Welcome to the jungle

Info on Tom Stevens:

http://www.heraldsun.com/tools/printfriendly.cfm?URN=0465681438

http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/votersearch/results22_bert.asp?vr=3501003600...

"When Robin Cutson denounced Kevin Foy's former assistant Michelle Lewis as a Marxist in her guest column last week, I was sure she had thrown down the gauntlet and would challenge Foy for mayor."

I missed the guest column. Where was it published? Anyone post a link to it?

I think this is the one that Dan's referring to ...

http://www.heraldsun.com/tools/printfriendly.cfm?URN=0490695282

Yikes!

Y'all have fun over there.

Cheers,
Alex

Thanks for the link Ray.
Robin certainly is different.

On the other hand...

Just read James Carnahan's column announcing that he will not be joining this jungle, this time around. In this thoughtful piece, I submit that James may have set a new standard for passionate, yet temperate eloquence in our local political discourse:

http://www.chapelhillnews.com/opinion/story/2640445p-9077344c.html

If this sets the tone for what is to follow, James may have provided the greatest service of all. Well done, James.

Cheers,
Alex

Wow, Dan, I just had to read that column since it seemed like you must have been overstating the situation, but Cutson seems to be slipping into full-on McCarthy mode there: " . . . Ms. Lewis (like many others nowadays), is actually advocating Marxism." And there is much more (see the link above).

well, having run for office four times in Chapel Hill as a self described socialist, I can say with full authority that Michelle Lewis' statements endorsing faculty and staff housing at Carolina North hardly makes her a Marxist. In fact, Robin seems to forget that it was common capitalist practice for the capitalist to provide housing for his workers -- I think there was even a mill village in Carrboro!

Robin also asks in her column: "Why shouldn't we use taxpayers' money to buy land and build housing for the faculty and staff of those who work in state hospitals and state prisons? "

In fact, North Caroljna State Government has a rich history of providing worker housing at state hospitals and institutions. There were plenty of employee cottages at Dix, for instance.

I agree with Robin that the University has no business building employee housing. I love Bullshead and I think that students who live on campus should have access to a grocery and toiletries. But beyond that the University has no business competing with local businesses, including real estate developers. Does anyone really want the University replicating mill owners or mining operations by building 'company towns' (including CN)?

On 6/5/2005 Bill Oliver asked "Why should university stores be barred from competing with private enterprises and why, for that matter, should small businesses b[e] protected from competition with university stores?”

Mark Chilton responded "From www.dictionary.com: “socialism. n 1: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government."

Seems to me like Mark and Robin are saying the same things (although with different tones), along with a number of other people who responded to the Umstead Act forum.

I didn't suggest that the University build faculty or staff housing in competition with the private sector, but noted that Robin's guest column was historically innacurate. She built up a straw man and knocked it down.

Looks like OP denizen Katrina Ryan just jumped into the Carrboro Board of Aldermen race. Welcome to the fray, Katrina!

Yep. No one can argue now, that the race will be 'just the usual suspects'. Looks like we'll have a spirited fall with with a diverse range of views presented. Welcome, Katrina!
Cheers,
Alex

Welcome to the race Katrina!

Of course, we're all wondering about the new address. I hope there is peace in your life, and that you are able to enjoy the public platform to the fullest extent. ( For those who don't know, Katrina has a background in drama... not to mention noteworthy political credentials.)

Dan, I'm curious. Would you feel a big 'yikes' if I were to file by Friday?

Welcome to the race, Katrina!

I'm not running for any other reason than to effect good policy, but I have to say this is more exciting than I thought it would be.

Mary, how do I find out more about Katrina's "noteworthy political credentials"? I'm curious.

Can anyone introduce me to James Carnahan? It would be an honor to meet him.

gerryc, I think Robin's is more of a slippery-slope fallacy. See http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/ss.php

David,
I'll accept your anaylsis of Robin's column as "slippery slope" rather than "straw man"

David,
I hesitate to tell what I know of Katrina. I don't know her well, and I don't want to misrepresent her in any way.

Dan,
I'm glad you take politics seriously. I do to. My question about how you would feel about me running was in jest. In no way do I feel qualified to hold elected office, and I would never seek office unprepared or angry. I agree with Alex that James Carnahan sets the standard for a thoughtful and respectful attitude towards public office. I wish more candidates embraced James' attitude.

I'm ashamed of myself for not anticipating Ryan's move. All she has to do is live in that apartment for 5-6 months until Carrboro annexes her house. I wonder if she'll rent out a room to anyone else from the annexation areas....

I'm disappointed that Katrina is pulling a Bunkey.

Forgot the link:

http://www.chapelhillnews.com/news/story/2653740p-9090569c.html

Hi All,

Thanks for the welcome gentlemen. I look forward to a spirited and productive election season.

It was such a busy, busy day I'm sorry that Karen( The News reporter) and I only had about 5 minutes to talk, as I had committed my only availability before her deadline to Jennifer Ferris at the Herald.

I'm a little dissappointed that she chose to edit my comments about the annexation out of context. I said the "timing" of the annexation was a source of frustration, etc...but I've been in politics long enough to be accustomed to being half-quoted by the press.

To answer David's question to Mary, just ask me :) I think the credentials Mary is talking about is my extensive background in Democratic campaigns ( right now I'm working with Nick Lampson.) And the drama background refers to my college major. I had the great priviledge to attend Northwestern University as a theatre major and do additional work at the Goodman school of Drama.

I don't think a "bunkey" is the same thing here as in Texas, 'cause I don't have one to pull ;)

Nice tone, Katrina!

Dan Coleman states that I am a candidate who opposes UNC building affordable housing for employees and who also opposes government efforts aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

Point One: UNC providing housing for faculty and staff.
Terri has stated that UNC should provide stores for student needs but “beyond that the University has no business competing with local businesses, including real estate developers. Does anyone really want the University replicating mill owners or mining operations by building ‘company towns' (including CN)?”

I agree with Terri. In the past, company Towns such as those operated by mill owners and the owners of coal mines did not exactly treat their employees well and those who ran the company towns were not known for progressive ideals even if they did provide housing to their workers. And, of course, the same is true historically for many socialist states—they may have provided housing to workers but a brief reading of history reveals abuse, discrimination and a curtailment of liberties.

And if UNC begins to provide not only jobs as well as housing and any and all types of businesses then it is indeed not just a “company town” but is also structuring itself along the lines of socialism. As Terri notes, “Why should university stores be barred from competing with private enterprises and why, for that matter, should small businesses b[e] protected from competition with university stores?” Because as Mark Chilton pointed out---- “socialism. n 1: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government.”

So would the current UNC administrators finally provide the utopian version of socialism? In 2002 the News & Observer reported that a 2001 study showed that women and minorities at N.C. State University were paid less than white males and that a 2002 study showed that female professors at UNC at Chapel Hill earned significantly less than male professors. In 1992 the predominately Afro-American UNC-Chapel Hill housekeepers filed a discrimination complaint against UNC. In 2004 the Herald reported UNC housekeepers were still citing poor pay and discrimination. In 2004 the Herald reported that UNC state employees received a paltry 2.5% raise after receiving no pay raises in the two preceding years. This year state employees may have the cost of their health benefits raised. However, recently it has been reported that the new President of UNC system will not only live in the luxurious president's home, receive a state issued car, free membership in the Carolina Club, and travel expenses, but also an increase in salary from the past $312,000 a year to almost $500,000.

Perhaps Mr. Coleman, you simply put more faith in letting a powerful elite few gain control over jobs, housing, and businesses in exchange for promises of perks such as housing than I do.

Point Two: Mr. Coleman states I oppose government efforts aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions. This is absolutely wrong. What I oppose are biostitutes who claim they want to protect the environment when really all they are doing is catering to developers and industry under the guise of environmentalism. I do oppose UNC's Crawford-Brown's Community Carbon reduction project (CRed) because in my opinion this is a perfect example of “fake environmentalism.” I came to this conclusion after reading extensively on the subject and I have posted a great deal of this research on my website.

Crawford-Brown has stated that cutting down mature trees and replacing them with saplings cleans more carbon dioxide from the air (although he did state he didn't advocate it). He has also stated that his position is that, “cutting old trees to replace them with new ones makes sense only if the carbon in the old trees is sequestered (locked away) and not allowed to degrade to carbon dioxide.” You will find in reading on this subject that “locking the carbon away” can mean turning the trees into furniture or building supplies. There is research by scientists who refute these new carbon reduction programs, but their research findings are not mentioned by “carbon reduction” advocates. The timber industry, of course, is very supportive of these new “carbon reduction” programs. The Alberta Forest Products Association's website states that “harvesting mature trees helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions” and also states turning the mature trees into wood products “locks in the carbon dioxide.” Many environmental groups have noted that the U.S. timber industry has been pushing for increased logging and clear cutting of mature trees proudly stating they are helping the environment by reducing carbon dioxide by replacing mature trees with saplings. In 2002, the President of the National Parks Association questioned whether carbon reduction was really about air quality or “backyard timber mills.”

Developers also love the new “carbon reduction” programs because it calls for increased high density development (to facilitate the use of public transit) and justifies clear-cutting during construction. After all, since air quality can be improved by cutting down mature trees and then planting saplings, developers aren't plagued with having to protect existing trees. And last, but not least, these same carbon reduction advocates are also pushing for genetically modified trees on the basis that these GM trees can be altered to grow faster which means they would absorb more carbon dioxide to help clean the air.

Toyota Motor Corp. is investing in forest biotechnology programs and has stated that once their GM carbon-consuming trees are developed they will be able to “clone thousands more exactly the same” in order to “help purify the atmosphere." The UN has approved use of genetically engineered trees that are claimed to take in more carbon than normal trees so that corporations and governments can claim them as an “offset” for industrial emissions. Just as with genetically altered crops, scientists have cited a host of concerns and pointed to research that indicates these GM trees may be harmful to the environment and wildlife. Their research and concerns are ignored by GM and carbon reduction advocates.

Mr. Coleman, at the very least, even a zealot of the CRed program, after reading the research, would have to admit there is room for doubt and questions. The fact that you present it as simply that I am against reducing pollution and make no mention of the research and conclusions reached by respected scientists included on my website leads me to think that you are more interested in attacking me than in a true examination of the issue.

OK, Dan, maybe I have been hoisted by my own petard by my 'Yikes', in response to Robin's column: I am assuming that your question, however obliquely posed, is: How is Robin's uh....contrarian campaign different from that of Katrina? Simply this: Robin's tract is one deriding virtually every notion of communitarianism (yeah, folks, look it up) that reveals and drives a what appears to be a contempt for what we regard as much of the socially progressive work that has been done over the past thirty years in our communities.

Katrina, however, has not advanced this ethos directly. Rather, her run is largely driven by a disagreement with the current Board of Aldermen on the issue of the recent annexation, which is a srictly local, an frankly, germaine matter. One of the criticisms promulgated is that the Board acted precipitously and by the time-frame of the work, deliberately disenfranchised the new citizens of Carrboro.

While I can categorically state that this postulation is wrong, I also find nothing untoward with Katrina establishing in our community before the effective annexation to place this question before the rest of the citizens in the upcoming contest.

While Katrina has certainly been critical, and at times caustic, her rhetoric has certainly been less so than Brian Voyce's "Top Ten Reasons Why Carrboro Should Be The Next Nuclear Test Site (If they can't be absorbed by Chapel Hill for Landfill Expansion)".

Does that help?
Cheers,
Alex

Incomplete editing on previous post----Please excuse the "blllrrpp" in the second paragraph: But you get the idea.
Sorry.

Cheers,
Alex

In a guest column I stated:
“Ms. Lewis, an attorney, states that the irony of her constitutional law professor being a self-proclaimed Marxist caused her to "think more deeply" about why he was wrong. Evidently, Ms. Lewis has not thought deeply enough because in defending UNC's right to use state funds and property not for students and educational facilities, but for housing faculty and staff, Ms. Lewis (like many others nowadays), is actually advocating Marxism.”

And those who read carefully will clearly see that what I am saying is that Ms. Lewis is in fact advocating for Marxism (like many others) even if she is not aware that she is. Just like those who support the Patriot Act thinking they are protecting freedom and democracy are actually advocating for a slippage into authoritarianism/fascism even if they are unaware of it. But being unaware doesn't change the inherent nature of what you are supporting. You may believe your pet duck is a dog, but if looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck. . .well then it's still a duck.

And yet Mark Chilton responds: “Wow, Dan, I just had to read that column since it seemed like you must have been overstating the situation, but Cutson seems to be slipping into full-on McCarthy mode there: ”

Which I guess means that those who feel the Patriot Act embodies fascist leanings are dead wrong and are also simply slipping into some variant of “McCarthy mode” and we should all rest assured that the Act really is protecting our constitutional liberties. Or maybe we shouldn't worry about whether the Act does, in fact, actually move us closer towards fascism as long as the people who wrote it and support it don't consider themselves fascists and are unaware that it actually undermines liberties.

Recently on The Daily Show, Jon Stewart mentioned that politicians should stop grandstanding by using the Nazi analogy so freely because most of the time it is simply not applicable. Maybe this should apply to "McCarthyism" as well.

There are a number of those in our area who do proudly proclaim to be socialists. And there are those who support socialism even if they don't call it by that name. And criticism of their support for socialism (even if they don't recognize or acknowledge it as socialism) should be fair game along with criticism of capitalism. In his book "The Road to Serfdom," Nobel Prize winner F.A. Hayek stated that socialism invariably leads to authoritative dictatorships. He also stated that those who rise to power in these societies are those who are most willing to deprive others of personal freedoms and the ones most willing to do unpleasant things to people under the guise of the "public good." . George Orwell (of "Big Brother" fame) praised Hayek's book and stated, "It cannot be said nearly often enough that collectivism is not inherently democratic but, on the contrary, gives rise to a tyrannical minority."

By the tone of the attacks on those who dare to disagree with certain local spokespeople, we may want to ask ourselves if Orwell's feared tyrannical minority is already here.

Robin,

Just out of curiousity, which local community leaders do you admire and which local decisions that have been made do you support?

Mark

1. Katrina Ryan was to be excluded from this election by what we might call a technicality and now she is to be included by a technicality. Seems fair enough. So let's not invoke the name 'Bunkey' here. I liked Jacquie's quote in the Herald: "If I lived out there, I probably would have done something similar."

2. Katrina is wrong in suggesting that there was something conspiratorial about the timing of the annexation. Alex, Jacquie and I brought three significantly different points of view to this decision, but we are all in agreement that there was no conspiracy. Because Jacquie and I are both running for office this fall and because we both chose in the end to vote against the annexation (for different reasons), it would be in my interest (and Jacquie's) to call down a conspiracy if there had been one. But the fact is that there was not.

3) I look forward to hearing Katrina's views on the other issues that face Carrboro and indeed I bet Katrina will bring issues to our attention that are not even on the political radar at this point. So, again, welcome to the jungle, Katrina.

Robin, according to Dictionary.com

marxism. n : the economic and political theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels that hold that human actions and institutions are economically determined and that class struggle is needed to create historical change and that capitalism will untimately be superseded by communism.

I hardly think that Michelle Lewis was calling for the communism to supersede capitalism through class struggle. If you want to say that UNC provided affordable housing is a socialist idea, then that would be fair enough.

socialism. n 1: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government.

As for the McCarthy reference, my apologies if that is over the top. But the way I read your column, you are accusing Michelle Lewis of advocating for class struggle to supersede capitalism and I think that is both contrary to fact and unfair.

mccarthyism. n : unscrupulously accusing people of disloyalty (as by saying they were Communists)

Government owned and operated housing is socialist, not marxist.

Katrina, a few days ago you stated that David Marshall appears to be running sans platform. I didn't hear any platform issues in the press coverage you received today except for protecting Bolin Creek (also part of Alex's platform). Since you've undertaken pretty drastic life changes to run in this campaign, I assume you have other issues. Care to share?

I have lots of issues and ideas. I am, however, vetting them with experts and would like to have a viable plan to pay for any proposals I make, so I'm about 10 more days away from being able to launch my website.

Can candidate Cutson explain what legal jurisdiction the town council of chapel hill has to:

1. regulate UNCs tuition

2. regulate commerce with regard to genetically modified foods

3. determine what UNCs mission should be

we all know UNC is doing some things that probably every one would disagree with, but I thought the only legal authority the town had over UNC was zoning authority.

If somehow you were to get elected why would they cooperate at all with you to pay more of their share for things (like buses) or want to work with someone that continually says they suck?

It seems you really should be running for state representative where you could have legal jurisdiction to regulate fundind for UNC.

I thought we already dealt with people running on issues they couldn't control with diane bachmann regulating school merger via the town council.

I understand a lot of things aren't right but fixing them (from an inappropriate jurisdiction) and complaining about them are 2 different things. As a town council member how will you regulate UNCs tuition or mission statement? As a council member how would you regulate genetically modified foods? Are there any commerical farms within the chapel hill town limits?

also that poor guy you keep clobering about cutting down trees has never advocated cutting trees down nor has nor would any council candidate.

Mark Chilton,
Thank you for your apology. And once again, let's be clear that what I said in my column was that in advocating for government owned and operated housing Lewis was supporting Marxism even if she didn't realize it—in short I stated the concept she supported was Marxist, I did not say she was a Marxist.

You are correct that it would have been more technically accurate to state the action she was supporting was socialism not Marxism. However, you may also be aware that in popular usage, many people use and think of the terms Marxism, communism and socialism as interchangeable. And, in fact, in practice many times socialism and communism are indistinguishable from one another. And since all changes in a political system generally entail and stem from some sort of class struggle and dissatisfaction with production and distribution of resources (the struggle Karl Marx and Friedrich Engel's discuss) and since communism and socialism in the essence many times are indistinguishable in practice if not is theory, I didn't feel that the strict technicality was that critical.

As you stated, “If you want to say that UNC provided affordable housing is a socialist idea, then that would be fair enough.” I went with the term Marxism because she had referenced in her column and I felt it would be too confusing in a limited word column to switch or explain differences. But my apologies if I offended any Marxists, socialists or communists that consider these terms not interchangeable. Although I am not a supporter of socialism or communism per se, I do believe in the freedom of everyone to believe as they wish and to struggle to enact changes they deem necessary, just as I believe in my right to criticize and work to enact changes if I feel things are veering off in the wrong direction.

Chapel Hill has a mayoral race! Who is Kevin Wolff?

Hmm...can I say without offending anybody that only in a college town would have a political discussion hinging on whether someone's ideas are Marxist, communist, or socialist in nature?? The funny part of it is that there seem to be some severely twisted knickers here.

I'm going to have to lean toward Robin in thinking that the "company town" model of housing at UNC is a bad idea. Why do progressives always have to make things so complicated. Why aren't we lobbying the University to pay a liveable wage and let people live where they want. Heck, if we wanted to get really clever, we could push for more student housing in Carolina North. That would reduce the demand for rentals in town, and if I remember my economics 101, a reduction in demand in relation to supply leads to deflation.

The WUNC radio host?

Mary R. states: That's another interesting piece you have in the paper this morning:
www.chapelhillnews.com/opinion/story/2653766p-9090609c.html
Don't you think you left out a rather big point– the two entities have very different missions?

Well, actually that was noted in my letter when I stated, “After all, Wal-Mart is a private for-profit capitalist corporation that promises to provide low-cost everyday goods to the public that is criticized for being obsessed with money and expansion. And UNC is a nonprofit public university that promises low-cost education to the public that is criticized for its constant demands for more money and its obsession with expansion.” In short, UNC's mission statement is to provide quality low cost education to state students and Wal-Mart's mission, obviously, is to make a profit.

What I was pointing out is that UNC in discriminating against women and minorities and in providing poor pay to its lowest workers has some of the same problems as Wal-mart. But you are correct that I left out a big point (due to word count constraints). If I object to Wal-Mart I can simply refuse to give them my money by not shopping there. But since the General Assembly grants UNC taxpayer money I cannot actually refuse to give UNC my money if I object to their social policies. And there is another huge point—UNC is a public institution supported by taxpayers' money whose mission is education. And schools should be held to the highest standards not only because they are supported by taxpayers' dollar and taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize discrimination but also because they set an example for our youth. In view of this, I feel the reports on UNC's discriminatory policies towards women and minorities should be even more unacceptable and engender even more outrage.

Katrina--with all of UNC's student housing construction, the private housing market might find itself with an OVER supply of student-type housing within the next couple of years. 10-year enrollment figures are not as high as anticipated.

Katrina I absolutely agree with you. Student housing at Carolina North is a good idea: it is needed, an appropriate use of money related to UNC's mission statment, and would help lower rents and make rental housing more affordable.

I don't want to weigh in on whether student housing at CNorth is a good or a bad idea. But there is this point:

There would be plenty of pissed off students, and even more pissed off parents, if their freshman student living at CNorth had to take the bus a mile and a half to class while other freshmen took a 5-minute stroll from Carmichael dorm to Greenlaw or Hamilton or Dey.

Again, that doesn't mean the University shouldn't do it, but I bet it would play a role in any decision it would make. I can't say I'd mind a bus ride at all, but I know some of my friends would hate it to high heaven.

Yes, Chris, but The Carolina North to UNC route is the only realistic application of light rail in Chapelboro. We could put a "tram" like those at major airports that went back and forth between main campus and north for relatively little money.

It would decrease traffic and parking complications that are currently faced by students who live anywhere other than on campus trying to get to class.

I'm going to abandon this thought so I don't end up hijacking this thread.

If indeed CN is going to be a research campus then one would expect a large population of graduate students and postdocs to be working there -- then there is a fine line at that level of one's education between when you are a student and when you are not. CN would make less sense for undergrad housing if there are no undergrad classes there. One the other hand, CN is no further from main campus classes than apartments on the east side of town or in Durham.