTH

This afternoon Chancellor Moeser and a crowd stretching from the North end of Polk Place nearly to Wilson Library paid their respects to this will liked and highly praised member of UNC’s student body. After the Chancellor’s remarks, one of the largest, quietest crowds I’ve ever seen assembled at UNC gave more than the asked for minute of silent contemplation. A few moments later the UNC bell tower played “Hark the Sound”, a song Chancellor Moeser described as “Eve’s favorite”. [MP3]

An informal memorial is setup next to the rear of the Y fronting Polk Place [MAP].

The Chapel Hill Police Department (CHPD) have said that Ms. Carson was driving “a blue 2005 Toyota Highlander with a Georgia license plate AIV-6690.” (CHPD Press Release)

Yesterday morning at approximately 5:00 am, Chapel Hill Police responded to reported gunshots in the area of Davie Circle. Officers checked the area and located an unidentified female 18-25 years of age lying in the intersection of Hillcrest Drive and Hillcrest Circle.

This morning at approximately 9:00 am a positive identification of the victim was made by police investigators and the office of the medical examiner. The victim has been identified as Eve Carson age 22, a UNC senior and current UNC student body president. Eve was a resident of Chapel Hill and a highly regarded member of the university community. Our condolences go out to the Carson family and the entire university community that knew Eve.

The police department has issued a BOLO for the victim’s vehicle that is believed to have been taken during the crime. The description of the vehicle is as follows: A blue 2005 Toyota Highlander with Georgia plate AIV-6690.

This investigation is on-going and the Police Department are seeking leads and continuing to urge anyone with information about this crime to call the Chapel Hill Police Department at 968-2760 or Crime Stoppers at (919) 942-7515.

We will have another update scheduled for 5:30 to discuss any new developments.

Here is a copy of the current standard Georgia license plate (the style wasn’t described by the police, here are other possible versions).

The standard 2005 Highlander looks something like this:

Here’s a 2005 blue Highlander on Craig’s List with some better angles. Further images available via Google images.

The Daily Tar Heel is leading the coverage here, here, this video of the news conference and information on this evening’s Pit memorial.

The Herald Sun has this update.

The Chapel Hill News’ ‘blog Orange Chat has this from Chancellor Moeser.

Dear Carolina Students, Faculty and Staff,

I am so sorry to tell you that Chapel Hill Police have identified the victim of this week’s shooting as Eve Carson, our student body president, trustee, wonderful person and great friend. We are deeply
saddened and numb with grief.

I would like for us all to gather this afternoon on Polk Place at 3 p.m. to remember Eve and to grieve together. We will plan a full memorial service at a later time. For now, it is important that we pause,
contemplate our loss and give each other support.

We encourage students, faculty or staff who feel they need assistance to contact the Office of the Dean of Students (966-4042) or Counseling and Wellness Services (966-3658). Counselors will be available at the Upendo Lounge at the Student Academic Services Building and Room 2518 A/B in
the new addition at the Carolina Union until 11 p.m. this evening (Thursday, March 6, 2008). Resident advisors in campus housing and Granville Towers are also available to be of assistance and support.

I know how difficult it will be to begin to comprehend something so tragic. Please, as you gather your thoughts and prayers, think of Eve’s parents, family and friends.

I hope you will join us this afternoon on Polk Place.

I’m confident that Chief Curran will give our police department’s full attention to this tragic crime.

Yes, this event appears to be a random act and, thus, not easily prevented but, with two murders and a violent robbery [Pine Knolls] a few weeks apart, we are reminded, once again, that the complexion of crime in Chapel Hill is changing.

I’m concerned that attention today’s and these other recent incidents, just like the attention brought by the club shootings Downtown, will fade with time and that our community would have missed an opportunity to discuss how we best address a growing problem.

As probably most readers of CitizenWill know, I decided to stop posting on locally owned OrangePolitics (OP) for many reasons:

• an escalating and stifling intolerance of valid though different viewpoints,
• the site’s authors acting as surrogates for political allies who didn’t have the courage to engage the community directly in an honest, fact-based and open manner
• and an unwillingness on my part to work hard in “building the brand” of a site that advertised one thing - engaging the wider community in an informative discussion of local “progressive” issues - and delivering another (what I said below the fold).

In many ways, my disappointment in OP comes from the narrowing of that initial promise - to engage the wider community - into a sometimes almost reflexively dismissive platform pushing a particular agenda.

I have no problem with OP’s owner pushing a particular agenda - that is what my site - CitizenWill.org - does. I do have a problem with any claim to being an open and transparent forum for community-wide discussion.

For all that, the site, its owner and commentators have sometimes broadened the discussion of local issues. On occasion, “leakage” - the coverage of particular issues by the local media - occurred because of those discussions. These basic contributions not only informed but stirred debate and even action.

But those wins don’t justify the failures. In November I said I hoped that the next generation - OrangePolitics 3.0 - would represent a change of course -

“Reform is in order and I truly hope that the promise of 2003 becomes the reality of 2008.”

Today, Ruby and company will meet to presumably chart out that new course for “OrangePolitics 3.0″ at a “Winter Happy Hour” ( 6:30pm, FUSE).

Following up on my previous comment, I suggest one topic of discussion be how to stick with a reality-based perspective.

Unfortunately, if this recent post by Ruby is any indication of 3.0’s direction, well, the new OP is already off to a poor start:

Here’s a preview of the new “Hall of Fame” function that makes a bunch of stats public on OP 3.0:

Top 10 commenters of all time:
Ruby Sinreich 1359 items
WillR 821 items
Dan Coleman 609 items
Tom Jensen 380 items
Mark Chilton 344 items
jehb 161 items
Mary Rabinowitz 154 items
johnk 125 items
ethan 50 items
admin 42 items

In my “farewell to OP” message, I mentioned the almost 3,000 comments/posts I made over the lifetime of OP. That estimate was based on a dump of the current OP website - showing roughly 2263 comments from 2003-2007 plus some notes I made in 2004 of missing comments from an early accidental purge of OP.

While I made a wide “guesstimate” of those early days, I’m comfortable with what OP currently reports - that I made thousands of comments.

In fact, based on my analysis of OP circa Nov. 5th, it appears I made :

• 28 comments on stories posted in 2003
• 178 comments on stories posted in 2004
• 520 comments on stories posted in 2005
• 876 comments on stories posted in 2006
• 661 comments on stories posted in 2007 (slacking off?)

Or 2263 comments over 459 posts (threads of discussion). The particulars are listed below my “farewell”.

When someone contacted me about Ruby’s comment (a longtime OP lurker that thought there was an “undercount”) I notified Ruby of this striking discrepancy.

Why? Not because I felt any personal slight but because I thought Ruby would want to analyze the delta and fix her software. I’m sure an analysis of other commentators would show a similar miscount. Unfortunately, to date, there’s been no comment on those erroneous numbers.

Does it matter if my or any other posters contributions were off by a factor of two or more?

Not if this was just a software glitch but if this is an attempt to shape the past to forge the future, well, probably not the best start for a reformed OP. I’ll wait to see if the number of comments carried forward into 3.0 are reflective of the actual discussion carried out on OP over these last 4 years,

As I said before, I hope OP 3.0 sheds the mistakes of OP 2.0 and evolves into its initial promise - an open, honest, informative and inviting forum for discussion of local issues.

I’ll be on the sidelines encouraging the success of 3.0. Good luck folks! And do yourselves proud - try to hit one out if the ballpark.

(more…)

I’ve said I understand why UNC feels compelled to push forward it plans for the Carolina North Innovation Center but I still want to see a master plan that incorporates this project, its supplementary infrastructure and the results of the on-going transit, fiscal equity and environmental studies before one concrete block is laid.

Timing is important as is soliciting continued community input.

My hope is that UNC, the three local government entities, other local stakeholders and the wider community will use the Innovation Center approval process as an opportunity to create a structured framework for further sustained negotiations on Carolina North. While committees like the Horace-Williams Citizens group have helped define some of the principles we want to see the project adhere to, an intermittent process, whose existence is subject to the whims of the Mayor, will not serve our citizens well.

From the outset, we need to create a flexible framework for open and inclusive discussions on Carolina North. As opportunities and obstacles arise over the first fifteen years of Carolina North’s development, how else will we address these challenges?

UNC is giving the community a chance to meet with both their staff and that of their developers, Alexandria Real Estate Equities (whose on-line presence could use a serious upgrade) to see how innovative their cornerstone project - the Innovation Center - will be.

Dear Friends and Neighbors,

The University and Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. are planning the Carolina Innovation Center on the Carolina North property at the corner of Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard and the former Municipal Drive. The Innovation Center will provide an environment where innovation-based companies affiliated with the University can turn laboratory concepts into viable businesses.

The design process for this building is in its early stages. I hope that you can join us on Thursday evening, November 29, from 5:30 to 7:00 p.m. at the Robert and Pearl Seymour Center at 2551 Homestead Road for a community meeting on the Innovation Center. Representatives from UNC, Alexandria and the architect for the building will present preliminary sketches of the building design.

We have submitted a concept plan for the Innovation Center to the Town of Chapel Hill. The Town Council is currently scheduled to consider that concept plan at its January 23, 2008 meeting.

We look forward to meeting with neighbors and community members to answer your questions and to listen to your ideas. You can learn more about the Innovation Center in an article from the University Gazette here .

We hope to see you on November 29. As always, feel free to contact me if you have any questions. If you are a neighborhood or community contact, please forward this to your group or others who may be interested.

Best,

Linda

Linda Convissor, Director of Local Relations
Office of University Relations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Linda_Convissor@unc.edu
CB# 6225
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-6225
919-962-9245
919-843-5966 (fax)