The season for campaign speculation

More later on reclaimed water rates & costs, etc. Robin seems to have set an erroneous concept in motion about the relative costs of reclaimed & potable water. Reclaimed water will be billed on a "cost of service' basis", i.e. hard costs of production plus associated administrative and overhead costs. The system will be built by UNC. No costs borne by ratepayers.

Mark Marcoplos:

During our meeting I brought up the point of OWASA's voting for secrecy on water use records after the Chapel Hill News reported that UNC was consuming 30% of our local water supply (this percentage BEFORE big expansion plans began). The Chapel Hill News ran an editorial criticizing this move.

Your response was that it would protect individual citizens since this way someone's neighbor couldn't find out how much water they were using. Sure, okay, that happened a lot. Most people wanted to know how much water their neighbor was using, not how a huge public institution's expansion plans would affect water supply and water rates.

After discussing this you agreed that you would re-think this secrecy policy and I thanked you for this. Interestingly, UNC's requested changes to OI-4 zoning included a provision stating that “UNC does not have to provide any formal response to questions on “topics such as utility needs, how they plan to pay for projects, and why they need to build utility capacity instead of conserving energy.”

Also during our conversation you said OWASA's policy was that it could not treat public or private customers differently. I pointed out that OWASA was already doing this. UNC is not subject to any mandatory water restrictions implemented by OWASA. However, any citizens who violate mandatory water restrictions will face a hefty fine. And OWASA's board of directors also granted authority to its staff to cut off water supply to any customers who repeatedly violate water restrictions. (The Chapel Hill News July 14, 2002).

You agreed that this was an inconsistency and that maybe it should be reconsidered. Obviously logic would dictate that the secrecy policy and the policy of imposing mandatory restrictions on citizens but not a major institution (that is rapidly embracing more corporate interests and for-profit businesses) would appear to be a policy of catering to corporate interests over those of the individual.

Oh, and by the way—OWASA's destruction of the beaver dam—without notifying concerned citizens and groups—was very upsetting and would not appear indicative of being environmentally concerned—the environment includes wildlife. OWASA did the same thing back in 1991 --destroying dams near the wastewater plant---in spite of a volunteer group with APS providing information on cohabitation and water level control through the placement of pipes and even volunteering to install and maintain them.

And one more thing, I believe my response to Mary's question was just a statement of facts and my opinion and did not contain inflammatory remarks or the use of pejoratives. If any response to a question is going to be labeled a “diatribe” or met with hostility then it will certainly not promote open discussion.

Terri,

Thanks for your (always) polite and reasoned response. I agree that the reclaimed water project can be a good way to conserve water (this has also been posted on my website where I stated, “However, if the studies indicate it is feasible without damage to the environment, then the use of reclaimed water can be a useful tool for stretching drinking water supplies.”)

My contention with the plan as implemented was the fact that UNC will receive the water at a cheaper price therefore entailing higher prices for individual citizens. As a public institution supported by taxpayer money, it would not seem too outrageous to suppose UNC could agree to pay the regular price for the reclaimed water (UNC already pulls water out of Morgan Creek for free to water its golf course).

Whenever UNC is asked to pay its fair share of local fees or fire, police or EMS services the response has been that since UNC is funded by the State through tax dollars, requiring them to pay for local services and fees simply means taxpayers pay twice. But this is a bit of misdirection. If UNC doesn't pay its fair share locally it means local residents are taxed twice (or pay higher water rates); if UNC does pay its fair share locally it means the tax or water rate burden of this State University is spread evenly among taxpayers across the state. In short, citizens will be taxed twice anyway, the only difference is whether a few shoulder the burden (which means higher taxes and fees for them) or whether the burden is spread out to all taxpayers (which means the burden is less for every individual).)

Also, I included in this post a mention of the GM issue hoping it would stimulate interest for your thread but it appears so far no takers. It may be that since some liberals as well as corporations both have an interest in controlling individual citizens' choices concerning transportation, where to live or what to eat (although for different purposes) neither side wants to take too close a look at “social engineering.”

And here's an interesting thought. Are we pushing for high density to preserve farmland and forests only so they can be turned into GM farms and tree plantations without any pesky residential homeowners around to monitor and complain about them?

Robin,

Thanks so much for exposing the fallacy of smart growth. It's refreshing to see a viewpoint based in actual facts on the OP. I'd vote for you if I lived in Chapel Hill.

Where to start ...

The business about OWASA not wanting to release water-use records dates from the 2002 drought. There was much talk at the time that there were a small number of individual homeowners who were using 10,000 gallons of water a month or some such number despite use restrictions, and there was some sentiment, even on the board, to make an example of them by publishing their names. The press was gung-ho to do this (and I speak from authority because I very much wanted to write that article -- and ask the customers in question just what they were thinking). But the staff was reluctant to give up the names. That reluctance ultimately prevailed, and endures to this day. UNC had nothing at that time to do with it.

BTW, I don't say this to defend OWASA. It's my view that customer-by-customer water-use records are or should be public records under state law.

Re Robin's suggestion of charging UNC the "regular price" -- by which I take her to mean the existing rates for potable water -- for the product of the reclaimed-water effort, I'd say what she proposes is almost certainly illegal. By law, OWASA can charge only its "cost of service," which in this case means the cost of the reclaimed water plus the amortized cost of the piping, pumps, etc. It cannot impose above-cost surcharges of any sort on any customer. This is a matter of both statute and contract and was put into the law when OWASA was created back in 1977 exactly because legislators and UNC officials feared local politicians would attempt to overcharge the university and thus extract more than their fair share from the state's citizens.

(One point to remember in any fiscal-equity discussion is that Chapel Hill and Carrboro are quite a bit wealthier than the average community in this state. Talk of what's "fair" to them rings hollow outside of Orange County.)

Mark C's explanation of the rate problem is essentially the correct one and applies to any situation where a utility, enterprise or government charges for a service by the ton, gallon or other unit of volume or mass. Because such operations have fixed costs, and certain revenue expectations, the charge becomes a disincentive to the launch of any sort of conservation program. Robin's "smart growth" theorizing may or may not have some validity, but the folks who've pushed recycling have done so explicitly because they believe landfilling is inherently bad and should be minimized at all costs.

Robin,

What do you think the Town should do in place of following smart/sustainable growth practices?

If the university is willing to invest in the infrastructure needed to make use of reclaimed water, and if the use of reclaimed water increases the volume of water available over a longer time frame, isn't the university really doing citizens a favor? Beyond the legality issue, I think environmental ethics has a cost associated with it and while I agree with you that the university should pay the full cost of emergency services, I think the water issue is altogether different.

To me this is an issue of who pays when the locally available raw water starts running out. Should the people who are using it now, some without any conservation ethic, pay for as long as they are here OR should we wait until the resource becomes limited and then charge whoever is here then a much higher rate? The current proposal says everyone will share the burden as long as they live in this community.

To me the environmental resources of water, air, and soil should be treated as commodities for planning purposes. If your business is based upon a limited availability commodity, such as unpolluted raw water, your pricing structure will anticipate future scarcity. Since we know that locally available raw water will become a scarce resource starting around 2030, I think the smart business decision is to start charging now for that future. I *hope* that one of the byproducts of the higher charge will be to instill a greater conservation ethic and thus extend the life span of our scarce resource.

My response to all the current responses. First, thanks Katrina!

Second, Mr. Chilton, this is what my post said—I'll do a shorter version. Chapel Hill is not totally built out yet and I recommended we try to encourage more commercial development to help the tax base and to provide vitality and interest and that we make a judicious use of high density in commercial areas while limiting high density and infilling in residential areas---how is that “no growth?” But I also do maintain that in any geographical area there would come a time when no further population growth or development would be possible without severe consequences to the environment and people's quality of life. I assume that even you would admit that there would come a time when a geographic area would hit a wall where no further growth was viable.

As to your statement “The points you make about Portland are interesting and important, although your wholesale dismissal of Portland as being a land of unhappy residents is curious. I think Portland is a nice city - not a model for our two small towns here, but a nice city nonetheless. Everyone I know who lives in Portland likes it.” Mr. Chilton, maybe you missed my point. I never said everyone in Portland was unhappy in general; nor did I say that it wasn't a nice city. WHAT I SAID was what was REPORTED---- that the residents were unhappy with the smart growth policies that demanded high density infilling in residential neighborhoods and so they VOTED to move development into the land that was formerly protected. My caution is that if you try to oppressively control individual choices and lifestyles to the point where people can't tolerate it then you don't further the cause of helping preserve the environment.

As to your statement, “But I think I made a factual and logical statement: You and Ronald Reagan have proffered almost identical arguments against conservation.” I guess I just don't get it—how am I against conservation? What I posted was, ““However, if the studies indicate it is feasible without damage to the environment, then the use of reclaimed water can be a useful tool for stretching drinking water supplies.” I only objected to individuals paying higher water rates in order for UNC to receive cheaper water and suggested that UNC could volunteer to pay the regular rates for potable water which would spread the cost evenly and not just penalize local citizens. Did Ronald Reagan also suggest this? I'm not overly familiar with his water policies but I suppose I would assume he might have sided with corporations and wealthy institutions over protecting rank and file citizens in distribution of resources.

Third, Mr.Gronberg: You stated that “Robin's suggestion of charging UNC the “regular price” — by which I take her to mean the existing rates for potable water — for the product of the reclaimed-water effort, I'd say what she proposes is almost certainly illegal. By law, OWASA can charge only its “cost of service." Mr. Gronberg, you are correct. But what my post said was that UNC should offer to pay the full price out of fairness----I didn't say that OWASA should charge the full price—I know that they can't. But it is interesting that although OWASA claims its policy states it must treat public and private customers the same, they exclude UNC from mandatory water restrictions. (Interestingly, according to the Town manager, UNC was not presented a bill for any stormwater runoff fees either, as were all other citizens and businesses. UNC's rationale for not wanting to pay is that they already control their stormwater runoff. Of course many individual homeowners could also make this claim—but they were still presented bills.)

And one last point. Mr. Gronberg stated that, “One point to remember in any fiscal-equity discussion is that Chapel Hill and Carrboro are quite a bit wealthier than the average community in this state. Talk of what's “fair” to them rings hollow outside of Orange County. Mr. Gronberg and others may want to take a look at the website listing the wealthiest zip codes in North Carolina. It appears there may be others wealthier than us and that passing the cost around might not be so unfair. In fact Charlotte, Greensboro, and Cary made it on the list for the 100 wealthiest cities in the U.S. by zip code based on adjusted gross income. Neither Chapel Hill nor Carrboro made the list. http://wealth.mongabay.com/tables/100_wealthiest_zip_codes.html
http://wealth.mongabay.com/tables/100_income_zip_codes-20000.html
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/census_2000/00...

Terri,

You have stated, “What do you think the Town should do in place of following smart/sustainable growth practices?” I think I've already answered this in above answers (if not, let me know and I'll have another go at it). But once again I should reiterate I do not consider "smart growth" the same as sustainable growth and neither do many others who have written articles and books on this issue.

You also stated, “If the university is willing to invest in the infrastructure needed to make use of reclaimed water, and if the use of reclaimed water increases the volume of water available over a longer time frame, isn't the university really doing citizens a favor?” Once again, UNC is a public institution for the benefit of all North Carolinians. So UNC paying for the cost of potable water would spread the cost evenly, not just to local citizens (plus see above websites for wealth distribution in N.C.). And as to whether UNC is doing us a favor, I guess it would depend if you consider their Carolina North Biotech Research Park centering on public/private corporate pursuits to be desirable and a true “economic engine” as their marketing study claims---because the 8.2 million square feet of development and attendant research labs will require a lot of water and the water conserved by the use of the reclaimed water will basically be used to support this expansion. And individuals will pay higher rates even though many object to the expansion in commercial sectors.

When you state, “To me this is an issue of who pays when the locally available raw water starts running out.” I guess that is where sustainable growth comes in—you don't keep developing until the point where the water is running out—if it looks like your running dry you need to consider capping development (but you don't have to base this on a anomalous severe drought such as the one that occurred a few years ago and stop all development now—would be based on projections utilizing averages of water supplies and usage during more normal periods). I agree with you that “the environmental resources of water, air, and soil” should be treated as necessities for the public good and as limited resources. And I also agree that educating the public on conservation measures and encouraging conservation in everyday life is important.

Joe,

You state “Robin discusses the end game of smart growth. In this vein, one of the recommendations, perhaps the most important one, of the Horace Williams Citizens' Committee was that Carolina North could be so large that no amount of mitigation will render it environmentally- and neighborhood-friendly.” Joe, I tend to agree with this concern.

My concern is also that this biotech research park will not be an economic engine due to the lawsuits and failures plaguing the biotech industry as well as the fact that every city, town and university across the country seems to setting up their very own biotech research parks and the market is likely to be saturated resulting in those corporations and investors needed for the public-private partnerships shopping around for the best deal and relocating when they find them or starting bidding wars (I believe RTP recently lost a business that relocated to Georgia because that research park offered a better deal). Also UNC's research park will be heavily dependent upon federal research funds and competition will be getting stiffer. And with the federal government running one of the highest deficits in history, future funding at current levels is an iffy proposition in general. In short this research park could end up like the Global Transpark; costing millions to build and millions to maintain with few real economic benefits.

As to your statement on promoting commercial growth, you state “please remember that we have almost no unemployment here in CH. That means that you really can't separate commercial and residential growth. If we provide good jobs, we need to provide housing for the new people who come here to fill them.”

Joe, you are correct that we have almost no unemployment in Chapel Hill among the non-student population. We are in desperate need of commercial growth because UNC is the major employer, and since it is a nonprofit, its vast amount of property and land is off the tax roles. In short we need the commercial growth for property and sales taxes instead of jobs. But many of those students still want and need some part-time or even flexible full-time jobs even if they are not counted as the “unemployed.” And many currently take jobs at Southpoint to fulfill this need.

So your statement that. “if we provide jobs, we need to provide housing for the new people who move here" is not exactly accurate. They are already living here. We are not exactly talking about IBM opening a huge office in Chapel Hill because, once again, we just don't have the space. The commercial businesses that would thrive in a college town are generally the ones that students can work at while pursuing their studies. This can be upscale restaurants and shops as well as some offices and other desirable businesses. What are your thoughts? Agree? Disagree?

An important component of the cost to UNC for using reclaimed water are the extra treatment costs that they will incur. The chiller and steam cogeneration plants require another level of treatment to prevent corrosion. It is likely - and I explained this to Robin when we met - that UNC's actual cost of using the reclaimed water will be very close to the cost of potable water. It may even be a bit higher.

Robin, thanks for answering my question. Your 2 am short version answer seems less extreme and would have sufficed, but the long version made for lively discussion.

In general, I think you underestimate the power of education and the willingness of citizens to accept lifestyle changes. I don't think people are as selfish as generally assumed. Most are willing to make personal sacrifices for the general good when they understand what is at stake.

I think smart/sustainable growth is good. It's especially good when it's preceded by community education and when the growth takes place as needed, not frantically.

I also think it's unfair to equate smart growth with controlling people's choices or social engineering.

Again, the goal should be education so that citizens willingly accept change. Ideally, no one should be forced to endure a lifestyle change that they are not ready for.

Robin,

I'm not clear on your alternative to smart growth practices--even after re-reading your posts. For example, you say "sustainable growth advocates feel there is a point where cities or towns have to utilize zoning laws to prohibit further growth thereby encouraging future development in areas where natural resources aren't as overburdened." Does that mean that as a Council member, you would advocate for a moratorium on new subdivisions?

You have consistently stated that you feel this area is maxxed out, in terms of environmental resources, and that local governments need to utilize their zoning authority to restrict future growth. But you also say that you disagree with the use of the rural boundary and that the water reuse program should not offer any price break to UNC. Does that mean that as a council member, you would advocate for dissolution of the current rural boundary agreement or a revision of it? Would you try to have the stormwater fee issue with UNC re-opened?

Here's what else I've extrapolated:
--focus future growth on retail/service businesses that appeal to students as a means of expanding the tax base
--do not pursue the proposed CRed relationship (should we forget about carbon reduction altogether or just the CRed program?)
--charge UNC the same as all other private and corporate entities regardless of their environmental innovations (wouldn't that be a disincentive for them to pursue conservation practices such as water reuse, construction waste recycling, stormwater mitigation?)
--use all means available to obstruct the development of Carolina North (because it will require more resources than are sustainable)
--drop the smart growth type practices such as infill, walkability, urban public spaces/public art

Is that what you intended?

Mary, you have stated, “I also think it's unfair to equate smart growth with controlling people's choices or social engineering.”

In some other areas that have embraced "smart growth" and high density infill, if a person's single-family residence burns down they are prohibited from building their home again as a single-family residence--the land is rezoned for high density or multi-family dwellings. And it is my understanding that in Chapel Hill, the Town and planning board have repeatedly stated that they want to cut parking spaces in order to “force” people to use public transit; even though businesses have complained it will hurt their business. Others have suggested fines for those who don't carpool and deliberately not building roads to accommodate higher density and population growth so that traffic congestion will force people onto public transit. This does seem to be an effort at controlling people's choices or “social engineering”.

And why are these actions necessary? In the case of public transit, it is necessary because even though public transit is free, is it still not being used on many routes and after the morning rush of students and workers traveling to UNC's campus. In short, people choose their cars over the buses—even the students.

Don't get me wrong—I support the free bus service and feel it SHOULD BE INCREASED during the weekday mornings when (and where) it is used most heavily. Students have told me that many times the bus is so crowded that have to wait and sometimes even miss class. But after about 3 or 4 in the afternoon many of these buses are driving around empty or with just one or two riders. And I don't agree with any attempt to force people to use public transit.

You have also stated, “In general, I think you underestimate the power of education and the willingness of citizens to accept lifestyle changes. I don't think people are as selfish as generally assumed. Most are willing to make personal sacrifices for the general good when they understand what is at stake.”

Do I cringe whenever I hear people talking about “personal sacrifices for the public good?” Absolutely. Why? Because across the country local governments and state agencies such as public universities have been taking people's homes and businesses through eminent domain simply because they want the property for more upscale homes, expansion or a different type of business—all in the name of serving “the public good” by providing jobs or an increased tax base (I have an article covering this topic on my website www.robincutson.com).

And now, incredibly, the Supreme Court has just ruled in favor of this practice since it “serves the general good.”

So the question here is, how far are you willing to go when recommending “personal sacrifices for the general good?” Are the people who fought the taking of their homes and business by eminent domain just being selfish and not willing to make a sacrifice for the general good?

You have stated that you support educating citizens so that they "willingly accept change" but you also stated, "Ideally, no one should be forced to endure a lifestyle change that they are not ready for." But does this mean if the ideal scenario of changing people's behavior through education doesn't work, then you would support "forcing" them to accept changes "for the public good?'

Terri,

You have stated that the list below is what you have extrapolated that I am advocating or supporting:
–focus future growth on retail/service businesses that appeal to students as a means of expanding the tax base
–do not pursue the proposed CRed relationship (should we forget about carbon reduction altogether or just the CRed program?)
–charge UNC the same as all other private and corporate entities regardless of their environmental innovations (wouldn't that be a disincentive for them to pursue conservation practices such as water reuse, construction waste recycling, stormwater mitigation?)
–use all means available to obstruct the development of Carolina North (because it will require more resources than are sustainable)

Is that what you intended?

HERE ARE MY RESPONSES:
-----–focus future growth on retail/service businesses that appeal to students as a means of expanding the tax base------
NOT EXACTLY WHAT I SAID. This seems to imply that I am pushing for more of the much berated T-shirt shops that appeal to students. What I said was that businesses such as nice restaurants that tend to thrive in college towns also provide jobs that appealed to students because the flexible work schedule allows them to pursue their studies.

-----–do not pursue the proposed CRed relationship (should we forget about carbon reduction altogether or just the CRed program?) ----- Yes, dump the CRed project and any other program that is not really about protecting the enviroment but is about supporting the timber industry's cutting of mature trees; supporting corporations or institutions engaging in carbon credit buying and selling; and suporting the push for biotech genetically modified plants and trees. Does this mean we forget about reducing air pollution altogether? Of Course Not. Just because we don't embrace a corporate model that is just a money grab that will cause further harm to our enviroment while generating more profits for corporations, it doesn't mean we can't push for better air quality--and the push should start with demanding better pollution control devices on coal-burning power plants--the major cause of dangerous pollutants in the Southeast.

---–charge UNC the same as all other private and corporate entities regardless of their environmental innovations (wouldn't that be a disincentive for them to pursue conservation practices such as water reuse, construction waste recycling, stormwater mitigation?) Well, curently because people have recycled so well in Orange County the County began charging us for it--and yet people are still recycling because they feel it helps the environment. Could we not expect the same from UNC--could we not expect them to use the reclaimed water even if they didn't receive it at a cheaper price just to help the enviroment? After all, they are consuming 30% of our water supplies and will consume even more after their research park is built. In short , why is it that individual citizens are always asked to pay more and sacrifice for the public good, but not corporations or wealthy institutions?

----–use all means available to obstruct the development of Carolina North (because it will require more resources than are sustainable)----- I'm not sure what you mean by this but I found it disturbing. It could be intrepreted as sounding vaguely threatening; and in the days of the Patriot Act (and since recently those who have protested corporations' genetically modified crops by uprooting them have been deemed terrorists and a threat to national security) I want to be very, very clear that I don't support YOUR STATEMENT OF "whatever means necessary"---- I am ONLY advocating an informed clear look at the impact on this development in terms of the environment, available resources, and the impact on the tax rates for every citizen in North Carlina in order to pay for it and maintain it.

In fact, in the next few weeks I will be posting on my website (www.robincutson.com) a list of my stand on issues in order to avoid confusion and any misstating of my positions.

Robin,

In my mind, choosing the 'greater good' over the 'good of the individual' is sometimes a good thing.

I can't know with certainty how I would ‘vote' on rebuilding the hypothetical burnt house or condemning the parking lot. I would have to hear all of the facts and all points of view.

I'm of the belief that there are multiple truths. The point of democracy is to get away from this idea that a single view or ideology must extinguish all others.

Robin--I wasn't trying to misstate your positions. When we were talking about how to use OP for candidate positions, I spoke out for not limiting how much could be written. Please take this in the spirit it is meant, but I'm beginning to think It may be more helpful to candidates and voters alike to semi-force some brevity in the name of greater understanding (or dare I say, for the public good? :))) Thank you for clarifying your positions.

I've appreciated the time, effort and breadth that Ms. Cutson has put into her responses. Haven't we had enough "forced" brevity from our candidates? If the other candidates join in with the fury Ms. Cutson has shown, I imagine the well-documented disclosures, explanations, expansions, clarifications, etc. appearing on a (somewhat) neutral forum will serve the public well. Or is it more palatable to let our local MSM, if they get around to it, provide a similar forum?

Ruby, of course, is the final arbiter of how many bytes of text per response is appropriate, but I hope we defer to more substantive exposures rather than less in an election year where many elements and issues of the campaign will be complex and by their nature demand more than the paltry "sound bite". Why emulate a phenomena that so commonly plagues our elections for higher offices?

Oh, if you compare Ms. Cutson's comments to those of her web site, she's actually working short-form on OP.org.

I'm not advocating for the 300 word limit Will. I've read Robin's posts and agreed with some of what she says, disagreed with some. But there were big issues like economic development that weren't clear. If I had *assumed* I knew what she was arguing for, which is the norm, I would have been wrong. I would hope we use platforms like OP and other electronic communications tools to make messages CLEAR rather than to confuse the issue. I don't think strict word limits acknowledge the complexity of the issues facing our communities, but having now experienced the "no limit" option, I feel that some kind of parameters will help candidates make their messages more concise and understandable.

WillR,

Thanks for your post. I am a firm believer that "the truth is in the details" and that the more information citizens and elected officials have (including access to that info via affordable internet) the better off everyone will be.

However, even though we live in the "information age" it still won't help us if people won't read the info; won't seek out the info; or misinterpret the info. For example, one former council member requested info from me on a specific topic. I sent her an attachment with a 6 page paper containing research on this issue and when I encountered her again at a citizen's meeting I asked what she thought. She responded she hadn't read all of it because it was too long. And, of course, a quick internet search revealed important info about Maximus, the consultant the Town hired for budget advice; and yet no one had bothered to do this prior to voting to hire Maximus. This same problem occurred when the Town hired ACS to implement the red light camera program ( I wrote a guest article on ACS years ago--- published in Chapel Hill News).

I agree with you that brevity is not the answer.

Mayor Foy is running again. I guess that solidifies the lineup and takes the speculation off the table of what would happen vis-a-vis an appointed Council member if Bill Strom had run and won for Mayor (that is if Councilman Strom decides to defer to Mayor Foy... ).

HeraldSun's Rob Shapard quotes Foy

"I'm assuming the general direction of the town and its leadership will be part of the [election] discussion this fall, and I look forward to that," he said. "A campaign is a good time to air people's concerns and hopes, and sort of set the direction we're headed in for the next few years."

I'd say that was a bit of an understatement, especially in light of recent, continued, bobbles by the Town's manager.

It'll be interesting to see if Mayor Foy is challenged this round. It'd be a shame if Mayor Foy's specific vision on how to deal with the

many important town issues and unfinished business on the Town Council's agenda

wasn't tested by the fires of a real give-n-take election.

Last cycle he was able to rise above the fray and avoid being pinned down on various, specific, remedies or courses of action for those issues "hovering" on the horizon. Even if the mayoral race is extremely lop-sided, with all the tough issues facing the Town over the next couple years, a real election at both levels of government - with substantive issues highlighted, discussed, debated - will serve the electorate well. No candidate, especially a particular constantly unprepared, seat-warming, disinterested, "it's too much to read" incumbent Council member, deserves a free pass to re-election.

Even Mayor Foy, whom I like and whose re-election is nearly a foregone conclusion, should make the effort to clarify his positions. I look forward to hearing how he plans to specifically deal with many of the issues that, last run, seemed abstract but are now made concrete.

I like the job Mayor Foy has done and the stability he has brought to the office, and would agree that a contested election is preferable. Is Bill S. going to defer to Kevin? A Foy v. Strom election campaign would be VERY interesting, and have some meaning. I also have heard that Cutson is exploring her options.

By comparison, the last Mayoral election in Carrboro lacked the potential interest and vibrancy a "real" contest election (that is, with two viable candidates).

Will, the Town Manager carries out policies and directives of the Mayor and Council. If you really believe that he does such a terrible job, why don't you just petition the Council to fire him. Do his Council performance rewiews match your low assesment?

You seem to have a habit of tossing more than a few accusations around, to include making allegations of criminal behavior by some folks. Maybe you could run for office to act on all of your objectives. I for one think it's time for you to piss or get off the pot.

Allegations of criminal behavior? Little of base there Fred unless you think there's been criminal behavior.

I've commented on questionable behavior - behavior that the Mayor himself said might have appearance problems.

I'm sure the manager's job performance will become an issue sometime, possibly sooner than later, maybe shortly on the heels of Chapel Hillians receiving their tax bills or the midst of the election.

Will,

The O-C DA? Certain Council members during the red light camera debate? That's two that I seem to remember.

Fred, I'd ask if you've been smoking something but then you'd say I'm alleging criminal behavior.

I don't believe I've ever commented on the DA, one way or other - maybe you're thinking of someone else?

As far as the RLC thing, and hopefully this is the last time ever on OP I'll ever comment on it, there were a number of wiggy things going on of a questionable ethical nature. One, I asked the Town and ACS, twice, about their lobbying contacts with Council. Both times they said there hadn't been any. Ms. Verkerk quietly sat there while I reiterated in Council those denials, giving the Town and Council every opportunity to correct any misinformation. No correction was forthcoming, yet it turns out that there had been contacts - for instance, Ms. Verkerk, when I went to record the vendor's phony PR event, said she'd spoken with them. That's not good. Two, if four Council members officially promoted a Town vendor's product, two going as far as to sponsor that promotion, in almost any other context, there'd be many questions about the propriety. They all were well aware of the Astroturf nature of the vendor's PR company "grassroots" organization but they played along. These members, especially Ms. Verkerk, should be ashamed and embarrassed by their behavior and apologize for it.

These are a few of the worst lapses during that period but not the complete list (many, maybe all, which I documented during the period on OP.org). Heck, the RLCs were abhorent in terms of Constitutional denigrations and you'd expect a democratically elected official should've been offended by the corrosive effect of dispensing with Constitutional protections has on our justice system but that's only a criminal waste not criminal.

Recently I said the Clarion deal stinks. I wasn't the first to question the propriety. The Mayor commented on the questionable appearance. The press reported that, while this deal seemed wonky,it was a legal - quoting various statutes and getting comments from those involved. Now, in most context, stinking isn't criminal but it usually is an excellent indicator that somethings rotten. It's my opinion that the Town Manager runs his organization using a "good ole boy" style of management that creates honored "fiefdoms". You're a consultant, so you must be aware that not only is that style of management passe, but it's plagued with inefficiencies and leads to questionable behavior and outcomes. Sometimes even criminal outcomes. Have I claimed the Clarion deal is criminal? No. Is it a predictable outcome of this style of management? I think so. Has the awarding of these recent contracts to Maximus and Clarion lead to others question ing the propriety? Yes, so no matter what you think of this messenger, I'm not alone in my reality-based criticism.

Fred, I can only assume you're trying to squelch dissension by tarring me with the brush of extremism or, like Mr. Clapp, trying to characterize my criticism as conspiratorial in nature.

I'll be happy to substantively debate either of your viewpoints on the merits. If you guys are so happy with Ms. Verkerk's preparedness or the current Town Manager's management style - support them by providing counter-information. During the election cycle, if I quote a Councilmember complaining about how much work they have to do to prepare for Council, I'll tell you what video record or meeting minutes supports that quote. If during the election cycle, I question specific spending decisions by the Town Manager, I'll try my best to back it with linkable content. Are you prepared to do the same?

Finally, this is the last I'll comment on extraneous material on the thread. Originally it was constituted as a speculation on the coming election and we've strayed way off that beam.

Note Will that I suggested that you run so that you can fix the ills that you see.

Who are the "you guys" that you keep referring to? I speak only for myself, as I told you before. Guess you jus don't accept that.

Fred, I'm astonished and flattered that you want to draft me to run for Council.

Given your comments throughout the last couple years, I was surprised by your gracious encouragement. Your endorsement is gratifying and I plan to diligently explore your request with all the seriousness in which it was proferred.

Now, are you speaking on your own behalf or as a director of CAN?

Unfortunately, this means I have to disappoint Mr. Clapp, whose political stature is almost as august as yours (at least in my mind) but he doesn't have the political capital an organization like CAN can bring to bear.

Sorry Mr. Clapp, if I take up Fred's offer, I won't be available to run for Emperor.

Will, I serve on six different boards and speak for none of them unless I specifically indicate that I am doing that. I have said this before, but you seem to not accept that.

I have also said that people with all typres of views should run. Our Council should reflect different views; you would represent a different view.

In the (admitedly) few dealings I have had with Mayor Foy, he has listened well, been open to competing ideas, and not been defensive in any way, shape or form. Those are qualities I want in my Mayor, and I appreciate what I perceive as his honest interest in listening to his constituency.

I was just looking through the 2005-2006 budget and saw that the "Mayor" category had $82,912 under personnel expenditures. Is this for the mayor alone? Just curious. I saw elsewhere that the House and Senate members make about $20K if you take into account the expense allowance.

Seems to me this limits the ability of "normal" folk to run for office. Self-selects for those with enough money or in a profession where weeks or months can be missed without dire effect.

Fact check update on a Robin Cutson statement:

R.C. - "I pointed out that OWASA was already doing this. UNC is not subject to any mandatory water restrictions implemented by OWASA."

Fact: UNC is bound to follow the emergency water use measures adopted by the Town of Chapel Hill following the 2001-2002 drought.

MR. MARCOPLOS, CHECK YOUR FACTS AGAIN!

I stated that, "UNC is not subject to any mandatory water restrictions implemented by OWASA.”

MR. Marcoplos says that, "UNC is bound to follow the emergency water use measures adopted by the Town of Chapel Hill following the 2001-2002 drought."

The following are direct quotations taken from The Chapel Hill News May 14, 2002 Vol. 80, No.49 page A1 continued on A7:

"To that end, last Thursday OWASA declared a Stage I Water shortage. . .Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Orange County immediately signed proclamations putting the restrictions into effect and making violations of them misdemeanor offenses. UNC, which has a separate arrangement with OWASA, also moved to head off future water emergencies. . ."

The paper also stated (although not all in caps), "THE UNIVERSITY IS NOT BOUND BY THE STAGE I WATER SHORTAGE MANDATORY RESTRICTIONS IMPLEMENTED LAST WEEK, AT OWASA'S REQUEST, BY THE TOWN'S OF CHAPEL HILL AND CARRBORO."

If Dave Hart of the Chapel Hill News got his facts wrong, I am surprised that OWASA and/or UNC did not quickly move to request the paper print a correction.

And if his facts were correct, but this "special arrangement" has been changed, I never read about it in any paper but would very much like to see the official documents on the original "special arrangement" and the documentation of the subsequent change if they were made.

Robin is right on the bare facts as presented, as UNC was not in fact subject to the 2002 water-use restrictions. But in reality the university voluntarily implemented a series of conservation measures that were as stringent as those on the community. It's very much in UNC's interest to save water in such a situation because everyone understands that one of the last-ditch possibilities if the lakes dry up is the closure of the university. Against that (the suspension of a constitutional mandate) the impacts of conservation measures on the home gardener are very trivial indeed.

Robin,

When the Town of Chapel Hill passed the new emergency water restrictions (after that 2002 story that you cite), UNC became bound to follow tghose restrictions just like everybody else.

Mark Chilton, Did you announce your candidacy this morning?

Mr. Gronberg,

You have stated that I was correct on my facts and that UNC was not subject to the 2002 water-use restrictions. And then you further state "But in reality the university voluntarily implemented a series of conservation measures that were as stringent as those on the community." Here are the pertinent points.

----If UNC was already willing to voluntarily implement water conservation measures as stringent as the mandatory restrictions imposed by OWASA, THEN WHY THE NEED TO GRANT UNC AN EXEMPTION FROM THE MANDATORY RESTRICTIONS? This is completely illogical unless you consider the fact that the mandaory restrictions imposed by OWASA carried fines and penalties for violations. Exempting UNC from OWASA's mandatory restictions also exempted them from fines and penalities if UNC happened to violate their voluntary water restrictions. So in short, the special arrangement was only necessary to insulate UNC from any fines and penalities should UNC NOT voluntarily follow proper water conservation measures.

----OWASA has a policy that their rules and regulations apply equally to both private and public customers. And yet they granted UNC (their biggest customer) a special arrangement and granted them exemption from the mandatory water restrictions. In 2004 the Herald reported that John Smith, a member of the OWASA board, had resigned stating that he felt the OWASA Board has become increasingly political and that some decisions seemed to be made "more on a basis of personality and personal alliances than from thoughtful, informed consideration." The granting of exemptions to certain customers would seem to support this view.

MR. MARCOPLOS,
You at first stated that I had my facts wrong. NOW you are stating I DIDN'T HAVE MY FACTS WRONG (with no alpology included) but that later on OWASA did change their policy so that "UNC became bound to follow those restrictions just like everybody else." And once again I repeat----please provide the ciitzens with a way to view the OWASA documents that first granted the special arrangement with UNC and the documents that then stated that UNC was subject to the same rules as the rest of the citizens---surely these can be posted on the OWASA website (with a link here at OP) or you can provide the cites for citizens to request copies from OWASA---I would personally like a copy of these documents if no link to the documents is provided here on OP.

Thanks Mark,
When you get a chance, I'd like to hear about the problems you see with the current Northern Small Area Plan.

Dan, Ruby,
Can we start a new thread? This one is unwieldy.

Robin,

It's not that complicated. After the 2001-2002 drought, OWASA decided to improve the emergency water use restrictions based upon lessons learned during the drought while applying a set of previously crafted measures for the first time. These new measures were adopted by the local governments. Our attorney told us that UNC is bound by these restrictions just like anybody else.

During the drought there was a lot of activity, meetings, strategizing, etc. on how to best handle the historic and stressful event. When we went to implement the previously unimplemented emergency restrictions, we were told that UNC was exmpt from them for some reason. UNC also informed us at that time that in addition to the conservation measures they were implementing or planning to implement, they had no intention of not abiding by the restrictions. There was no reason to immediately address this technicality in the midst of more pressing issues related to the drought and in light of their commitment to save water. You should understand that we had not had a drought of this severity and thus had not had the opportunity to run up against the arcane UNC exemption. There was no evidence of a conspiracy or some nefarious political schemes. And a news item from 2002 is just that - a news item that was published about three years and many events ago.

Now we have new, improved emergency water-use measures & UNC is bound to follow them. OWASA & UNC are working productively toward installing a re-use system that will contribute greatly to the resilience and sustainability of our local, high-quality water resources.

So what's the problem?

For purposes of the discussion on emergency water use restrictions, are UNC Hospitals and Physicians & Associates treated as UNC or are they a separate entity?

Mark C.,
Do you have a campaign web site?
Also, sorry, it was rude of me not to wish you well.

Also today Dorothy Verkerk announced that she would not seek reelection, while Mark Kleinschmidt announced that he would.

Go Marks!

Tom, where did you get the "official" word on Ms. Verkerk?

Chapel Hill News-

http://www.chapelhillnews.com/news/story/2545207p-8949374c.html

Thanks Tom, I'm usually read CHN's Matt Dees stuff ASAP (as soon as published) but I didn't get a chance last night.

Will, just curious, but why do you always say "Ms. Verkerk" instead of "Dr. Verkerk?" Is that her preference or yours? Jusk asking.

I need to correct Matt's article, and I have to admit, it was my fault for not confirming the time filing begins. I won't be at the Board of Elections at 8:30 on Friday, rather, I think I'll wait until noon when filing opens.

I hope that some OP readers and commentators will join me there. Opening day can be a lot of fun!

Thanks for the encouraging words Tom. I'm looking forward to an exciting four months.

Mr. Mark, Esq., will you be taking all your supporters that show up for your sign-in to lunch ;-)?

Maybe to start your 4 months of fun you'd care to comment on an issue I've brought up (again) in this thread. I'm asking (and suggesting) what can be done to spur smart economic growth within Chapel Hill.