Nancy Oates and Bell Campaign

Council member Oats pointed out I was a campaign manager in election cycle.  I assume she understands what those responsibilities are.  My point is this kind of engagement from a Council member (I think) is below the dignity of the office. Their was a violation of a filing deadline, this is not entirely uncommon, and the penalty will be paid.  My point is continuing to engage in this type of dialog exists solely as a means to and end to weaken Donna Bell as a Council Member and challenge her credibility rather than talk about issues.  That is the only reason Nancy Oats, as a Council Member, in engaging in this dialog.  This isn't discussing issues, this is a conversation focused on damaging the credibility of an elected official.  I explained why the development community supported Donna, I explained what my role was in the campaign, missing a filing deadline is not uncommon during elections, the public understands we took contributions from developers, none of which were illegal, and their support should come as no surprise based upon CHALTs rhetoric and platform.  Developers are the only people that can make smart growth happen with the guidance of Council.  

Truthfully I think the most concerning thing about the CHALT supporters and the rhetoric coming from their camp, is they seem dead set on getting rid of all minority voices on the Council.  They got rid of Mayor Mark and Lee, two LGBT politicians whose rarity I cannot over-emphasize, now Council member Oats is unnecessarily highlighting information openly available in the press, which Mayor Pro Tem Bell  was already managing with reporters and citizens.  Donna Bell's reputation and service is stellar, she is a wonderful person who represents her community  with dignity and honesty.  Why is it so hard for Council Member Oats, as her colleague, to start a conversation with Mayor Pro Tem Bell on a footing anywhere close to that rhetoric?  

No, I won't get off my high horse, because that is how insidious discrimination and assumptions operate to get rid of empowered minority voices. It's almost never overt. You are interjecting assumption. You are telling me about a choice I made. I don't recall intentionally filing a campaign report late. Maybe you think it's just something you can say and know it will somehow ring true, rather than listening to me and giving me the benefit of the doubt.  Homosexual men historically have been labeled as tricksters or dishonest, morally corrupt in some way. Maybe that's why you feel comfortable speaking so freely without thinking.  Same goes for the assumptions about Kleinschmidt and Storrow, yes driving drunk was a bad decision, I'll give you that, but Kleinschmidt's decisions on development were grounded in smart growth data driven development. An argument CHALT can't have on the merits because they are wrong, so instead you have to go after character interjecting assumptions and intentions to a fact pattern that you want to sell as the story. Same goes for Council member Oats as well, she is not press, she is a Council member. I know for a fact she and Donna spoke just a day or two ago, because I saw Donna, so as far as I know she is relatively easy for Council member Oats to get ahold of, or are we just interjecting assumptions again about intention, character, and work ethic?  The press has a job to do, Council member Oats is doing it unnecessarily for them. I suggest she optimize her value to tax paying citizens and spend it on educating herself on issues and serving Chapel Hill citizens, and leaving the spin and gossip to the press. 

I am not necessarily going to agree that Mayor Pro Tem Bell has gone out of her way to treat the new Mayor in a dismissive manner or in a way that was obstructionist.  However, let's say, for the sake of argument, that she did. I imagine it is hard for someone like you to understand how frustrating it is to watch progress in minority representation go out the window in one election cycle.  I imagine you don't know what it is like to watch someone die of AIDS, or understand that politically the only way to gain traction in LGBT rights was through civil disobedience and fierce campaigning with bitter losses. That the LGBT community fought for representation and rights because the community was literally dying. I imagine it doesn't seem disgusting to you an honest politician was run out of office because the citizens of Chapel Hill bought a half-baked narrative of corruption (a historical stereotype) while ignoring sound data on Smart Growth.  I imagine you don't know what it is like to constantly have your character called into question, and you don't really see the press or the citizens giving other politicians the same scrutiny. That you don't see citizens standing up more and calling out the kind of whisper campaigns and fear mongering tatics engaged in by CHALT.  I imagine these things are rather foreign to you.  So I bet you don't really understand why someone might have trouble figuring out how to engage in politics or process, when literally the main purpose of politics, historically, was to make sure you didn't have a voice.  

And I wasn't in a position to help Matt due to my current schedule. 

My comments in relation to LGBT rights and minority representation related to Don Evans calling into question Mayor Pro Tem Bell's behavior at Council meetings and her alleged disrespect of Mayor Hemminger. I was pointing out that minority groups like African Americans and LGBT people are historically underrepresented. Gains in these areas were incredibly hard fought, and often required drastic action, especially during the AIDS crisis because gay men were considered politically expendable and they died largely in silence until people like Larry Kramer started disruptive protests to get political focus on the crisis. The AIDS epidemic taught the LGBT community that we needed a seat at the table to ensure we had a voice that would defend our rights and lives. This is especially salient today considering Ted Cruz (a contender for the Presidency) attended a rally advocating for the genocide of LGBT people, and policies such as HB2, and the kind of right wing leadership we have at UNC with Spelling. 

If you care about LGBT rights it should be a deeply unsettling loss that we lost a large percentage of our leaders (in NC) in the last election cycle. I was pointing out that it might make sense for someone like Donna Bell  to manifest frustration in her public persona with new leadership, considering her values.  As her behavior seems to be under constant scrutiny by the opposition I wasn't conceding the point, but I was explaining if someone read that and was offended by it, they probably don't see the same worrying trends or value LGBT rights as someone like Mayor Pro Tem Bell. 

My point about Mayor Mark, is that the language put forward by the opposition (which is safe to call CHALT) revolved around a narrative (captured in a microcosm  with the American Legion issue) that basically used an old well worn stereotype of gay men as morally corrupt.  The specter of litigation had to be called on to quiet the rumor mill of the alleged past dirty dealings of the Kleinschmidt administration.  No evidence of corruption has been uncovered, nor will anything ultimately untoward come to light. The whole spectacle is just as offensive to me as if the town had run a narrative against former Mayor Lee that he was lazy or had a poor work ethic.  All it was malicious gossip predicated on a stereotype, if you didn't know that was a stereotype you should probably reconsider your grasp of LGBT cultural issues and history. 

A smart growth philosophy was embraced. Chapel Hill has three choices build up, build out, build nothing. Smart Growth is data driven, it uses density to create walkability, which mitigates traffic when it is done right, it lowers the tax burden on citizens, all of these things are well researched and projects like Obey Creek, Ephesus Fordham, 140 West and University Square will improve the lives of Chapel Hill residents and make things better for your children. We have to build something, and the only responsible path is up, not out.  

Most straight people value LGBT people. I know this to be true. And I know lots of people in Chapel Hill (including CHALTers) have LGBT people in their lives they love. However, what I am seeing nation wide is people are stressed and nervous. The rhetoric and xenophobia of Trump is unsettling to say the least, and what I am noticing is when people get stressed, or change is happening, group think starts to take over and minorities get pushed away from seats of power. There are only a few hundred, maybe a little over a thousand, LGBT officials in the world. Chapel Hill had something special, with Mark and Lee, it was a beacon for others. But what I see in Chapel Hill is an increasing tend toward an admittedly progressive, but all white straight Council. Which is exactly what people do when they feel threatened or uncertain about change, and it is exactly at those moments when we need more diversity from the community at the table so we can make sure everyone's rights and lives are truly being protected. 

TBlake, I'm sorry. I can't respond to you. I find our exchanges are not value added.  i have yet to see you engage in conversation that was anything close to respectable. Have fun trolling.