Attack Ads

Thanks for posting the full text. Not surprisingly, it is not as bad as presented by the Chapel Hill Herald. I therefore equivocate on the question of its negativity. She puts the whole subject in a positive context in the latter part of the ad. I stand by my assessment, however, that the ad does distort Cam's comments when they are taken as a whole.

-mark chilton

Joseph K misses one important point: by the time DB's ad was published, Hill had restated and clarified his position several times, correcting the sloppy language from the Herald forum. Thus, she ran the ad knowing that it did not represent his position.

Mark, is this not a central facet of negative campaigning--to take a snippet of a candidate's statement, despite full knowledge that it does not reflect his position, and present it as the damning truth?

Kurtz, thanks for the clarification. I was aware of the context of Candidate Bachman's statements. Mr. Hill was careful prior to this forum to clarify his position and, of course, after. By the time of this forum, the issue of Bachman's potential conflict of interest had been swirling around for about 2 months. This was the context in which Hill spoke. By this time, all the candidate's, maybe because of forum fatigue or the repititive nature of the questions, were responding in short-hand, sometimes sloppy short-hand. So, Bachman had reduced what she planned to do to help the community vis-a-vis UNC/North to 'state-of-the-art transportation system' , etc.

Chapel Hill's next election could be ripe for this kind of negative advertising, I hope this incident serves as a caution.

Joe C.,

I see that I misread what you were really saying, I hope my post did not come off as a slight toward yoursel or your views, which I find excellent. I do agree that she did a fine job of advertising (her news ads were nice-looking, I agree) and articulating herself, but stand by my assessment that the substance behind her campaign was poor. After all, don't you think the most vital part of campaigning is to tap into the public and develop trust? My argument is that her campaign, while well-packaged and timed, worked against her to erode that trust. The superficial strategy was excellent, but the substantive angle she took fell far short of the mark. I have just a few questions to ask, and I hope that you can (and any of the rest of you locally studious folks) respond in order to bolster my comprehension of the whole science related to campaigning.

1) The pamphlets she handed out at the public hearings related to the merger — yes they were pretty and easy-to-read brochures, but was it a good idea to tap into this sort of local political energy (read: animosity) in a council race? Do you think she was hopeful that people would blur the lines between county comms and school boards and believe to also be a TC issue (i.e., was she trying to dupe people)? In doing her so, I think some may have taken issue to the fact that she is running a campaign based, in part, on something outside of the town's purview. Do you think this is a reasonable assessment of the electorate, or would her ability to tap into misinformed folks provide a benefit greater than the cost of making the informed faction of townspeople suspicious of her stumping on this type of issue?

2) The attack (debatable adjective, I know) ad: Mark(s), Joe, Alex, other elected officials et al. — What do you think runs through the minds of most of the voters y'all have connected with when they see something such as this? Is it a turnoff? Are our fine, respective burgs more disagreeable to advertising in this context when it is done at a local, non-partisan level rather than nationally or statewide?

3) The whole "state of the art" whatever: Both the town and the metropolitan planning area have devised long-term (until 2025, I think), comprehensive regional and local public transportation plans that have been publicly available for a long time now. Both look toward so-called "state of the art" solutions. Why didn't Dianne Bachman consult these plans, study them, and adapt what was inside them to at least profess some knowledge about what viable, alternative, and ecomonically and environmentally friendly options we should look toward and plan for in the future? Surely, this would be better than using a council's business meeting for some free face time and then admitting you, in actuality, know bupkus.

Joe C., yes she used the available channels well during her campaign. We could tell some of the losing candidates that, perhaps, they would have done better had they utilized the media as well as Bachman did. But the angle I'm taking on this is, she could not done the three things I pointed out above. You said, Joe, that you would have no other advice you could give her on the campaign trail, short of telling her to lie. However, what would your advice be to her prior to engaging in the aforementioned merger exploitation, purchase of attack ads, or using "state of the art" as her undying slogan and/or cliche (BTW - "Go Greene" and "Chapel Hill First" grew equally tiresome, although I strongly support and voted for both Sally and Cam)? These are things Dianne could have changed and/or avoided — would you have advised her to do so?

Please let me know if I'm looking at things in the wrong light or from a severely biased perspective.

Thanks

Well, Incognito, I know you were asking Joe C, but I'll jsut butt in anyway. In the order you posed the questions::

1) MERGER AS TOWN ISSUE - I don't think it was clear during the campaign whether this strategy would work or not. In retrospect it appears that it did not. Those who tried to campaign on this issue lost - and pretty badly. Please note that most of the candidates in Carrboro said things that were generally supportive of merger (compared with Terri or Dianne's comments). I am probably the person who stated the most openness to merger among all of the candidates this fall. No apparent repercussion - is that because the voters support merger? Of course not. It's because they are not dumb enough to think that the opinion of an Alderman candidate on this issue matters. One of the side effects of "low turnout" (see Alex Zaffron's post re whether it really is low) is that the voters who do show up are mostly the more informed voters. So campaigning for Town Council on Merger was a bad idea. (BTW, the really disingenuous part of this is not even that the TC has no control over merger; it is that all (almost all?) of the Town Council candidates were on th record as against it.)

2) ADVERTISING AGAINST CAM HILL: Alex Zaffrom already addressed the question of whether it was a good idea to run the "attack ad." He is 100% correct that she should not have done it. It's a bad strategy and here's why: 1) She dignifies Cam's critique by responding to it and 2) she prolongs the story by bringing it back up. Because of the ad, all three local newspapers ran stories about this subject fanning the flames and adding negative campaigning to the accusations against her. I would have predicted that this was the danger (although I would have cited something like the actual events as a worst case scenario). BTW, Incognito, I don't think Chapel Hill or Carrboro voters find this type of campaigning more acceptable in State/National races, I think we just realize that it is a (required?) part of the idiom of campaigning for offices at those levels; it has not been here and let's hope it doesn't get any worse than this.

3) STATE OF THE ART: Apparently the voters needed some specifics on this issue. I conclude that two months on the campaign trail is too long to get away with not explaining this idea.

In response to the final question (what could Dianne have done), I have to agree with Joe C that there is not much she could have done. If winning was to be the issue, Dianne could have quit her job and publicly broken ranks with the University over the Chiller plant or something, but the truth is that that is just not who she is. But this is just what Joe C was saying, she would have to be down-right dishonest in order to overcome the "conflict of interest" issue.

-Mark Chilton

Mark,

Thanks a lot for the feedback, I appreciate your insight. I was just trying to sort out whether an elaborate, near-genius campaign strategy can trump the candidate's actual message, virtues, and positions (especially if they're off the pulse of the voters) and land someone in office. I agree with Joe C. and you and Alex; it seems that the people who do go to the polls do so out of concern and love for the town moreso than "civic duty." That said, I agree, if you're talking loud you better be saying something.

Again, I appreciate the breakdown Mark

It still is interesting how much attention is given to the Bachman campaign! I think it was fairly well believed in “some” circles that “some” local strategists decided very early in the campaign to go after Bachman. There was to be a series of letters calling for her to resign from the race or resign from her job. The tag line, “conflict of interest,” was the way to portray her to those who knew nothing about her in a negative way and ensure that all efforts to shuck the label would just make it worse for her. The fact that “they” knew not about her duties and responsibilities at UNC-CH just didn’t matter – the goal was to make her the face of the uncaring, unreasonable and unfair University that would bully Chapel Hill into submission. The “coalition of candidates” who ran together all seemed to benefit from this approach because it worked. It was something like what happened in 2001, and the organized efforts to paint Lee Pavao as a non-Chapel Hill resident who was buying the office of mayor. I can only wonder if the same “strategist” were involved in both strategies.

We shall see how the rhetoric of the campaign gives way to the responsibilities of governing. Dan Coleman, in his column Saturday said, “In Chapel Hill, we learned that the voters want a Town Council composed of forthright environmental and neighborhood advocates. The election of six such candidates to six open seats over the past two elections suggests that as an indisputable conclusion.” So, with seven Sierra Club-supported members on the Council, we shall see how many seven to two votes we actually get. If nothing else, it should be interesting!

Look out E-P-U soon you'll be seeing signs going up near each other and be imagining that they are all in a conspirocy together. Then you'll wonder who a group that didn't endorse you might be -- even tho they have filed as a PAC long before. All will look as if it is arrayed against you and your actual conspirocy.

And about Lee's dual citizenship:

Lee M Pavao

421 Haven Rd

Pittsboro, NC 27312

Pavao, Lee M

620 Airport Rd

Chapel Hill, NC 27514

Yours from the Ministry of Truth.

Winston

EPU has a very limited understanding of the nature of political endorsements and the playing out of issues before elected bodies. Just because there are seven Sierra supported Council-members doesn't mean they think the same or that there will be no 6-3 or 5-4 votes. What it likely means is that the 5-4 splits will represent nuances of environmental positions in which both the minority and the majority are preferable (from the "self-proclaimed" environmentalist perspective, to use a previous EPU concstruct) to the positions of previous Council factions that were not comprised of SC endorsees.

Also, of course, far from all issues before the Council are within the range of matters that SC considers germane to its own area of interest.

Winston, could you epound a little on the concept of "dual citizenship" in NC? I own three pieces of property, all in different political jurisdictions. One is a primary residence and the address used on my drivers license on my voter registration. What does the ownership of the other two have to do with it?

As for the first part of your message, I just don't understand it; could you clarify?

OK, Dan, please share your greater than limited understanding of political endorsements. Also, please include the differences in State of North Carolina law between an organization that endorses a candidate (like the Anderson Breakfast Club) and an endorsement from a registered PAC. Finally, please tell us if you encourage your candidates to disclose how much "soft money" was spent on their behalf by the PAC or PACs that supported them.

And do you really want us to accept that a 5-4 vote that you loss on an issue before a Council with 7 of your endorsees is preferable and feels better than a 5-4 loss handed to you by non-endorsees? Matbe in the aggregate, but a loss is still a loss.

Before we put this whole business to bed around the Bachman-Hill race, I would just add that, while I agree with most of Mark's conclusions, I part company on the conclusion that the issue could only have been overcome by 'quitting her job' or being 'completely dishonest'. I view both of these conclusions to be presumptive, and, in particular, the first to be directly antithetical to primary concerns giving rise to the need to limit the escalation in campaign spending--Namely, that campaigning has become so expensive as to place it beyond the reach of working people--To say that the only solution to a campaign criticism is to quit one's job (notwithstanding anyone's personal situation) as a general proposition, implies the view that one's job is a discretionary item or convenient vehicle that can be easily jettisoned. Unfortunately, for most folks, a job is not an optional activity when the bills come in, or when one reaches the checkout line at the grocery store. Most curious. As to the notion that Dianne would of necessity need to be 'dishonest' in answering these criticisms, that presumes a thorough knowledge of what her duties entail, and that of necessity she would be pressured into acting as the university's agent on the council. An item of concern, but by no means a foregone conclusion based on the information anyone has.

Rather, I believe her crucial error (as we have discussed), was to respond reactively and defensively, criticizing the tactics of her critics,(see our harpooned fish analogy elsewhere) rather than respond directly to the substance. If, early on, she were to outline specific steps and actions that she would take to remove any potential or perceived conflicts, perhaps the criticism could have been blunted, and perhaps not (as one could say she's being dishonest no matter what she says), but, in doing so, she would acknowledge that the concerns were genuine, and that she was making a genuine effort to address them. Would it have worked, ultimately? Who knows. But by not doing so, she sealed her own fate.

As a last note on whether there is a magic formula to a successful run, the answer is no. But there are two surefire recipes for failure: A brilliant mechanical campaign with a message that resonates with no one will tank. A brilliant message, with no pipeline to the voters will be heard by no one, and will suffer the same fate.

Cheers,

Alex

e-p-u, in Winston's absence, let me try to enlighten you about dual citizenship. I believe I understand.

If your primary residence is Chapel Hill, but you own vacation homes, you're just PRETENDING to live here, and thus are not qualified to run for office. See? Isn't that simple? It's no wonder you don't understand political endorsements.

It wouldn't be advisable for you to run for office in CH, e-p-u. Even if you slipped by on the fake citizenship issue, I'm pretty sure the truth would come to light, and it would be obvious to all that your scam was pulled in an attempt to do harm to your so-called "home town".

Besides, anybody who owns THREE properties must love developers. Before we knew it, every piece of land in Chapel Hill would be built on.

That's plausible, I guess. We don't usually think of Pittsboro as a vacation destination for Chapel Hillians, but we do have nice antiques stores. Come on down!

And of course, candidates never buy property in the jurisdiction they want to represent while living elsewhere most of the time. That's ridiculous!

Best wishes,

Bunkey Morgan

(Warning: The preceding is fiction. This is not a letter from Bunkey Morgan. In the event of an actual letter from Mr. Morgan, it will be cc:'ed to David Price and timed to self-destruct. All connection to Mr. Morgan is hereby disavowed by this author.)

Alex, I think my post re: Bachmann quitting her job makes it clear that such an act would NOT have been realistic. As for dishonesty, It would have been dishonest for her to publicly break ranks with UNC over the Chiller plant. I am certain she supported the Chiller plant. We'd all be interested to hear information to the contrary if you have it.

Also, campaign spending is not morally wrong, but it is often unnecessary and ineffective. That's all.

-Mark Chilton

I did not know that some were turning this into a fiction site! Your primary residence - your registration residence - is the jurisdiction that you can run for office. Making an issue of any other property in another jurisdiction that you own is just for political drama and you know it. You don't get to define who is "qualified" to run for office, the NC law already does that.

Let's ask ALL elected officials in our jurisdiction if they own property in other other jurisdictions.

I agree that anyone can own two homes who can afford them. I agree that a home is Pittsboro is an unlikely vacation home. I wonder though how it sits with voters when the majority of your cars are registered in the county of your 'vacation' home. Gaming the systems may not stand up to a close inspection even if the gaming allows you to meet the letter of the law.

My point, dear Helpful, is that there was something for Lee to explain. He didn't. But I seriously doubt that that was what cost him the election. I don't think anyone much changed their vote because of it. Lee is an important member of our community, but he does have his faults. Residency is minor, but as the sting still burns one has to wonder.

In Bunky's case, though even you can see a very blatant abuse of residency. Letter but not the spirit of the law.

Hey, Mark,

No, I don't have any more information, and that was exactly my point-- Nobody does. As such, it was assumed that Dianne would behave in a certain fashion based on conjecture arising from her professional affiliation alone, and that the direct question of how she would respond to these issues was not dealt with. By failing to address these questions directly, such conjecture was allowed to carry the day uncontested in substance.

Cheers,

Alex

Well "Helpful," it's amazing how you draw conclusions. I specifically said that I own three pieces of property; never said residences. See what happens when you make mental leaps? Neither of the two out of this jurisdictions are vacation properties - one is a piece of undeveloped land and the other is a rental property, and both were family owned and passed on to me. I guess owning something like that makes me an unacceptable Chapel Hillian and unfit to run for office. Right!

I think John A. had a good idea - let's find out what every elected official owns in another jurisdiction. Let's also find out about those dreaded "developers" now or soon to be on the Town Council. What do they - or did they - own? Is it true that Cam is doing a property swap with UNC-CH? How can he trust them not to bully him into a bad deal? Did Bill S. have a financial interest in Chapel Hill North? Questions, questions, questions! Do citizens have a right to know ior is it none of their business?

As e-p-u has noticed there are differences in what is owned. But the questions you ask need not remain questions, dear e-p-u.

Tax records are public information. It's not hard to put together the kind of list of taxed properties including lands, houses, cars and boats held by a public official or candidate.

Go RIGHT! for it.

Your friend at the Ministry of Truth,

Winston

OMG, this is hilarious. I can't believe anybody took my post as being serious. I guess it sounded so close to the truth. (Some people's idea of the truth, that is.)

E-p-u, even if you owned two vacation homes, bought them yourself, and they were close to CH, I'd give you permission to run for office. In fact, I'd probably be working on your campaign.

True enough, Mr. Truth Minister. If you have the time to search every state in the nation, that is. Why not just ask them?

Given the interesting testimonials by moms and husbands of recent candidates, why not ask them?

My favorite appeal to authority in the most recent election, nearly tied with Cam's mom writing to support him, was Michelle Lewis going to Dianne B to see if there was a conflict or not.

Because, dear John A., one needs a more neutral source.

Seriously. A little research is all that is needed, dear John A., but you are welcome and enabled by open records to do much more.

The point is that there is enough to let you and the voters see the difference between a vacation home, weekend farm, an investment, or a seaside retreat in the records. Probably no one much cares if you have been left a farm in West-by-Gawd-Virginia, but they may care if you own 6 cars all of them registered in a neighboring county or if your 'primary residence' has less than 1/3 the value of your mansion (err retreat) about 10 miles away.

Your favorite harmless drudge at the Ministry of Truth,

Winston

My last -- quit cheering! -- post on this subject.

1. Don't get Bill Strom mixed up with his brother, who _is_ a developer.

2. There's one thing about this site, and also Bachman's ad, that I admire: both have the guts to put things out in the open. I disagree with Bachman's characterization of Hill's position, but at least she had the decency to sling her mud out in the open and sign her name to it. I've been privy to enough nasty whispering campaigns in this town to know that y'all don't play nice. The allusion to the Pavao-residency issue (from the last campaign) is a case in point. (I just find the discussion of it on this thread hilarious, particularly the idea of having a Pittsboro vacation home!) That rumor was part of a nasty whispering campaign long before it made it (briefly) into the papers, as was the allegation that he had once participated in the killing South American babies by jamming formula down their throats (or being in the vicinity, or being somehow connected to the company, or something.) I say this as someone who did not support Pavao for mayor.

There are plenty of rumors being put to political use floating around about our mayors and most of our council and board members. Hell, even _former_ mayors can't escape it -- the next time someone drags Ken Broun's name through the mud while flashing me an arched eyebrow, I'm going to get primeval. This cuts every way across the very tiny, constricted political spectrum in this town, and it's not just typical talk and gossip -- it's private character-drubbing being put to political use in a town still small enough to be vulnerable to rumor campaigns.

All this tut-tutting about negative ads is amusing, since "negative" would be the first word I would use to describe the behind-the-scenes aspect of politics in this town. Folks act like statesmen in public, mouthing platitudes and coded boilerplate in public, while making it all very personal when they're out of the spotlight. As a confirmed gossip, I love hearing the rumors and innuendo. I just don't like the hypocrisy.

I took issue with Bachman's ad because I thought it was misleading and false, not because it was negative. I could give a da-- if it was negative. I don't mean to paint every politico in this town as a dirty rumor monger -- in fact, in my experience most of the politicians I know stay above that (to an extent.) It's usually their supporters who get down there in the muck, only to put on their halos when they're in public.

So bring it to this site and say what you want to say, in public. Until then, the beard-stroking discussion about "negativity" has little meaning to me.

First of all, Duncan, you're not paying attention. Not surprising, given your status as a former member of the lazy local press crowd. Maybe, however, you once again jump to a conclusion convenient to your preconceptions. Apparently the N&O is paying closer attention than you are and refers to Bill Strom as a developer for good reason. Maybe the N&O was actually paying attetion when Jim Protzman publicly brought to light the involvement of Bill Strom (not his brother Ron Strom - we all know the difference between the evil Ron and the sainted Bill) in the massive development (not small affordable housing) known as Chapel Hill North. Precisely the kind of development Bill Strom rails against but profits from. Let's ask Bill to come clean.

As one trickster to another, I ask where was Bob H to unmask Bill Strom two weeks ago when it might have mattered. Strom's sure pulled the wool over our eyes. To whit, he:

-tricked UNC into thinking he opposed their Cobb deck and chiller

-tricked affordable housing folks into thinking he supports affordable housing by the extremely tricky means of requiring developers to build more of it

-tricked the NC-DOT into thinking he opposed needless road widening through the devious act of voting against it

-tricked environmentalists into thinking he was one of their own by nefariously insisting on strong environmental protections in LUMO

Strom come clean? He's too busy taking us to the cleaners by promoting those bond issues that will burden us with sidewalks, greenways, and an adequate library. Oh, the horror!

Hey Bob,

First, if you're going to impugn my professional reputation, how about signing your last name? Time to man-up when you're going ad hominem.

Second, I've been looking and looking for Protzman's smoking gun linking Strom to development interests at Carolina North, and I'm coming up empty. I can't find any coverage in the N&O, the Herald-Sun, or the Chapel Hill News. Maybe they're archives weren't working this morning. I'd love it if you could point me in the right direction as I wouldn't _ever_ want to be considered lazy in your eyes, Bob.

I did find this, though, which is curious. Back in 1994, when the Council was debating zoning changes on portions of the Horace Williams tract to reduce its density south of Estes Drive -- this was the council that consisted of Mayor Broun and Members Brown,Capowski, Chilton, Evans, Lee Pavão, Powell, Protzman and Waldorf -- Protzman was the most vocal advocate of leaving the zoning as it was, at a higher density that would (presumably) be more lucrative for someone who would be "involved" and "profit from" the development, as you allege (but still have not shown -- lazy, lazy!) is the case with Bill Strom. Protzman even went on to question the town's legal right to make the zoning change and characterized (in 1994) the University's development plans for the Horace Williams tract as "near-term." (I suppose "near-term" can mean 10+ years in governance time, but it's still kind of a funny statement.)

Anyway, Protzman was out there trying to make it easier for folks to make a profit on the Horace Williams tract way back in 1994. It must stick in his craw that a guy he opposes politically may or may not (still unproven -- lazy, lazy!) profit from that work. It must drive him crazy, but not crazy enough to again throw $16,300 -- a local record -- down the toilet running a failed campaign for Council. (In fairness, Protzman spent $5 in 1995, a record low, and finished in the same position -- sixth.)

Let Mr. Protzman get on this site and bring forth his evidence.

For the curious, an excerpt from the 1994 Council meeting's minutes:

"Council Member Protzman said his understanding was that the Town did not have a formal application process for this type of situation.  He inquired about the Town's legal standing in passing an ordinance rezoning land for which the owner had near-term development plans.  Mr. Karpinos said the ordinance would apply unless an application had already been filed.

THE MOTION TO ADOPT ORDINANCE C AS DRAFTED WITHOUT THE PROPOSED FRIENDLY AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED 7-2, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS PROTZMAN AND EVANS VOTING NO.

AN ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE EXISTING ZONING ON THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA'S HORACE WILLIAMS PROPERTY (94-11-14/O-1c)

WHEREAS, the University of the North Carolina at Chapel Hill owns a tract of land in northwest Chapel Hill and Carrboro of approximately 970 acres in size, known as the Horace Williams property; and

WHEREAS, approximately 686 acres of this tract lie within areas covered by Chapel Hill zoning regulations, including the Joint Planning Transition area; and

WHEREAS, the existing zoning (Office-Institutional 3) for the portion of this property that is vacant land south of Estes Drive  is not appropriate in consideration of future development proposals for this property; and

WHEREAS, the existing zoning for this property does not best support the public health, safety, and welfare, of the greater community;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the zoning of this portion of the Horace Williams tract is hereby rezoned Office-Institutional 2, as designated on the attached map (Map 3 - Proposed Zoning), due to changed or changing conditions in the area.

So Coyote, are you saying that a person's occupation doesn't necessarily reflect how he/she will vote on the Council? That someone can be true to deeper values and concern for what will benefit Chapel Hill, even if it doesn't benefit them personally?

Old CH Lover thinks she has a bit of the trickster in her too. But she's barking at the wrong dog.

The answer is simple: some can; others cannot. Those pesky Chapel Hill voters think they have figured out which candidates fell into each category. But the tricky CH Lover will surely tell us that she knows better.

Duncan, Bob H. said Chapel Hill North, not Carolina North.

BTW, good post on the furor over a "negative ad", considering all the other negative campaigning in CH. I agree with a lot of what you said.

The no-name post is from me. (Again)

Coyote, some can be fair, some can't? Well that clarifies that. Thanks.

Oops, point taken on the Chapel Hill North v. Carolina North distinction. Chalk it up to my former status as a member of the lazy local press crowd. I can't keep all the "Norths" straight. Maybe they should call it "Carolina Less-North" to avoid (my) confusion. I'll take it up with the Chancellor.

Well soap fans, looks like my recent questions here (10:25 PM 11/10/03) that elicited no responses got front page coverage in the CHN and the City & State section of the N&O. Yes, Chapel Hillians, there is a Santa Clause, and the real name is UNC-CH! The land/house swap sounds like a pretty good deal and one that is very advantageous for “Mr. UNC-CH Critic.” How can we trust that institution to do the right thing when it does business like this and swaps property with its critic? Can't you just visualize the ads that could have been run on this?

Better yet, we have to wonder if Dan Coleman will write a column Saturday about what might have happened if this had been publicized before folks voted and why the candidate didn't disclose it? We also must wonder about his take on why, if UNC-CH is not to be trusted, they didn’t leak it and help influence the election outcome. Will Dan tell us that as a matter of principle, Cam should have held out to keep UNC-CH from turning more land into parking lots? Will he also offer his insights into what this will mean for the candidate elect’s credibility (or perception thereof) when dealing with UNC-CH as a Town Council member?

Stay tuned for the next installment of “As the Orange is Squeezed,” that popular soap that reveals the nuances of what passes for hardcore politics in these parts. It will be interesting to read the responses from supporters (spin?) as well as from critics (reverse spin?).

I've blogged the story about Cam Hill's deal with UNC. It's at http://www.isthatlegal.org/archives/2003_11_16_isthatlegal_archive.html#106924895376691191

Well, e-p-u, normally I don’t reply to such mean-spirited questions from those too cowardly to sign their names to them. What are you afraid of, e-p-u? That someone will treat you the way you are treating me? Have you no pride in your convictions that you can not claim them as your own? Tsk tsk. How sad for you.

Of course you might not want your identity revealed because your posts are usually as off base as this one. Cam Hill spoke with me at length during the campaign about the problems with his property. He was very matter of fact about it. Yes, he made a good deal with the university, perhaps better than he might have without some tough negotiating. Isn’t that exactly what he claimed he would do in his campaign? By the way, when you reveal your identity, we will know if you live between two parking lots.

Rest assured that, if Hill slips up, he will hear from me. Just ask Kevin Foy whose words I threw back at him when the occasion arose.

No I do not plan to write about this in my column at this time.

Nor do I plan to respond to you again on this point in this forum. Feel free to give me a call. I’m in the book.

p.s. one of the fun things about being a columnist is that I get to decide what I write. Not you. Go get your own column but I should warn you: the Herald doesn’t accept anonymity.

Less than it seems if you read the story, dear e-p-u and angry Eric.

First Cam ran on the same issues with the same "stand up to UNC" rhetoric two years ago. That was before UNC bought all the land surrounding his home--although the process had begun earlier. As it was Cam was the last hold out on the block and literally the "man in the middle." But don't take the word of a harmless drudge, read the article completely:

http://www.chapelhillnews.com/front/story/948765p-6782180c.html

What we at the Ministry find amusing is that the land will be used for "transfer station for some sort of multi-modal transportation."

Will it be "state of the art?"

Was the zoning managed by Bachman's new employee?

And will Cam, Bruce Runberg and Susan Moeser become leaders in a Rosemary Neighborhood Association?

Yours from the Ministry of Truth where we drudge on harmlessly,

Winston

Folks, please move this discussion to the new thread about Cam's deal at http://www.orangepolitics.org/archives/000088.html

Feel free to repost your comments there if you like.

Thanks!