November 2003

I had almost completed a long comment to an existing post and my finger slipped and I deleted the entire thing; so I'm going to post this separately so I can use the "Save" function. I've been reading everyone's comments and I agree with all of them pretty much.......my own experience differs only by degrees.

My association with Chapel Hill politics began two years ago in July when I was running through campus one rainy morning and I found my way blocked by yet another new construction project on campus. My endorphins were stimulated and it was a full moon so I decided to run for mayor. I felt that some different positions besides go-go growth and go growth needed to be voiced. I feel that I shifted the dialogue somewhat. After eight weeks of sitting between Lee and Kevin I became terrified that Lee would become mayor, so I withdrew and threw my support to Kevin. That campaign left me branded as an anti-leaf blower, no-growth wacko.....

To move away from the heat of the recent campaign but keep the focus on the relevance of campaign spending on local races, I’d like to look back at 1995. After that election, the Herald did an analysis of spending per vote for all the candidates. The results are pretty instructive. (Note: we can’t do that analysis for this year until February when the final spending reports are in.)

First and third place Chapel Hill finishers, Capowski and Andresen, spent almost the same amount per vote: $1.34 and $1.32 respectively

Second place finisher Chilton was low-spender among the winners at only $0.46 per vote. That helps explain his reputation as a savvy campaigner. (Chilton was also a strong proponent of the voluntary spending limits initiated that year by the Greens and Sierra Club).

The Chapel Hill Herald had this take on the Chapel Hill Town Council's discussion of TTA merger last night.

Consider this a thread for the general discussion of regional transit, with special emphasis on what merger with TTA would mean for Chapel Hill. Would it mean greater interconnectivity with the other transit systems? (That is, would it be easier for me to take the bus to Durham?) Would it be not much of a change at all? Would it be easier or harder for TTA to implement some of it's long-term plans (guideways, light rail, etc.) if the region's bus systems were joined, or would it not make much of a difference?

What's more progressive: regional transportation that works but isn't free and may be less "flexible"; or local public transportation that's free, reliable, convenient, but doesn't get you very far outside the town?

Well some folks are starting to get pretty worked up over the story of Cam trading property with the University. So let's discuss. I know emotions are high around this issue, please keep it civil!

The Chapel Hill News reports today that Town Council Member-Elect Cam Hill made a deal with the University to trade his house on Cameron Avenue for a nicer one on Rosemary Street. I think there are two issues here (correct me if I'm wrong). (1) Is Cam being hypocritical for criticizing the University and it's associates, and then cutting a deal with them? And (2) should this deal have been disclosed before the election?

Many folks, including Eric Muller at IsThatLegal.org, have taken issue with the fact that this deal was kept quiet for six weeks leading up to the election. However, I'm not convinced that this constitutes a "conflict of interest." (And yes Eric, there is a recall provision, ask Joe Herzenberg about it.)