Congratulations to Ruby, the editors and many commenters that have made local ‘blog OrangePolitics such a vital forum for our community.
Three years ago, less than a week into OP’s life, Ruby graciously permitted me to blather on about Chapel Hill’s red-light scamera fiasco. Over the years, though I know I’ve tested her patience, she’s continued to host my and other folks contrarian, at least to her, viewpoints.
Yes, there’s been some controversy over content. Some folks opening up dialogues on other forums. Others going silent. Yet others moving on to their own gigs. All together, though, OP, through the efforts of Ruby, the editors and its community, have maintained a high signal to noise ratio.
As I noted elsewhere, the “long tail†of OP reaches back through time to help folks work today’s current issues. It continues to be a critical resource for local activism.
Once again, congratulations Ruby.
And if you move OP to a CivicSpace platform, one small request: PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE don’t break your links!
At least, not much snoozing as participants have reported on local ‘blog OrangePolitics.org.
I appreciate the time and effort Mark Chilton, Gene Pease, Fred Black and Dan Coleman put into real-time reviews.
I hope some of our other “known” blog commenters (Anita, Linda, Aaron, Andrea, Diane ?) get in to the act.
[UPDATE:] Anita and Frances Henderson joined in.
UNC trustee and local developer Roger Perry said his sense was that UW-Madison officials essentially tell the community that the university’s mission requires it to do a certain project, and then everyone goes to work on preventing negative impacts, without trying to stop the project in general.
He said he’d like to get to that point in Chapel Hill, and that it can be somewhat “insulting” when someone not connected to UNC says they really aren’t convinced the university needs to do what it says it needs to do.
HeraldSun 09/27/06
Perry is insulted when someone outside of UNC questions the whys-and-wherefores of campus development?
What the hell? Near quoting from the authoritarianism playbook, Perry says he likes a community that doesn’t question the diktat of the university – a community that just “deals” with the university’s negative impacts.
Perry appears to long for the day when citizens “shut up” and STOP SAYING they aren’t really convinced about what the university needs to do. My guess? It isn’t the citizen taxpayer questioning the “needs” as much as the citizen taxpayer that questions the “hows” that really inflames his ire.
The obvious sub-text is Carolina North.
The fine residents of our community, the hard-working taxpaying citizens of our State, deserve more than the University’s current flimsy assertions of positive financial, economic and social impacts. From a straight business perspective, for the investment demanded of our community and State, the return is hardly clear.
While I believe the University needs to expand, I have been quite clear that the justifications UNC, to-date, have offered up for Carolina North are, at best, fundamentally weak, at worse, downright disingenuous.
Roger Perry and the rest of UNC’s Board of Trustees absolutely must address the glaring absence of any reasonable, documented, calculable return on investment before I, a single North Carolina citizen taxpayer, will be convinced of the soundness of their plans.
Of course, this is the board Carolina North’s designated quarterback Jack Evans claims can’t handle reading a 15 page list of development principles for Carolina North.
What a trip for the Carolina North boys. Perry’s “shut up” is a fine bookend to Moeser’s reaction to “freelance dissent”.
