Made a quick 18 mile cycle through the major municipal precincts, along major roads, ramps and intersections last night to pick up some signs for a few candidates plus my Honest Abe NO on the referendum.
Baddour’s supporters, considering the incredible number of his signs, seemed to have done an excellent first pass. Continue reading Signs, Signs Everywhere Fewer Signs?
Covered Hogan Farms from 6:45am to 9:45am. BOCC candidate Jamie Daniels was handing out material until roughly 9am. Stein supporters covered the precinct from 7ish on. The Democrats staffed a table handing out sample ballots the whole time I was there…
As of 9:35am, 300 confirmed voters with another 10-15 milling about waiting to go. When I called in to report the numbers to O.C. Democratic headquarters, was told the 10am figure was 369.
Hogan Farms has a nice setup – including hot coffee. A welcome bit of hospitality considering the temperature and rain began falling in earnest as I left. Judge Baddour was getting some good support. So to folks voting NO on the districting referendum. A welcome surprise.
2AM Chapel Hill Library – Prepping Signs
[UPDATE: ] Moved the rest of the photos here.
The rain has let up a bit. I’m hoping most of it has swept through by 4:30pm when Elijah and I start working Chapel Hill library (Estes Hills – my home precinct).
For my RSS reading readers ;-)!
Find your precinct HERE .
Please vote Tuesday, Nov. 7th. Polls are open 6:30AM until 7:30PM.
Precinct locations for Orange County and SAMPLE BALLOT
Precinct locations for Chatham County and SAMPLE BALLOT
Note precinct changes: More information here.
The Superior Court District 15B candidates are:
Baddour and Stein 3rd Quarter campaign finance reports.
Fox’s 3rd quarter report [PDF] was available by Friday.
Anderson’s 3rd quarter [PDF] just today (Nov. 6th) [UPDATE:] Tom Jensen on OP informs us that the report was available Saturday.
Videos and commentary on Oct. 11th’s Superior Court District 15B UNC Young Democrats forum.
Videos and commentary on Oct. 16th’s Superior Court District 15B Bar members forum.
This time last year I was catching 14 winks in preparation for election day.
Earlier in the evening I had made the rounds collecting my outlying signs for redeployment. About 3 hours from now, I was leaping out of bed to fill some balloons, say a hasty goodbye to the family and rush to pick up local activist Tom Jensen ( thanks again Tom for kindly assisting with the last round of sign deployments at every municipal polling station).
It was the start of one of the longest days in my life. Exhilerating, enjoyable, extraordinary, engaging – the hospitality and good cheer of the citizens of Chapel Hill made the long hours fly by.
The beautiful fall weather was an incredible bonus.
Continue reading Sign, Sign Everywhere a Sign…
A resounding NO from former Orange County Democratic Party chair Barry Katz in his Oct. 28th LTE to the Chapel Hill News:
I will vote no on the ballot referendum to restructure the Orange County commissioners.
First, there hasn’t been enough public debate on the merits of change, and I oppose change without voters’ understanding its consequences. Second, since the mid-1930s, The Chapel Hill News has reported countywide contests between candidates in favor of funding schools, health clinics, etc., and candidates who oppose raising taxes to fund such services. Most years the pro-funding candidates win and they do it with support from all parts of the county, albeit with greater support in southern Orange. So this is an old story.
Third, my six years on the county Planning Board suggests to me that underlying the push to change how county commissioners are elected are residents who are concerned about “restrictive” land-use planning and the rights of landowners to do what they want with their land. I joined the board as a skeptic regarding land-use planning and left a confirmed proponent of strategic land-use planning. We have only to look at Wake County to see how unregulated growth leads to urban sprawl, a lack of public transportation and too little public open space.
Orange County has been in a decades-long urban-suburbanizing transition that will continue past my lifetime. Agriculture now accounts for about 1 percent of the county’s economy, but the value of agricultural land has skyrocketed in recent decades due to residential housing demand. “Recent residents,” i.e., people whose grandparents weren’t born in Orange County, constitute a strong majority of voters and now determine the outcome of local elections, as is only proper. Not only would new and future Orange residents benefit from planning, but agricultural landowners would enjoy sustained maximum land values if the quality of life stays high in the county, as would occur under a thoughtful land use plan.
I hope landowners recognize the practical truth in this notion. — Barry Katz, Chapel Hill
From Jack Evans concerning housing at Carolina North.
At the LAC meeting on October 19, we agreed that the University would draft some thoughts for the continuation of our discussion regarding housing at Carolina North. The attached file is our response to that request. As you will see, we found a number of issues and questions that we think are worthy of further discussion within the LAC. We don’t believe that our discussions to this point have reached a stage that
would permit the formulation of consensus principles, but we hope our discussion tomorrow afternoon will move us in the direction.
This follows on Mayor Mark Chilton’s (Carrboro) discussion of Oct. 19th (documented on OrangePolitics)
The Leadership Advisory Committee on Carolina North had an interesting discussion about housing as a part of Carolina North this afternoon.
Here are some prepared comments that I presented as a way of launching the discussion:
The housing problem at Carolina North is, in short, that the new workers at Carolina North will either live at Carolina North or they will live elsewhere and need to commute to the campus. There is not a great deal of vacant housing currently available within the Chapel Hill Transit service area (although there is some), so new employees will either have to occupy housing that is to be built in the Chapel Hill Transit service area, or they will have to live outside that service area and commute. Let’s take a look at the scale of the problem…
I suggest you read the extended discussion. UNC’s issues and discussion follow:
Discussion Issues and Questions Related to
Housing at Carolina NorthPrepared for the LAC discussion on November 2, 2006
We believe that housing at Carolina North is a critical aspect of attracting employees, both faculty and staff, to the University, and helping existing employees find housing closer to campus. However, we believe that many issues will require further discussion within the LAC in the process of formulating specific planning principles that will be used to guide planning related to housing.
We envision the housing at Carolina North as a mixed-income community. That is, the housing will be a mixture of market, work force, and affordable housing. We need clear understandings regarding the definitions of these three categories. And we do not yet have enough information to set percentages for these three categories, but we will commit to study the issues.
The housing planned for Carolina North must be financially feasible, financially sustainable, and market driven. Although the University will likely retain ownership of the land, we anticipate that a large portion of the housing will be privately developed, thus adding values to local tax rolls. On that premise, the housing must provide opportunities for a reasonable return to prospective developers.
While housing at Carolina North will not solve all of the housing problems of the Chapel Hill/Carrboro community, UNC-Chapel Hill has a commitment to finding the right mix of market, work force, and affordable housing that will avoid making those problems worse. In this regard the University will maintain the goal that each stage of development at Carolina North will contain some level of each of the three types of housing. It may be appropriate to think of the first stage (approximately 10 years) as a test market that will provide valuable information about housing and will inform planning for subsequent stages.
As discussed in the LAC meeting on October19, we do not anticipate undergraduate instruction at Carolina North. Consequently, we do not foresee the need to build undergraduate housing at Carolina North. We do, however, anticipate some level of housing at Carolina North for graduate students and post-doctoral fellows. These groups of residents are likely to be married with children. Since housing at Carolina North is likely to be multi-family construction, this could also assist the University’s efforts to attract the best graduate students and post-doctoral fellows. For this type of housing it is possible, though not necessarily certain, that the University would be the developer and operator of the housing.
The discussion of housing during the LAC meeting of October 19 explored linking overall employment at Carolina North and the planned supply of housing. We consider it to be difficult to define and implement a linkage of this sort in advance. A number of questions deserve consideration. For example, what restrictions should apply to housing at Carolina North?. Should CN housing be primarily or exclusively for employees of the University or UNC Health Care System, or should it serve a broader population? What issues related to social and cultural diversity in CN housing should we consider? If work force and affordable housing involve some form of subsidy or constrained appreciation in the form of price caps or restrictions on sale, what issues are raised if some of this housing is occupied by non-University employees?
To the extent that University employees occupy housing at Carolina North, use of SOVs would be favorably affected. Similarly, to the extent that University employees living anywhere make use of transit (whether within the service area of the Chapel Hill transit system or not) use of SOVs would be favorably affected.
One of the inputs that we need for this and subsequent discussions is information that incorporates our best estimates, stage by stage, of the level of employment to be anticipated at Carolina North. Although we will not be able to formulate these estimates with great precision, it is important to get the order of magnitude approximately correct so that our discussions about housing, transportation, and fiscal impact will be as realistic as we can be at this stage or our work.
11/1/06
BTW, here’s Mr. Evan’s contact information:
John P. Evans
Executive Director, Carolina NorthHettleman Professor of Business
304 South Building, CB 4000
Chapel Hill, NC 27599
919-843-2025
Nice and quick response from Judge Calabria:
Mr. Raymond,
I will look into this as soon as I finish sending a letter to the State
Board of Elections about the violations that are occurring on TV. I have
already requested rescue funds. I will be happy to provide a copy of my
new letter to you after I send it to Mr. Leake. if you would like one.
Sincerely,
Ann MarieJudge Ann Marie Calabria
Candidate for NC Supreme Court
Let’s see how quickly, if at all, the rest of the candidates respond.
[UPDATE:]
Dear Mr. Raymond,
Mr. Leake was gone for the day and we do not have his email address.
I will look into the Orange County Early Voting matter.Thanks,
Ann Marie Calabria
According to WCHL1360 some kind of organized tomfoolery is going on at the Morehead Planetarium polling place
Some students from UNC Chapel Hill are working to get votes for Conservative judges, but are not always transparent in their efforts.
Chapel Hill attorney Bob Epting says a young woman approached him outside the polling place and asked if he was a Democrat. When he said yes, she gave him a list of candidates.
The implication was the list was of progressive judges (essentially Democrats) in this non-partisan race.
Fred Black relates the following over on OP:
Yesterday when I voted at Morehead (#996 since Oct. 23d), there was a young lady on the edge of the parking lot. She asked me if I was going to vote and I replied that I was. She handed me a small piece of paper that listed Duke, Martin, Levinson, Calabria, Bailey, and Stroud. With the DTH and the WCHL story as background, I asked if the named people were all Republicans. She said that she thought so but their’s are nonpartisan races. I asked her what organization she represented and she said she was just helping her friend who was in class.
More information on this BlueNC and OrangePolitics threads.
With the current vote flipping problems in Arkansas, Missouri, Texas and Florida – all biased towards Republican candidates – one has to wonder if the Morehead trickery is the least of election 2006 problems.
That said, I’ve gone ahead and contacted the campaigns of Duke, Martin, Levinson, Calabria, Bailey, and Stroud in case they weren’t aware of folks scamming the electorate in their name.
Their handling of this mess will be a great indicator of their willingness to cultivate public trust both in the election and judicial process.
Contact information:
Mailto link: MAIL the JUDGES.
My email:
RE: Apparent organized effort to deceive Orange County voters
TO: Judge Duke, Justice Martin, Judge Levinson, Judge Calabria, Judge Bailey, Judge StroudAccording to local media reports (WCHL1360 – http://www.wchl1360.com/details.html?id=2124 ) and several eyewitness reports ( http://orangepolitics.org/2006/11/republicans-attempt-to-deceive-orange-county-voters/#comment-65383 ) , an organized effort is being made in Orange County to deceive voters in your name. A list of your names is being presented to Democratic voters in a fashion meant to mislead uninformed voters into voting for you.
Given your current standings as judges, given the responsibility you’ve been entrusted with, given the tenor of all your campaigns, I imagine this tomfoolery comes both as a surprise and a disappointment.
Now that you are aware of the problem, would you please publicly ask the participants to desist? A quick resolution to this problem will serve the public well.
Thank you for your prompt attention,
Will Raymond
Independent, Orange County
5:33pm, Tuesday, Oct. 31st, 2006, Halloween in downtown Chapel Hill means helicopters.
As I stepped out of my building at the corner of Church and Franklin streets, the first portent of tonight’s Chapel Hill-o-ween was the thrumming beat of helicopter blades. Two of the beast hovered high above downtown’s Franklin in a vain attempt to suss out the scope of tonight’s festivities. Why vain? Downtown was fairly quiet as the clouds continue to roll in and a very light drizzle falls.
Farther from town center, several apartment complexes appeared to be charging for parking. Town staff were busy setting out barrels. And the large portable traffic signs were positioned for action.
In years past the hubbub of Halloween is clearly audible from my home. With tonight’s anticipated record crowds the best way to see the action is to take the bus.
Realtime bus information available HERE.
On Tuesday, October 31, 2006, Tar Heel Express service will be provided to support the Halloween event. Buses will run from the following locations:
* Friday Center parking lot
* Jones Ferry park-n-ride lot
* Southern Village park-n-ride lot
* University Mall parking lotTrips will begin at 9:00 PM and run until 2:30 AM. The cost is $5.00 per round trip, $3.00 one-way.
Chapel Hill Transit will also operate a modified service for the following night routes: D, J, NU, & TG* D will end at 8:51 pm at Franklin @ Estes
* J will end at 8:56pm at Rock Creek Apts.
* NU will end at 8:56 pm at Carolina Coffee Shop
* TG will end at 9:20 pm University Mall.For service concerning any of the information, please contact Chapel Hill Transit at (919) 968 – 2769.
Chapel Hill on Halloween is quite a sight. Please take your time, take care and, if you think of it, post some pics on Flickr using the tags “halloween”, “chapel hill”, “2006”.
Superior Court 15B candidates Judge Baddour and Attorney Stein are first out of the blocks with their 3rd quarter campaign reports.
[UPDATE: 1] Leon Bryant is Baddour’s grandfather.
[UPDATE: 2] As of 1PM, Nov.2nd neither Fox’s or Anderson’s reports are posted at the SBOE.
The promptness of Stein and Baddour (and possibly Fox and Anderson) is quite encouraging.
I hope that since the Oct. 22nd – Nov. 7th reports will be in too late to matter, the candidates will consider pre-releasing their contributions leading into Nov. 7th on the 6th.
Judge Baddour’s
Expenditures of: $55248.77 (of $105506.85 overall).
Contributions based on the summary report for the 3rd quarter: $76144.50 which includes $25,000 loan from the candidate, a $4000 loan from his father and $1150 from Baddour relatives (might be more relatives).
Based on the detailed receipts report, $85885.19, of which $55589.50 was individual contributions, came in over the period in amounts and numbers of:
$8.19 1 loan $10.00 1 $20.00 2 $25.00 21 $30.00 6 $35.00 1 $40.00 2 $45.00 1 $50.00 39 $60.00 3 $75.00 9 $97.50 1 $100.00 160 $150.00 8 $187.50 1 loan $200.00 9 $250.00 21 $280.00 1 $300.00 2 $442.00 1 $450.00 1 $500.00 19 $700.00 1 $750.00 1 $800.00 1 $1000.00 8 $1100.00 1 loan $2000.00 1 $4000.00 1 loan $4000.00 1 contribution from Leon Bryant [UPDATE:] Baddour's grandfather. Individual contributions came in amounts over time as: $2015 in March $2100 in April $230 in May $100 in June $850 in July $13255 in August $17270 in September $19769.50 in October Contributions to-date: $139626.76 which includes a total of $30599.86 in loans. Attorney Stein's Expenditures of $36864.34 (of $93877.54). Contributions based on the summary report for the 3rd quarter: $42652.00, no loan proceeds. Based on the detailed receipts report $51742 came in over the period of which $5000 was a loan from the candidate, $46793 were individual contributions. The amount and number of contributions break down as:
$10.00 3 $15.00 1 $20.00 5 $25.00 38 $35.00 3 $40.00 1 $50.00 56 $60.00 1 $75.00 7 $90.00 1 $99.00 1 $100.00 130 $125.00 10 $150.00 10 $200.00 11 $250.00 41 $300.00 3 $500.00 14 $828.00 1 $1000.00 3 $2000.00 1 from David Byrd $5000.00 1 loan
Contributions came in over time as:
$500 in February
$2500 in March
$5840 in April ($5000 loan)
$100 in May
$150 in June
$9019 in July
$11253 in August
$15015 in September
$7365 in October
Contributions to-date: $125084.00 which includes a total of $5000 in loans.
What does this all mean? Further analysis to follow…
…whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me…
While I was in Boston last week, the DPC’s (Downtown Partnership) Kiosk Giving Task Force morphed into the Downtown Outreach Work Group.
As the next step, the Downtown Outreach Work Group recommends a public-private partnership effort amongst the Town of Chapel Hill, the University of North Carolina, the Downtown Partnership, the human service agencies, the downtown property and business owners, religious organizations, the media and others, to jointly develop “the message†to request that citizens not give money to panhandlers in downtown Chapel Hill but to encourage them to give to the agencies that address the human service needs of downtown.
Once the message is clearly articulated, then the means and materials needed to address the target audiences will be identified. This is similar to efforts across the country typically called Real Change Not Spare Change campaigns. Raleigh is our closest neighbor that has adopted this program. In Denver, they have adopted the Give A Better Way campaign, www.giveabetterway.com; and there are a number of other variations on this type of educational initiative.
Though encouraging on the face of it, I’m a bit troubled that this Town-sponsored group has taken on the “official” mantle of managing downtown’s homeless population issue with very little discussion.
The DPC’s charter is business-oriented, their issues business-directed. Panhandling is antithetical to their core directives. I’m concerned that this in-built bias won’t result in further draconian efforts to drive “undesirables” from downtown.
Today’s thoughtful analysis by Council member Sally Greene highlights the potential pitfalls in her excellent post Panhandling and Community Values.
Not all approaches are appropriate as Malcolm Gladwell’s recent New Yorker article “MILLION-DOLLAR MURRAY:Why problems like homelessness may be easier to solve than to manage.” points out.
Sure, I doubt our community would stand for criminalizing homeless support programs ala Las Vegas’ criminalizing feeding the hungry but it might blindly accept the recommendations of an important sounding group, like the Downtown Partnership, whose make-up and charter are not representative of the town as a whole.
Local ‘blogger Mark Kleinschmidt (and fellow 2005 Council candidate) alerts Chapel Hillian’s to an upgrade (?) in our image.
Homestead Road is becoming quite the corridor. Stretching roughly east-west along the Chapel Hill/Carrboro urban boundary, the road, already servicing several developments and schools, will become a vital connector to UNC’s Carolina North (whether we want it to or not).
Tonight the Town Council and Orange County Commissioners will hold a rare joint zoning hearing to review a proposed development, Homestead Twins, on the corner of Seawell School Rd. and Homestead. While the development, with its 72 “twin” townhouses – some sized over 2000 sq./ft. – will obviously add to the traffic load on Homestead, the applicant has made a fairly decent case for pedestrian transit. The Town’s Comprehensive Plan emphasizes walkability, and with nearby schools, Homestead Park and the new Senior center, residents should have plenty to do within a quick jaunt.
Further pluses are the developers commitment to set aside %20 of the units for affordable housing and preservation of over %60 of the 21.5 acres as open space.
Further information for tonights 7:30pm hearing is here, background on the application is here [PDF].
There were 20+ folks tonight – with a couple from the media – maybe 4 or 5 organizers – some town staff and the balance being interested citizens. I was already convinced that District 15B voters have a heck of slate of candidates before them – tonight I was more impressed than ever.
Very simply – we can’t lose. Of course, we have to pick and the candidates did a good job differentiating their philosophies, approaches, procedures and performance.
Due to what turned out to be poor placement of the camera and some technical issues I botched Adam Steins opening statement. In my defense, I set my camera up early – on a tripod as per BrianR’s excellent recommendation – well away from onlookers and the moderator. But then “dancin’ Doyle” decide to move stage right. By that point, my bobbing photographic nemesis for the night had taken the high ground.
Opening statements in reverse order appearance on the ballot. Essentially, Adam Stein reviewed his service before the bar, his work on the Mel Watt and Daryl Hunt cases and laid out his career as per the first forum.
I apologize for cutting Judge Fox off during question on political parties influence: essentially he gave a reprise of his answer on parties and politics from the 1st forum.
Some interesting highlights.
Again, I apologize to the candidates for weaving around, botching the focus, not anticipating “dancing Doyle” and, in Mr. Stein’s case, completely zapping a segment. I’m working to get better at this vLog business.
And to my readership, thanks for the feedback. I wasn’t sure if these videos would have any utility.
Opening statements. I botched Mr. Stein’s statement. Later this week I hope to retrieve a video copy from the cable telecast.
youTube link to opening statements.