Tag Archives: Media

CarolinaNorth, Carrboro, ChapelHill, CitizenWill, Community, environment, Government, LocalPolitics, Media, OrangeCounty, Ruminations, UNC

Madison Smoozefest: Aaron Nelson’s “Phone Call”

September 24, 2006 WillR Leave a comment

Fred, one of the Madison attendees, over on OrangePolitics said he didn’t like my suggestion, given the organizer’s professed desire to “build relationships” – establish “synergies” amongst the group, that, for a few folks, there was a bit more to the Madison trip than simple learning or altruistic desire.

Chamber of Commerce director and trip sponsor Aaron Nelson pegs it pretty well: “”You get to spend a lot more time with each other,” Nelson said. “And there’s something really important about the shared experience.”

“The second reason is to build relationships among our community leaders,” Nelson added. “The hope is that when you get back, and you have an issue you need help with, you can pick up the phone and call the guy you sat next to on the plane for four hours.”

Once again, as we see from today’s soon to evaporate HeraldSun, the “shared experience” (smoozing) was of driving importance to the organizers of this event.

Now, of course, other attendees have different primary goals: inclusionary zoning, how a university building a research park deals fairly and honestly with neighborhoods, downtown economic development – even panhandling.

Again, we have a great crew attending. I fully expect the time, effort and more than $100,000 spent on this trip to yield benefits for our community.

But let us not pretend that Aaron Nelson’s “phone call” isn’t part of the calculus of the Madison event.

Whether that “phone call” benefits the community, as I imagine one between Mike Collins of Neighborhoods for Responsible Growth (NRG) and UNC’s Chancellor Moeser might, or not, will be measured in time.

CarolinaNorth, Community, environment, Ruminations, UNC

Greenwashing?

September 7, 2006 Administrator 1 Comment

One curious reader asks “What is greenwashing?”

From the Center for Media & Democracy’s Sourcewatch project, greenwashing is defined thusly:

“Greenwashing is what corporations do when they try to make themselves look more environmentally friendly than they really are.” [1] (here)

â€œGreenwashâ€ is defined in the 10th edition of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary as the â€œdisinformation disseminated by an organization so as to present an environmentally responsible public image.â€ Its inclusion in the dictionary indicates the significance and permanence of a growing trend among corporations to take advantage of the many consumers who look for products with negative environmental impact. [2] (here)

“Earthday Resources for Living Green has released this report annually for the last 11 years to call attention to the past year’s worst greenwashers, corporations that have made misleading or false claims abut the environmental benefits of their products and industries. “Don’t Be Fooled” describes companies’ greenwashing attempts as well as the truth behind their misleading claims.” Current and past reports are available [online (here)].

The Washington Post has produced a Special Report titled BIG GREEN (here) which as series of investigative articles exposes the corporate infestation of The Nature Conservancy and “documents on the organization’s transformation from a grassroots group to a corporate juggernaut.”

Frequent PR Watch contributor Bob Burton has prepared a 5 page paper titled “Corporations Will Save the World, won’t they?” which describes how corporations lure their environmentalist adversaries into the illusion of cooperative engagements such as Community Advisory Panels which result in a win-win result for the corporations by reducing the energy of their adversaries, and turning the media attention away from environmental advocacy against the evil corporation into an image of the corporation attempting to benefit the environment. [3] (here [PDF])

“Several recent incidents show that, when faced with environmental crises attributable to business interests cozy with the White House, the administration has developed an alternative response: Suppress, Ignore, Preempt.” [4] (here)

Greenwashing is a form of public relations propaganda which gives something the appearance of being environmentally friendly when it is, in fact, not.

An example of this would be an oil company being forced in a court of law to create a habitat for endangered species in its oil fields. Greenwashing would occur when the company creates a magazine ad campaign that is complete with paintings of a beautiful moonlit oil field and nature coexisting, with the image assisted by text explaining how much that company cares for Nature and endangered species, as well as how nature can beautifully coexist with oil wells, factories, or whatever.

Another example is naming a piece of legislation “Clear Skies” when the legislation will not result in sky clearing.

In December 2005 the New York Times noted that corporations including Ford, Exxon Mobil, BP, General Electric and Alcan “appear to be spending ever-bigger chunks of their advertising budgets to promote” what critics call greenwashing. New ad campaigns from WPP, Omnicom Group, and Interpublic Group tout corporate “environmental do-goodism.” [5] (here)

“Oil companies, under attack for reaping windfall profits from soaring fuel prices, are trying to position themselves as part of the solution to energy problems rather than the cause. Manufacturers of fuel-efficient automobiles, jet engines or other green products are recognizing that they can burnish their image even as they promote their products. And companies in all industries are trying to make socially conscious investors and customers comfortable about buying their products and shares.” [6] (here)

A more extensive overview is available here.

[UPDATE:] And why did they ask? Carolina North: Crawford-Brownâ€™s Counter-principles

Community, Ruminations, WeaverStreetMktLawn

Licensed for the Lawn: We can dance if we want to…

August 22, 2006 WillR 1 Comment

Ruby (of OrangePolitics fame) asked earlier today

I have only one question: when are we holding the first dance-in on the lawn?

Oh, and when are the owners and/or board or WSM going to take some leadership on this issue?

Looks like soon, very soon.

Continue reading Licensed for the Lawn: We can dance if we want to… →

Community, Media, Ruminations, WeaverStreetMktLawn

Weaver St. Market: Licensed for the Lawn!

August 22, 2006 WillR Leave a comment

Caught this young scofflaw just a short time after the private press conference announcing WSM’s new policy of “licensing” lawn performers.

The, short notice, private press event, held by Ruffin Slater, general manager of the Weaver St. Market (WSM) co-op, and Nathan Milian, property manager of Carr Mill mall appears to have been short on answers, including how the new, by permission only “Live on the Lawn” program will work.

Local radio WCHL1360 covered the event, so, hopefully more details will be forthcoming. Until then, we’ll have to scratch our heads about how the “limit of one performance per week per artist or group” will apply to free spirits like the young hoopers or even to the supposed reason for the new policy, dancing Bruce.

Nathan Milian underlined the graciousness of Carr Mill’s owners in providing “an outlet for artists wishing to share their work with the general public, free of charge to both the artist and the public.” Is that the same public that already supports Carr Mill’s business with their hard-earned wages?

Milian, again spinning furiously, proclams this is “another way for the community to benefit from the lawn.” No mention on how Carr Mill’s tenants benefit from the community.

Applications for the new lawn license are not currently available (as of 4:30pm) but I’ve been told the office will have some tomorrow (Aug. 23rd).

The whole mess remains a cautionary tale for Chapel Hill as our Council rushes to turn over public-owned lands to private control. We need stronger requirements protecting open access to what will have been citizen-owned assets.

I believe in strong property rights. Carr Mill’s owners are free to set the public access rules. If empty stores are a result of an

empty lawn,
so be it.

Campaign, CitizenWill, CivilLiberties, LocalPolitics, Media, Ruminations

Welcome to CitizenWill

August 9, 2006 WillR 2 Comments

Over the last year, I’ve written about 300 posts now split between campaign.willraymond.org and blog.willraymond.org

Covering my 2005 Town Council campaign, I started with WillRaymond.org, a hopefully memorable Internet location for the local electorate to find both my platform and analysis of relevant issues.

November 2005, I rebranded the site as Concerned Citizen, shifted the campaign rhetoric to campaign.willraymond.org and continued with a focus primarily on local issues, events, governance and politics.

Along the way I’ve added ruminations and digressions covering volcanoes, 2006’s SouthBySouthwest Interactive (SxSWi), the dissolution of our Constitution, our country’s unexamined rush to build an Orwellian surveillance society and a slew of guest editorials from the Daily Tar Heel and Chapel Hill News.

It’s been a wild year for this netizen who originally built a reputation in the blogverse as the prolific commenter WillR (to the extent of getting a Koufax Award nomination!).

A recent Pew Internet and American Life study claims %76 of ‘bloggers concentrate on documenting their personal life with only %11 on government and politics.

I have no interest in publicly documenting my personal life.

Two years ago I asked erudite ‘blogger and local Councilmember Sally Greene, then new to the blog-o-sphere, her thoughts on managing her “personal” and “public” voices.

What about schizophrenic bloggers, like Sally, who have a political blog and a personal blog?

She answered:

That’s a fascinating question, Will. Last year I ran for office; I had never run before, although I had been on the Planning Board. I knew that I needed to get my message out and I too knew that I couldn’t count on the media to do it. It may seem strange since I’m married to one of the gods of the internet, Paul Jones, but I just didn’t know anything about blogs…..While most campaign sites fold after the election, I have maintained mine and I continue to update it with content and links to town-related news stories (which I selectively pick)….Now, for a couple of months I’ve been blogging. But it is separate from my Town Council web site. Each is linked to the other, but they are separate….But on the other handâ€”and this is something that I haven’t consciously thought about very much, until Will’s questionâ€”I think I do want to keep some space that is just my own, my “greenespace.” I mean, there is a difference, although of course they overlap.

Like Sally, I have generally distinct, though sometimes overlapping, concerns. Based on an analysis of a years worth of site visits, so does my readership.

During my March 2006 sojourn to Austin’s SxSWi, following Sally’s lead, I purchased the Citizen Will sites (.org,.com,.net). Why Citizen Will? This punster (yep, sorry about that) couldn’t pass up a small play on “the Will of the People”, “will power” and this citizen’s will for progressive change.

It’s finally time to split my personal, professional and public “brands”:

WillRaymond.org will serve as a gateway to the Will-verse.
with CitizenWill , I will continue my activist focus. I’ll also put reprints of my “real world” columns, editorials and letters-to-the-Editor.
And blog.willraymond.org will serve as a convenient dumping ground for my occassional ruminations on orthogonal concerns – technology, travel tips and other personal digressions.

Not wishing to confuse my growing audience, not willing to kill my old “brand” and trying to be a good netizen by maintaining my permalinks (the long tail of a years worth of net-based local activism) – I’m mirroring all sites for the next 90 days (roughly until the Nov. elections are over).

Over that time, each site will begin to take on a more distinctive, unique character reflective of their end purposes.

Thank you for your feedback, thank you for your readership and thank you for bearing with me as I make this slow “tri-cameral” transition.

ChapelHill, environment, Government, LocalPolitics, Ruminations

What Price Downtown? The Mayor Responds.

August 6, 2006 WillR Leave a comment

Last week, the Chapel Hill News published a column I wrote (What Price Downtown) on the Chapel Hill’s downtown development project.

Today, Mayor Foy responds in a column titled Town prodeeds cautiously on downtown redevelopment.

Prodeeds, interesting typo ;-).

Before commenting on his response, I’d like to highlight an error in my column that the Mayor pointed out:

Will Raymond implied that the town had spent $4 million on the project. That figure is incorrect; the total cost to the town so far is $600,000.

Absolutely correct. Here’s what I said in my column:

Investing $4 million to date in the effort, the project is nearing the public hearing phase. Clear cut and excavated, my beautiful public space will vanish under the private heel of a looming “soft modernistic” behemoth. Rising nine stories, this disproportionate edifice will distort Franklin Street’s current village-like scale.

In an effort to excise a few words (if you’ve read anything I’ve written you know I can go on a bit) to get below the 750 word CHN limit (a limit I maybe should consider on this ‘blog), I completely torqued the sentence.

What I originally meant was, we’ve spent about $500K (the Mayor says $600K) on the process and we’ll have to belly up another “real” $500K. That, with the “kickback” of the $7.9M 99-year lease value on the properties, adds to $8.4 million in future commitments, $9M total. The $500K for digging a hole in lot #5 is already under dispute.

This is based on the recent town 2005-2006 2nd Quarter Report.

In the proposed Memorandum of Understanding, the developer will pay the Town $7.9 million ($4.75 million for Lot 5 site and $3.15 million for the Wallace Deck site) to lease Town-owned property for 99 years. The Town will pay the developer a fixed amount of $7.9 million for the construction of the Lot 5 parking garage and other Town-owned improvements. The Town also will pay $500,000 to support parking for affordable housing units.

Quite embarrassing. I will, if allowed, make a correction in my next column.

Now, on to the Mayor’s response.

This newspaper recently published letters and a column in which citizens expressed concerns about what has been called the Ram project, a proposal to build multi-story
residential/commercial developments at two town-owned sites in downtown Chapel Hill. I would like to address those concerns, give a general overview of the project, and clear up some inaccuracies.

The Town Council has focused on downtown as a priority because, although it’s good now, we know it can be better. We therefore engaged in a deliberate and thorough planning process for the downtown initiative (located at two sites: Parking Lot 5 and the Wallace Deck).

Plans for private downtown development are already moving quickly, with proposed Greenbridge’s ( 180K/sq. ft., 109 condos, $300K-$400K), Shortbread Lofts ( 165 units, 50 reserved as affordable) and the just completed Rosemary Village (38 condos, $350K-$700K). Do we need to convert citizen-owned assets into privately-held condos before we see the effect these planned buildouts will have on the housing market?

This planning began about five years ago and included citizen workshops, design work sessions, and public meetings. Last year, the council began working with a private developer, Ram Development Company, to bring the plans to fruition. In a July 30 column (“What price downtown?”), Will Raymond implied that the town had spent $4 million on the project. That figure is incorrect; the total cost to the town so far is $600,000.

Aside from cost, however, is the issue of whether the development project should be pursued at all. The Town Council is working on this project because we believe it will enhance downtown as the center of our community. We know that downtowns that have a mix of uses and people who live there are more vibrant than those that don’t. And we also know that a dynamic downtown — with people living, working, and relaxing — leads to a safe downtown.

Unfortunately, the plans for boutique shopping and luxury condos don’t really add to the “mix of uses” we need downtown. The privately-sponsored developments will provide housing and we already have plenty of empty commercial space downtown. Worse, the current proposal doesn’t incorporate an “anchoring” tenant, like a grocery store, that the surrounding community can “center” on. Without a kid-friendly plaza, a strong commitment to retain maximum public use, lot #5 lacks a strong focusing element.

But back to the finances. The council has entered into a memorandum of understanding with Ram, which outlines the basic terms and conditions of the proposed development agreement. Under the memorandum, the town’s cash contribution to the development would be $500,000, which would support the cost of parking for the affordable housing within the development. This amount is the limit of the town’s exposure, in a development that is expected to cost more than $80 million.

However, recent news reports are correct in stating that construction costs have risen so quickly that Ram is not now confident that it can develop the project as first envisioned. That means that the financing issue might have to be revisited and revised. But contrary to the assertions raised in a July 23 letter to the editor (“Town has bad record for paying off builders”), the Town Council has not authorized or encumbered any local property tax revenue for the construction of the development.

Additionally, the letter writer, Ole R. Holsti, criticized the town for its management of school construction and a bridge replacement. The town is not involved in any way with school construction, and the town properly managed the bridge replacement. In fact, the town has an excellent record in its stewardship of public funds.

Mr. Holsti picked some poor targets for criticism but he was on to something when he said “The first step in shaking this reputation is to let Ram Development understand that not an additional penny of tax funds will be forthcoming.” The Mayor did not respond to my concern the TIF (tax incremental funding) has come back into play. Debt issued under TIFs is, in the end, secured by the citizenry. We are exposed to significant liabilities.

The council continues to work on the downtown development. We look forward to hearing citizens’ thoughts as we proceed with the discussions this fall. We are fortunate in Chapel Hill to have citizens who are interested and involved in the business of the town, and who hold us to the highest standards. I hope and expect that people will pay attention to the council’s efforts for downtown, and will work with us toward what is best for the community.

I’m glad the Mayor looks forward to input from the tax-paying public. I wish he had addressed the issues of scale – a 9 story beast , the eroding reasons – filling the gap in downtown residential and commercial development, lack of public utility, etc. I raised in my column.

Media, Orthogonal, Ruminations, Technology

Hot Spot U.S.A.

August 1, 2006 Administrator Leave a comment

With tomorrow’s temperatures forecasted to be above 100 degrees, Chapel Hill is going to be one very hot spot.

As if centrally scripted, local news folks, punching up the drama of the weather story, have been issuing dire warnings not of the “real” heat but of the “felt” heat. “Think it’s going to be hot tomorrow? With the heat index, that 100 degrees will feel like a thousand!” Etc. Ad nauseum.

For the last 35 years, I’ve always assumed the “heat index” was a bit of a bugaboo – a pseudo-science calculation surfing the collective American conscience with little or no factual underpinnings.

Well, turns out there is a calculation:

HI = -42.379 + 2.04901523T + 10.1433127R – 0.22475541TR – 6.83783×10^-3 T² – 5.481717×10^-2 R² + 1.22874×10^-3 T²R + 8.5282×10^-4 TR² – 1.99×10^-6 T² R²

where

T = ambient dry bulb temperature degrees Fahrenheit

R = relative humidity

The equation is only useful for temperatures 80 degrees or higher, and relative humidities 40% or greater.

NOAA National Weather Service chart of Heat Index

That looks rather ad-hoc to this curious science guy, so I delved a bit deeper and found this commonly cited article [PDF] explaining the genesis of the equation.

Now that summer has spread its oppressive ridge over most of the Southern Region, NWS phones are ringing off their hooks with questions about the Heat Index. Many questions regard the actual equationused in calculating the Heat Index. Some callers are satisfied with the response that it is extremely complicated. Some are satisfied with the nomogram (see Attachment 1). But there are a few who will settle for nothing less than the equation itself. No true equation for the Heat Index exists. Heat Index values are derived from a collection of equations that comprise a model. This Technical Attachment presents an equation that approximates the Heat Index and, thus, should satisfy the latter group of callers.

The Heat Index (or apparent temperature) is the result of extensive biometeorological studies. The parameters involved in its calculation are shown below (from Steadman, 1979). Each of these parameters can be described by an equation but they are given assumed magnitudes (in parentheses) in order to simplify the model.

Vapor pressure. Ambient vapor pressure of the atmosphere. (1.6 kPa)

Dimensions of a human. Determines the skin’s surface area. (5′ 7″ tall, 147 pounds

Effective radiation area of skin. A ratio that depends upon skin surface area. (0.80)

Significant diameter of a human. Based on the body’s volume and density. (15.3 cm)

Clothing cover. Long trousers and short-sleeved shirt is assumed. (84% coverage)

Core temperature. Internal body temperature. (98.6Â°F)

Core vapor pressure. Depends upon body’s core temperature and salinity. (5.65 kPa)

Surface temperatures and vapor pressures of skin and clothing. Affects heat transfer from the skin’s surface either by radiation or convection. These values are determined by an iterative process.

Activity. Determines metabolic output. (180 W m-2 of skin area for the model person walking outdoors at a speed of 3.1 mph)

Effective wind speed. Vector sum of the body’s movement and an average wind speed. Angle between vectors influences convection from skin surface (below). (5 kts)

Clothing resistance to heat transfer. The magnitude of this value is based on the assumption that the clothing is 20% fiber and 80% air.

Clothing resistance to moisture transfer. Since clothing is mostly air, pure vapor diffusion is used here.

Radiation from the surface of the skin. Actually, a radiative heat-transfer coefficient determined from previous studies.

Convection from the surface of the skin. A convection coefficient also determined from previous studies. Influenced by kinematic viscosity of air and angle of wind.

Sweating rate. Assumes that sweat is uniform and not dripping from the body.

From Rothfusz, L. P., 1990:The heat index equation (or, more than you ever wanted to know about heat index). NWS Southern Region Technical Attachment, SR/SSD 90-23, Fort Worth, TX.

So, to be as accurate as possible, tomorrow, if you’re 5’7″ 147 pounds, wearing long trousers and a short-sleeved shirt made of %80 air, have an average human diameter (unlike my 46″ waist), plan only to walk 3.1 MPH and sweat uniformally, it’ll feel like a bazillion degrees.

Media, Ruminations, Technology

Barcamp Bar None

July 20, 2006 WillR Leave a comment

Saturday, July 22nd’s RDU Barcamp should be a yearly highpoint for the Triangle tech community.

A “who’s who” of producers and consumers on ‘net-related tech will gather (@ 8 am as ibiblio’s Paul Jones notes) to thrash through some of today’s trendier tech topics.

As local social justice activist (and newly minted groom) BrianR, over at Yesh.com, observes, UNC’s Fred Stutzman has gone above and beyond planning what promises to be an incredible tech unconference

Fred Stutzman has a written a wonderful post called Advice for Planning a Bar Camp. It contains a lot of excellent info about how to plan an unconference. In this case doing it BarCamp style. The RDU BarCamp is this Saturday July 22. (Congratulations Fred for pulling this off. Iâ€™m sure the event will be a huge success!)

and documented how to put together such a beast.

Excellent way to wag the long tail Fred!

Continue reading Barcamp Bar None →

CivilLiberties, Media, Ruminations, Technology

Copyright Comic Book

June 20, 2006 WillR Leave a comment

Local IndyWeek reporter Fiona Morgan covers the story of a “copyright comic” in the tech-oriented magazine Wired.

Fair-use is an important tool for online activisim, as is copyright. Many online authors, for instance, use a Creative Commons content license to ensure widest dissemination of their message.

To make the issue a bit more digestable, three law professors (two from Duke) created the comic book: Bound by Law.

Practicing what they preach, the comic book is freely available under a Creative Commons license.

Fiona routinely covers tech-related issues for the IndyWeek, for example, this week’s important coverage of NC ‘net neutrality and media consolidation.

Just as consumers are becoming aware of things like net neutrality and media consolidation, Congress and the North Carolina legislature are acting like nobody’s paying any attention.

…on June 13, the Finance Committee of the N.C. House passed the Video Service Competition Act without amending any of the no-brainer changes suggested by public interest groups that would have made it a little less of a travesty. A state version of the Internet TV provisions currently winding through U.S. Congress, this bill would abolish the current rules governing cable television service. Telephone companies such as Verizon and BellSouth have been pushing hard for this bill, because it would allow them to expand from broadband Internet to video service without having to negotiate with local governments. The bill will soon go to the full House for a vote; the Senate version, having passed one committee, makes one more committee stop before going to the floor.

Thanks go to ibiblio’s Paul Jones for the story tip.

CivilLiberties, Government, LocalPolitics, Media, Ruminations, Technology

One nation controlled by the medium…

June 9, 2006 WillR Leave a comment

Those who control the present control the past. Those who control the past control the future.

– Orwell, author 1984

Those who control our modern means of communication are free to manipulate the past, recast the present and shape the future. Powerful, greedy, immoral – the masters of our converging media/medium empires already trample heavily upon the newly emerging Town Commons.

Unfortunately, with today’s House vote destroying Internet neutrality, a vote generally along party lines, the monopolists now have untrammeled freedom to despoil the Commons.

What is Internet neutrality?

Continue reading One nation controlled by the medium… →

Media, Ruminations

The N&O on Internet Time

June 2, 2006 WillR Leave a comment

Acknowledging the futility of broadly (and blandly) reporting stock and bond closing prices, today the N&O announced:

“Starting Tuesday, The News & Observer is changing the way it provides information on the stock market.”

The good news? They plan to deepen and expand both local coverage and general analysis.

I’ve been wondering how long the local print media would continue with stale stock reports. Real time quotes, company profiles, timely news updates, Edgar on-line and scam-ridden forums are only a click away at places like Yahoo Finance.

I hope the town follows the N&O’s lead and honors its commitment (soon) to publish the Council’s flash reports in real time on the town’s website.

Waiting to publish stale news electronically using an image PDF of a paper newsletter layout is so last decade…

Government, Media, Ruminations, Technology

NC Lottery: Powerball is powerless…

May 30, 2006 WillR Leave a comment

11PM local news:

WTVD 11 leads with today’s Powerball snafu problems.
WRAL 5, after leading with nearly 4 minutes of ‘Canes news, covered the glitch.
NBC17, bless their hearts, led with about 5 minutes of ‘Canes game review and didn’t make it to the State’s newest con-game until 6 stories in .

NBC17 also deserves kudos for being the only station to mention the extremely long odds, 1 in 146 million, of winning the ‘ball.

WTVD was a bit breathless in their coverage – the news guy excitedly telling us “we’ll have to wait until tomorrow’s drawing”.

WRAL played up the “inconvenience” people had waiting to squander their bucks.

I’m going to give WRAL a small break because they did a nice pieceÂ on the expected correlation between counties with high unemployment and high ticket sales.

Wilson County has the fourth highest unemployment rate in the state and often ranks No. 1 in ticket sales per capita. Nine other North Carolina counties selling the most tickets per adult have unemployment rates above the state’s average.

“It is not unexpected,” said state Sen. Janet Cowell. “I think that is what other states that have lotteries have seen.” Cowell explained that is part of why she opposed the lottery all along.”It really is a regressive tax, essentially, that really impacts lower income communities, not higher income communities,” she said.

“I don’t think that has any conflict with us,” said Wilson Countyâ€™s Employment Security Commission manager, Terri Williams. “We’re here to help them find work and to help them with unemployment until they can find work.”Williams believes continued fallout from several plant layoffs and seasonal tobacco cuts are more to blame, but admits, “Of course, we hate to see the poor spending money on lottery tickets.”

Yep, so today’s computer snafu isn’t the only glitch we’ve seen in the system.

CarolinaNorth, environment, Government, Media, Ruminations

Next Exit: UNC

May 28, 2006 WillR Leave a comment

The construction of a special I-40 interchange for Carolina North has been a persistent rumor.

Over the last 5 years, I heard UNC officially deny any such plan more than a dozen times. The last time for me, I believe, was when UNC’s liason to the Horace Williams Citizen’s Committee (HWCC) said she hadn’t heard anything about it.

According to Emily Coakley and Rob Shapard in today’s HeraldSun “Local officials say they’ve heard UNC might pursue a new interchange on Interstate 40 to serve the planned Carolina North research campus.”

Why worry if it’s just a rumor?

Well, I, as I’m sure other local longtime residents, remember a few trial UNC balloons that eventually became reality. Sometimes, it seems, the more outrageous, the more likely.

Creating an I-40 interchange and subsequent transit corridor near burgeoning neighborhoods and sensitive ecological preserves seems fairly outrageous. With the recent wildcard resolution by UNC’s Board of Trustees, a group that appears to be “chafing at the bit” for substantive action on Carolina, it’s not too difficult to imagine that there’s more substance to this I-40 rumor than in years past. That, of course, and it’s almost Summer – when the public is generally distracted – a time when UNC traditionally unleashes problematic proposals.

The now defunct HWCC has been following the transit-related discussions on Carolina North and, in their January memo, sketched out further particpation. I’m sure we would have been privy to UNC’s thoughts on a I-40 interchange.

Now, we’ll have to rely on the press and our local elected officials for adequate forewarning.