Do letters-to-the-editor campaigns work?

Part of the "silly season" (thanks to Fred Black for that great term) is the bloom of letters to local papers supporting certain candidates.  In some cases, individual expressions seem quite heartfelt, regardless of any larger party or issue contexts.  In some cases, the letters seem pretty much obligatory, as if someone feels the endorsement musn't fail to appear among the other letters -- for example, regarding the Sierra Club endorsements. 

Often it seems, however, that there might be a somewhat more coordinated effort to flood the letters pages with statements endorsing a given candidate -- suggesting he or she may be an underdog but with a significant groundswell of public support. 

Rural Orange: Talking Trash Survey

Haven't seen much buzz on this topic, and don't know who's behind Orange County Voice, but there's a group in rural Orange passing out information that Orange county is considering what could be some pretty radical changes in the way trash is handled for non-incorporated residents. If this is true, rural residents really need to voice their opinions and concerns.

Seeking leaders with chutzpah

I read the Town Council candidates' responses to the League of Women Voters' questionnaire in the Chapel Hill News this morning. (A valuable service, but shouldn't the CHN actually publish reporting on the front page?)  I noticed that the candidates were unanimous in their support for putting increased density (if it happens) in transit corridors, but not a single one of them named an appropriate area or an example of how this should be done.  

It's easy to be reactionary and rail against tall buildings and vague notions of density or against East 54 in particular. Where are the courageous candidates that can hammer out policies, make the hard decisions, and stand up to the inevitable complaints about change? Evolution of this community's landscape is not optional. We must put on our thinking caps and establish some direction for doing this in the best way for our collective future.

Pro-environment and Pro-business are not mutually exclusive

I am a graduate student in the UNC Planning Department (and the School of Law).  My Site Planning class tonight had guest lecturer Bruce Ballentine to talk about Glen Lennox.  About an hour into the lecture, a classmate of mine asked if Glen Lennox is an issue in the current municipal election.  In the discourse about his take on the municipal election that followed, Mr. Ballentine called several of the candidates "anti-growth, anti-business, anti-University, and anti-downtown."  He spared "three of the mayoral candidates" and DeHart, Pease, and Pohlman by name.  He portrayed the muncipal elections in a biased manner, one that I felt was purposefully misleading.  Regardless, it was an inapprorpriate forum for his stump speech. 

And the Applicants Are

The deadline came and went and the 12 applicants are:

On the ballot - John DeHart, Gene Pease, Matt Pohlman, Will Raymond and Penny Rich

Former Council Members - Joe Capowski, Lee Pavao

Former Candidate - Jason Baker

Newcomers - Donna Bell, H. Brock Page, Joshua Ravitch, Aaron Shah

Did not apply - The three incumbents running for reelection

Pages

 

Community Guidelines

By using this site, you agree to our community guidelines. Inappropriate or disruptive behavior will result in moderation or eviction.

 

Content license

By contributing to OrangePolitics, you agree to license your contributions under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.

Creative Commons License

 
Zircon - This is a contributing Drupal Theme
Design by WeebPal.