Carrboro election: maps and graphs

The maps below show the percentages of votes by precinct garnered by each candidate for the Carrboro Board of Aldermen. I have also provided links to additional maps and graphs.

A couple of observations:

Additional maps and graphs:



Joan, yes, I DO believe that. Because I know a number of people NOT in the annexed area that voted for Katrina. Quite a few of them live in "old" Carrboro, and are less than pleased with a number of development decisions made recently. I think it would have been enought to swing Katrina (or whoever ran from that neighborhood) firmly into third place.

As to the numbers--are you certain that's 852 people--or 852 HOUSEHOLDS?


Melanie, I looked again at the numbers. The town document (more info on that below) says that the areas to be annexed (in early 2006) had 288 households (as of July 31, 2004). They multiplied this by 2.96, the average household size/persons per unit in Chapel Hill Township, to estimate the population.

These numbers are from the Town of Carrboro Service Report for Northeast Annexation Areas "A" and "B," dated July 31, 2004. I found it on the town website.

Am I missing some of the areas that are being annexed?

The Board of Elections has corrected the Coles Store Voter Turnout Statistics.

There were 122 Carrboro voters who voted at Coles Store. The Carrboro voter turnout at Coles Store was 17.78%, not 38.48%.

That's where the numbers would be wrong, Joan. I'd say the average household up north is closer to 3.5/household. Virtually everyone has kids, and there are a lot of families with at least one college aged (voting) student. Just going down our block (5 houses) I count 13 voters ( or people ov voting age).

I'm bowing out of this conversation--I think I've said all I can.


A quick note about the official results that came out today and their effects on the Carrboro maps and graphs: The Carrboro results that changed were the voter turnout numbers for Coles Store (from 264 to 122), Damascus (from 71 to 89), and North Carrboro (from 580 to 593). These changes had no effect, of course, on the map at the top of this page or on the other "percentage of votes" maps. The new results were important, however, for the "percentage of voters" maps, because voter turnout was the denominator for these calculations. Enjoy!

Katrina, the college-aged kids could definitely be voting at their universities, though. Many UNC students vote locally and not at their parents'.

Remember that 2.96 is average household size--I'm sure there are houses with only two folks that could bring it down. You might be right that household sizes are larger. I wish we knew for sure, though.

The new results are important too in that they deflate the notion that there was an "EXTRAORDINARY" amount of political involvement and interest in Carrboro politics by Carrboro voters in the Coles Store precinct.

The initial stat reporting that 38.48% of Carrboro voters in the Coles Store precinct voted was an error. Only 17.78% voted--- this is hardly extraordinary political involvement, and it is not indicative of great unhappiness or great unrest.

You were right all along, Mary.

Sorry, that faulty link in my previous comment was meant to take you here.

Oh no, guys (Mary and Cat)

Read the Coles Store # the other way. Of 122 voters, 101 chose Katrina. That is a very clear statement of whom they would prefer to represent them on the BOA in my book.

Yes but Mary, in 2003 only 86 Carrboro votes were cast in Coles store, so that's a 50%ish increase, which is huge electorally.

Let's be honest - 101 out of 122 is almost 83 percent which is significant by any analysis; it doesn't dispose of the whole question, but it is significant.

There's no disputing the fact that most of the Alderman candidates got clobbered at Coles Store. But that precinct's turnout turns out not to warrant special treatment.

I was making no point that you did not do well at Coles Store or that the voters in LHF who voted don't prefer you. My point was that there was no extraordinary turnout that might indicate great unhappiness or unrest.

I also wonder what you are talking about when you say, “ in 2003 only 86 Carrboro votes were cast in Coles Store, so that's a 50%ish increase, which is huge electorally.”

According to the official 2003 Carrboro Voter Statistics at Coles Store:
417 voters were registered, 118 voted, and the % turnout was 28.30%

Compare that to 2005:
686 voters are registered, 122 voted, and the % turnout was 17.78%

I see a substantial decrease in voter turnout this year, not a “50%ish increase”. I see data that makes a case opposite to yours. Please correct me if I am making a mistake.

Let me get this straight. 83% ( 101 out of 122 voters) of less than 5% (122 out of 2300+- total Carrboro voters) of the voters who bothered to exercise the franchise voted for Katrina at Coles Store and this speaks to BOA representation how? Thanks to Mary for the 2003 and 2005 comparisons. James

IF (capitalized for a reason) you believe that the northern neighborhoods are worthy of special representation (and Mr Chilton seems to indicate so in the N&O article, though not by quote so who knows if that can be trusted other than Mark), then it is very hard to argue there is any other person than Katrina who would be the best choice from that area, based on how voters voted.

Although Mark is correct that 83% of anything has some significance, context is everything.

Precincts are drawn by the board of elections to provide "a convenient number of precincts for the purpose of voting." (G.S. 163‑128). These have no relation to political considerations in Carrboro other than by coincidence of geography.

In this case, the BOE's "convenience" places a mere 686 registered voters in one Carrboro precinct. Calling it one of seven precincts obscures the fact that it is only one twenty-first of registered Carrboro voters (as James A points out). In other words, the parameters of this discussion overstate the importance of Coles Store by a factor of three (one 21st of voters as opposed to one 7th of precincts). I believe that if Katrina were claiming to have placed first in just one of 21 precincts (were the lines drawn that way), we would look at the 83% figure a bit differently.

That does not diminish Katrina's claim to be very popular among those 122 voters. Nor does it speak to her assertion that the annexees might vote similarly. Nor does it speak to the question of whether, for political reasons of their own determination, the aldermen might appoint someone from Coles Store.

But it does bring up another odd point of hers which is the notion that zip code has some bearing on this. The obvious rejoinder is that zip codes are creations of the post office and have no political significance but there is a response to her political contention as well.

The 27516 zip code will be represented by five municipal officials: Herrera, Haven-O'Donnell, Easthom, Kleinschmidt, and Ward. In fact, the only 27516 candidates to lose in this election were Kevin Wolff and Jeff Danner.

We do not have to pick someone from the northern neighborhoods. I never said that. I said that we should operate on a timeline that would allow for consideration of candidates from the annexation area (ie the appointment should be made after the effective date of the annexation).

And by saying that 83% of one precinct is significant, I am only giving Katrina her due. Lake Hogan Farms has spoken and I am saying that I hear what they are saying and will take their thoughts (and many other people's thoughts) into account in making a decision about this matter.

Thanks Mark for clarifying -- I didn't think the article did you justice enough.

I again apologize for my earlier statistical analysis based on incorrect figures on the Board of Elections website.

Mark C: "Which result subverts democracy? Rejecting the person who came in fourth or appointing a person who was explicitly rejected by 2/3 of the voters?"

Methinks you did not campaign with the insinuation that the 1/3 of Carrboro most displeased with the status quo may or may not have claim to representation.

Fourth place is fourth place. A lot of Carrboro understands that, even some people who never heard of Katrina Ryan. You don't need to wait until Jan. 31, or even Thanksgiving, to appoint Katrina.

To everyone reading this who voted for Kerry and thinks Katrina should not get the appointment: Look no further than this thread for an example of how Democrat-voters/candidates fail to convince middle-voter Americans that the Democrat is better than the Republican at providing the just, Solomonically simple tough decisions. So much hemming and hawing does not speak to strong, inclusive leadership.

This is not hard.

The fourth place finisher did not finish close behind the third place finisher. She did not run a campaign proving that she has the ability to be respectful, tolerant, and fair. She did not listen or dialogue well. She constantly put down Carrboro government. She often displayed an incomplete understanding of the facts and made false assertions. She gave little indication of being someone who wants to cooperate and work well with others. It is not even clear to me that she believes Carrboro should exist as a town. Add to this, the attitude required of her to run for office in the first place. What does this attitude say about her future approach to problem solving if appointed?

Jeff, please explain what would be so wise about appointing this person. Do you really think King Solomon would choose this person over someone else in the community who is wise, respectful, tolerant, responsible, and committed to fair treatment of all?

I know it is hard for you and others to see passing over Katrina as anything but an affront, but I would ask you to reconsider what passing over Katrina really means. I do not believe it means that anyone's lifestyle or point of view is not respected. I simply think it means we have the opportunity to appoint someone who can do a better job.

Not appointing Katrina is not a rejection of a group of people with certain lifestyle preferences. I certainly don't reject people for their lifestyle preferences. I believe it is a legitimate lifestyle preference to want to live in a safe, quiet neighborhood. It is a legitimate preference to want to live on a street with minimal traffic. It is a legitimate preference to want to preserve the natural areas surrounding ones home. It is a legitimate preference to want to live in a house in the suburbs and to travel by car. It is a legitimate preference to want excellent schools. It is a legitimate preference to want to hold on to ones money, and on and on. Some of these preferences are not my preferences; most of them are.

Most preferences in life aren't right or wrong. Sorting out the meaning of what we want and what we have is not easy, and no one has the right to judge others based on appearances. Wouldn't it be good to appoint someone who understands this and can communicate it effectively?

Again, why appoint someone who finished a rather weak fourth place and ran a divisive campaign when we have the opportunity to appoint someone constructive who can help us move forward?

During the campaign, I don't believe Katrina exposed any problems the community is not aware of, and I don't believe she offered many solutions the community is not aware of. What I do give Katrina credit for, is making some of us think more deeply about the future of Carrboro. She has made me think harder about what needs to be done if we want Carrboro to remain inclusive and viable.

Let me end by saying this: I regret that Katrina chose to communicate her views in such divisive and polarizing ways. Had she been able to approach problems differently I would have welcomed her at the table.

Well-put, Mary!

It especially means a lot coming from you, a resident of the annexation area.

I dont think anyone could have said it better, Mary!

Applause, applause...

Challenging the town attorney was rather brazen of the fourth-place finisher, I thought.

Thank you Mary, well put indeed!

I sense that during and after the campaign Katrina is conveying entitlement to a seat on the BOA. She ran because she felt her neighborhood was entitled to representation due to the annexation timeline. After the election she feels entitled to the seat vacated by Mark since she finished fourth and is challenging the process.

Mary summarized the situation well in her comments above with respect to the qualities the BOA should seek for filling the vacant seat.

If the BOA shares Mary's opinions about Katrina, then we'll need an alternate candidate from the annexation area to have any hope for representation. Has anyone expressed interest?

I hear Cat devine or david marshall are considering renting an apartment in the annexation area.. Just kidding...

I suspect the annexation area harbors more than a few residents who think like Mary.

Quoting from a Randy Newman song, "I'd like to know who they are ... for I would run to embrace them."

JB, that was funny!

An interesting note: I can run for office in the country of Panama.

See my blog if you're curious.


To be honest, I'm not sure that many of us were paying much attention to the BOA election. Yes we have a stake in the outcome, and we could have helped our favorites campaign, but it was hard to get interested in an election in which we could not vote.

I have been lurking here and at the Squeeze the Pulp throughout the election. My good friend John Kramer asked if I would consider Katrina, he lives in the annexed area. I did my best to see what she brought to the table and in the end I decided for much the same reasoning Mary R stated that I wouldn't support her. I'm hoping an applicant steps forward from the annexed area that is less divisive and has a longer record of community service here.
Here is a little song some might remember from Father Guido Sarducci's mother for Katrina "Whats the matter you? gotta no respect, why you look so sad? Itsa no so bad, itsa nice a place, aw, shutup a your face"

First, Pat Day: "'shutup a your face'" to Katrina? Not exactly elevating the dialogue here. Not exactly getting any condemnations either, I notice.

Mary R & the applause she received: Beware majorities that preach all-inclusiveness, yet accuse and exclude their detractors as unnecessarily divisive. You can't have it both ways. Sometimes full inclusion requires great discomfort.

Perhaps you realize that, which is why your side of this thread keeps falling back to ya'll's ad hominem/feminem arguments. You all don't like Katrina. That's your right. But such personal attacks don't help Carrboro heal through its annexation, nor do they reflect well upon the attackers.

If "Carrboro" were what "Carrboro" preaches, it would love and embrace its internal enemies first, dispute them second.

You all have clearly demonstrated a limited willingness to tolerate dissent. Dissent must be just so, I guess, not too dissenting in the end. Sure, different people have different styles. To draw an analogy some won't like, informal self-segregation by style and culture is not a new thing.

(BTW, it's sort of funny and sort of not that you condemn Katrina's questioning of the town attorney, ipso facto. I remember one James Baker, Esq., in front of the cameras quite often during a certain Florida election proceeding. Attorneys represent their clients.)

Katrina represents a lot of people, many of them more firmly aligned with her positions than I am. (I voted for Katrina but not only Katrina.) You can always -- always -- pick a representative from an excluded community to go along with the excluders. To shut out Katrina because she is Katrina is a rejection of her support base. Don't hold your breath for many of them to see the light about some alternative appointee from up there that the BOA would prefer to work with.

Appointing Katrina would be Solomonic, Mary R, because it would accept that Katrina represents more than one-seventh of Carrboro. That one-seventh may be anathema to some of the majority, or maybe just Katrina is. It may not be the only Solomic solution, but it's easily the simplest one.

Jeff, you apparently didn't watch Saturday Night Live in the good old days. I'm sorry for your loss. ;-)

Ruby, it wasn't
“'shutup a your face'”

“'shutup a you face'”

My brother bought a Father Guido Sarducci costume and entertained the neighborhood kids. He was almost as funny as Don Novello and he never broke character once suited up. Even my mother would stop what she was doing to watch him, and sometimes she would laugh so hard tears would start running.

When I read your posting, Pat, I smiled. It brought back memories of my brother, my mother, and SNL's "Golden Years". Our memories hold so much richness that goes untapped until someone reminds us of them. Also, thank you for infusing much needed humor into this discussion. I hope you post more often.

Remember "The Man Who Loved Swimmin?" Sploosh

If in need of a laugh, be sure to catch Novello in the 1985 film Head Office, recommended more for Eddie Albert's performance as "chairman of the board."

Was anyone besides me disturbed and embarrassed by the grossly inaccurate Indy reporting on this Carrboro BOA appointment issue?

I wasn't. What am I missing?

I just read it, I didn't see anything wrong with the article. There were a few irritating bits in the Chapel Hill part, though.

Here's a laughable quote

He [Aaron Nelson] says Harrison spoke to those who believe the town needs a pro-active economic development strategy. "We at the chamber believe that it's a false dichotomy that the interests of the business community are antithetical to the progressive community. Ed really believes in the triple bottom line of community sustainability and environmental protection, social equity and economic prosperity. He's incredibly accessible and that contributed greatly to his reelection."

There's so much weirdness in play here - I'll point out to bits that are quite zany.

One, unlike most every other candidate, Ed didn't speak about or present any economic agenda - new, old or otherwise. Characterizing his campaign (or his previous behavior on Council) as "pro-active" for economic development is ludicrous. I'd like to think I had the most "pro-active" and innovative vision for promoting economic growth (Town-wide economic office, commercial density, parking allotments, etc.) backed by the strongest business background of any of this years candidates, but by any measure, Ed was "missing in action".

Two, Aaron, by underlining Ed's "triple bottom" (I'm assuming he's saying this without irony) and matching his rhetoric to that of their "Yes,No,Unsure" debacle - is sending us a clear message that Ed is his "man in Havana".

Three, "false dichotomy"? Chokeable reversal there... Throughout the campaign, J Jolly and Aaron tried to setup a number of false dichotomies in their published "evaluations" of the candidates, their questionnaire and their on-air forums. Co-opting the Mayor's, Mark's, Laurin's, Jason's, Walker's , Robin's, myself's public dismissals of their "false dichotomy" is quite interesting.

Dan, read again:

"But state law leaves the decision up to the incoming board, and they announced this week that they plan to take applications for the position and make a decision early next year.
Ryan lives in a recently annexed area north of the town, and her campaign tapped into frustration among residents who say the annexation was unfair, creating higher property taxes without providing essential town services and representation. Ryan won 35 percent of the votes in her precinct, a higher proportion than any other candidate won in a single precinct.
Chilton and other aldermen say they'd like to wait until the next annexation takes effect, in January, before making a decision, and they say they will open the candidate pool to residents of the annexed areas. Ryan and another candidate, Catherine DeVine, both plan to apply. With that decision still up in the air, Carrboro's political season isn't over yet."

BTW, a more interesting subject, what do you think about Moses Carey vs. Ellie Kinnaird?

Moses Carey, a longtime Orange County commissioner, is expressing an interest in running in state Senate District 23, which covers Orange and Person counties.
The incumbent, state Sen. Ellie Kinnaird, has held that seat for five terms and will run again, she said Friday.
Carey says he has had "an interest in serving at a higher level" for several years and he will make a decision in December. He would definitely run if Kinnaird were not running, he said.
Kinnaird said she knew of five people who were interested in her seat, but she thought they were waiting for her to give it up before they ran.

Mary R.'s comment about the state senate race (?) deserves its own thread....

I second JB's suggestion.

The Indy report re BOA seat bothers me too. It contains three mistakes, and essentially gets the whole story wrong.

I will be interested in learning Aaron's definition of the "progressive community" and just who thinks it is at odds with the "business community."

If there is a progressive community as such, I suspect it is pretty happy with recent Chapel Hill election results. Yet this council is arguably as business-friendly as any in recent memory. It stands out in its ability to support business growth without dividing the community.

Consider the following from the Herald's Oct 20 story on East-West Partners' lastest project:

"I think this is an appropriate place for this type of density," Councilman Bill Strom said. "I think this would interface very well with a future TTA line there."

Councilman Cam hill added, "Roger has figured out what we want, and he's given it to us."

The business community can't do much better than the comments above from progressive council-members Strom and Hill. Consider also Foy's ratcheting up the town's commitment to downtown through the Downtown Partnership.

By contrast, here's how one-time Chamber board chairman Stick Williams characterized the council in 1995 when Meadowmont was working it's way through the system (Independent, 10/25/95):

"They've got five people who listen when the busienss community speaks... these are the types of politicians we've been screaming for."

Williams and current director Nelson may still yearn for a council majority that reflexively pushes through the Chamber's agenda. But, the fact of the matter is that today's progressive leadership helps the business community succeed by supporting growth in a manner that does not divide the community.

So, you have to wonder just who is making false dichotomies and to what end.

Mary, no offense, but I only see two errors in the part of the Indy article related to Carrboro:

1) The BOA has not had a chance to discuss what it will do about this issue yet, but some members have expressed an interest in an appointment process early in 2006. The Indy reported: "[The BOA] announced this week that they plan to take applications for the position and make a decision early next year . . ." The statement is inaccurate in that the BOA has made no announcement about the matter.

2) Katrina got 101 of 274 total votes cast in Coles Store which is 36.9% of that precinct (which is where her house is). The Indy article says "Ryan won 35 percent of the votes in her precinct" which is slightly inaccurate and fairly imprecise (because she could also be described as getting votes from over 82% of the voters who turned out in Coles Store).

Neither of these inaccuracies seem like "gross inaccuracies" to me. The first mistake is worse than the second, but both errors are typical of local news reporting in my experience. What bothered you about the report?

Just curious.



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.