The Wilmington Watcher

Bobby Cox in Wilmington; Takes in a Performance at Thalian

2012-02-08T11:58:00.005-05:00

UPDATE: The resistance movement is in full swing. Join us, get updates and details at facebook.com/nostadium

The stage was set. The actors took their places. Scripts were polished; hair and makeup perfect. Ex-Atlanta Braves GM Bobby Cox was situated in the audience expecting a well-executed production. The cast was the Wilmington City Council, and the play was entitled, "Building a Baseball Stadium with Other People's Money - Even though We Can't Afford it". The location was the city council chambers; ironically a floor directly above the historical Thalian Hall main stage in downtown Wilmington.

On Tuesday night, the Wilmington City Council met to act out the pre-planned script of unanimously approving the Memorandum of Understanding with Mandalay Entertainment and the Atlanta Braves to explore the idea of Wilmington taxpayers fully funding a baseball stadium, while the aforementioned entities collect the proceeds. Sounds like a real win-win... if you're not a Wilmington taxpayer.

Developer Chuck Schoninger, who owns the land where the proposed stadium is expected to be constructed, is quite cozy with local political leaders, as this marketing video demonstrates. The developer operates several outfits with the same purpose have made his intentions clear that he wants lots of public money for the project, in order for "it to work".

Schoninger created an international website promoting the EB-5 program as a way to try and attract Chinese investment into their expansive project as well; in addition to another website promoting his downtown development plans, including the baseball stadium, from a downtown perspective.

If this plan goes through, it will be a handsome payday for Schoninger, who has plans for a marina, hotel, and multi-use development complex; of which the stadium would be a center feature. Not a bad public-private partnership from Schoninger's perspective, who will benefit from the taxpayers investment in the stadium, the purchase of his land to build it, all without any investment of his own in the stadium project.

The combined efforts of the private developer, as well as the undying promised support of Mayor Bill Saffo and other local leaders have resulted in real paydirt from their perspective. The Atlanta Braves, Mandalay, and Bobby Cox are all interested in planting a Braves farm team here, with the Wilmington taxpayer being forced to absorb the costs, and take all the risk for their "investment". Schoninger will be rewarded for his persistence, since it appears the Wilmington City Council will be paying him a premium for their land with taxpayer dollars.

Schoninger said Mandalay officials expressed “serious” interest in bringing a minor league baseball team affiliated with the Atlanta Braves to Wilmington — a nearly $12 to $15 million investment for staff and players alone. He said he would sell the parcel of land needed for the stadium to the city and county for an undisclosed price, but none of the money currently being raised would be allocated for the stadium’s construction. LINK

Local leaders have willingly ignored study after study that clearly demonstrates that publicly funded stadiums are an economic liability for communities - not a boon.

Also, just as recently as late 2011, Mayor Bill Saffo stated in his campaign for re-election, a promise to voters that he would not support a property tax increase to pay for the baseball stadium. However, every discussion as of late involves Saffo talking about the distinct possibility of such an increase, given that the math doesn't work any other way, and the city is already tens of millions of dollars in debt, due to a plethora of other failed economic projects, such as the convention center.

It’s unclear how the city plans to pay for the stadium’s development; however, Saffo hinted at increased property taxes for Wilmington residents and businesses — reneging on a 2011 campaign promise where he told supporters he would not support a property tax increase to finance the stadium’s construction.

“We’re going to take a look at all of our options,” Saffo said during an afternoon press conference. “I’m candy-coating it, there might be a property tax increase.” LINK

Tuesday night's meeting ran more like a well-rehearsed performance, than an official meeting of city business. Council sat in their distinguished perches given the management from the Braves and Mandalay what they came to see. For good measure, Councilwoman Laura Padgett even ad-libbed a line about how she was "concerned" about taxpayers footing the entire bill for Mandaly's benefit, but then of course, voted for the measure anyway - the pre-determined and collectively agreed upon outcome of the meeting.

But a lot has to be decided, particularly how the city would pay for a potentially $35-40 million, 6,000-seat stadium and where it would be located. There's been a lot of talk about the riverfront but no commitment.

Councilwoman Laura Padgett had concerns about taxpayers footing the bill for the stadium.
"I'm going to vote for this to move forward because I think we'd be foolish to have an opportunity to like this and not look into it," she said, but added: "I think it's wrong for city taxpayers to pay an increased tax rate on their own to pay for this facility." LINK

The lone Republican, Neil Anderson, who also campaigned on the idea that he would be cautious and wary of such a raw deal for taxpayers, was obedient to the cause, and went along with the majority, as he was expected to do.

As part of the charade that this agreement is somehow going to be good for taxpayers and citizens, the local media and the city point to a study that was obviously paid for by the city, that states

An economic impact study done by Brailsford & Dunlavey found a baseball team and stadium in Wilmington could bring $62 million in initial impact in the first year and $9.8 million annually. LINK

Based on those numbers, it would seem that by the term "initial impact", they mean "taxpayer investment" - or "additional city debt obligations"; which would most certainly result in massive tax increases being levied at many different levels within the city in order to finance this initiative. As has always been a time-honored tradition in Wilmington government, is the city doesn't contract a study, or hire a firm to do an analysis, without a pre-determined outcome that echoes their position, or that supposedly supports their theory or analysis; given that many other real-world studies that analyze existing stadiums, paint a very negative economic picture, and demonstrate dire economic consequences on the community that is forced to pay for them.

Wilmington Downtown Inc. leader John Hinnant, referred to the Durham Bulls in his assessment of the popularity and success of minor league baseball teams. One must take note however, that the Bulls are the most (only?) well-known minor league baseball team in the nation, given the prominence of the box-office hit told on the silver screen starring Kevin Costner, entitled Bull Durham.

Perhaps if Hollywood takes note of Wilmington's team, draws up a script, dusts off Kevin Costner, and shoots a movie highlighting our little venture into minor league baseball, we'll have a chance at economic success. It would be a fitting addition to this saga, given all of the acting and dramatic performances already in play.

Broke WAVE Transit Puts Four Video Cameras in Every Bus

2012-02-05T12:22:00.003-05:00

WAVE's annual budget is about $7M and they only take in about $1M through fares. The rest comes from intergovernmental transfers.

There's no mention of this being funded by grant money.

StarNews:

Four cameras on each of WAVE Transit's 45 buses constantly monitor the comings and goings of passengers with video and audio recordings. Signs on the buses alert passengers of the equipment.
"All passengers of this vehicle are subject to having their image and voice recorded," the signs read.
The cameras, purchased and installed in 2010, cost Wave about $100,000, said Albert Eby, Wave executive director. They replaced older cameras and offer a much more detailed look inside and outside the buses.

I just realized that it doesn't say if outfitting each bus costs $100k or if outfitting the entire fleet costs that, but I'd find it hard to believe they outfitted the entire fleet for $100k.

Wilmington Signs Up for Baseball Debt

2012-02-02T11:47:00.002-05:00

Despite every indicator that it's a bad idea, the Wilmington City Council has shown that they will belligerently ignore economic reality and move forward with plans to raise taxes on the people of Wilmington to buy a baseball stadium for outside investors to profit from.

In typical ego-stroking form, Mayor Saffo gave the annual State of the City speech this past week, and referenced his plans to go forward with pursuing the baseball stadium in downtown Wilmington.

The agreement, Saffo said, would likely include the city buying property and building a stadium that could cost between $35 and $40 million. Mandalay would operate the stadium.
"It might be a tax increase to pay for it," Saffo said. http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20120201/ARTICLES/120209999/1015/news0101?Title=City-signs-up-for-baseball

Within hours of this statement, the Star News released the new figures on area unemployment.

The Wilmington area's jobless rate jumped to 10.6 percent in December from 9.8 percent in December 2010, according to figures released Wednesday by the N.C. Commerce Department's Labor and Economic Analysis Division. http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20120201/ARTICLES/120209984/1002?Title=Wilmington-area-jobless-rate-jumps-to-10-6-&tc=ar

However, the stadium, although it will require more money being forcefully taken out of the struggling local economy, will provide the much-needed economic relief that we all so desperately need... right?

Independent analyses of the economic and employment impacts of sports stadiums have consistently found that there is no statistically significant economic benefit to building a stadium. An analysis by Robert Baade of Lake Forest College studied thirty cities over thirty years and found that twenty-seven experienced no significant impact from new stadiums, while only three cities experienced a negative economic impact. http://www.stadiummouse.com/stadium/economic.html

But jobs will be created, according to Saffo and friends.

A common argument heard from stadium proponents is that the construction of a new sports stadium or arena will generate thousands of new jobs for the local community. Robert Baade found that "sports tend to produce low-skilled, low-paid employment such as: food and souvenir vendors, security personnel, hotel and restaurant employees."(14) If a city encourages a movement toward this kind of employment by subsidizing sports, the city will find its economic development lagging behind development in the rest of the region. In other words, jobs created by stadium and arena construction and/or operation do not, on their own, generate significant tax revenues for a city. Taxes generated by the operation of a factory or similar industry would likely be greater than that of a stadium or arena, and therefore are more valuable to a city from a revenue standpoint. http://www.stadiummouse.com/stadium/economic.html

Often one will hear Mayor Saffo and other proponents talking of the "wonder" it will be to hear the sound of wooden bats cracking on the river. However, the only cracking sound we will hear, if this ill-conceived operation goes forward, is the sound of the local economy completely falling apart.

Petition by iPetitions.com

Often times, taxes must be raised to accommodate the funding for additional police officers or firemen, or other critical needs in the community that must be funded with public dollars. Even those issues are met with some resistance from the community, when attrition seems like the better and more feasible scenario. However, this issue is that of a private stadium, that an outside conglomerate will operate and profit from, and can only do it if our taxes are raised to pay for it? This is absolutely ludicrous, and really demonstrates just how out of touch Saffo and the rest of the city council really is.

When the downtown convention center was being forced on us, we were given the same platitudes and speeches about economic viability and job creation. Saffo would kindly like you to now forget about that, as it has been demonstrated that the convention center will now operate in the red indefinitely. The Wilmington Watcher has proven that your tax dollars pay for the convention center in addition to ROT funds; even though city leaders continually deny this is the case.

The issue of not only using, but RAISING taxes in this economy for the purposes of a few developers and investors getting richer off of the backs of taxpayers, is not a conservative vs. liberal issue in any way. This is an issue of an overreaching, arrogant government against the people is supposedly serves. Property taxes are already high due to the reckless and excessive spending by city government on unneeded and wasteful projects. This would add over $40 million to that tab.

It's time to finally say enough is enough. Please Like our Facebook page here, and show your objection to this idiocy. Also, make sure you sign the petition against it that will be presented to the city: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/no-tax-dollars-for-baseball-stadium/

More info on the stadium and why it's a bad idea here:
http://wilmingtonwatcher.blogspot.com/2012/01/wilmington-baseball-stadium-facts.html
http://www.stadiummouse.com/stadium/economic.html
http://www.fieldofschemes.com/

A Park or Economic Freedom?

2012-01-28T14:20:00.005-05:00

Well, the city continues in its never-ending blood-lust for a park downtown.

Don't get me wrong. It'd be nice to have a park downtown. But that doesn't mean you can trample property rights. It also doesn't mean that what would go up wouldn't be better and more beneficial for the community than a park.

Think of the potential negatives of a park:

What can you do on a piece of grass that you can't already do downtown? Does the city actually think there's going to be Ultimate Frisbee competitions on this small patch of land?

There's a possibility it becomes a haven for homeless people, or who knows what (possibly even "Occupiers." *shiver*)
When its city property it no longer pays property tax.

Again, this doesn't even mention that the new development could be much better than a park, or the potential chilling effect this could have on downtown development, or even development in Greater Wilmington.

The city held up a development called "The View" with these same principals for years and now we have a "wall of keys" on Front St. downtown, which Bill Saffo called "art," instead of a building with apartments and shops.

Does anyone remember the Gateway project? The city did the same thing to those developers and nearly bankrupted them in the process.

Oh well. Who's going to want to build here after a while? Who's going to want to come here? I can tell you that many in the development community are already fed up with the city government and have been for a long time. Is it any surprise that 9 out of 10 downtown business owners say that it's easier to do business with other city governments that it is with Wilmington?

StarNews:

The city of Wilmington has considered shelling out more than $2 million to buy the half of the Water Street deck as the decades-old structure that was planned for redevelopment sits unchanged.

For about a year, the city and PB&G Partners LLC have locked horns over what to do with the deck that both entities co-own. The original plan was for PB&G to demolish the deck and transform it into condos and shops. But the contract between the city and PB&G, which gave the company three years to start development, ended in 2010. Now the city has an option to buy back the company's half at $3 million or market value, whichever is less.
In February, City Manager Sterling Cheatham, on direction from city council, sent a letter to PB&G Partners LLC stating the city would like to enter into discussions about buying the deck for its appraised value, $2.4 million, minus the approximately $350,000 the city claims the developers still owe for parking receipts. [This is another whole issue that I'm surprised the developers don't slam the city on.]
[...]PB&G balked at the city's offer to buy the deck and presented its plans for a new development to council in April.
[...]"The city has fundamentally ignored all of our development plans," [developer Bud Dealey] said.
Dealey said the group has since lost its U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development funding to transform the property into upscale apartments for people over 55 years old with shops below as well as space for parking and a city park. [No doubt because they were held up for so long]
"I doubt that we're ever going to be permitted to build anything," he said.
[...]The city's goal with Water Street deck was to turn part of it into a city park.

Note to anyone else who may have land that the city wants for a park: you have no rights.

What Really Happened in the County Commission Meeting?

2012-01-26T15:47:00.003-05:00

I typically don't read the supplemental material for the County Commission meetings. I just rely on the "news" to give me the bullet points of what happened. Of course, I regularly find things that interest me in the City Council supplemental material that aren't reported in the news, so with the primaries coming up, I took a look to get a better idea of what's going on in the County.

It should be pointed out that all these items passed unanimously, so if you have a favorite County Commissioner ("I like the shy one!"), you're plum out of luck.

The first thing that interested me was submittal of a grant application to the Institute for Museum and Library Services, a public agency, for a 2012 "National Leadership Planning Grant."

This grant was for $50k and requires at least a 1/3 match. New Hanover County, however, went above and beyond and volunteered to pay $59k they got the grant.

What will the grant help us do?

It will help "encourage development of collaborative models and projects that can strengthen the position of museums and libraries as community anchors."

Get that? It's about strengthening the position of museums and libraries.

Now, I consider myself a free-marketer. I'm familiar with the history of private museums and private libraries before the government-forced take-over. In today's environment, however, which is extremely far from a free market, I'm ok with some public money going to things like libraries. A competitive private market for libraries has been destroyed and I don't see one cropping up at this point.

That said, what will this money be going toward?

The planning project defines three outcomes:

Did everyone get that? This is a "planning project." Yet again, they're simply planning for things. They're not putting anything into action.

For $109k, this better be a pretty good plan.

It continues:

1) Completion of a needs assessment regarding the availability, distribution, and nature of
STEM learning opportunities available in the community that will permit identification of
strengths, gaps, opportunities, and priorities for development;
2) Development and implementation of manageable assessment tools that can be used to
establish standards for quality STEM learning experiences and contribute to continued
improvement; and
3) Establishing a framework and understanding for a community -wide collaborative to
coordinate, develop, and expand high quality informal and formal STEM learning.

Ok, so for $109k they'll be "assessing needs"; they'll be developing "assessment tools"; and ...I don't even know how to translate that last piece of gibberish into English.

Anyway, that's what the money is going to. The overwhelming majority goes to personnel, including $24k to hire a graduate assistant, and $11k in benefits.

Nice, huh?

Next item

Civil process fees went up in August. That means people will have to pay more to get served papers and that the government will take in more.

Is this new revenue used to lessen the tax burden on everyone else? Of course not. It's used for more spending.

The new revenue is about $289k and it's going to be used on a bunch of things. $43k on two new cars; $15k on radios; and $150k is going to be used to move the Civil Division, apparently into a new building or something.

Thank goodness we got that $289k in new revenue because it turned out we needed every bit of it!!

Next

We submitted a request for a $400k/per year "Community Transformation Grant" to the NC Division of Public Health. The grant would last for a total of 5 years, so the total would be $2M.

Now, I don't have a problem with us making a grant request if it's for something that we actually do ourselves. If it's simply superfluous, some additional thing we don't need and shouldn't be doing, I don't want it.

Plus, this is state money and not federal money, so it's even closer to home.

What would this $400k per year be going toward? It's primarily to fund the salaries and benefits of four full-time "Health Educators," one "Administrative Support Technician," and a half-time "Policy Intervention Specialist."

What are the goals of this group?

Basically eliminate smoking wherever they can. For those of you familiar with Wilmington's history, this can include private establishments like bars. 7 of the group's 11 goals mention tobacco or smoking. So, if we get this grant, it looks like we'll have five years of a couple of busy bodies bothering us to stop smoking.

I might take up smoking just so I can blow some in their faces.

Other goals include: "increase the number of convenience stores that increase the availability of fresh produce and decrease the availability of sugar-sweetened beverages"; and "increase the number of communities that implement comprehensive plans for land use and transportation." Yup, more zoning and public transportation. That's what's good for you.

Make no mistake, this is all fueled by Obamacare. It even mentions that it should try to achieve goals as laid out in the Affordable Care Act.

Next

Apparently, NHC's code violations are too expensive to go before a Small Claims judge. So what did NHC do this week? Made it easier to take violators to court.

We changed the fines from $200 to a $100/day fine for a first offenses. For a third offense, it's now $300/day down from $500.

Again, it's explicitly mentioned that this isn't to go easier on people; it's to be able to take them to court more easily.

We also added the section: "The zoning official may withhold or deny any permit, certificate, occupancy, or other form of authorization on any land, building sign, structure, or use in which there is an uncorrected violation."

Yup, a zoning official can now kick you out of ...wherever if there's some code violation, including if there's something wrong with your building sign.

Welcome to the Fascist States of United America.

Next

Apparently, the county licenses electricians, plumbers and mechanics. They probably license more occupations, but those were the only ones mentioned.

Here is a description of the general powers of these licensing boards:

Brief on Functions: To issue certificates to all persons who (1) provide satisfactory evidence to the Board regarding their training and education; (2) pass an examination administered by the Board, and (3) provide evidence of two years of experience in their perspective fields. To administer written or oral examination quarterly on the first Tuesday in January, April, July and October. The Board may revoke certificates and reinstate certificates in accordance with the County Code.

In case you don't know, licensing is a joke.

Why should the government be able to tell me who can work on my toilet? Frankly, I think I can make that decision myself.

The licensing board is also comprised of people who have an interest in the industry, so they're not exactly neutral. Not to impugn the integrity of the county's boards, but it's very possible a board could use its power to revoke a competitor's license.

I'm not sure if this licensing board was set up on the initiative of the state or county. My guess would be the state. But I certainly hope we use our authority to effectively deregulate these professions.

Wilmington Baseball Stadium: THE FACTS

2012-01-24T10:17:00.000-05:00

In response to the local media scrambling to give wall-to-wall above-the-fold coverage to the creation of the PortCityBaseball.com website; a mediocre little short stop (pun?) on the web openly and shamelessly begging for our local governments to pour out taxpayer dollars for the benefit of a few folks in the baseball biz. Local government doesn't spend a dime without such propaganda mills as the Star News cheer leading the effort, and doing what they can to handle the PR and advertising of such ventures for the benefit of the city council.

With that said, consider some truth and research from a website with probably over a thousand times the popularity and return visits than the aforementioned one, but as usual, sure to be ignored by the press - even though we know they read the Wilmington Watcher on a regular basis.

Taxpayer-funded stadiums are nothing new. They have been done over and over again; every new guy to come on the scene with a new plan thinks he is going to build the better mousetrap, and inevitably failing in the end; the taxpayers left holding the bag, as usual.

Here is some data for those interested in holding an educated debate and position on the subject. For those who simply keep muttering the mantra about baseball on the river, and constantly closing their eyes dreaming of the publicly-funded smell of roasted peanuts, carry on.

Thanks to Tom Looney for sharing:

"Taxpayer-subsidized Sports Facilities: Who Pays, Who Wins?"

http://www.lessgov.org/html/stadium-money.html While the beginning of this article provides an argument against sports stadiums, the bulk of this document consists of an extensive bibliography of articles and books that deal with this issue.

• Joanna Cagan and Neil Demause, "Field of Schemes"

http://www.fieldofschemes.com This web site contains information on the current status of sports stadiums that are being built or rebuilt using public subsidies. As the title of this website suggests, the authors are opposed to the use of public subsidies for these projects. Of particular interest is their page entitled: "The Sports Swindle Ticker."

• Daniel Sutter, "Public Subsidies for Sports Stadiums Don't Spur Economic Growth"

http://www.ocpathink.org/economics/PublicSubsidiesforSports.html In this Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs article, Daniel Sutter provides a critical examination of the use of subsidies for the construction of new stadiums. He argues that the construction of new stadiums diverts consumer spending from other forms of entertainment without increasing the total level of consumer spending.

• Ronald D. Utt, "Cities in Denial: The False Promise of Subsidized Tourist and Entertainment Complexes"

http://www.heritage.org/library/backgrounder/bg1223.html In this October 2, 1998 Heritage Foundation Backgrounder, Ronald Utt argues that subsidized public investment in stadiums and similar tourist and entertainment facilities has not been a profitable strategy

• Heartland Institute, "Sports Stadium Madness"

http://www.heartland.org/studies/sports/sports-studies.htm This website contains links to an extensive collection of studies that indicate that public investment in sports stadiums provide few benefits for municipalities.

Plans for a Baseball Stadium Move Forward

2012-01-07T10:44:00.002-05:00

With the taxpayer stuck in the gears.

WECT:

Construction work is beginning on the site that could be the home of a baseball stadium in downtown Wilmington.
Crews are tearing down an abandoned building at the corner of Front and Brunswick streets.

The developer, Chuck Schoninger, who owns the property, is paying for the demolition.

Hotels and restaurants are to be built at the location, even if plans for a baseball stadium don't move forward.

Even if they don't move forward? How long has Schoninger had this property? Why is he moving forward with it now? Are we really supposed to believe it has nothing to do with the baseball stadium?

An Open Letter to the Wilmington City Council

2012-01-05T14:57:00.001-05:00

Dear Members of the Wilmington City Council:

Your continued pursuit of objectives detrimental to our city's financial health; as well as your unyielding efforts to indebt taxpayers beyond solvency are duly noted. Your message of indifference to those whom you fear no reprisal that live only a doorstep away from the new city limits, and your sheer contempt for their rational concerns is understood as well. Your stubborn quest to engage in a massive spending plan in order to benefit a few who share baseball as a personal hobby is registered. And your collective failures to consider the best interest of the citizens who fund your self-absorbed gravy train is completely recognized.

Now, a response from one of the 15% who vote in the city; and one of the 5% of that, who are not already loyally tied to one or more of your campaigns at election time.

You are not leaders. You are not visionaries. You are not statesmen. You are puppets and hacks who use your office for personal gain. You embarrassingly whore yourselves out to special interest, and to any entrepreneur or investor that catches your eye with a flash of quick cash. You are easily bought and swayed by the allure of money and power. You have absolutely no integrity, and no honorable intentions. Our city hangs its head in shame that we have such simple children empowered to take and spend our money at will. The common thread across everything that you stand for and commit to, is that it must be a great opportunity, simply because it isn't your money.

True leaders would tell anyone interested in building a baseball stadium here in Wilmington that we have a great city we are proud of, and to feel free to come here and spend 100% of your own money to purchase the land, and build and operate the park. But instead, you drool and roll over, anxiously willing to shovel mountains of other people's money to anyone who charms you with simple, empty rhetoric. Like handing a child's kaleidoscope to a tribe of island natives who have never been exposed to any element of modern civilization, your eyes gleam in wide-eyed fascination.

True leaders would tell a developer asking to be annexed in order to fulfill his plans of development that it could be considered, but the best interest of the citizens in the affected area is the foremost priority. But instead, you drool and roll over, only thinking of more revenue to hurry up and waste on the next fruitless endeavor.

True leaders would never willingly and arrogantly suffer the citizens animosity between their local governments who they need working together for their best interest. But instead, you drool and roll over, selling our city piecemeal to an out of state developer charming your simple minds with a small amount of cash, in spite of the damaging implications to local government diplomacy.

Your convention center is a laughable insolvent failure that will forever mark your legacy. Our downtown area does not have the infrastructure to support more of this nonsense. We are in debt to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, and cannot afford more. But you will doggedly and capriciously pursue your selfish wishes with sheer antipathy toward reality and restraint.

You have no clue how an economy works. None of your spending of our money creates economic opportunity. Your arrogance precedes your every intention by believing that you can spend my money better than I can. Your spending first requires the confiscation of money out of citizens' pockets - money otherwise used to stimulate the local economy in an organic manner. Taxpayer money that you spend is absorbed - it doesn't multiply; and worse, it has to be paid back with interest, further creating an economic vacuum. I am amazed at your lack of intelligence and understanding of this matter. If government spending creates prosperity, then why not confiscate 100% of citizens' wealth; build 100 baseball stadiums, 100 extra parks, 100 extra bike paths, and 100 new convention centers? Think of all the wonderful prosperity then!

Mr. Anderson, a few short weeks ago, you didn't support taxpayer dollars going to a baseball stadium. You are obviously a quick study in the ways of the collective mentality of the city council, and have no doubt made your comrades proud. Please change your party affiliation immediately, and make it official that you are a defiant and progressive statist like your counterparts. Your personal legacy is shaping up to be one who is an utterly disingenuous hack.

Ms. Haynes, for someone who constantly believes that she is the most educated and intellectual person in any room she walks into, you seriously lack an understanding of basic economics and representative government. You arrogantly refer to those such as myself, who prefer government to be run like a business when you distort such an idea when it matches your wishes; yet you would never opt for running our government like a true business, which would entail constantly thinking of fiscal efficiencies, cuts in spending, and true innovation. A well-run business would never make the failed investments that this council is known for, that accomplish nothing except magically make mountains of "free" money disappear forever.

Mr. O'Grady, you feign offense at anything that implicates you in any behavior or thinking less than stellar excellency, yet you lead the pack in promoting the message that our city is, in fact, for sale. You have stated that the baseball stadium can only work with taxpayer dollars being sunk into it - I would challenge that in saying why don't you invest your money into it instead, since it is such a winning proposition? I won't wait for that to happen however.

Mr. Rivenbark, Ms. Padgett, and Mr. Saffo, if the baseball stadium, or any other big ticket hobby item is such a wonderful investment, why aren't you the first one in line to pony up your own cash? Every one of the "great opportunities" that you support find you mysteriously missing from putting up your own money to cash in on the great investment you promise they will bring. Why is that? Because I know it's not because you are full of it. You have told us that the convention center was one of those once-in-a-lifetime opportunities and investments that will reap dividends for generations to come - and yet, only in its infancy, it stands as an utter failure of government, rife with debt, seeded with malfeasance, and completely insolvent for decades to come. Simple math indicates that the ROT funds do not come anywhere close to paying the total annual costs associated with it operation, and that general fund dollars are quietly filtered into it - but you evade and conceal this fact from the public, one of the few things that you do well.

Mr. Sheridan, before you is always the opportunity to stand out from the go-along crowd and speak up for the best interest of those you are supposed to serve. Time and time again, you fail that challenge, opting instead to appease those you serve with, rather than think outside of the prevailing mentality.

As a council, your collective legacy is nothing more than an abject dereliction of duty. As usual, I expect no response, and nothing to change. Citizens expressing disdain for your decisions has never had an impact on you, and that surely isn't going to change anytime soon. But know that not all of us are simply hypnotized, and thereby disengaged, by celebrities on TV pretending to dance, or morons trying to sing, or next month's issue of US Weekly. Some of us are paying attention to true matters of importance, and will do all we can to remove you from office for your contemptible failure to truly represent the citizen, and be humble stewards of their money.

We have a wonderful city in spite of you - not because of you. As a proud Wilmingtonian, I will do all I can to restore honor, dignity, and restraint to our local government, before you run it into the ground, and completely bankrupt us all.

Neil Anderson Breaks Campaign Promise

2012-01-04T16:41:00.005-05:00

Yes, folks, it took Neil Anderson all of ...a day? Two days? To go back on a campaign promise.

If you'll remember, Neil presented himself as firmly in opposition to a publicly-funded baseball stadium. What is revealed an email? Neal's support for a publicly-funded baseball stadium.

You can't get much better than that.

WECT:

In an email to some members of the commission today, Wilmington City Council Member Neil Anderson noted council members, commissioners and the prospective owners of the interested minor league baseball team are set to meet today. Anderson encouraged members of the commission to "be the better man in this relationship and make a gesture of greater/stronger support in their partnership on this once in a lifetime opportunity for our city, county, and region."

Sounds like pretty strong support to me! Maybe Neil will be able to give us a great park downtown too to complete our economic development. That's what leads to flourishing cities, right? Parks and baseball stadiums?

The entire reason for Neil's email was apparently because some on the County Commission are cooling their support for the baseball stadium due to the satellite annexation the city performed last night. Aren't you glad that our local government is run like a high school?

In any case, this is the first in a long list of disappointments. As in any City Council meeting, there are a number of terrible things on the docket, and Neil voted for all of them.

C3. The allocation of $25k for unspecified improvements to the Portia Mill Hines Park. Maybe Council got a description of the improvements to be done, but they're not in the supplemental material.
C8. The awarding of a $200k contract to Alta/Greenways to develop our Greenway Plan. What is a "Greenway Plan?" Well, it's basically a document telling us where to put our bike paths and parks (can't have enough parks, can we?) Why can't city or county staff figure this stuff out? Beats me, but now we have Alta/Greenway making $200k to figure it out for us. Nevermind that $200k would pay the annual salary and benefits for about three members of the planning department.

What is this money being used for?

The breakdown of the expenses is truly hilarious.

Task 1: Project Kick Off Meeting $5,560.00
Task 2: Identify Opportunities and Constraints $46,000.00
Task 3: Public Involvement and Presentations $48,320.00
Task 4: Prepare the Draft Comprehensive Greenway Plan $50,760.00
Task 5: Develop and Present Final Plan $24,805.00
Task 6: Provide Final Report and Brochure $12,060.00
Subtotal Fees $187,505.00
Budget for Reimbursable Expenses $12,495.00
Total Fee and Expenses $200,000.00

Yes, folks, it will cost them $5,560 to have a "Project Kick Off Meeting." These Alta people sure know how to party, but I suppose I would too, if I could do it on other people's money.

Task 2 is a legitimate thing they have to do. In the description of Task 2, they say they'll have to review all of the local Land Use and Transportation plans, but if we had used City or County staff, presumably they'd be much more familiar with all of these documents! That's a big chunk of the $46k for Task 2.

To me, it seems like we just spent $200k to have a consultant tell us something we could easily figure out ourselves (that is, if you even think the project is necessary, which is in and of itself doubtful.)

C18. We paid $23k to a contractor to "review and assess the development review process." Again, is this something we should be paying a contractor for? 9 out of 10 downtown business owners say doing business with Wilmington is more difficult than doing business with other cities, so we clearly do have a problem with the development process, but another contractor? This is something that City Council should get off their rump and do themselves.
O4.a. We pushed back the completion date on the Bradley Creek Sidewalk Project from August 21, 2010 to October 21, 2012. That's over two years, folks. It's also going to cost more than $152k than anticipated because of "unanticipated drainage issues," blah, blah, blah.

Folks, there are these kind of things in every single City Council meeting. There are wasteful things that nickel and dime us to death, or sometimes thousands of dollars us to death. There are also major white elephants like the convention center and potential baseball stadium that seriously threaten the fiscal health of the city. Seeing as he was against the baseball stadium, I never would have guessed Neil would roll over for the good 'ole boys, and gals, and Margaret Haynes, so quickly.

Neil, you need principles. Remember what Thoreau said: "The best government is that which governs least." We're at such a precarious point in our economy we can't stand to have it crushed under more wasteful government spending.

Cantankerous Council Commands Crooked Contract, Crosses Commission

2012-01-04T15:50:00.000-05:00

In a unanimous vote on Tuesday night, the Wilmington City Council voted to go forward with a satellite annexation of a developer's property located in the Marsh Oaks area of North Market Street, some two miles from the city boundary.

What makes this especially interesting, is that the reason this issue even came up, is because the New Hanover County Commission denied the developer's zoning request to build a 282-unit apartment complex in an area that simply cannot handle anymore traffic load. The developer simply went to the city to ask to be annexed in exchange for favorable zoning to build his project, despite NC case law specifically addressing this type of bilateral agreement between city and developer, and citing it as illegal in two cases specifically, Chrismon v. Guilford County; and especially in Good Neighbors of South Davidson v. Town of Denton. The issue is also discussed at length in a very insightful article by Robert Ducker for the UNC School of Government.

Despite hearing from dozens of concerned citizens from the affected area, as well as other citizens concerned with the unnecessary excesses of government, the city council proceeded without hesitation. Many excellent arguments were made against this as being a completely raw deal for the upper middle class neighborhood of Marsh Oaks, who will now have to welcome Section 8 voucher receivers - and the statistical crime that accompanies them - as their neighbors, despite their personal decisions to purchase their properties in an affluent part of the county.

Council's only concerns were whether or not they had to provide any services to the developer's property. The answer was largely no, so it appeared as a win/win to a council completely indifferent to a community's plight. Furthermore, two of the New Hanover County Commissioners addressed the council, warning them that going through with this as presented would severely hinder the previously good working relationship between the city and county. Since the ignoring of this warning, the fallout has already started to transpire.

Councilwoman Margaret Haynes, in her typical smug disposition, stated that she often hears how government should be run like a business, and in doing so, she would apply a cost-benefit analysis to this issue. According to her, the decision is all benefit and minimal cost. However, she has never shown any propensity to conduct the affairs of government in any other way like a business, such as cutting taxes and implementing cost-saving measures to run more efficiently.

Several citizens alluded to the obvious quid pro quo that seemed evident between the developer and the city. One glaring testament to this was that the developer's own PowerPoint presentation was entitled, "Voluntary Annexation & Zoning Request". This truly speaks to the nature of the issue, that the developer is only asking to be annexed if in fact he can be granted the proper zoning to go forward with his project. The NC Supreme Court has defined this practice as "illegal contract zoning"; and it is, in fact, illegal.

Councilman Kevin O'Grady, also smug in his tenor, feigned outrage at several citizens alleging a "deal" between the developer and the city, stating that he never made any such deal. However, although a true deal may in fact be in the works, even without a solid "deal" being struck, it is obvious to anyone with any intelligence that there is a definite understanding between the two entities about what needs to take place for both to benefit.

County Commission Chairman Ted Davis stated that this is a slippery slope, since the precedent is set that anyone who has a project denied by the county, can simply approach the city for what they want, and the city will most likely oblige. This current council has made it clear that Wilmington is, in fact, for sale.

What Could Go Wrong with a City Buying a Hotel?

2011-12-28T15:32:00.002-05:00

Ahhh, yes, more hotel madness, and this time it's not just limited to Wilmington.

Carolina Beach has been bitten by the hotel madness bug, and it's led to allegations of corruption!

What a surprise!

WECT:

Carolina Beach leaders closed two hotels owned by the town's non-profit CBP3 last week, but one issue regarding the property remains open.

Problem number 1: the town has a non-profit. What is this necessary for?

Problem number 2: they have/had two hotels? Why would they need two? I suppose they like competing with themselves.

Included in the accusation letter that spark [sic] the initial investigation is an signed affidavit from fellow, now former, Councilman Alan Gilbert. The document details Gilbert's version of how the town took over the property.

In closed session, town council originally authorized the Town Manager to bid up to $500,000 on one of several lots that were a part of Arcadius Development and now up for auction.

Gilbert attended the auction, where he said a representative from Republic Bank approached him. The representative said Mayor Macon told him about the town's interest in the oceanfront property, according to Gilbert's affidavit.

Carolina Beach bought one property that day for $475,000, but Republic Bank bought six others for $2.1 million. The bank continued to bid on the property in an effort to raise the price, according to the document.

Gilbert suggested the bank ran up the price of the properties at auction after learning of the town's interest in them from Macon. At a special closed session, Mayor Macon then informed the rest of town council that the bank would sell the property for $3.6 million. Once loans and interest were included, the town owed $4.3 million.

Did you notice how fast that happened? WECT doesn't even go into it. (Great job reporting you guys.) Let's delve into it a bit more.

As far as I can make out, there's the accusation that Macon and Republic colluded to sell this property to the town. Republic seems to have bought the property because they knew that the city would buy it from them at a hefty price. Macon clearly would have to be getting a kickback from the bank here for getting the city to buy this hotel at a later point.

Of course, WECT doesn't go into any of this. It seems like there's a huge story here, but they're just afraid to ruffle feathers (or the feathers of certain people), or whatever the case may be.

And what exactly did Carolina Beach get for $3.6M? This is the picture with the story:

Wow. What a classy joint. I'd gladly pay $60M for that.

Folks, this is an example of why government must be kept limited. You get people in there with no real philosophy about the role of government and they start thinking they have to get involved in whatever is big in the local economy. In this case, it's a roach motel.

We all know government has no roll in the hotel business. Now I wonder if they'll learn that about convention centers?

Wilmington City Council Decides How to Make City Worse

2011-12-16T16:47:00.005-05:00

You could have sworn the baseball stadium was dead from the rhetoric on the campaign trail for City Council, right?

Repeatedly, people like Bill Saffo, Laura Padgett, and Ron Sparks all said that they didn't support public money going to the proposed baseball stadium downtown, or some slick-tongued variation of that.

Well, that's not what the new rhetoric is.

StarNews:

Annexation policy, a proposed baseball stadium and the Cape Fear Skyway bridge were some of the topics Wilmington City Council tackled as it prepared for next year.

[...]The Atlanta Braves came earlier this month to talk to city and county leaders about a potential minor league team moving to the city. Elected officials have been in talks for years with different organizations interested in making Wilmington home to a minor league team. O'Grady said the Braves offer is the city's best chance to get a team.
The Braves, according to Saffo and O'Grady, are only interested in putting the stadium on the riverfront on vacant land next to PPD. Saffo said the stadium would seat about 32,000 and could be used for events other than baseball.

Most of the council seemed to agree that a stadium would be a boon for downtown. But Padgett – who repeatable said she wasn't' against the stadium – brought up several obstacles to building it, including money, traffic issues, and if a stadium is the best use of riverfront land.

O'Grady said a partnership between New Hanover County and the city would be essential to secure the necessary funding and debt.

"We have to spread that risk," O'Grady said.

Notice that this wouldn't be an issue if the Braves (minor league) wanted to come here and build the stadium themselves. They could simply buy the land, build it, and everyone presumably would be happy. The only reason that this is an issue for the City Council is because some public dollars are going to go into it.

It's truly disgusting. If you listened to the campaign rhetoric, you have had the impression this was all but dead. Folks, this stadium is going to cost $42M (probably over $70M with debt service), and there's ample research showing the publicly-funded stadiums don't work.

Of course, if the City Council actually cared about research and learning from things other cities did, we'd have no convention center right now.

Then there's more.

Laura Padgett wants more incentives for new businesses that may (emphasis on the may) come here, or for existing businesses that threaten to leave.

Councilwoman Laura Padgett said Wilmington needs someone to focus on economic development and do outreach to attract industry to the city. Padgett said economic development groups in the region tend to wait for things to come to Wilmington. She wants a "performance" spreadsheet to track money spent on economic development and what the return on investment might be.

"We don't look at the business opportunities that are here. We are missing some opportunities and those things take a while to develop. I don't think there is enough effort made to keep business here."

Wowie zowie. What a novel idea, Laura. Actually tracking performance. And it only took you sixteen years of being in office to come up with this.

Let's take a look at actual research on the success or failure (emphasis on the failure) of economic incentives to businesses.

Duke University:

The Lee Act was passed in 1996 in order to promote investment and job creation in the less developed regions of the state [NC]. It separated the counties into tiers, with job creation and investment tax credits increasing dramatically if done in a less developed county. A job created in a prosperous region can bring as little as $500 in tax credit; the same job in one of the poorest counties can in fact bring $16,500.8

The impact, however, turned out to be different than anticipated: two-thirds of the more than $60 million of credit claimed in 2001 were awarded to the top counties, with those at the bottom barely receiving anything.

[...]A survey taken in 2000 by Rondinelli and Burpitt found that international company executives operating in North Carolina placed government tax incentives, agency assistance and financing close to the bottom of the 11-item list of factors that managers felt to be influential in their location decision.

State Journal:

First, MEGA's [Michigan Economic Growth Authority] incentive packages did not improve Michigan's per-capita personal income, employment or unemployment rate.

Second, MEGA did not improve the per-capita income, employment or unemployment rate of any county in Michigan. In each county, the researchers estimated the range of impact somewhere between zero and modestly negative.

[...]The results of the Michigan study are not unique and are for the most part consistent with every other study that has looked at the economic effect of government-subsidized incentives.

And how much are spent on corporate relocation incentives? At least $50B per year nationwide. It's a true disaster.

How much more proof do you need? Let's take a look at one free way to improve our economy: loosen our zoning code and improve our zoning administration.

In 2003, Anaheim, CA took away the restrictions on mixed use downtown (our downtown is mixed use, although the rest of the city isn't.) They "allow[ed] almost any imaginable use of property." Billions in private investment poured in. In 2005, 1/3rd more businesses formed than in the previous year.

Let's not forget that 9 out of 10 downtown business owners say that the city of Wilmington is more difficult to do business with than other cities.

Is it not obvious what we have to do to improve our economy? A truly common sense, free-market oriented approach would actually get results and wouldn't cost a thing. Of course, the current City Council doesn't see that as an option. To them, the only option is for them to plan your life better.

The article then goes on to say how annexation and the Skyway Bridge are still issues for the City Council, and we'll probably be hearing more about this stuff as the year goes on.

It's truly astonishing to me. These people have zero clue. They are going to drive this city into the poor(er) house. The only thing that's still a question is how Neil Anderson feels. To be perfectly honest my expectations aren't high, but he could be the one thorn in the side of this big government juggernaut.

More Meddling from the Unelected

2011-12-13T12:24:00.000-05:00

Cape Fear Future (CFF), a taxpayer-funded arm of the Wilmington Chamber of Commerce, likes to meddle.

CFF considers itself to be a valuable resource in our region promoting education and trying to recruit the elusive "knowledge sector" in our local economy. Their efforts are hard to quantify in any meaningful way. Most of their news updates consist of regurgitating news and events taking place outside of their sphere. However, recently, the group involved itself with one endeavor on their own.

A proud news release entitled, "Cape Fear Future releases new tri-county education brochure" states:

"In the spring of 2011, representatives from Cape Fear Future and the Chamber Foundation (both initiatives of the Wilmington Chamber of Commerce) joined forces to assist the improvement of K-12 schools by raising awareness and support through marketing."

Interestingly, the two groups who "joined forces" are simply spinoffs of the same umbrella organization, and no outside influence appears to be present in the process of "raising awareness and support". The most noticeably absent entity from the effort is anyone from the public education system; specifically, the New Hanover County School Board. Why is this important? For one, the school board is elected by the people, and their involvement vicariously involves the public in these initiatives. However, one thing CFF has been consistent in, is not involving the public.

The result of this effort is an up-to-date profile with relevant statistical information to be provided to corporate prospects, commercial and residential realtors and anyone looking at our school systems. Our first goal was to create a printed brochure, and the second is to create and expand educational materials on the Wilmington Chamber of Commerce website.

The deep involvement of our Chamber in our public education calls into question their true motives. The specific mention of "commerical and residential realtors" makes perfect sense, given those who our Chamber and its satellite groups are comprised of, and the primary focus of their efforts. However, the idea that unaccountable taxpayer-funded groups operating in the shadows, without any input or accountability to the public; assigning, dictating, and communicating public education policy borders on highly questionable.

The draft brochure available here, may in and of itself seem harmless, and it may in fact be so. However, why are those elected by the public to look after and direct educational policy in our county being excluded from this process? We take our childrens' education seriously (well, many of us) - that's why it is so critical to have real people that can be held accountable for decisions affecting such. However, when a hodgepodge of faceless, publicly-funded bureaucrats, who are appointed by the inner players of the social and political machinery that seems to involve itself in everything, without any accountability to the public, one should be concerned.

Another notable example of what is most accurately described as meddling, is the implementation of a program in public schools, being completely directed and executed by the Chamber:

Shallotte Middle School in Brunswick County has adopted and implemented Project Lead the Way (one of only 3 in the state), a STEM-based curriculum that incorporates engineering, robotics, aerospace and other STEM-related courses...

The Wilmington Chamber of Commerce’s Cape Fear Future initiative is exploring adoption and implementation of the PLTW program to New Hanover County

While this particular example may seem like a good idea, and in and of itself isn't alarming, the idea that CFF now wields the power to "adopt and implement" a program in our public schools should be alarming.

Another portion of text in CFF's brochure states that:

The Cape Fear region - New Hanover, Pender and Brunswick Counties - features dynamic public and private education choices for students and parents. Programs range from pre-kindergarten to alternative and special needs, early-college curriculums, magnet schools, and a host of other unique courses that produce well-educated and socially responsible adults (emphasis added)

"Socially responsible adults"? In the view of CFF, this is a valid function of our public schools. A more traditional view may consist of it being the public schools' role to educate students in the basic areas of reading, writing, and math - social responsibility is a job for parents, families, and the student's sphere of influence. School plays a role in this certainly - but in an indirect way. This isn't something that should be taught directly in school - who's to say which view of social responsibility is the agreed upon view?

CFF's view of social responsibility could very well be vastly different from that of yours and your family's. However, teaching social responsibility is a very valid activity in public schools in CFF's view, and they are doing their part to ensure their seat at that table - with your children. However, CFF has no accountability to you whatsoever. If you dislike or disagree with their influence over your children, you have absolutely no recourse. Is this the proper role of an unelected board of self-ascribed intellectuals and elitists, funded with your money?

It's Good to be the King: Proposal would make Hotel Construction Illegal Anywhere - Except Downtown

2011-12-06T11:23:00.000-05:00

The idea stemmed from a roundtable meeting with Charleston's mayor earlier this year when local leaders asked for advise on bringing more hotels downtown. Charleston Mayor Joe Riley told leaders, "that's easy, we made it illegal everywhere else." -http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20111206/articles/111209848?p=1&tc=pg

Charleston, South Carolina - the pinnacle to which all of our elitist downtown leaders all agree that we should be so lucky to aspire to, does things a little bit different. The above quote from long-time Mayor Joe Riley of Charleston pertained to the question of how is it possible to attract hotel construction only in the central downtown district?

Wilmington Downtown Inc. (WDI), everybody's favorite quasi-government downtown lobby organization, recently suggested that the clear way to prompt downtown growth is by creating a flurry of hotel construction there - and the way to do that is to limit the free market, and make it illegal to construct hotels elsewhere in Wilmington - exempting of course a couple of the other developments operated by members of the insiders club, such as Autumn Hall and Mayfaire.

The public/private economic group has proposed a text amendment to the city's land development code that would prevent new hotel growth in the city except for in the Central Business District, Mayfaire Town Center, Autumn Hall and along the Riverfront.

"Moving this proposal forward would limit growth and congestion," Wilmington Downtown Inc. President and CEO John Hinnant said. "This is ultimately a decision that will have a positive impact down the road."

The question is, a positive impact for who? A cursory investigation reveals that the same players involved in the northern downtown development projects in proximity to the convention center, are the same players involved in Autumn Hall and Mayfaire, not coincidentally chosen for protection by WDI. In addition, these firms are also charter members of WDI. In the minds of WDI and its members and benefactors, this proposal has a two-fold advantage - giving downtown Wilmington an unfair advantage in the market, and creating market protection for WDI's most illustrious members' projects. The 17th Street hospital corridor is also given a nod of approval from Hinnant - not coincidentally the hospital board also contains some of the same key players involved in the other areas surrounding WDI.

This proposal represents the very worst about these unelected, faceless, bureaucratic agencies that make decisions for all of us with no accountability or fear of retribution from voters. Spineless city and county leaders often allow free reign to groups like WDI, who receive a fair sum of taxpayer dollars every single year, but have absolutely no accountability to taxpayers.

Possibly an advantage for WDI, Wilmington Planning Commission Chairman Chris Boney's firm, LS3P Architects, just so happens to be a partner with WDI. In addition, Wilmington City Council members such as Kevin O'Grady, Laura Padgett, and Mayor Bill Saffo have shown a propensity for allowing an unfair advantage to downtown in order to support their agenda, such as a vibrant taxpayer-funded convention center, which forecasts now show to operate in the red indefinitely.

At first glance, the proposal seems ludicrous; but it takes a more sinister turn. If private, unelected citizens such as Hinnant, who just so happen to be a part of an organization with lobbying muscle at City Hall can finagle with regulation and zoning for their own personal benefit, and for the financial benefit of those in their camp, then where does it end? If other parts of Wilmington not targeted for their own personal agendas start to show signs of growth that they warrant as unfriendly to their goals, perhaps using the long arm of the regulatory law to shut them down would level the playing field for their own ends.

Again, internal politics at the city level is shown to be quite Soviet in its implementation. 17% of voters gave a nod of approval to the status quo last month, which greenlights this sort of initiative. This proposal is a prime example of the elitist few centrally planning the fate and environment of the masses; without accountability, and without any fear of retribution from the public. Taxpayer-funded agencies such as WDI and WID have for long been a chief planning, policy-making, and regulatory body that operates in the shadow of City Hall, and without the nasty impacts and scrutiny that public officials are subject to. In turn, public officials gladly keep stocking these agencies with cash to do their dirty work.

Despite the shockingly long amount of time this practice has continued to be the modus operandi of city government, voters still by and large sit home at election day, and completely abdicate their duty to hold government responsible for its excesses and creative ethics.

Hinnant said the proposed prevention of building hotels in certain areas is just one possible way to lure more hotels downtown.

He said he expects it to be controversial but that sometimes politics need to be put aside to clear the way for future planning.

"At some point we all have to be accountable for our decisions," he said. "A lack of regulation is how we got to where we are on places like Market Street and Carolina Beach Road."

Flaws in logic aside, given that disallowing hotels anywhere but downtown won't necessarily prevent them from locating completely outside of our city altogether; Hinnant demonstrates his complete ineptitude in understanding the role of government in a free market. His glib statement of it simply being "politics" that would create a controversy is telling. The argument is purely economic - not political. A free market is only free when it is left to its own devices unhindered. The beauty of this system is that it puts you and I - the consumer - at the top of the heap as the final decision maker as to what lives and dies economically; not some second-rate elitist bureaucrat hack, hell-bent on using every resource at his disposal to tilt the entire local economy to spill out favors to his cronies and allies.

Perhaps the most ironic of all, is Hinnant's statement, "At some point we all have to be accountable for our decisions". This - from a man who conveniently operates completely unaccountable to anyone for anything. He receives large sums of taxpayer cash year after year - and has no obligation to answer them for it. He is able to move in the shadows, undetected, without the spotlight of public awareness or impending elections to hold his feet to the fire. This - from a man who used the official WDI credit card account - paid for with the hard-earned tax dollars we contributed to government - to pay for booze, cigars, and groceries, and had absolutely no accountability for it.

Finally, Hinnant laments a "lack of regulation", referring to the vibrant hotel businesses within certain corridors of our city other than downtown. It was a healthy free market climate that offered the prime conditions for these businesses to thrive; but it will be the stroke of a pen from some progressive, "smart-growth" schmuck like Hinnant that will finish it off.

Someone who can point to an economically healthy sector in this current day and age, and castigate it as a negative because it doesn't fit within his scope of a centrally planned laboratory experiment that only serves to enrich himself and his buddies, is no friend to economic prosperity.

However, given the turnout of last month's local election, it seems like these policies will continue to rule the day unchecked, and voter apathy will once again sign over tacit approval for all things corrupt and counter to the basic ideas of liberty and prosperity.

What Does the New Tax Rate Mean to You?

2011-12-04T08:57:00.003-05:00

Yes, there's more discussion of the new New Hanover/Wilmington/beach towns "tax rate." Nevermind that "tax burden" is far more important than "tax rate," because tax burden takes area median income into account, and that Wilmington's tax burden is very high.

That's another issue.

What we're talking about now is how the new rate is going to affect people differently across the county. After putting the revaluation off for years, the New Hanover County tax assessor finally found out that the overall decrease for property values was 14% for the county as a whole and 13% in Wilmington.

Yet this doesn't capture the full story.

As we can see from this graphic from WWAY:

Not every area lost value equally. Additionally, "[t]here are some areas, a few pockets, that are actually seeing an increase."

What this means is that in order to stay "revenue neutral" some people are going to see their property tax bills skyrocket, while others will actually see them go down.

Now, I'm not going to get into exactly how much each area will see their bills go up or down (although if I were a professional journalist, who was paid to do this kind of thing, I would.) I'm just going to try to give the broad strokes.

Firstly, the Fire District as far as I can tell is another word for "unincorporated area." There are roughly 100,000 people or so in that area. But the property values in the unincorporated areas fell far less than in the county as a whole. That means that at the bare minimum, they will see their tax bills increase about 6% to make up for the loss to other people's property in the county.

Again, we're not talking rate; we're talking about what will actually be coming out of their wallets.

If you're a property owner in Wilmington and your property actually gained value, your tax bills are going to skyrocket. You'll be paying at least 14% more in county property tax, and 13% more in city property tax. Since the city's and county's property tax rates aren't too far away from each other, you'll have a roughly 27% higher property tax bill.

Then your bill will also go up according to however much value your property gained.

So, as we can see, even if property tax rates are to be kept at a level so they're "revenue neutral" (as if any of our local governments can do anything but expand,) this revaluation is going to put more burden on some people and take it off of others. I can only imagine that the number of people who are hurt by it will far outnumber those who benefit.

The media outlets around here should be crunching these numbers, and not simply say things like "some neighborhoods will pay less on county and municipal tax bills, and others will have to pick up the tab." These are things that affect people's daily lives.

"Sorry, We Don't Have Money for Your Doggie Bag"

2011-11-25T06:21:00.004-05:00

"However, we will fine you if you don't pick up after your dog."

That's the message out of a recent StarNews article.

Faced with looming budget cuts, it's possible the city of Wilmington's parks department could dump more, if not all, of its dog poop stations.

Some of the stations for disposing of dog waste have already been removed as a cost-saving measure.
Kevin McRill, of Wilmington, found that out the hard way on one of his usual runs along the Riverwalk with his lab. The station behind the Greater Wilmington Chamber of Commerce that he usually uses to dispose of his dog's droppings was gone.
"I think they've got better places to cut money than doggie bags," he said. "I think it makes no sense at all."

Firstly, there are no "looming budget cuts." This year's budget is 4.2% higher than last year's budget and that's been the general trend for many years (in fact, the general trend is higher than 4.2%, but we'll leave that for another day.)

Secondly, Mr. McRill is right. They have many better places to cut than doggie bags, especially if they're going to fine people for not picking up after their dogs.

[Nina Johnston, parks superintendent] said last year the cost of supplies and labor for maintaining the more than 40 stations in the city was about $30,000.
"And that's crazy," she added.

Yes, that is crazy.

Let's put aside the fact that we could probably save millions by privatizing parks maintenance. Let's put aside that we would probably thousands upon thousands by effectively auditing all of the Parks Department's purchases. Let's just assume this is a completely reasonable cost and things couldn't be done anymore cheaply.

Are these stations worth having?

Well, one way to tell is to compare it to other things we spend our money on:

$1M on the Home Ownership program. Through this program we give second mortgages to people making up to 120% of the area median income. The delinquency rate for this program is 5x the local average.
We spend about $250k on the Red Light Camera program. Yes, folks, we lose money on it and nationwide it these systems have been found to increase accidents.
We'll be spending about $1.9M on a second golf course which has drainage issues. That's $.5M for the purchase, $.8M for the drainage issues and $.6M to give us our glorious walking paths and other miscellaneous improvements.
We paid an Ohio company $143k to tell us which roads to pave when our Roads budget is only $1M for the year.

This totally ignores the savings we'd find by having public employees pay half for their benefits.

So, the point is, yes, there are plenty of other places to cut than this, especially if you're going to fine people $250 for not picking up after their dogs.

This article does, however, bring up a subtler point about why it is always better to have the private sector provide something than the public sector.

If this were all private, people could protest with their dollars and either the company providing the service would get the message or potentially go out of business. In the public sector, it's much more difficult, especially when you have people like our current city council running the show.

Is it possible to privatize parks?

Yes, in fact, the majority of Tokyo's parks are private. There is a website devoted entirely to the concept. NJ Governor Chris Christie is currently pushing for public private partnerships in state parks. So, yes, like anything, it can be provided by the private sector.

The danger is that once the government gets into something it makes it more difficult for the private sector to compete, because anything run or owned by the government has an inherent advantage.

At the bare minimum, we need to look into privatizing our parks' maintenance.

New Hanover County: Land Speculator

2011-11-21T07:03:00.003-05:00

Apparently, New Hanover County owns nearly 4,000 acres of property, much of which is vacant.

Just from a brief look at this website, I'd say a conservative value to put most undeveloped property at in New Hanover County would be $50k/acre. I'd imagine developed land would go for even more.

Now, this is just a back of the napkin calculation, but I would not be surprised if the value of the government-owned land is over $200M. Now, of course, some land is probably being used for legitimate government functions, but I'd bet (wait, no, I know) a whole lot is not.

StarNews:

New Hanover County owns almost 4,000 acres of property containing cemeteries, museums, office buildings, parking lots and an array of other entities.

There’s also quite a bit of vacant land[...]

Shell cautioned Berger not to link the potential purchase of the bowling alley building to any other property the county owns, saying the deal “should stand in its own merits.”

“It’s very short-sighted to sell property that may have value in the future,” he told Berger.

Yes, folks, it's not that the land could be used for something; it's that it could be valued at something in the future. Don't you love when local government officials act like land speculators with your money?

[P]ointing to that list of property, Shell said each of the nearly 200 parcels has a use.

That includes property the county owns that has remained vacant for years.

There are lots purchased for parks and recreation space that
can’t be developed until the county seeks private donations or state grants, said Jim McDaniel, who heads the county’s Parks department.

Eighty-five acres are set aside to expand the new Smith Creek Park off Harris Road, for example. The land was purchased this year, but it will likely be years before anything is built there. Additional land sits for the expansion of Castle Hayne Park, too.

[...]The county also has majority interest in about 60 acres off Independence Boulevard, known as Bryan Farms, that sits in a trust with strict guidelines. McDaniel said the county can only use the area for farming or gardening functions, and he and other staff are exploring options for it.

“It just has great potential for this community,” he said.

Yes, folks, the local government may get involved in farming. Does anyone remember how this worked out for Russia or China? Of course, in this case, the government wouldn't be the only supplier of food, but do they not realize that if they enter into private business they crowd out private firms?

Vacant land also remains where a library on Northchase parkway is supposed to be built. The land, about 3 acres, was purchased in 1996.

Shell said many other parcels were purchased before they are ready for development to avoid paying more for them in later years.

“Spend a little money, save a lot more,” he said. “That’s what I’m all about.”

Does anyone fell like telling Bruce Shell that the real estate market is still going down? Thanks for all your prudent investment, Bruce. How about you take the losses next time?

The county also holds the deeds to several small tracts of land that were foreclosed because of unpaid property taxes.

All of those tracts are less than half an acre, and Shell said there aren’t many uses for them. He said the county will work with Wilmington officials to determine if any of the larger of
the parcels can be used for low income housing or economic development uses.

Yes, low income housing. More central planning. Nevermind that "affordable housing," which this seems to be, has proven to be a disaster wherever it goes. (Pruitt-Igoe anyone?) Shell doesn't even seem to realize that selling the parcels could allow the county to reduce its tax burden, which is the number one factor correlated with economic growth.
No, economic growth can only come as a result of the actions of our glorious central planners.

He’s [Catlin] also interested in opportunities for the county’s airport land, in an area called a foreign trade zone. “It could also be a launching pad for more international business,” Catlin said.

I had heard of this "foreign trade zone" before and thought it seemed like just another lofty idea. Then I happened to read a story about foreign trade zones just the other day and they seemed like a really great idea. They're a way around some more burdensome government restrictions on trade. Here's some info on them.

County commissioners will soon decide on the fate of another vacant property – a government building at 320 Chestnut St. that used to house the Public Defender’s Office and other departments.

The building has sat vacant for more than a year since a water leak and subsequent asbestos issues dislocated the
departments.

Shell said he’ll present a feasibility study for repairing and renovating the building to commissioners in January.

Jason Thompson has said that if this building were knocked down he would actually like to see the county build a totally new building in its place. This is some of the most valuable land in the county. It's right downtown, and we don't collect property taxes on it because it's publicly owned. Does this make sense to anyone?

So what, if anything, would the county manager choose to let go from the government’s inventory?

The first and practically only thing Shell mentioned
in an interview Friday was the Lucile Shuffler building at 2011 Carolina Beach Road.

[...]“I’m not anxious to sell anything,” Shell said.

Is anyone surprised? He has no incentive to sell anything. Every piece of land he owns, every dollar in the government budget elevates his status. You, however, have an incentive to get people with this mentality out of office.

Wilmington Post-Election Meltdown

2011-11-09T17:27:00.000-05:00

Once again, those idealists with dreams of serving the best interest of the local citizen, with well thought plans of budget-saving measures and tax relief, were put in their place by a small band of voters armed with nothing more than the desperate desire for status.

"...and the best part is, they don't even care that we're milking this town dry!"

As the numbers rolled in at the New Hanover County Government Center last night, it became clear what motivates the typical Wilmington voter. One would think that an incumbent whose legacy is swanky junkets on the taxpayer dime would be turned out handily by voters. Not so fast - this is Wilmington, after all. Laura Padgett, the timeless fixture on Wilmington City Council likes to travel on public money so much, that a new set of rules had to be enacted to keep her in check. After going through all of the council's budget for travel, she demanded more - since her presence at the International Shoelace Makers BBQ, Wine Tasting, and Beauty Pageant in Aukland, New Zealand is imperative to our very economic survival here in the Cape Fear region (or is it the Riverfront Beaches and Island Coastal Estuaries and Salty Marshlands and Bad Traffic and Roads region? I always forget...).

However, the opinion was clear that voting Padgett had its social benefits. Pity the poor sap who dares go against the grain and vote an outsider. This is the very purpose of our elections, after all - one must demonstrate one's worth in the social arena. Can you imagine attending the annual Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend Ball at the Cape Fear Country Club next year and not have a history of Padgett votes to your credit? Ahh... the horror. One may be inclined to think that such a person has no place amongst the elite establishment. Social suicide indeed.

The queen of last night's ball was none other than Madam Margaret Haynes, draped in designer fare from head to toe, with cheeks armed and willing to receive the barrage of showy kisses from the ostentatious gallery of artificial idiots. Haynes, who has proudly proclaimed that those who do not support her fail to do so simply because of their intellectual deficits and departure from intelligence, was ensconced by a faithful entourage of 60-something look-alikes, short silvery hair and gaudy jewelry sure to lure onlookers into a false sense of intellectuality. Those who believe in the heresies of limited government and fiscal constraint, are nothing but hapless peasants who are to be treated with the greatest disdain, and offer little social reward in entertaining; and social reward is the driving force behind Haynes. With her signature dark beady eyes and painfully forced smile she searches high and low for it - as do the loyal dolts that could not wait to replant her once again on city council for four more years of pretentious fabulousness.

Neil Anderson, the newest import on the social totem pole made his concessions early to the round table of kingmakers, and was swept into office ala O'Grady. Anderson, who speaks in slow Southern tenor, played the part of a working class conservative well throughout his quest for social.... errr... political office. Even well-known local conservatives were heard vouching for his name on the ballot. However, a simple glance at Anderson's campaign reports reveal the truth. The same wealth and power machine with pure disgust for anything conservative and fiscally responsible funded the entire Anderson affair. In fact, Anderson's reports read almost identical to none other than Padgett and Madam Haynes. Support such as this almost guarantees one a seat at the table, but does not come cheap. Those seasoned power brokers that hold out campaign cash in exchange for favorable representation are far too experienced to make the mistake of accidentally supporting someone with true conservative integrity.

One could not help but also notice the obvious display of kinship and alliance between the Anderson and Haynes camps throughout the campaign. Poll volunteers report each candidate's campaign team pitching for one another at early voting locations. Haynes, known for her utter contempt for all things conservative, would never align with someone she would describe as a dirty unintellectual conservative simpleton. Therefore, the Anderson charade must be called into question, as this was certainly his effort in making nice with the elitist snob cartel in order to curry favor in local social circles.

And of course, like time-honored clockwork, the Saffo coronation ceremony was in full swing at last night's event. Perfectly timed with the flash of fawning media cameras, King and Queen Saffo made their grand entrance, expertly working through the crowd of desperate socialites praying for a chance to kiss a ring, cheek, hand - anything - just to be seen among their peers and idols. Queen Saffo was loyally positioned at Herr Billy's side, marionette strings hardly showing, shooting off plastic smiles and accolades - endless hours of rehearsal paying off dividends to that effect. Media robots scurried over each other for the chance to garner favor with their masters with a chance shot of glorious pomp and circumstance - or a couple of witty one-liners, for the sad masses that vicariously prove their worth with pseudo-celebrity mush.

The revelation that Saffo stands to personally profit from the current Skyway Bridge plans had zero effect on his cred as the glittering, shiny-haired superstar of local fame. The desperate throngs dutifully rushed to the polls to proclaim their unyielding support for photo ops and ribbon cuttings.

It didn't take long for the Monday morning quarterbacking to begin Wednesday morning. One morning talk radio show featured the same weekly media hack, positioned for this occasion as an "expert", analyzing why newcomer conservatives such as Joshua Fulton came up short in the race. The agreed upon diagnosis was that he was assumed among voters as being the city council equivalent to Commissioner Brian Berger; conveniently ignoring the historical fact that all outsiders that don't fit the cloned mold of social stalwart and willing idiot to the great power structure of the Wilmington political complex are rejected by voters in Wilmington. Where is the great social payoff in electing someone that isn't a Gold-level member of the Cameron Art Museum? What is to be gained by a limited government candidate not seen at the head table of the GWBJ Power Breakfast events? Someone not affiliated with WID would be a waste of time. After all, what are local elections about if not to serve as a referendum on who carries the most societal credit?

Congratulations Wilmington. You have once again proved without a doubt that you are nothing but an unoriginal mass of society whores, with nothing short of pure disdain for factual and calculated voting based on choosing the best fresh perspectives to solve the issues that face us everyday. A conservative candidate not chosen in this circus of plastic pageantry should hold their head high, and take pride in their intact character.

The Gloves Come Off: Unfounded Accusations - Wilmington Council Race

2011-10-24T12:50:00.002-04:00

It appears that all of the political unrest and animosity that seems to pervade the air we breathe these days, has also settled upon our small corner of America here in Wilmington, and surrounds our city council race. Something never encountered by this writer has also made its appearance. An attack site has been set up to feebly attempt to denigrate and discredit a newcomer to local politics, challenger Joshua Fulton.

Usually sites of this regard are aimed at informing voters of incumbents' records and challenging their veracity on the campaign trail. Some sites in this vein carry a lot of merit, since they can provide a comprehensive analysis on an incumbent's voting record, and draw comparisons between historical fact, and a politically populist message. Such sites can be a quite useful tool in politics, given they are heavy on fact, and light on hyperbole.

However, the website in question at this moment is an abject reversal of such a formula. TheRealJoshuaFulton.com (TRJF) is a caricature of political rhetoric, paranoid fantasy, and hyperbolic dreck. Obviously, the writer goes to incredible lengths to maintain his anonymity; lest he be found out and ridiculed for such insane delusions. Besides efforts to concoct "evidence" that supposedly has Fulton in bed with everyone from radical Islam to Big Labor (also ironically chastising him for his anti-statist views opposing union control), TRJF takes specific aim at yours truly.

If one didn't realize that TRJF was a serious effort to sway the council elections, one may find its claims and accusations humorous, if not downright satirical. However, as it stands, the intent to be serious results in a lot of effort to string together a cornucopia of outlandish, preposterous, and quite psychotic incoherence.

The latest posting from TRJF has The Alliance for a Better Local Economy and myself colluding to control Fulton in a nefarious scheme to exact the evils of better fiscal control of tax dollars, removing burdensome regulations that hinder organic free market business growth, and ridding local government of insider maneuvering that results in corrupt backroom dealings such as what has been now discovered involving our local ABC board. TRJF charges that I myself has the hooks in Fulton, and in fact it is I, not Fulton, that voters would be electing should he win a seat on city council.

Some of Ben McCoy’s positions have validity, there is no doubt there, but if you vote for Joshua Fulton, you are actually electing Ben McCoy. Fulton will just push whatever buttons that McCoy and ABLE desire to be pushed. Fulton will not be an independent thinker.

Never mind the fact that I have contributed no money to Fulton, or any other candidate's campaign. It is nothing more than my swagger and charm that persuades the pliable Joshua Fulton to adhere to my wishes, and carry out my bidding. It certainly isn't that I discovered Fulton along with everyone else while closely watching the council race, and decided that I agreed with his fiscally conservative platform.

It gets even more deranged. The writer produces a letter written recently by Fulton to city employees, that among its many paragraphs, contains the word "profligate". This is then compared to a letter written to city council by myself about a year ago, in which I use the word "profligate" as well. In the irrational and muddled mind of the blog writer, this is apparently hard evidence that I wrote both letters.

The same word, the rarely used word PROFLIGATE appears in both letters. Now, either Ben McCoy wrote both letters, or both he and Fulton enjoy using this word in their “letters”. We, at therealjoshuafulton.com don’t believe in such coincidences. Writing styles are fairly ingrained personality traits. It is our belief that McCoy wrote both letters.

Why the word "letters" appears in quotes, is anyone's guess. But more importantly, the only thing that any of this proves is that the writer of this blog, in all of his rigidly protected anonymity and ambiguity, has a severe deficiency in vocabulary. One can instantly see a clear definition in writing style of both letters, and it is incredibly clear that the two letters were not written by the same hand. The use of the word "profligate" is not noteworthy in any way, and highlighting the use of the word as some sort of evidence that the two letters were written by myself is hilarious.

I would assume that I don't have to say it, but for the record, I had nothing at all to do with Fulton's letter, nor any aspect of his campaign in any way, other than planting a few yard signs.

The cherry on top, is that Fulton is a teacher of creative writing at UNCW. If anything, he should be the one to craft both letters, given his expertise in the practice. I consider myself a student of the written language, and embrace words as my palette. I strive to utilize words that correctly capture the spirit of my views, and enjoy using words that could be considered somewhat uncommon. However, I would not consider the word "profligate" as such - making this entire subject all the more comical.

The clear platform over at TRJF is that of protecting public sector jobs, salaries, and benefits for all within the city. The blogger all but reveals his position as a either an active or retired public employee. This paints a clear picture as to why the sites are set squarely on Fulton as being the sum of all evils in this current election cycle. Fulton's fiscally conservative views are deemed as the ultimate threat, as his position on council could lead to a reduction in duplicative or underperforming staff, minor cuts to city-contributed benefits in some cases, or other efforts to gain more prudent stewardship of the citizen's tax dollars. To the writer of TRJF, this is the ultimate crime, and Fulton must be stopped.

Fulton has made it clear that his intention is not to layoff public safety workers, or cut the salaries of firefighters and police officers who make a mere $32,000 a year. The waste exists in the administrative side, where it is not uncommon for a department within the inner sanctum of city government to have an average salary in the six digit range, when their private sector counterparts make half or even less than that. And even then, he has also clarified that his approach would not be a wide swath of cuts, but a targeted effort to clearly quantify where waste exists.

Fulton's message is gaining very positive traction among the voting population, who are realizing that they are contributing huge sums of money into a system where extravagant salaries and benefits are common; whereas they themselves are struggling to make ends meet in this dire economy. To the faceless minions of TRJF, this is viewed as a threat to their own gravy train, and warrants a last ditch desperate and pathetic effort to undermine Fulton with wild incoherent rambling devoid of logic.

So who is behind TRJF? Clearly, no citizen without any skin in the game would go this far, enthusiastically risking their reputation and credibility to this extent; even vigorously crossing the line into the realm of libel and slander to try and demonize a non-incumbent private citizen running for political office. Even someone as intellectually limited as the folks over at TRJF could see that this site exists to promote a certain mindset to the office of city council. While TRJF is far too cowardly to expose themselves, they cannot help but to offer insight as to who they are with this:

Fulton and his cronies have accused Mayor Saffo and other Democrats of publishing this site, and in their paranoia they state, “This is the old Wilmington Guard fighting to retain power.” This site endorses no political candidate for City Council, there are 3 seats up for grabs and the Mayor. This site endorses no incumbent, or new candidate. We can also tell you that this site is most certainly not run by the “Wilmington Elite”. Quite the contrary.

First, neither myself, nor any other of Fulton's supporters that I have encountered has ever accused Mayor Saffo, or any of his supporters of operating this blog. Saffo is far too intelligent and smooth to lower himself to such unfounded and deranged rambling. Likewise, no one has ever claimed it is the "old Wilmington Guard". TRJF actually manufactures for itself notoriety in claiming that conversations such as these exist, where Fulton's supporters are out there talking about who may be behind it. In fact, the day I discovered TRJF for the first time, the site talked about me discussing who may be behind it. I found that strange, knowing that I was discovering it for the first time at that moment.

TRJF could never be construed as an effort by the Louise McColl controlled aspect of the city council race such as Mayor Saffo; nor an establishment candidate, and seasoned politician such as Haynes, Padgett, or Sparks. The message of TRJF does not in any way coincide with that of Neil Anderson or Napier Fuller, and is far too combative to be affiliated with Ricky Meeks. Frank Meares is basically in agreement with Fulton on platform, and is obviously not behind it. Matt Hinson? A retired city worker for 30 years, who has shared concern about the "plight" of the government worker? Hinson remains the solitary question mark regarding TRJF, and these things have a funny way of coming to light. The coming weeks will be very eventful I predict.

Meanwhile, if some disturbed pseudo-blogger claims that Fulton both worships the devil, and is simultaneously an atheist; while working toward a nuclear Iran, and cementing Big Labor control over every aspect of our lives, while at the same time being a radical anarchist - don't believe the PROFLIGATE hype.

Taxpayer-funded baseball stadium coming whether you like it or not

2011-08-22T11:55:00.003-04:00

WECT is reporting that an email they uncovered reveals that city and county officials have been courting a minor league baseball team conglomerate, Mandalay Entertainment for at least a couple of months now.

Rumblings have abound over the last few years about the idea that something like this could eventually come to fruition, but no direct answers or evidence to anything of substance has ever been confirmed or released by the city and/or the county. In fact, when asked directly recently, several local leaders have given vague responses that merely indicate that no official proposals exist, and that there is no concrete facts to support anything like this being promoted. However, emails uncovered by WECT tell a different story.

WECT reports an email from City Councilwoman Kristi Campos to County Commissioner Jason Thompson asks how the city and county can work together to get underway with the plans to build the stadium, a requirement for Mandalay to bring a minor league team here.

The secrecy surrounding these negotiations, and the lack of media coverage on the subject exist for a very specific reason. The stadium would have to be funded with taxpayer money, in the current poor economy. As if that wasn't enough, officials are even stating at this point that the stadium would not be a financial generator, but a drain on the taxpayer.

"The economic realities are, the stadium in itself would probably not generate enough money to pay the cost of building of the stadium," O'Grady said.

And that's where taxpayers come in.
"This would be something where the public would have to reach into their wallet, someway, in order to pay for it," O'Grady said.

Early projections were that the stadium would cost somewhere in the $18 million range; Mayor Bill Saffo recently stated a sum of $30 million. Other projections fall upwards of $40 or even $50 million. In this economy, pursuing something of this magnitude without any chance of return on investment seems absolutely ludicrous at best.

Surprisingly, even though the plans do not include taxpayers recouping their investment, officials are calling Mandalay's proposal "the best baseball presentation they've seen".

The big motivator for this project is the alleged throngs of tourists, vacationers, and visitors it is promised to attract. To Council member Kevin O'Grady, this not only offsets, but outweighs the negative financial impact and outlook of the project.

When the convention center was under construction, citizens were told that the center would generate revenue, and pay for itself. It has recently been reported that the convention center would operate in the red through 2020.

Additionally, the city has promised throughout the duration of the convention center project, and even to this day, that Room Occupancy Tax funds pay for the center. However, ROT funds only generate $2.5 million a year, and this year, the convention center budget is over $7 million. The difference is absolutely being taken directly out of the general fund.

So with a convention center that can't pay its bills without heavily subsidized taxpayer support, is it logical to dive into yet another enormous capital project that will dig deep into taxpayers' pockets in order to operate it? Where will the money come from? Why has the public been completely shut out from any and all discussions on this matter, and their permission not obtained before moving forward?

The answer to the latter is that taxpayers are completely tapped out, and are having a hard time at their kitchen tables making ends meet. The last thing they want or need is government coming to their door, once again, with hat in hand asking for millions of additional dollars for yet another money-losing project, built only on the promises of multitudes of tourists visiting the stadium.

Baseball has existed in Wilmington for years, and has never produced throngs of patrons. UNCW has an exciting baseball program that draws the best of college baseball from all over the country, and yet empty seats abound at every game. The idea that "sports tourism" is an economic boon to citizens is a myth built on failed logic that big local government progressives continue to push like crack cocaine on the street corner.

City Council candidate Josh Fulton provides a multitude of research and resources demonstrating without a doubt that projects like these cost inexcusably more than any perceived benefit that they generate. The Cato Institute conducted an exhaustive study of professional sports teams and their burden on the municipalities of which they reside. The findings were staggering, including a net loss in wages for the general population; a net loss in jobs and employment opportunities; and the conclusion that in every case studied, the impacts were economically detrimental across the board - and that was a study of professional sports teams, that actually produce loyal fan bases and sold out games.

The net economic impact of these publicly subsidized projects are devastating to a struggling local economy, and yet our elected officials are beside themselves with excitement to get the project underway. Why?

The simple answer is because it is not their money. The large majority of our local elected leaders envision themselves as capital investors and developers with an endless pool of free cash courtesy of the taxpayers generous contributions. Knowing that no free market private sector interest would dare to touch any of these projects given the inevitable manner of which they will continually lose money and produce nothing of any benefit, the only approach is to pour taxpayer money into them. Going to the public and asking for their approval will not work given the outcry against such a project that would ensue, so the only available avenue is force the project on the public without much fanfare or media coverage.

The arrogance and entitlement mentality from our elected officials is quite obvious. Commissioner Jason Thompson states, "This is a 'they're already coming, so we gotta build them a place to live'," and "That's how this deal would go down."

Elected officials who see themselves as investors of other people's money do not worry about repercussions from their actions, given notoriously low voter turnout in local elections. They will withstand the public posturing and outrage once the project gets underway, and then chuckle in delight at election time when the very citizens feigning outrage sit it out, guaranteeing them yet another term to continue the same destructive, failed, arrogant, self-serving, dishonest, and corrupt policies that our local governments have built a legacy of.

The idea of a baseball stadium in downtown Wilmington would be great if private investors wanted to pursue this vision, invest their own money, and reap the rewards. However, everybody with a elementary understanding of investment and economics knows that this would be a huge money loser. The elected leaders cheerleading this project certainly would have nothing to do with investing their own money, and all of the excitement would quickly fade if they were asked to. However, with your money, it seems to them to be a no-brainer, given that there is not a risk - financial or political to them at all. Plus, as history shows, they believe they can spend your money much better than you can anyway, so they are really doing you a favor.

Let's show our appreciation starting this November at election time.

CFPUA Analysis Benchmarks Itself Against... Itself

2011-08-12T09:44:00.001-04:00

The CFPUA hired a contractor to measure their performance, and this week, we got the results. The biggest headline to emerge from this was that the CFPUA has been labeled as being 5th out of 80 organizations reviewed by this firm. However, candidate for Wilmington City Council Josh Fulton points out a section of the report in his blog that says:

“Benchmarking” is a term that is often used in discussions about best practices. There are a number of definitions of benchmarking. In the public sector, benchmarking may refer to metrics, or ratios of some measure. Examples include breaks/mile of pipe, #staff/1,000 customers, $/million gallons treated, and so on. Comparing benchmarks of this nature across agencies is generally non-productive due to differences in circumstances including geography, regional issues, and specific processes. A more productive approach is for a public agency to determine what practice performance benchmarks it will track, establish a current baseline performance level, and to compare its performance to itself over the course of time. This is “Practice Benchmarking” and is the basis for our evaluation of the Authority.

This is our first clue that this group is a little lost on business analysis definitions and function. Benchmarking is the comparing of business activities and performance industry best practices, or the best practices of specific entities. The entire approach is defeated, and produces nothing usable if, as the report admits, it simply compares its practices to itself. This would never work in the free market. If you had the very worst performing company in an industry, and conducted a benchmark analysis where the company is only compared to itself, then you could create a glowing report, that in no way produces any tangible data regarding the organization's performance. Fulton puts it this way:

What they're saying is that they're using no objective measurements, or at least traditional objective measurements. They're simply comparing the Utility Authority to itself. So, I guess they went from terrible to less terrible.

http://fultonforcouncil.blogspot.com/2011/08/is-cfpua-really-5th-best-out-of-80.html

Complete report here: http://www.cfpua.org/DocumentView.aspx?DID=1098.

In this document: http://www.cfpua.org/DocumentView.aspx?DID=1099 it becomes clear that the report writer(s) have no real understanding of basic business and marketing principles. This is astounding when you realize that our biggest quasi-government agency, the CFPUA, paid a whole lot of good money to hire them. For instance, they conduct a SWOT Analysis. They correctly define SWOT - Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats. However, their knowledge apparently meets its limits there.

First of all, each of their categories regularly contradicts other ones. As someone who has conducted real SWOT Analyses in the real world; where free market businesses must stay competitive, offer products consumers want, and maintain a unique presence in a cutthroat market; this is not an exercise to be taken lightly. It is a comprehensive review of not only the organization in question, but its competitors, and the market for which it operates in. Being that the CFPUA is a state-mandated monopoly, a true-to-form SWOT Analysis cannot be conducted in any real quantitative way. It's all smoke and mirrors - and bad ones at that.

Aside from the fact that each category provides no quantitative data to help pave a positive way forward, the "Threats" category is actually fundamentally wrongly defined. "Threats" within the context of a SWOT Analysis, is to examine the threats posed by outside forces of which one has no control over whatsoever. These could be competitive threats, competitor R&D threats, government regulatory threats, legal threats, and so on. The flimsy threats posed by this report simply reflect a rewording of the other categories, and are entirely within the control of the CFPUA.

An organization that provides a report like this in the free market would be out of business overnight. They would be mocked, ridiculed, and held up as a monument to failure. However, the rules are different in government. A company like this with no understanding of business analytics can actually pass itself off as an expert in business analytics, and carve out a lucrative existence.

The contradictions in this report are too many to count. For one, the CFPUA's communication with its customers is held up as excellent when it fits the template, and that it needs much improvement in other places. It even finds that to the CFPUA, customers are regarded as a "nuisance" (http://www.cfpua.org/DocumentView.aspx?DID=1099 pg.13). The solution to this reality is to make customers "advocates", which is laughable given the grossly incompetent and inefficient history of the CFPUA.

The report continues to go downhill from there, as it regularly claims that the CFPUA has excellent customer service, and customer satisfaction - which, as we know as customers of the CFPUA, is absolutely ridiculous.

We are never told exactly how the CFPUA earns its place as 5th best out of 80 similar organizations; but we do get a clear picture as to what happens when a government agency pays good money for a firm to analyze its performance - benchmarks are created that simply compare its performance to itself, and the report always gives a glowing forecast. This is yet another chapter in the very long annals of the absolute failures of the CFPUA.

PR Disaster: When Government Interferes, We All Lose

2011-07-15T15:47:00.001-04:00

The recent buzz about the region's new branding campaign has many of us already gone from scratching our heads, to banging them against the wall. So typical of what government is known for, the issue was that a few elite decision makers in the halls of local government decided on a whim that the storied "Cape Fear" moniker was bad for business. Suddenly a problem was artificially created out of thin air. Just like all other problems that the government creates, the only solution, obviously, is to take money out of people's pockets by force to try and solve it.

The Wilmington/Cape Fear Coast Convention and Visitors Bureau (which will rename itself as well) and the New Hanover County Tourism Development Authority issued a request for proposal last December seeking an agency of record for marketing the region. The RFP states:

FY11-12 budget and scope of work will be determined in April 2011. The total FY10-11 marketing budget is $548,000. The marketing programs, creative and paid advertising schedule for FY10-11 (July 1, 2010-June 30, 2011) is approximately $390,000 and includes the following:
Advertising
Interactive Media
Media Placement
Campaign PPC
Creative Development
Social Media
*Web creative
LINK

When asked, Commissioner Jason Thompson could not provide an immediate answer to "what is the difference between the Tourism Development Authority and the Wilmington/Cape Fear Coast Convention and Visitors Bureau?" It turns out that they are sort of one in the same; and sort of not. Commissioner Thompson did call back to explain; and agreed that it was quite confusing to understand. Perhaps when dipping into the room tax for funding each year, the two entities suddenly become individual agencies? Answers are certainly in short supply.

For the kind of money offered in that RFP, you'd think that we could do better than "Wilmington. River District & Island Beaches". First of all, in these economic times, companies are forced to not only cut back, but to almost cut out their marketing budgets altogether. For the same reason, families and tourists are unable to vacation as they used to. However, there's never a bad time to spend money in government; especially when it comes to things that government was not designed to do or provide.

Our local economy relies heavily on tourism dollars, and because of that, there is a multitude of different companies that serve the tourist consumer. These companies know their brands and know their products, and they are responsible for marketing that message to the consumer. Since when did it become a boilerplate function of government to subsidize these efforts with their own marketing campaign? The reason why this is a self-defeating act is that by only taking money out of our economy can government do anything. Room taxes, charged to the very tourists targeted by these efforts, pay for this marketing. Therefore, to pay for these expensive marketing campaigns, as well as the convention center, and beach renourishment - those taxes have to be pretty high. Paying high room taxes is a detrimental factor to tourists visiting our region. So by extension, it could be said that the more government interference in regional marketing, the less tourism it produces.

Perhaps the most aggravating element to all of this; despite that we got a sub-mediocre effort for over a half a million dollars; despite the fact that "Cape Fear" is a very well known, ubiquitous, and distinctive moniker, and will now be destroyed for no reason; despite the fact that the excessive layers, cost, and clumsiness of government is making our economic plight worse; is the fact that all of this has taken place without the consent of the people that live here, and pay the taxes.

A few self-anointed elites, safely insulated from the trials of reality and the sting of pragmatism; empower themselves intellectual authority over us all, self-declare what is to be our plight, and then prescribe the remedy. Of course, the rest of us are not smart enough to even understand their superiority - much less question it. Since they have dubbed the geographic term "Cape Fear" as being a negative - even though those who grew up with it, and enjoy its uniqueness, and even realize that it is that term responsible in large part for our having any national recognition as a geographic destination; it needs to be replaced with something much more subdued, vanilla, and conservative.

Connie Nelson, of the Wilmington Cape Fear Coast Convention & Visitors Bureau puts us in our place, since scrutiny of the measure simply reveals one's stupidity:

In destination marketing, the primary objective is to promote the destination from a geographical perspective. The secondary objective is to create a sense of place in the mind of the visitors. In this day of GPS technology, it is imperative to lead with an actual destination name over that of an obscure brand name. The beach towns have graciously set aside individual destination marketing to allow the dominant destination brand – Wilmington – to take center stage. For the first time in more than 20 years, Wilmington is being positioned as the lead “portal” through which vacationers locate, consider and eventually experience our vacation paradise. Name recognition is exponentially enhanced by branding the single destination “Wilmington, NC”, versus an obscure name like ‘Cape Fear Coast’.
LINK

Naming our region something that in no way stands out against any other coastal destination out there is the solution to all of our economic problems, and you were too stupid to see it. Thank God we have the downtown elitist machinery looking out for us - who knows what would have happened if we had left the term alone, saved the money, lowered the room tax rate for tourists, and focused on core functions of government only. We certainly aren't intelligent enough to know; and that's just a chance that we aren't willing to take.

LINKS:

Tourism Development Authority taps officers

Tourism Development Authority budget adoption hearing Monday

City of Wilmington - Tourism Development Authority

ONLINE UPDATE: River, beaches illustrated by new TDA logo

Some visitors fond of ‘Cape Fear Coast' name

Connie Nelson of WCFCCVB Reaction to Public Scrutiny

UNC Chapel Hill: "[Cutting taxes] will positively stimulate the State’s private sector economy"

2011-06-07T13:21:00.002-04:00

A self-proclaimed "rigorous analysis" of proposed changes by the North Carolina State Legislature to the state's tax policy, conducted by UNC-Chapel Hill's Kenan-Flagler Business School, found that:

We anticipate additional short term job creation depending on the pace of the overall economic recovery and the individual decisions made by the half million businesses across North Carolina. In both the short and long term the State should also gain more jobs through relocations of new employers attracted in part by a more competitive tax environment. While such job gains cannot be forecast, the overall effect of the proposed tax changes can be assumed to enhance North Carolina as a location for both existing and relocating employers.

The proposed changes in question include:

• Expiration of the temporary 1-cent sales tax
•Expiration of personal and corporate income surtaxes
•Reduction in the corporate tax rate to 4.9% effective tax year 2012
•Reduction in business income taxes for S-corporations, limited liability corporations (LLCs), and sole proprietorships, including exemption of the first $50,000 in non-passive business income from taxation.

The findings in this report; although very similar in nature to that of research conducted through the years by conservative think-tanks such as Civitas; are considerably noteworthy, given the traditional nature of contradicting economic policy supported by the UNC system.

Fiscally conservative economics dictates that basically, the less burden applied from the government to the private sector, the more financial and regulatory freedom the free market will enjoy; resulting in liberated resources with which to hire additional employees, invest in research and development, spend on capital projects - creating a positive economic impact in and of itself, and the more confidence the market projects outwardly and into the future.

The proposed tax policy changes will have both short term and long term effects. Over the next two years the proposed changes will positively stimulate the State’s private sector economy as citizens and businesses retain and use money that otherwise would have been paid as taxes.
Once the tax reduction impacts are fully realized in fiscal year 2012-2013, the proposed tax changes will result in base level economic effects including:
•$2.3 billion in increased NC industry output;
•nearly $700 million in new NC labor income; and
•creation of almost 20,000 new private sector NC jobs at an average wage of $35,969

This report underscores the need for less interference from government, in order to promote a healthier free market economic climate - and put people back to work; thereby getting them off of the state's overburdened unemployment rolls.

Also included, was an analysis of the state's historical position on economic development, which has traditionally been a multitude of expensive government agencies handing out large portions of taxpayer cash to chosen businesses. This has created artificial and short-lived bursts in economic activity, at the cost of billions of taxpayer dollars, that can only be replenished by taking from businesses and taxpayers to repeat the endless cycle. Countless stories of businesses locating here for the handouts, and then pulling up stakes and leaving has been the result; leaving a gaping hole in the economy in its wake.

The devastation is reported here:

As recently as the 1990’s North Carolina’s businesses – large and small - added an average of 66,000 new jobs each year. But over the past decade, despite large investments in economic development programs, organizations and incentives, the State actually lost an average of 9,000 jobs each year.

Perhaps the most point-blank observation is, "...it is very clear that economic development “success” is not the same as a healthy economy". This revelation flies in the face of traditional economic development advocates who believe that a healthy economy is one where an ever-growing government projects more and more influence over the private sector by picking winners and losers with taxpayer cash. The impacts of this long-standing philosophy in North Carolina have been especially devastating.

The failed economic development policies of the new progressives occur at the local level as well. The findings in this report challenge the long-held notion that we must continue to richly fund economic development monoliths such as Wilmington Industrial Development (WID) in order to have a sound economy. Recent news that WID has experienced record revenues, and pays their top executive over $300,000; while unemployment in our region continues to hover at and around 10% shows the disconnect mentioned in the report, that "economic development “success” is not the same as a healthy economy".

Hopefully, leaders across the state will take note, and lessen the overwhelming boot of government off of the neck of the private sector.

View the Report Summary here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/57301664/Rucho-Tax-Reduc-Letter

Special thanks to Rep. Carolyn Justice for providing this report, and for her fearless stance on sound economic policy.

"Free" Money for Downtown Wilmington "Lures" Total Prosperity...Again!

2011-05-31T17:09:00.000-04:00

That's right folks. We are in a once in a lifetime position. The federal government has given Wilmington almost a quarter of a million dollars for "free"! All to patch up Riverfront Park in downtown.

The $247,500 grant is to be used for planning and executing downtown improvements, and was initially earmarked for turning the Thalian Hall parking lot into a park back in 2007. But according to downtown denizen-in-chief and president of WDI John Hinnant, those pesky citizens and their opposition thwarted that plan. This time, the downtown oligarchy will have their way, regardless of any mere wishes from the public. Groups in addition to WDI, including Cape Fear Future and the Chamber of Commerce have decided it's a good idea, and so far be it from the taxpayers of this city to have any say in the matter.

Interestingly, there is no new and enticing argument to garner public support (as if this was something that was of any concern). Downtown talking heads, as well as members of city council are still dragging out the same tired saw about "luring" and "attracting" downtown residents and visitors. Yawn. If I had a nickel for every time I heard this speech being presented as the end all be all to our economic woes - if only we spend a little more money on this development, or that convention center; I would probably have more money than the grant itself.

The new park is being promoted as the great economic savior to the downtown plight, as local leaders let us in on some of their plans, in this Star News article:

What the park will transform into is unclear. The city is open to ideas.

Anyway, at least this federal grant will take us into the great new dawn of economic prosperity:

Although $247,500 is a good start, it's unlikely to be enough to complete all phases of the project, which include park improvements at the Hilton and Coast Guard parking lots. Those phases are a ways off, too, considering the city doesn't own either space, Padgett said.

Well, maybe not. Unless of course we simply purchase the parking lots from the Hilton and Coast Guard! Problem solved!

Hinnant says that more parks downtown will spur development and bring more people to the downtown area. Councilwoman Laura Padgett said that private partnership with the city is critical in this initiative "if it's going to get the desired manicured parks and amenities that draw residents and businesses". After all the money we have wasted, starting with a $35.5 million bond in 2006 on parks and amenities, one would think that it's way past time for a new argument.

The Star News just recently reported that Wilmington-area unemployment continues to plague its citizens. After all of the taxpayer money that has been spent in the last two years on parks and developments and handouts, all because it will be just the thing to "lure" and "attract" businesses and people here; it looks like we still have nothing to show for it - other than taxpayer-held debt of course. Unemployment in the Wilmington area has been hovering at and around 10% for over two years.

The power cabal in City Hall spends most of its time figuring out how to spend more money on the downtown area - and they do a pretty damn good job of pulling it off. However, there's always one more milestone to pass before we finally hit the pot of gold at the end of the great big government rainbow.

The newest idea is that now we need a more downtown-focused marketing campaign. Yeah, that's it. Then those elusive businesses and people will surely come from all over then. Mayor Saffo put it this way, “It’s going to take either all those people coming together to try to identify what they want, or it’s going to take some individuals willing to set out there and bring all those stakeholders together,”.

See? They've got it all figured out. It makes perfect sense. Building a convention center, four parking decks, a huge wooden walkway along the entire riverfront, purchasing every bare piece of land, dozens of parks, subsidizing private development, streetscaping downtown streets, and all other forms of taxpayer-funded enterprise wasn't quite enough to "lure" those darn businesses and people - even though at the time, each one of those projects was "just the thing" that we needed for total economic prosperity, according to our visionary leaders and downtown elites.

But now, we are to forget about the mountains of taxpayer dollars poured into the great gaping pit of government-sponsored downtown central planning, and believe yet again, that these new initiatives are the magic bullet that will finally bring all of that feel-good, utopian happiness to our fair city. After all, this newest project is courtesy of the federal government! The leaders of downtown are so proud of themselves, finding federal money to spend on something; other than just local tax dollars; as if our local taxpayers do not pay federal taxes as well.

Oh, and please pay no attention to the dirty little details like, who will pay in the future once the federal dollars run out; or who will pay for ongoing maintenance and upkeep; or who will pay for additional manpower; or who will pay for new utilities and services; and so forth. Just keep repeating to yourself "free money!" and all of your troubles will go away. Keep reminding yourself what Saffo, Padgett, Hinnant, and the rest keep telling you - that if only we execute this latest taxpayer-funded plan, program, or development; it will be just what we need to "lure" and "attract" businesses and epople to downtown Wilmington!

BREAKING: NHC Commission Passes $4 Mil Land Deal 4-to-1; Barfield Omits Nay Votes

2011-05-16T15:56:00.001-04:00

During the New Hanover County Commission meeting Monday morning, one issue garnering a lot of press was that of the purchase of more than 80 acres in the Smith Creek area for parks and amenities for almost $4 million. Several initial reports stated that the vote was unanimously in favor of the expenditure; however, upon close examination, it was noticed that the call for "all those opposed" by Chairman Barfield was apparently never made, and therefore the lone dissenting vote of Brian Berger, was never heard.

The Wilmington Watcher was able to catch up with Berger immediately after the meeting. "I did not vote in favor of the measure; and since the call for those opposed was never made, I had to check with the clerk to make sure that she had properly recorded my vote against it", he said.

As of this writing, it is not known as to the legality of the procedure, and the omission of the nay votes. Stay tuned to The Wilmington Watcher for updates on this developing story.

The video of the meeting is available online, in which the omission can clearly be seen, as well as Berger's silence during the aye vote. See item #13, within the last minute of the segment here: http://newhanovernc.swagit.com/player.php?refid=05162011-14

Also noteworthy, were the mathematical justifications of such an exorbitant purchase by county taxpayers by both Commissioner Davis and Commissioner Catlin. Davis, who calls those who question these actions "naysayers" and "skeptics", reports that David Swain, who bought the entire parcel that the county is purchasing a portion of, paid $6,255,000 for 140 acres. The county bought 85 acres for $3.8 million; equaling a difference of $27 per acre between what Swain paid and what the county is paying.

Much defense of the purchase was made based on the fact that it is being bought with parks bond money, which is issued debt that must be paid back by taxpayers with interest; a practice that is often criticized by conservatives as being presented dishonestly, as if it is money that has been set aside, or saved for a particular purpose; when in fact, it is nothing but potential debt with interest.

Interestingly, Davis, a Republican, said, "I realize we have this bond money; and I realize we don't have to use it - we don't have to spend it". It is often misreported that since the county has already been issued the bond money that it must be spent; however, the county commission, if being guided by concern for the taxpayer and fiscally responsible ideals, could decide to use the issued funds to pay down the existing debt, and relieve the taxpayers altogether, instead of continuing to spend the money, adding to the principle and accrued interest that taxpayers must pay back.

Commissioner Rick Catlin, also a Republican, echoes Davis by saying that the county got a great deal because if they had to purchase all of the land, instead of just what they wanted, they would have had to pay money for expenses and upkeep while waiting to sell it off in the next year or so.

Parks Director Jim McDaniel reported that the county got "90% of the lake frontage" in the 85 acres that the county purchased from David Swain's 140 acres. By all accounts, the county claims that it got the best land out of the total property, and even admits that Swain could have chosen to develop all of the land as homesites and make a fortune. However, for some reason, Swain purchased the 140 acres, and sold the very best part of the land to the county at cost, for no reported benefit to himself or his business whatsoever; truly a rarity among business philanthropy; especially when taxpayer money is at stake.

Wilm. City Council Votes to Deny Property Rights

2011-05-04T16:36:00.001-04:00

Last night's Wilmington City Council meeting included a much ballyhooed revision to the city's Land Development Code in the Central Business District downtown, which will in effect curb the rights of property owners for the sake of historic preservation. The new rules pile heaps of regulations, penalties, and red tape onto already over-burdened property owners in the sacred Central Business District and historic overlay areas of downtown Wilmington. Buildings, whose owners may deem them eyesores, dangerous, or simply have plans of demolishing them in order to construct new development and new economic activity; must first comply with the bureaucratic process of determining the historic implications of the building, of which will spell out the outcome of its status.

In the ever-present pursuit of manipulating facts with patronization and misinformation, City Manager Sterling Cheatham refers to the resolution as a "citizen-initiated preservation ordinance"; as if it were the people of Wilmington whose wishes suddenly had unprecedented relevance in the affairs of City Hall. In truth, it was initiated by the boards of the Historic Wilmington Foundation, and Wilmington Downtown, Inc. (WDI); two exclusive clubs of highbrow downtown socialites, whose concerns usually involve matters such as whether to use gold or silver embossing on this year's invitations to the finest social gala of the season.

However, these groups exhibit incredible control over the regulations concerning downtown Wilmington; and they like to throw their weight around. WDI, positions itself as an "economic development" organization - that ubiquitous distinction that garners both praise and awe from government insiders, regardless of merit, performance, accomplishment, or activity. The mere mention of the term inspires local elected leaders to become almost giddy with willingness to hand over large sums of taxpayer money to their efforts, regardless of any measurable or identifiable metric of economic development.

The historic preservation ordinance, which passed council's first reading, and will resurface for a second in the near future, was notably rejected by the city's Planning Commission, whose role is to identify and support positive growth and development strategies for the city's future. Their stamp of rejection signals a concern that the added government red tape will inhibit growth.

The preservation resolution also empowers the Historic Preservation Commission directly over a property owner's fate with regard to his/her property. In an incredible shift of power, a property owner who owns a building located within the district and identified as having a historic designation, must appeal to the unelected Historic Preservation Commission to attempt to have the status removed. The Commission may approve or reject the request based on a complicated scorecard that considers the historical significance of the structure.

The new rules offer building height as a carrot to be dangled in front of developers for their compliance with the various aspects of the new regulations. It is even being called "incentivizing"; although the only incentive to be gained is further restriction - but to a lesser degree. However, as is usually the case, government proves disconnected with real-world reality. Several downtown investor/land owners demonstrate the futility of the so-called incentives as recorded in the minutes of the Wilmington Planning Commission's meeting in which support for the new regulations was denied:

Mr. Darryl Barker, architect downtown, stated he has an issue with the added bonus height. A picture was shown about how it would work, but when you get into the actual constructability of some of the setbacks, it is economically unfeasible to do. It is also a problem from a Code standpoint. There’s probably 5 or 6 issues that come into play in building a high-rise which is anything over 75’ to the highest occupied level. One you get above that, the building becomes a high-rise. Therefore, you’re limited to just one extra floor of construction before you get up to the 100’ height limit. There’s really not going to be an incentive for someone to do that when considering the added cost that will be incurred by getting up to that height. He pointed out that a one-story building with good walls and a good roof, if it’s classified, it will forever remain a one-story building. Having a one-story building in the CBD is not economically sound. He is the owner of a one-story buildings on the list and it sits back about 45’ from the street. If he was to tear down that building, nothing could be built in its place. He felt there should be more input from stakeholders and architects to help make it a better process.

Mr. Todd Toconis stated he is a homeowner. He focused on two properties that he owns or owned. The first is 108 Walnut, a bar called Drifters. It was a gas station built in the 1940s or 50s. It is listed as a contributing structure. The last little gas station like this downtown was torn down by the City and is now a park. This proposal will make it very difficult for him to do anything with that property because it sits so far back from the street. If the building was torn down, nothing could be built there. Another property on the list is 110 Grace Street which used to be the entrance to Bob Warwick’s office. He tore that building down ten years ago. It was on this list as a 1935 commercial building. It was a one-story building and he didn’t think there was anything significant about it. That is where the new 8-story Marriott Hotel will be built. If that old one-story building was still there, the 8-story building could not be built there. Only a 1-1/2 story building could be put there. He wants his rights protected, but he saw this as taking his rights.

The Wilmington 20/20 Future Land Use Plan, which serves as the working doctrine for council's actions, states:

Older buildings with architectural significance located outside of protected historic districts are vulnerable to undesirable alterations that could leave an indelible mark on both the structure and the streetscape. The potential loss of craft or irreplaceable materials from a bygone era would have a serious impact on the urban fabric. Therefore, local historic district designation of structures in the other appropriate portions of downtown could help prevent future destruction.

However, examples of such "indelible marks" are in short supply. A property owner may wish to utilize his/her land in such a way that pays dividends in the form of new construction, such as for lease property, office space, apartments, etc. However, this would jeopardize the historic value of the location, if an undesirable - yet deemed "historic" structure had to be removed. According to the 20/20 plan, such private property owner capitalists are viewed as "threats":

With a growing market for new downtown development, potential threats to the urban fabric will increase. Investors will desire higher-density buildings to offset land costs and citizens may fight for historic preservation to maintain a lower-density character and high quality architecture.

Interestingly, the 20/20 plan mentions such denial of property rights in the form of forced preservation as necessary for "economic vitality"; ironically missing the threat to economic vitality that is posed by such nanny laws:

The identification, protection, and promotion of historic resources is critical to maintaining the sense of place that contributes significantly to the quality of life and economic vitality of Wilmington.

Onerous regulation and top heavy restriction for the sake of serving the exclusive downtown elite; to the detriment of economic prosperity and individual rights has become commonplace with the current cabal occupying City Hall. Such burdensome governance highlights the critical importance of citizen involvement in this current year's upcoming elections; and with local government in general.

Balderdash! Poppycock! Tomfoolery! The NHC Commission Saga

2011-04-07T17:10:00.000-04:00

Author's note: I hesitate to write this now because the next great chapter in the pageantry of our elected county officials' shenanigans will be visited upon us shortly; as has been the case day after day for over a week now.

It all started with an interesting email exchange. Commissioner Brian Berger kindly requested all information and scheduled meetings from county staff regarding the county's non-attainment issue. The first response came two days later, and informed Berger of a meeting that was to take place that very day on the issue. Berger questioned why he wasn't told of the meeting earlier in order to make plans to attend; and again requested all materials about the issue to be sent.

About a week later, County Manager Bruce Shell responded that he would have to take a look at the materials before passing them to Berger. This incensed Berger, who expected the materials to simply be handed over rather than needing to be "filtered" through the manager's office. Several other exchanges took place, which led up to the six page email from Berger to county staff, in which he reprimanded them for their unresponsiveness, secrecy, and avoidance of his request. Berger has since admitted to flying off the handle with his elaborate rebuke.

There was also a Facebook posting by Berger which alluded to Wilmington Industrial Development's (WID) hand in county policy, and the county's failed economic development policies. This turned out to be another source of contention.

These issues sparked a level of controversy that still leaves citizens scratching their heads. It wasn't long for other commissioners to openly question Berger's sanity and mental stability. In this Star News article, Chairman Jonathan Barfield mentions the placement of four NHC Sheriff's deputies at the commissioners' agenda briefing, citing concern for his and other commissioner's safety, due to Berger's recent emails. Commissioner Jason Thompson, known for his outrageous antics - most notably threatening the mayor of Leland with a parking lot brawl, and warning him not to soil his Huggies; went on record saying that he was "at a loss" given Berger's actions - even though they were still nothing more than writings through email and Facebook. Commissioner Rick Catlin made efforts to garner support for the censuring of Berger.

One would think that Berger must have struck a raw nerve to receive such an outrageous response from the other commissioners. By and large, the public has seemed mildly interested in the actions of Commissioner Berger, but more enthralled by the dramatic responses of his fellow commissioners. The mention of WID having a definitive and authoritative position in county policy especially seemed to irk commissioners.

However, history demonstrates this as fact. County Manager Bruce Shell regularly alludes to meeting with "industry partners", referring to WID; as well as WID and CEO Scott Satterfield by name, while pondering decisions and county actions. WID represents the county's epicenter of taxpayer-funded economic development activities, and although has had very little to show for the millions and millions in taxpayer money given to it, still plays an integral role in county policy. However, mentioning this fact garners one the castigation of certain members of the county commission.

When examined closely, the complaints of the other commissioners regarding Berger have little merit. Obnoxious emails or not, information that an elected member of the county commission should be privy to was certainly not forthcoming. A myriad of delays and stall tactics were employed; as well as the filtering of information, and withholding of meeting schedules. How Berger responded to those facts is really window dressing when compared to the questions as to why this issue has been so carefully protected from certain eyes that have every right and necessity in seeing it.

To immediately begin questioning Berger's sanity and mental stability; and to try and create some risk of physical aggression from Berger given only his email responses, is, at best, ludicrous. At worst, this is a carefully orchestrated smear campaign aimed at his position as a county commissioner, and the perception that he poses a political threat to the agenda of the other commissioners.

State Law Violated

The latest development, as of this writing, reveals that the commission violated the law when a closed session meeting was called, and minutes were not taken, during the commissioner's agenda briefing last week. Chairman Barfield, who has the authority to call a closed session meeting - but only within the bounds of the law, apparently did not bother to weigh the legal ramifications. When asked what was discussed in Kevin Maurer's piece in the Star News, Barfield mentioned legal issues and Titan. "It is kind of hard to divorce the Titan situation with the non-attainment SO2 issue because they are all wrapped up in one," Barfield said. "We stayed on topic in regards to what we were there to talk about." However, county staff was told to leave the room so that a "personnel matter" could be discussed. The personnel in question happened to be Commissioner Brian Berger; who is a duly elected member of the board - not personnel.

However, after the meeting, both Barfield and Thompson said that they had misspoke when they said that they were discussing personnel issues. Both commissioners proclaimed that Titan was the subject du jour. Mysteriously, members of the media outside of the room could hear heated exchanges between Berger and the other commissioners as it became evident what the true nature of the meeting was.

When the dust settled, Commissioner Thompson stated that they had done nothing wrong, despite the clear evidence of state law being blatantly violated. True to form, Thompson challenged someone to come and "arrest him" and take him to jail if had broken the law, and warned the media to stop "bothering him" about it. Lucky for him, our state laws have no teeth regarding public bodies and their attention to meeting regulations.

Brian Berger's recollection of the meeting subject differed from that of the other commissioners. Berger clearly stated that the meeting regarded the board's relationship, and even talked about how he was lambasted by other board members for his recent actions.

Why did at least two of the county commissioners feel the need to lie to the media and to the public about the topic of that closed meeting? Why did they blatantly violate the law in the first place? Why weren't minutes taken? Why was staff asked to leave? The Star News reports:

The law states that the board cannot "consider the qualifications, competence, performance, character, fitness, appointment, or removal of a member of the public body" in a closed session. Those issues can only be discussed in an open meeting.

Clearly, this was not adhered to. The county chairman is responsible for the content and context of closed meetings. Why is there such a concerted effort to demean, demoralize, and destroy the character and integrity of a fellow member of the board by other board members? Why are Berger's minor actions so scrutinized; while the threats issued by Thompson to Mayor Futch; as well as threats to undermine the duly elected school board by Barfield are given a pass?

This issue is far from settled, and certainly leaves more questions than answers. Stay tuned...

Wilmington Leaders Cling to Ignorance

2011-03-18T11:11:00.001-04:00

The Star News reports that Thursday morning, Wilmington City Councilwoman Laura Padgett and Councilman Kevin O'Grady met with Wilmington's local delegation regarding annexation policy; and specifically, the pending forced annexation of the Monkey Junction area.

O'Grady and Padgett announced that the city has spent $700,000 "preparing" the area for annexation; and complained that the state's involvement in stalling or eliminating forced annexations was a threat to that money; and childishly challenged Rep. Danny McComas to pick up the bill if he supports a forced annexation moratorium.

What's astonishing above all else, is that Padgett claimed that the people of Wilmington should be "furious" with the state's actions in finally stopping forced annexation. Nevermind that in the past election, it was Wilmingtonians that swept conservatives into office in Raleigh, who chiefly promised to stop forced annexation. Conveniently forgotten is the fact that nearly all of Monkey Junction's residents either signed petitions, spoke in public against, or a combination of both, in action against being forcefully annexed by the city.

The reaction back in April of 2009 was huge in protest against the city for arrogantly overrunning Monkey Junction with more taxation despite the absence of any representation for those citizens. For the Wilmington City Council to ignore the will of the public, doggedly pursue its own self-serving agenda, and then to complain when the tides shift against them for once - is ridiculous. For Padgett and O'Grady to make a false connection between their will and the will of the people of Wilmington is delusional at best. It is clear that voters turned out in this past election and made a resounding statement against the excesses of government, and against a city who has always taken what it wants at will, without considering those who fall victim.

What O'Grady and Padgett didn't mention is the city's unwillingness to even complete the infrastructure improvements required by law that have still yet to take place form the annexation in the 1990s. The template has been for the city to take unincorporated parts of the county at will, without regard to the residents, without even worrying about completing all improvements required by law, without assessing any real need for annexation from the standpoint of those being annexed, and without any accountability. This has gone on this way for decades, and represents a gross misinterpretation and willing ignorance of the law.

The state of North Carolina allowed forced annexation for the purpose of serving citizens cut off from city infrastructure; citizens with true needs for improvements that only the city could offer. Wilmington stands out as the prime example of a city who has arrogantly enforced its own rules and ignored the law; clearly annexing folks against their will simply for the additional tax revenues that are gained.

It has been a long time coming, and finally the dawn of a new age has taken root in Raleigh. Legislators who largely campaigned on reforming forced annexation in North Carolina were swept into office, as the citizens finally said enough is enough. The $700,000 bill should not go to Rep. McComas for what the city has spent arrogantly and presumptively pursuing the annexation of Monkey Junction - even though it has been stalled in the court system for two years now. That money should be directly billed to the seven tyrannical misfits on city council that ignored everything rational, and everybody involved in selfish pursuit.

It was never guaranteed to go through from the beginning. Yet the self-aggrandizers that sit in their ivory tower at Wilmington City Hall never stopped pursuing their agenda; never stopped spending - never even gave the courts a chance to rule on the matter. They went ahead with their goals, ignoring the will of the people, and ignoring jurisprudence. O'Grady and Padgett were definitely an embarrassment to the people of Wilmington regarding their behavior in Raleigh; with their immature whining over the responsibility for the situation that they themselves got into - despite the voice of the public in outright opposition.

To even have the audacity to think for a second that the blame falls anywhere else for the expense of this money other than City Hall, is delusional at best. The taxpayers of Wilmington deserve better. While O'Grady continues to tote out the well-defeated line that forced annexation keeps taxes low for city residents - history continues to object, and categorically shows this to be untrue. City taxes have gone nowhere but up, and will continue to do so as long as this cabal of disconnected and selfish simpletons have their way.

Will this finally be the year that Wilmington votes in representation that isn't an outright embarrassment to our city?

Incestuous Politics Costing You Millions

2011-02-23T14:34:00.001-05:00

A recent article in the Star News, "Cape Fear Future - Advocates' visions differ on area's direction", paints a very good bird's eye view of one of the many so-called "economic development" organizations that local taxpayers fund every year here in New Hanover County and the City of Wilmington. However, the article falls short in digging into the issue very deep.

Connecting the dots from our political establishment to these groups means following the money - and that can be a difficult task. It also means understanding who the key players are, and what their roles are in the community. Once these things have been established, it is hard to come to any conclusion other than the fact that we have an incestuous iron-clad political/business/media machinery in operation that dictates virtually everything about our lives, economy, and information we receive here in Southeastern North Carolina.

As has been reported right here on The Wilmington Watcher, Cape Fear Future (CFF) is a function of the Wilmington Chamber of Commerce; based on a consultant's direction - for a price of $250,000. The idea of the organization is to "further develop the Cape Fear region’s Knowledge Sector Economy to promote economic development and ensure the future prosperity of the region" according to the Chamber's website. The idea is that creative and knowledge sector jobs are what will save us all. Part of that recipe is to attract a larger gay community, according to Dr. Richard Florida, the highly paid consultant behind the creation of Cape Fear Future. Nothing against the gay community - but do we want our government using our money and resources to actively pursue such a thing? Is this an appropriate function of government?

It is important to look a little deeper in this issue in order to understand what is going on. Cape Fear Future has positioned itself as the new kid on the block; the younger, hipper economic development agency; the elite group of chosen visionaries who will guide us out of the economic darkness and into prosperity. The method used is through pursuing "knowledge sector" jobs, and advocating for educational ventures. Whereas venerable, powerful economic development cartels such as Wilmington Industrial Development (WID) focus on attracting and establishing industrial and manufacturing jobs by dangling taxpayer-funded incentives carrots in front of prospect corporations - Cape Fear Future claims to contrast this with a more forward-looking agenda. However, a study of the people involved in both groups paints an interesting picture.

Cape Fear Future is guided by a 47 member board, whose roster can be found here. When compared to the membership of WID, an interesting trend is noticed. The majority of the CFF board members are either members of WID, or have their specific company or business interest represented in both organizations. In fact, several of the CFF board members are voting members on WID's board of directors. CFF and WID share executive roles as well. For example, Jack Barto, President & CEO of New Hanover Regional Medical Center, is both Chairman of Cape Fear Future and the Vice-Chairman of WID, according to WID's list of 2010 directors here. Jim Bryan, Regional Executive V.P. of First Citizens Bank, is a board member of both organizations. Scott Satterfield, the well compensated leader of WID, is, you guessed it, another voting member of Cape Fear Future. WWAY reported a while back that his taxpayer-funded salary reaches beyond $300,000. Eric McKeithan, President of Cape Fear Community College, of who it was just revealed makes $334,000 thanks to taxpayers, is yet another board member of WID and member of Cape Fear Future.

And then there is the media. Bob Gruber, Publisher of the Star News is a member of both WID and Cape Fear Future board member. Gary McNair, General Manager of WECT, is as well. Andy Combs, G.M. of WWAY, is a member of the CFF board. So if one is expecting fair media coverage and a glimpse into the inner workings of these organizations, one should not hold their breath.

In fact, out of the 47 members of Cape Fear Future, the majority is represented in one way or another within WID, calling into question the true separation between the old industrial-focused economic development group; and the new, "forward-thinking" and "visionary" "knowledge-based" and "creative" sector organization.

WID has traditionally been led by the elite corporate and industrial magnates of our region. This is understandable as their work consists of delving out taxpayer incentives to corporations such as GE and Hitachi. But Cape Fear Future is purporting to be the agents of change, riding the wave of the future, and implementing new strategies to attract the jobs of tomorrow. However, under the same leadership of the hospital administrators, bankers, publicly-funded academia, and other bureaucratic types that control WID; how is it that their economic focus is supposed to be entirely different?

In fact, Cape Fear Future has been so ineffective, that even the same city council that slapped itself on the backs for being so revolutionary in having a hand in their creation, is questioning their abilities. In this article by the Star News, Councilwoman Laura Padgett said of Cape Fear Future, “It hasn’t produced any specific additions to the community”. She also makes an interesting point that Cape Fear Future closes its doors to the outside world, despite a $20,000 contribution by city taxpayers. “They are a closed group of people. You can’t just go sit in on their meetings. You have to be invited”. Mayor Bill Saffo stated that city council needs to get more involved with Cape Fear Future - despite the fact that he is a charter member of both organizations; apparently alluding that he doesn't want to assume that duty upon himself.

So is it helping the community economically to have a myriad of taxpayer-funded alleged "economic development" agencies using the public's money to go off in their own chosen direction, without any accountability, without any benchmarking, and without any transparency? Is it a good thing to have two organizations - one claiming to be the industrial economic driver; the other claiming to be the wave of the future, attracting creative class and knowledge sector jobs - yet both having the same leadership at the helm? Economic data loudly says "NO". According to the NC Employment Security Commission report here, all of 2009 and 2010 reflected an unemployment rate in our area of around 10% give or take. Now into 2011, those numbers seem to be holding steady.

Even though the data is lacking in support of publicly funded economic development agencies' efforts, that isn't stopping the pursuit of taxpayer dollars for such endeavors. Nor is the cheerleading from public officials waning. Several local organizations have been pushing hard for a taxpayer funded local arts council that would serve to obtain both state and federal grant money for government subsidized arts projects.

The Cape Fear Economic Development Council (CFEDC), the only known privately funded economic development group; and other publicly taxpayer-funded groups such as Do it Downtown (DID), Wilmington Downtown Inc. (WDI), Downtown Business Alliance (DBA), and of course Cape Fear Future held a meeting on Tuesday night to garner support form the community for the arts council. Their call for tax dollars would equate to a $50,000 contribution from the city and the county for a total of five years; or a grand sum of $500,000 - what they refer to as "seed money".

A colorful array of corporate magnates, investment bankers, and successful entrepreneurs led the call for more tax dollars for what they consider to be a viable economic driver. However, when confronted about investing their own money in such an endeavor, all but one, Tom Harris, owner of Front Street Brewery, balked at the notion. One of CFEDC's leaders Bill Graham told a packed audience, fairly diverse for and against support, that we have "an emergency on our hands", referring to the window of opportunity to create and initiate the arts council in order to obtain state grant money by April of this year. More on that meeting and the issue in general soon.

The situation in the theoretical sense can be summarized as the attempt to equate the use of taxpayer dollars into some sort of economic return for the taxpayer. However, there has never been a decrease in the tax burden due to the activities of these organizations. In fact, taxes have continued to climb. The total amount of money that city taxpayers have contributed to cultural, recreational, and economic agencies is more than $2.78 million - just since 2008. New Hanover County taxpayers have contributed twice that amount to outside agencies and economic incentives - over $5 million since 2009. For what local leaders refer to as modest investments for our economic health, have become enormous drains on taxpayer resources. At least there is one group, CFEDC, that operates without a hand in the taxpayer's pocket. If only others could take note.

Should we be content with our taxes continuing to increase in order to keep funding initiatives that have demonstrated no real economic growth? Initiatives that host our same elected leaders who sit on their boards, being the ones lobbying and voting for their funding? Agencies who use taxpayer money to pursue unknown goals, and then use their positions as political motivation at election time in order to support certain officials who favor their cause? The taxpayers of this community deserve more respect and appreciation than to be insulted and abused in this manner.

Berger on Economic Development & Other Scandals

2011-02-15T16:50:00.000-05:00

Last week, New Hanover County Commissioner Brian Berger called a hurried press conference in order to share his thoughts with the community regarding the county's economic development policy, in light of the strategic planning session the county commission recently completed with the Azimuth Group; a Texas firm hired by the county at a cost of $36,000 to taxpayers.

The press conference, which was held at the government center, was advertised virally through email mere hours before the conference was to take place. Several media outlets and 15-20 citizens gathered to hear the newly elected commissioners thoughts. Berger generally covered the traditional methods of economic development employed by the county, and talked of other issues brought up in the strategic planning sessions. Commissioner Berger also shared his ideas regarding the creation of a task force to oversee and make recommendations pertaining to the way in which money and resources are deployed to outside firms in the name of economic development.

However, the media template quickly became something altogether different. Berger sent the word out about the presser through a third party; who had a last minute death in the family; and so word didn't reach the rest of the commissioners until an hour or two before the conference was to begin. One was out of town and the others had previous engagements, and could not make the event. Several dissatisfied emails made their way to Mr. Berger's inbox courtesy of his colleagues regarding the last minute notice. Smelling blood in the water - or at least hoping for such - the local media quickly focused on this as being the story. Headlines like "Berger irked other commissioners" and other such dramatic titles were quickly dispensed. The uncanny sense of selective reasoning that the media displays all too often took hold in a desperate effort to sensationalize rather than report.

Politicians' faces are a familiar scene to almost every engaged American. Turn on Fox News, CNN, ABC News, or any other 24 hour news outlet, and one cannot miss the panels and interviews consisting of various elected officials weighing in on the topic at hand. Such media appearances are coordinated hurriedly and without much fanfare. Calls are placed to officials' offices, and staffers coordinate the interview sometimes within hours of air time. However, one step notably absent is the approval of other fellow officials that serve in similar capacity. A Congressman from Georgia may be a guest on one show - but it is understood that his appearance was coordinated without the consent or even knowledge of other members of Congress. However, this has never been an issue.

Here at home, Commissioner Jason Thompson makes regular appearances on talk radio and other media, but doesn't "clear" these actions with his fellow commissioners - nor should he have to. Chairman Jonathan Barfield regularly sends out an email newsletter to citizens - and the content included is from him and him alone. No other commissioners have any hand in it. But when Brian Berger makes a showing in the media without the approval of his fellow commissioners, it's frontpage news - why?

Brian Berger was elected after an unconventional campaign. Berger is an unconventional candidate. He believes in unconventional things. He fights very unconventional fights. He doesn't fit the mold of what we have traditionally had as county commissioners. He replaces one of the longest standing good ol' boys of all time - Bill Caster. In short, Berger rocks the boat; and having him running around knocking over apple carts without the consent of those who want to micro manage and control his every action simply won't do. Berger makes the status quo uncomfortable - and the last thing they need is for him to appear rational, in charge, and bearing good ideas. How dare he share new "unapproved" ideas without others' allowance - nevermind that he clearly stated he was there to speak on his behalf alone, and did not speak for the board as a whole.

Chairman Barfield recently unbelievably offered the local media the chance to "partner" with the county commission; whatever that means. At first glance, one would interpret this as being some sort of deal with the devil where news is filtered through a government lens, and only articles appearing friendly to the government "cause" would pass muster. Barfield's mentality in this regard should hardly be viewed as one even in tune with the purpose of the media - so forgive me if I entirely shrug off his position on such things.

If the press was interested in actually reporting instead of creating, then the taxpayers and citizens of this city and county would be aware of our current economic development policy, and the extravagant cost to taxpayers for less than mediocre results. For instance, page 83 of the current adopted budget for New Hanover County states that a total of $5.48 million of taxpayer funds have been given away to outside economic, cultural, and recreational agencies just since 2009! The budget for the city of Wilmington reveals that a half a million dollars has been given to Wilmington Industrial Development (WDI) since 2008; not to mention millions given to other hidden organizations in the name of economic development.

Our local unemployment rate was hovering at and around 10% two years ago. Today, our unemployment rate hovers at around 10%. Millions and millions taken from local taxpayers to fund these so-called economic development agencies, who are completely unaccountable to the taxpayer, and we have nothing to show for it. In fact, Mayor Bill Saffo has recently said that "we are in a jobless economic recovery". Somebody needs to communicate to him that without jobs, there is no economic recovery. The CEO of WDI makes over $300,000/year funded by you and I against our will or consent. In contrast, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is paid $186,000/year for negotiating and executing US foreign policy.

With our local governments perennially whining about shortfalls and deficits come budget time; the time is long past due where we need to evaluate our local economic development policies and procedures. Organizations receiving taxpayer funding should be subjected to a stringent set of regulations in order to continue to receive funding. An audit conducted by a reputable out-of-state firm that goes back at least 10 years in scope; and that reports on the political implications of the public funding received by these agencies is a good start. To sign your name to a petition to put guidelines in pace and hold these agencies accountable, click here: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/wilm-transparency/

These issues need to be brought to the public's attention; but as long as we have a local media corps more interested in tabloid journalism and sensationalism, don't bet on it.

Media/Political Establishment Take Aim at Berger

2011-01-26T12:03:00.001-05:00

The Gushing Continues...

A recent Star News article titled "Decade-long plan on New Hanover Commissioners agenda", by Kevin Maurer, who just joined the newspaper earlier in January, talks about the recent strategic planning session facilitated by a consultant for a cost to taxpayers of $36,000. Maurer, a quick study in the ways of slanted Star News editorializing, quickly uses the opportunity to divert the subject from the mission of the commissioners to the commissioners individually - namely Brian Berger, who he takes gratuitous potshots at. A move sure to get him in the good graces of Tricia Vance and Bob Gruber, whose mission is to use the paper as a bully pulpit and propaganda mill for the local establishment.

Maurer states,

Berger, in particular, has been at the center of the board's shifting politics after winning a narrow election on a platform of changing the status quo. While his message resonated with some voters, a few of his fellow commissioners said he is too focused on politics and beholden to a minority in the county.

The obvious spin is evident in the statement that Berger won a "narrow election". Berger, who did receive a few less votes in the initial primary against Bill Caster, within the realm of recount, handedly defeated Caster in the primary runoff. In the November general election, Berger and Rick Catlin soared to the top of the list to win decidedly over Deborah Butler and Sid Causey. According to the Star News' own figures, Berger won with a total of 31,403 votes; second to Catlin with 37,095. According to the official election results published by the Board of Elections, the final numbers were: Catlin: 37,592; Berger: 31,846; Butler: 24,647; and Causey: 24,516. Hardly a narrow victory for Berger, who clearly won by over 7,000 votes.

The article continues by suggesting that a few of his fellow commissioners believe Berger to be "beholden to a minority in the county". Berger, the second highest vote-getter, who won his seat with a definitive victory, had the clearest message on the campaign trail; a message that obviously resonated with voters, hence his win. The Star News clearly exposes itself as a biased media source by implying that Berger accidentally slipped through the cracks, and only answers to a lunatic fringe; hardly a distinction that they dare apply to Catlin, who beat Berger with a smaller percentage than that which Berger defeated Butler by.

It is clear, by the virtues of sheer reason, that it certainly was not a minority who aligned with Berger's message of smaller, less intrusive, more efficient, and less costly government - but a large percentage of the electorate, who have grown sick and tired of local government's self-serving, expensive ways. Berger would do well to satisfy those who got behind him; something politicians have done since the beginning of time - answer to their constituents. Somehow, no doubt because of Berger's unconventional ideals, the Star News suggests that he not serve with those in mind that elected him, but rather play ball and conform to that which he campaigned against.

The article continues,

"We are going to need to have consensus on how we get there and going into the strategic planning it can't be about a political agenda. It has to be about what is best for the county," said Chairman Jonathan Barfield, the only Democrat on the board. "There are 200,000 citizens here and if you look at the election that Mr. Berger got elected in and it is just a small fraction of those citizens actually voted in that election. I think when you start making votes that appear to be on party lines or a particular group's agenda, it thwarts the progress of the county."

Barfield's idea "consensus" is go along to get along, and don't make waves. He apparently believes that he and he alone has the monopoly on understanding what exactly is best for the county as a whole, even though his is an agenda that has led to higher taxation and a bloated government. Furthermore, Barfield suggests that those who aligned closely to Berger during the election season are invalid distractions that need not be heeded. Barfield is advocating for mob rule, and desires for Berger to abandon principle, and get with his program, already in progress. Although he himself answers to those who elected him, Barfield believes that the same should not apply to Brian Berger. Barfield's idea of "thwarting the progress of the county" is voting against his personal agenda, and being an advocate for less government and lower taxation, principles which were cornerstones of Berger's campaign.

The Star News continues the assault,

Berger, who defeated Caster in a runoff to get on the ballot, said he is still working to grasp all of the issues facing the board, but defended his approach to the board.

"The learning curve has been very steep and I have a lot to learn still," Berger said. "I am trying to be reasonable, rational in my approach to issues . ... I am hoping the other board members respect where I am coming from and I certainly respect where they are coming from."

The suggestion is that Berger has to "defend" something. Standing for what he does is invalid, and therefore not defensible. Forget that his explanation of his positions is in no way defensive, the Star News says it is, because their goal is to discredit, malign, and marginalize those who do not conform to their extremely biased views.

On the other hand, Catlin shows promise as far as the Star News is concerned. He has been a government insider for better than 20 years, and will certainly get on board with the Barfield/Star News way of doing things. The subtle approval of his positions is apparent:

Catlin, on the other hand, said getting up to speed is not an issue.
"On a number of issues, I am ahead of the curve," Catlin said. "It is not matter of being up to speed, it is a matter of doing my due diligence."
Catlin has focused a lot of his work on coastal and environmental issues like new air quality standards. He thinks the board will gel soon, especially as members work more closely in the coming months on the strategic plan.
"We are all different. I focus on the issues and the problems and not on the personalities," Catlin said. "Their hearts are in the right place and we probably have more in common and I will try my best to make it that way."

The presentation of Rick Catlin is in huge contrast to that of Berger. Catlin has it together, is dialed in, knows the issues, and is doing his job well. Plus, his extensive experience in environmental issues is of utmost importance, and validates him as a politician well-deserving of the almighty Star News' favor.

It takes Maurer 2/3 of the article to actually get to the subject mentioned in the headline. However, the ink and time invested in the attempted destruction of Brian Berger is well spent, and closely aligns with the underlying mission of the Star News. In his short stint thus far, Kevin Maurer is no doubt quickly gaining the affections of the top brass over at the Star. Ignoring facts for the lure of spin and distortion is a cornerstone of what passes for journalism, and Maurer shows promise. Discrediting local leaders with any conservative leanings has become a timeless tradition, and no doubt a badge of honor that the Star News holds dear.

Wilmington Arts Council? Hold onto your wallet...

2011-01-17T17:10:00.000-05:00

Armed with new vigor, social "progressive" activists in both the private sector, as well as several elected officials, are pitching hard for another Wilmington Arts Council - yet one more taxpayer-funded bureaucracy to further bloat a ridiculously over-sized local government with excesses and expense.

Typical arts council schlock -
what would we do without
stuff like this?

The original Wilmington Arts Council fizzled out in 2002; however, we are assured that this one has the keys to success. What exactly are those keys? Well get this - economic development. That's right. An arts council whose secondary focus is the arts. As if economic development weren't a term that already commits us to more tax obligations every budget year, than anything else that government does outside of core services. Currently, both the City of Wilmington and New Hanover County dole out piles of our cash every year to agencies completely unaccountable to the taxpayer, in the name of almighty "economic development". Groups like Wilmington Downtown Inc.(WDI), who regularly hosts arts functions downtown in the name of economic development. WDI utilizes tax dollars to market small one time exclusive art viewings, music shows, theater, and other entertainment under the guise of "economic development" - and does so without the inconvenience of ever having to prove that such activities benefit the taxpayer in any substantial way. WDI, an economic development agency, seems to have economic development as its secondary focus, and art as its first. They have tried to push the "art = economic development" model for years, and they still aren't even self-sufficient.

Wilmington Industrial Development (WID) is another agency whose prime objective is economic development. The city and county both have an iron-clad contract with WID that holds the taxpayers responsible for their funding for years to come. Hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars are absorbed by this group, made up of hundreds of local business and political power players; who operate comfortably out of the pesky view of the public. Who needs all those people poking around wondering where their money is going?

The new Wilmington Arts Council is going to be focused on tourism as well, as if this is some undiscovered territory that holds the key to unlocking all of the secrets to fixing or local economy. The city and county both fund the Wilmington/Cape Fear Coast Convention and Visitors Bureau who already man the task of tourism development. We now need an arts council to supplement their efforts?

Philip Gerard, who sits on the arts council steering committee, and who is of course a professor at UNCW in the creative writing field, said “Wilmington is missing out on major dollars,” referring to the lack of an arts council; which, according to Gerard, is the reason for our financial plight.

Back in 2008, Wilmington City Council prescribed a taxpayer-funded survey by the NC Arts Council, whose findings determined that the Cape Fear region should in fact create an arts council within the next 12-18 months, and appropriate a budget of over $200,000. Imagine that - and arts council being paid to survey the need for a potential arts council finds that yes - we need an arts council.

Knowing that money is tight right now, and spending has gotten out of hand, the steering committee is trying to sell its bill of goods under the economic label - even touting that an arts council would equate to jobs. Using the language of the times, their argument is amazingly gaining traction. The committee claims that 5% of the area's jobs are in the creative industry, and therefore, an arts council is needed. They tell us that we have seen an "incredible drain" of artists and creatives since 2002, and therefore, an arts council is needed. "It's an economic development issue", recites City Councilwoman Laura Padgett from the playbook. Interestingly, she has urged other members of city council to view funding the arts council as an "investment", which has positive connotations with the current cabal in power.

Making capital investments with tax dollars seem to be what elected leaders on council pretend that their job consists of. Just ask Mayor Bill Saffo, who just received an award for his visionary leadership and capital risk for the convention center project, in which he used other people's money, against their will, with no risk to himself whatsoever. Wilmington City Council views itself more as a private sector board of governors; yet they are not required to earn their revenue through pesky private sector constraints such as "supply and demand" and "competition". Theirs is taken by force and spread around at whim like candy to whatever feel-good project happens to be on the front burner at the time.

I love art. I am an artist myself. I know many artists, I am married to an artist, and art is a way of life for my wife and I. However, never have we had a conversation that consisted of our artistic endeavors being in any way restricted by a lack of a taxpayer-funded arts council. Of all of my artist friends - not one of them has ever mentioned that "if only we had an arts council, then we could pursue our art". Art is a tough way to make a living. Many factors are involved - not the least of which consists of finding a location that is affordable, so that the pittance one receives through his/her creative ventures has the ability to provide for their sustenance. Not having as many artists in our area is not a symptom of having no arts council, it is a symptom of having too many councils, and boards, and authorities, and convention centers, and economic development agencies, and all of the other progressive projects that take money away from that which local government must provide.

Our crime rate is embarrassing. Our streets are deteriorating. Traffic is mayhem. Every government-controlled board and authority has been rife with problems, constantly needs more of our money, and cannot seem to do their job properly. Now they are telling us we need yet another one. Artists are leaving because they can't afford it, and they could go somewhere else that runs efficiently, making their lives easier.

Arts council serve no purpose other than another notch in the resumes of those in power who try and outdo themselves everyday by spending our money on feel-good projects that they can attach their names to. The $200,000 a year required to fund this organization is a large amount of money that we don't have - money that could go toward roads and public safety; both of which are in dire need of attention. But those aren't sexy projects that get anyone's name on a plaque, require a photo-op, or a much-hyped ribbon cutting ceremony.

You want more art and artists? Cut government to the bone across the board. Attend to that which government should be focused on. Artists everywhere will see a beautiful, well-managed, affordable river city; friendly to their cause; and flock here, as they once did.

Giffords Tragedy Becomes Political Helter-Skelter

2011-01-13T11:58:00.000-05:00

This past Saturday, January 8th, I had the misfortune of reporting live on the radio what was right then breaking news; that an inconspicuous Congresswoman from Arizona had been shot in the head by a lone crazed gunman. After announcing the unspeakable tragedy that occurred, I prognosticated what type of political melee this event would devolve to, and how the right, the Tea Party, and the leaders in conservatism would be blamed for this. Turns out, I was not only right, but underestimated the level to which this would take place.

The facts about the incident were convoluted with conjecture at that time - and little has changed. However, we now know more about the shooter, Jared Loughner.

Loughner was an apolitical individual according to his high school friend, Zach Osler, who said on ABC's Good Morning America "He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn't listen to political radio. He didn't take sides. He wasn't on the left; he wasn't on the right.". We now know that Loughner had an obsession with Congresswoman Giffords that went back as far as 2007; before any type of newfound Tea Party existed. We now know that Jared Loughner was a cultist of sorts with shrines and skulls and what-not in his backyard. We know that he liked conspiracy theory documentaries. We know that he was a fan of Hollywood psychological thrillers that delved into the darkness of man's consciousness, such as "A Scanner Darkly" and "Donnie Darko". We have found out that his reading list consisted of the father of communism's writings, Karl Marx; and Hitler's Mein Kampf. The guy is disturbed beyond comprehension; and if the initial argument was that the Tea Party influenced his actions; since we have found out that he absorbed no Tea Party rhetoric or followed conservatism in any way - then can we shift the blame to that media which he did consume - the mad rantings of paranoid tinfoil hattists, megalomaniacal dictators, and Hollywood schlock?

We know that Gabrielle Giffords is a former Republican turned blue-dog Democrat; hardly the type of divisive, Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi-type leftist that would be the focus of Tea Party ire. She is a staunch supporter of gun rights, and supports tougher border security. Gabrielle Giffords was virtually unheard of to people outside of Pima County, Arizona in this past election season - because she did not fit the template of the most liberal candidates that the Tea Party fought at a national level.

Given the overwhelming evidence of fact, it is not only logical; but absolutely conclusive to deduce that the right, the Tea Party, and/or conservatism at large had absolutely nothing to do with the actions of a crazed lone gunman who committed a reprehensible act of violence.

We also now know that the left-leaning media hotheads will never let facts stand in the way of paranoid delusions that they themselves evaluate as having political progress and gain attached to them. Virtually everyone from Keith Olbermann (who was on the air when the gun barrel was still warm) to our own Tricia Vance and the Star News editorial board has weighed in on this, attempting to blame the right and the Tea Party for this tragedy.

Some of the most ridiculous allegations arise out of the blogosphere; such as a blog with the official-sounding moniker "American Chronicle", in which the writer who calls himself "Christian Church" writes:

Conservative Tea Party Activists from the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas say they will picket the funeral of Christina Greene, the 9-year-old girl who was murdered in cold blood during the Tea Party sponsored assassination rampage in Tucson, Arizona last weekend.
Gifford now lies in a hospital after Tea Party activist Jared Loughner shot and wounded her. Six others, including a federal judge and Christina Greene, were murdered by Loughner in cold blood. Tea Party activists in the state are calling the murder spree an "event." And they are using publicity from these murders to fundraise for their cause. Some Tea Party activists have pledged to use the money they raise to help defend the killer in court. Many Tea Party activists are calling Loughner a "hero." http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/210649

These allegations are so unbelievably absurd, that they border on libelous. Referring to the insane Westboro Baptist Church crowd as "Tea Party activists" defies all logic. The extreme religious group is known for their hellfire and brimstone approach to all that they deem immoral, and regularly chant and wave signs that read such absurdities as "God hates fags" and the like. However, their motivation is not and has never been political; but merely religious extremism. Church offers no proof or evidence of his claim that Tea Partiers are using this incident to raise money, defend the killer, or are referring to Loughner as a "hero". That his paranoid and divisive mind can concoct such allegations seems to be sufficient enough to publish such dreck.

Here locally, the all-seeing, all-knowing Star News editorial board was quick to offer its wisdom on the issue, dutifully plagiarizing on the leftist template as of late, and exploiting the tragic death of 9-year-old Christina Green to futilely defend their position:

But the incident sparked a long-overdue national discussion, and it’s worth asking: What kind of example are we setting for the Christina Greens of the world when what passes for political discourse in this country consists of name-calling, foot-stomping refusal to compromise, schoolyard-bully tactics and putting elected officials “in the cross hairs,” even figuratively speaking?
Other candidates, including Southeastern North Carolina’s Ilario Pantano, staged campaign events around weapons and used gun lingo in their speeches and campaign platforms.
Someone who disagrees with us on a political question is not merely wrong but an evildoer who hates this country and wants to hand it over to terrorists. “He’s a communist.” “She’s a wingnut.” “Take back America!” As if one group of Americans has a greater right to the country than the rest of the citizenry.
All that shouting threatens to silence the voices of reason, and that in turn hurts our democracy. http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20110111/ARTICLES/110119942/1108/editorial?p=1&tc=pg

Our "democracy" is actually our Constitutionally-limited Representative Republic. Part of that distinction consists of a Constitution, which affords a Bill of Rights to citizens; among which the very first being the right to free speech. Posing a more severe threat to us all would be to limit or regulate what free speech is - which is apparently what the Star News is advocating for.

In the aftermath of the rampage perpetrated by Major Malik Nadal Hasan in Texas, the left was forgiving, even coining a new medical term to explain his actions - "pre-post-traumatic stress disorder". The president and other leaders of the left urged restraint of the national discourse. We were told to not jump to conclusions. We were informed of Hasan's "demons" and even suffered his being painted as some sort of social victim. Hasan was a Muslim, and fit the mold of someone which would draw the sympathy and defense of the left for his actions.

When Amy Bishop, the socialist, vehement Obama-supporting professor at the University of Alabama Huntsville shot and killed three of her colleagues at work, the story was virtually buried in the media. There was certainly no allegation that leftist rhetoric played a part in her actions, and the difference was that the right agreed. We were all able to chalk up that tragedy as nothing more than a psychotic sociopath acting out her evil on others.

However, when a person fitting the exact same psychological profile; with a history of disturbing behavior; and even stalking his victim for years shoots a Democrat member of Congress, suddenly restraint is out the window. Conjecture is king. Blame is delivered to political enemies with haste. Emotional response become fact. Rhetoric becomes discourse. Insanity becomes reason.

To blame the right, talk radio, the Tea Party, or any other faction of conservative media or vehicle for the actions of Jared Loughner; when no such connection exists even in the slightest regard; while giving a pass to that which he did consume on a regular basis, and which could conceivably incite rage and violence in an unstable individual, such as the mad ravings of documentary filmmakers who blamed the Bush administration for 9/11 and the world's ills at large; the darkest of Hollywood's psychological films; and the insane writings of madmen - is absolutely ludicrous. It is a position that defies rationality and reason. It is a precedent which must consume one's credibility in order to proceed.

The American political left suffered a sounding defeat in this past election season. Their tired message of "social progress" still comes without jobs, wealth, prosperity, freedom, or well-being. Their discourse does not connect with the American people at large. They have not been able to show any positive gains in any area of our society as a direct result of their political positions. They are desperate, and have devolved to investing everything they have left into attempting to tear down and destroy their opponents with libelous innuendo and irrational delusion. They work to try and regulate the very voices and opinions of those whom they disagree with. They attempt to manipulate the rule of law for their own agenda. They gladly sacrifice Representative Giffords, and any other victim who fits the template on their ill-conceived altar of political gain. Their mission is not to try and apply their message in a potable manner, and lift themselves up; but rather accept their position at the bottom and attempt to pull down their opposition to some sub-level below even themselves, with the desperate hope that in the end they will finally connect with the citizenry, after destroying all other avenues of thought that stand in their way.

Convention Center Advisory Panel Stacked with Insiders

2010-12-09T17:24:00.002-05:00

The Star News reports that the Wilmington City Council is looking for "more community input" regarding the operation of the convention center through its Convention Center Advisory Committee (http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20101207/ARTICLES/101209707/1177).

So what do they do? Stack the committee with the same key players that sit on boards like the Chamber of Commerce, Wilmington Downtown Inc., the Planning Commission, and many other influential and powerful public boards and commissions:

The council voted Tuesday to appoint six members to the Convention Center Advisory Committee, but they also directed the city attorney to review the provisions for the committee to see if the council could add more at-large members.
Mayor pro-tem Earl Sheridan suggested the city consider adding more members on the board to get a better representation of the city as a whole. The committee includes the executive director of the visitors bureau, a hotelier in the Wilmington Convention Center tax district, the CEO of the Greater Wilmington Chamber of Commerce, a representative from Wilmington Downtown Inc. and two at-large representatives.

Those key players are none other than Dale Smith, Louise McColl, Kim Hufham, Connie Majure-Rhett, Jackie Hodge, and John Hinnant. These folks all have been appointed to other boards by this same city council, and in some cases, multiple boards.

Louise McColl, who has gained notoriety as of late for her involvement in securing taxpayer money for the Gravely commissioning events such as "pub crawls" and plenty of fine dining for local V.I.P.s;, sits on the board for the Golf Course Advisory Committee, as well as the Cape Fear Community College Board of Trustees. Kim Hufham, Exec. Director of the Visitor's Bureau, sits on the Sister City Commission. Connie Majure-Rhett, in addition to her new role on the convention center board, is also the CEO of the local Chamber of Commerce, as well as a member of the heavily taxpayer-funded Southeastern Economic Development Commission. John Hinnant, Executive Director of Wilmington Downtown Inc., another heavily taxpayer-subsidized organization, is a member of the Downtown Parking Advisory Committee in addition to his new duties.

One may ask why in the world our elected leaders are so afraid of regular citizens. Could it be that they simply already have a pre-conceived agenda, and therefore need warm bodies friendly to their cause to simply play ball? All signs point to "absolutely".

It looks as if the convention center, and its careful masters, are in no danger of community input regarding its operations after all.

Chamber Awards... Itself

The Star News also reports that the Chamber has just given out its annual Business Achievement Awards (http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20101209/ARTICLES/101209640/1177?Title=Chamber-presents-achievement-awards&tc=ar). Wilmington Mayor Bill Saffo, Bill Sharbaugh of PPD, and Rob Kaiser, Publisher of the Greater Wilmington Business Journal were the recipients. Most notably, these men are all members of the Chamber of Commerce's Board of Directors. So when the Chamber searches for local business leaders to give awards to, it seems to really narrow the field by keeping it strictly within the bounds of its own organization.

Kaiser, in addition to serving on the Chamber, is also a member of Wilmington Industrial Development - yet another heavily taxpayer-funded organization. Saffo was awarded for his work on the convention center - even though his capacity is that of an elected official - not a capital investor, or free market visionary. His ability to spend other people's money well, against their wishes, must have been recognized as the key element in his deserving of the award.

What's the lesson here folks? It seems we have quite a cozy relationship between politicians, committee appointees, and taxpayer-funded organizations. Like any animal, they have learned to rely on each other for their own existence. Like a well-oiled machine, they constantly serve themselves and each other almost simultaneously; operating on the principle of quid pro quo; existing only to validate each other's existence, and to achieve the ultimate goal - gaining more power, influence, and more of your money.
________________________________________________

Please add your name to this petition, demanding that taxpayer-funded economic development agencies submit to accountability and transparency standards, so that we as taxpayers know where our money is going and what we are getting in return: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/wilm-transparency/

Wilmington Downtown Inc. Needs Your Cash

2010-12-09T09:50:00.001-05:00

In a recent email sent out to his entire list, Wilmington Downtown Inc. (WDI) Executive Director John Hinnant had this to say:

Please encourage the City of Wilmington to increase its investment in downtown economic development.
Give the City of Wilmington your input on spending priorities by completing a short online exercise at www.cityofwilmingtonbudgetchallenge.com by December 14. In less than five minutes, you can complete this brief exercise. I also encourage you to forward this email to all your friends and colleagues.
Please feel free to use any of the sources below if you have questions or would like additional information. Thank you in advance for your participation.
More information:
On the web: www.wilmingtonnc.gov/budget

WDI is one of the cornucopia of duplicative so-called "economic development" agencies that receive a chunk of taxpayer handouts every year, and contribute to the reason taxes went up across the board for both city and county residents this past fiscal year. The City of Wilmington defends its funding of WDI and others with the argument that outsourcing economic development is cheaper than doing it themselves. But what actually constitutes as "economic development"?

According to its website (http://www.wilmingtondowntown.com/), WDI is still promoting the tree lighting ceremony of Nov. 26th; an event called "King's Run", a 5K and 15K race through Wilmington in remembrance of Martin Luther King, Jr.; and various self-promoting of WDI's new iPhone app, and other social media. This is what is so important for taxpayers to fund year after year; and the reason for Hinnant's shameless email begging for more money.

It was recently reported that Wilmington is facing a $6 million shortfall in the upcoming budget, and the local media never reports the fact that the amount of debt owed the city reaching upwards of $30 million.

Taxpayers are doing all they can to keep their homes and feed their children in this economy; and the well-insulated taxpayer-subsidized groups such as WDI cannot see past its own self-interest, and self-perpetuation; and are certainly never too proud to keep asking for more.

In addition, how do we know the efforts of these groups actually equate to economic development?

Economic development creates jobs and a more robust and vibrant economy. How many jobs have tree lighting ceremonies and fundraisers created? The city never holds WDI's feet to the fire to really prove its existence, and justify its funding. Hinnant and WDI take advantage of their comfortable position of doing nothing but self sustaining activities, knowing that they will never have to prove that they are really developing the economy; and have gotten so arrogant, that they are asking for more money, despite this current economy (which, ironically, should be in considerable better shape thanks to "economic development" agencies); and despite the city's position of debt and deficit hitting enormous levels.

In this day and age, local government's do not need any economic development organizations that operate on taxpayer money. They should instead focus on fostering a more business-friendly climate, and offer a more streamlined government that operates on less. Another local, taxpayer-funded "economic development" organization, Wilmington Industrial Development (WID), pays its director over $320,000 a year! That's more than most key positions in the federal government, such as Secretary of State, the Vice President of the US, and many others. Meanwhile, they have accomplished nothing of any significance, as we still have unemployment hovering around 9% plus.

Paying these organizations to do nothing but sustain themselves, host private functions, and promote small local activities for tons and tons of taxpayer money that could go toward public safety and other much needed uses, is far beyond irresponsible. The amount of money paid to these directors is vulgar, and serves as an insult to the struggling taxpayer that must fork over their money for these causes. We need to rise up and do exactly the opposite of what Hinnant is demanding - that our governments withhold ANY and ALL funding of these organizations.

The Gravely Chronicles Part III: Spin Baby, SPIN!

2010-12-01T16:44:00.000-05:00

The saga continues.

The Star News finally released their contribution toward the USS Gravely local funding fiasco on Tuesday. http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20101130/ARTICLES/101139971/1177?p=1&tc=pg&tc=ar

In the aftermath of the USS Gravely commissioning, several folks are still trying to get a total accounting of what our $50,000 was used for. The Star News received a vague report regarding some of the expenses:

About $25,000 for a fireworks show. More than $15,000 for transportation expenses. Another $2,000 to give hungry sailors their first taste of North Carolina barbecue.

Originally estimated at three weeks for a full report, the Gravely committee has revised their timeline:

Scheu said he expects the committee will provide local governments and the media with an accounting of the taxpayer funds later this week.

Again, there are several key factors apparent in this issue. First, the Chairwoman of the Gravely Committee is Louise McColl, campaign manager to both Mayor Saffo and Chairman Thompson. It was McColl who received the taxpayer money for the committee from both the city and the county.

...government critic Ben McCoy, points out that commissioning co-chairwoman Louise McColl is politically connected and has managed election campaigns for Wilmington Mayor Bill Saffo and New Hanover County Chairman Jason Thompson.

"It wasn't long ago we had both governments on hands and knees begging us for more money," McCoy said. "A couple of months later, the boss walks into the room and says: ‘I need $50,000' and it's no problem."

McColl did not return calls for comment.

According to the Star News, local officials have stated that citizens critical of the political implications of this maneuver are "missing the big picture".

They say the event was historic for the Navy and Wilmington, showed the area's support for the military and generated tourism revenue and good will for the Port City.

Those benefits are well worth the $50,000 cost, officials say.

First of all, it is a known fact that the US Navy had chosen Wilmington for their location to commission the Gravely regardless of Louise McColl's ability to use her underlings in power to rob the taxpayers of $50,000. They were coming here anyway, which negates any argument for the money being spent in the first place. Second, the Navy operates on federal taxpayer money - I'm sure that they are quite accustomed to paying for the expenses of their sailors without being subsidized by local taxpayers wherever they port at any given time.

Jason Thompson, known for his charming wit and razor sharp intellect, had this to say:

"The people who can't see that are shortsighted with ignorance and spite and can't look at the common good,"

Ignorance. Spite. Can't look at the common good. These are qualities that your elected official bestows upon mere citizens begging at the gate for a little transparency from their all-powerful and superior government who governs from above, more learned and intelligent than the rest of us; we the peons - who know not what is best for even our own good.

The "common good" is a mantra of those big government types who wield power with an iron fist, and look down with disdain upon those whom they lord over with the politics of self-interest and personal consumption. This is the oligarchy; the chosen ones whose mere existence far surpass those of us who live to serve their wishes, who bask in their glory; who pine for their favor and charity; who beg at their table like dogs. Jason Thompson, ringleader to this elite establishment, and a legend in his own mind; scoffs down at you and I from his perch high above; warning us to cease any inquiry into their actions - for they are all for the common good; something that they have monopolized; and we know nothing about.

Thompson and Saffo say the local governments made money from the ceremony through sales and room-occupancy tax revenue, and that the high-profile event brings recognition to the area, boosting its reputation, attracting more tourists and bolstering the local economy in the future.
Thompson said the county calculated the estimated economic impact of the commissioning, which showed that the county will get a 21 percent return on investment for its contribution.

Who would dare challenge the power cabal with an argument like that? Never mind that increased revenue through room and sales taxes merely go directly to government, and in no way lessen the continued burden of taxpayers; and let's ignore the fact that terms like "bringing recognition to the area" and "attracting more tourists" cannot be measured, proven, or in any way ever tied to the $50,000 in taxpayer funds given to a political operative. We'll overlook the idea that this event "bolstering the local economy in the future" is a vague and baseless argument that will never be quantified, and is nothing more than feel-good lip service from governments who have made it their number one priority to deliver propaganda ahead of all other services. And when the county issues mathematical equations that show that the more taxpayer dollars are given away to non-essential functions, the better off we all are - you'll just have to trust them; since if you've been paying attention, you're already aware that they know what's in your best interest far better than you.

"Anytime I can give a dollar and get back two in real dollars, I would think the taxpayers would want to do that every time," he [Thompson] said.

Wow! Everything you ever thought you knew about money has been rendered obsolete. The great economists are all wrong. Financial experts have been put to shame. Jason Thompson has discovered a secret that no one has ever figured out. If you give Louise McColl one dollar, you get two dollars back in return! This is amazing! Why didn't he just say so in the first place? Hey - I've got an idea! Let's raise property taxes to 100% - give ALL of the money to McColl - we'll all be rich! What? Oh... you mean he completely fabricated that illusion to try and dissuade the public from investigating his little investment with our money? Whatever money generated in the economy was not because of our $50,000, given that they were coming here anyway? Shucks.

Scheu said the money donated by the city and county represented less than 25 percent of the total budget, with the rest of the money coming from private donations. The StarNews was one of about two dozen sponsors.

So the total budget for "pub crawls", drinking binges, all-night partying, gluttony, and other economic development initiatives was over $200,000? That's got to be quite a lucrative venture for Ms. McColl. She is chairwoman after all - one can't just invest that much time and effort organizing keg deliveries and how many cheese balls to have made without being fairly compensated. I wonder if we'll ever know the truth about how much exactly that figure is? She did tell us at the last County Commissioner's meeting that no matter what, she's not going to stop bringing commissioning ceremonies here to Wilmington. Sort of a career planning move on her part.

Minus our $50,000 so generously given by our visionary leaders, the committee would have had over $150,000 in private donations to play with according to their figures. One would think that this would be quite enough money to set up a pretty serious bar tab. The ship contained 283 sailors - divide that by $150,000, and each sailor has an entertainment budget of a paltry $530.04. With the involuntary contribution of unemployed taxpayers facing foreclosure on their homes in many cases, that figure jumps to $706.71 per sailor. Now we're talkin'. Like my Grandfather always said, "If you can't get over 700 bucks in free money to party with over a weekend, there ain't no sense in joining the Navy".

Thanks Louise. And thank you Jason and Bill. Without your impeccable guidance and courageous leadership, that money may have been wasted on something stupid like public safety; thereby helping us move out of #97 of most crime-ridden cities in the US - on a list in which Los Angeles is #158. But at least now we understand that without taxpayer-funded pub crawls, our economy would be in the toilet.

Gravely Accountability to Taxpayers? Not So Fast...

2010-11-24T13:04:00.003-05:00

$50,000 in taxpayer money to entertain sailors and wine and dine Wilmington's social elite? Sure - no problem. Accounting for where exactly that money went, what it was used for, and if any of it is left over? Good luck with that.

The issue is not with the US Navy; nor is this in any way a commentary against our fair city being honored with commissioning a new Naval Destroyer. This is about the political implications at the local level regarding this event.

It bears repeating, that Louise McColl, Chair of the Gravely Commissioning Committee, and incidentally campaign manager to both the head of our city government, Mayor Bill Saffo; and county government, County Commission Chair Jason Thompson; was easily granted $25,000 each from both governments for entertainment purposes related to the commissioning, which occurred this past Saturday, November 20. In the wake of this event, it has proven quite difficult to find out exactly what taxpayer money was used specifically for.

In an email to county and city leaders, your humble blogger made an official request for a complete accounting of what taxpayer money was used for:

Mr. Thompson & Mr. Saffo:

Since both of you saw it fitting and necessary to give 50,000 in taxpayer dollars to your campaign manager for the Gravely commissioning, I am formally requesting a line item statement of all expenditures that said money was used for, along with receipts; and a statement of how much money is left over, and what happens to it.

I assume that your respective managers had the foresight to request that such records be kept for auditing purposes. Taxpayers and citizens are entitled by law to know where every dime of their money goes.

Thank you.

Mr. Thompson, apparently irritated by such a request, responded as such:

You are right. There is a process prescribed by law to get said information. I suggest you follow it. If you need assistance with said laws please advise.

After a couple of emails parrying back and forth, Thompson had this to say:

Actually we gave the 25k to the friends of the battleship nonprofit. Louise McColl didn't get anything from us.

According to county documents, this simply isn't the case. The County Commission agenda item specifically references the USS Gravely Commissioning Committee was to receive the $25,000, as seen here:

Not only that, the funds used were contingency funds, set aside for emergencies and so forth. Apparently the official definition for "contingency" has been expanded to include pub crawls, steak dinners, dancing, mini-golf, movie passes, and ballroom galas.

After being confronted with clear evidence that it was the USS Gravely, not the Battleship North Carolina that received the funding, Thompson re-stated his position with:

Where does it say we paid Louise McColl? Until you ask or comment about something in the world of reality I for one am done discussing this topic with you.

The animosity toward a lone citizen merely requesting that taxpayer money being used for an outside function be accounted for, is quite apparent. It seems that the chosen few inside the well-protected political fold can easily obtain subsidies from taxpayers; and subsequently be guarded against having ever to account for what exactly that money was used for. Unfortunately, the law is on the side of the hidden political interest - not the people. Greg Roney of the General Assembly Research Division, explains the law in an email:

An organization which is recognized by the IRS as tax exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code must make its federal tax returns available for public inspection. The federal tax returns would include information about expenditures. The organization does not have to provide public access to its books and records. The IRS has a helpful discussion on public disclosure at the following web site: http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=96430,00.html. If the organization is incorporated in North Carolina under the North Carolina Nonprofit Corporation Act, then North Carolina law requires disclosure to members of the organization.

The local news media has been silent on the entire issue, until WECT reported yesterday:

WECT was referred to Louise McColl, the committee chair. While she was not required to report back on the committee's spending, after repeated media requests, she notified the New Hanover County budget department that she would provide documentation.

From: Louise McColl [mailto:louise@mccoll-associates.com]

Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 9:16 AM

To: Griffin, Cam

Subject: Re: gravely

It will be at least 3 weeks. I will let you know what the 25000 went toward. Have them contact me/Dave

Phone calls to McColl were not immediately returned. Late Tuesday night she replied that she would not be available for an interview until all invoices had been returned. She briefly discussed the large expense that putting on such an event incurred and promised that her company, McColl & Associates did not "make a penny" off of the event.

Until McColl's itemized budget comes in, no one can be sure, specifically, which activities and expenditures public money was used for. At her city council presentation, McColl listed a variety of activities such as fishing, the pub crawl and volleyball for the sailors. However, various other expenses involving transportation, food and security could also be on the list.

Full Article: http://www.wect.com/Global/story.asp?S=13560499

Unfortunately, McColl has the law on her side by remaining silent. As a 501(c)(3) non-profit, the committee's expenditures do not have to be disclosed to the public. However, this law should absolutely not apply to taxpayer money. If public money is given to an organization of any type, the public should have absolutely every right and opportunity to see where every single dime of their money goes. At least one member of the NC General Assembly has expressed interest in taking a closer look at this law, and possibly changing or modifying it to allow for full disclosure of taxpayer funds.

In her email response reported above, it looks as if McColl is only planning to account for $25,000 of the $50,000 that she was given, and reluctantly at that. Organizations and committees should be not only willing, but absolutely forthcoming with their books regarding taxpayer money. It's the least they can do to since the good taxpayers have funded their operations. Citizens being treated harshly or vilified for demanding transparency and accountability regarding what their money is used for is completely unacceptable.

UPDATE: In an email from New Hanover County Manager Bruce Shell, I was told that the county has requested an accounting for their $25,000 portion given to McColl, and that I will be copied on that once it is received. No word still from the City of Wilmington. WWAY has now joined the fray: http://www.wwaytv3.com/first_3_update_your_tax_dollars_and_gravely_what_exactly_did_you_buy/11/2010

The Airlie Authority - Preservation Easement Hides Bigger Agenda

2010-11-16T11:07:00.000-05:00

In just a few short days, the issue of an Airlie preservation easement has appeared on the radar, and generated a much public interest. The Wilmington Watcher exclusively reported to you from the New Hanover County Commissioner's agenda briefing meeting concerning the discussion the commissioners had regarding the issue. After concerns were addressed by Jonathan Barfield, Jason Thompson, and to some degree, Bobby Greer, the resolution passed unanimously at Monday's 2PM meeting of the New Hanover County Commission.

In an email from Commission Chairman Jason Thompson last week, after the agenda briefing, the Wilmington Watcher was told that "I felt like there were four no votes as presented." However, at Monday's meeting, all concerns suddenly quieted - the resolution had no difficulty receiving a unanimous five vote passage.

The final version of the resolution had some minor adjustments. Language that stated that the county would maintain the facilities in as good or better condition than they are now - was changed to simply reflect "as good condition". However, the primary concerns present in the resolution still remain intact. The Airlie preservation easement resolution still lays significant groundwork in establishing complete authority over Airlie in the hands of the Airlie Foundation, even though the county owns the land, and taxpayers fund Airlie's operations.

What is most noteworthy about Monday's meeting, is that after a public outcry to table the issue until the new commissioners could take their seat, no commissioner listed this as a concern before his vote. The Airlie resolution was carefully crafted by the Airlie Foundation and Ted Davis, and strategically placed on the agenda just in time for the last meeting featuring Greer and Caster - a safe vote for the wishes of the Foundation.

Also noteworthy, is that before the item was discussed, Ted Davis put on a pre-arranged production with County Attorney Wanda Copley by asking her if he had a conflict of interest in the issue, since he serves on both the Airlie Foundation and the county commission. After a long-winded explanation wrapped in what seemed to pass as legal definition, Copley said no. Not overlooked was the fact that Davis conveniently omitted the real issue that is a definite conflict. The issue of his being a member of the Corbett family, who sold Airlie to the county, and who still controls it. Copley never made any attempt to address this in any way.

After mildly manipulating the language in the resolution to appease certain commissioners and their faux concern, the resolution had no trouble gliding through. Public comments were not arranged until after the meeting when all votes had been taken, and commissioners were safe from the pressure of the public's will in rendering their decisions.

The effects of this resolution will keep the money flowing in from taxpayers to the Airlie Foundation - which is not forthcoming with their books; and how much of public funding is used to host out-of-work actors and wine and cheese galas so the local social elite can parade through, noses high, and appease their sense of civic engagement. Any attempt to reverse the decision would require a majority vote by the commission to undo the preservation easement - which would certainly cause a public backlash. Who would want to be responsible for removing Airlie from preservation status? However, such would be the only way to save the taxpayers money in tough times. With the resolution, the Airlie Foundation wields the unprecedented power over Airlie, and is relieved of any obligation or incentive to seek outside funding, or become self-sufficient in its operations.

The people of New Hanover County were patronized with a huge money grab and power shift cleverly shrouded as a "preservation easement". The Airlie Foundation is unelected, and therefore unaccountable to the public, so the public can easily be shut out from all inside occurrences, spending, and budgetary decisions by the Foundation. Surely there will be a couple of washed-up actors on hand at a soirée thrown in Ted Davis' honor for his unrelenting work securing "free" money for the Corbett family and the Airlie Foundation. The other commissioners will certainly be invited as well, for seeing the light and bowing to the wishes of those with whom their power is derived, and who they owe their political careers. They have served their masters well, as the emptiness of taxpayers' wallets will attest.

BREAKING: NHC Commission to Vote on Binding Resolution to Tie Taxpayers Hands to Airlie Indefinitely

2010-11-11T10:23:00.001-05:00

In an unbelievable move at the county commissioner's November 10 agenda briefing meeting, item #17 on the November 15th meeting of the New Hanover County Commissioners attempts to rush through a binding preservation easement between New Hanover County and the Airlie Gardens Foundation. Commissioner Ted Davis, Jr., did not mince words when he said that he thought it was important for the board to go ahead and pass this before the two new commissioners take their seat. "No offense to Mr. Berger or Mr. Catlin", Davis said.

Clearly acting in typical lame duck session form, Davis sees more of a chance of passing this resolution with Bobby Greer and Bill Caster, long-time proponents for taxpayer funding of Airlie Gardens. "This is what the citizens want us to do," said Davis.

What wasn't discussed was that Ted Davis, Jr. is cousin to Albert Corbett, of the infamous Corbett family, the same Corbett family considered to be Wilmington royal elite; and the original sellers of Airlie to New Hanover County.
http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20041210/COLUMNIST02/41210008?p=2&tc=pg

Davis is acting as head cheerleader for the resolution, and did not issue any plans to recuse himself from the vote due to the obvious conflict of interest. In fact, when Commissioners Barfield and Thompson weighed in with reservations on the issue, Davis coolly replied that the Foundation would like to see this passed, and is requesting a unanimous decision of the commissioners.

The resolution, which can be found below, creates a binding deed of trust with the Airlie Foundation, in which gives complete control of the property to the Foundation. It also allows the Foundation to hold the county legally responsible for its funding. When the Airlie Foundation was originally constituted, the expressed intent of it was to seek out and obtain other sources of funding to sustain the gardens. http://www.nhcgov.com/AgnAndDpt/CCOM/Documents/Committees/Airlie.pdf

This current resolution attempts to remove any incentive for the Foundation to ever seek any alternative sources of funding, and ties Airlie Gardens to the taxpayer of New Hanover County indefinitely. State law prohibits a county commission board to bind future boards to anything, but being that this is actually a legal binding document, i.e. deed of trust, preservation easement, they may have found a loophole. The resolution also mandates that the county maintain the property and its resources at the same or better condition as they are now.

Ironically, several commissioners at the meeting kept repeating the sentiment that "this is what the citizens want us to do" - however, the citizens duly elected two new commissioners just over a week ago, and therefore it would seem that the public would rather the new board handle controversial issues such as this. This is a clear case of a lame duck session trying to force through a binding and lasting resolution that will tie taxpayer's hands to fund a project indefinitely.

Davis and the Airlie Foundation have a profound vested interest in the passing of this resolution. This would give the power completely to the Airlie Foundation (although the county purchased the gardens from the Corbett family) as to the fate of Airlie. In addition, the Foundation has complete legal authority to hold the county responsible for taxpayer funding. If the county decides it can't afford to fund Airlie in the future, there are legal repercussions that the Foundation can seek against the county.

This resolution is a bad deal for taxpayers, and a clear conflict of interest for County Commissioner Ted Davis, Jr. Commissioners Barfield and Thompson attempted to show some backbone and issued reservations, but were promptly put back in their place by Davis when he notified them of the Foundation's wishes. An air of reverence and fear descended upon the two dissenting voices, and collective support for the resolution was restored.

The public has expressed that it would like to see Airlie protected. But never has anyone in the public expressed the desire for a binding resolution and deed of trust that spans into the indefinite future, binding taxpayers forever. The public likes the idea of the Foundation constantly seeking alternative sources of funding, and there has been a loud cry for Airlie to become self-sufficient. For the commissioners to proclaim that they are doing with this what the public wants, without giving the public sufficient time to even become aware of the issue, or what is in the document is preposterous. It is obvious that Davis and the Foundation fear that the public would understandably not support this motion, would reject it outright, and that time is definitely not on their side. This why they seek to rush this through immediately, before the next commissioners meeting December 6, when Brian Berger and Rick Catlin take their seats as the two new commissioners.

The next meeting in which this resolution is to be voted on is scheduled for Monday November 15, at 2 PM at the old courthouse downtown, in the commissioner's chambers. Please write your commissioners and urge them to table this until the new board takes their seat, and the public has sufficient time to weigh in and issue their thoughts on the matter.

Email addresses for the commissioners are:

jthompson@nhcgov.com
jbarfield@nhcgov.com
tdavis@nhcgov.com
bcaster@nhcgov.com
bgreer@nhcgov.com
Agenda 2010 11-15-Airlie Easement

McColl's Navy: The USS Gravely Commissioning

2010-11-09T11:30:00.003-05:00

As reported in the Wilmington Watcher, Wilmington City Council kicked in $25,000 to Louise McColl's PR firm for the entertaining of sailors, crew, and "dignitaries" affiliated with the forthcoming commissioning of the USS Gravely here in the Port City. Not to be outdone, and certainly no surprise, the New Hanover County Commission has followed suit as well, with their contribution of $25,000 to McColl, for a grand total of $50,000 for entertainment expenses.

McColl, campaign manager for Mayor Saffo, Councilwoman Tomey, and County Commission Chairman Jason Thompson had a relatively painless time obtaining the loot. In the case of the city, as previously reported, the agenda request for the funds was officially asked for by Mayor Saffo, according to City Manager Sterling Cheatham's agenda request, on behalf of Ms. McColl; certainly sparing her the time and effort necessary to put forth such a request.

In the case of the county, the agenda item to approve the funds was also unanimously approved, after a dazzling presentation by the Co-Chair of the Gravely Committee, Captain Dave Scheu (See the agenda here: http://laserfiche.nhcgov.com/weblink8/0/doc/1149032/Page1.aspx). McColl lurked behind the scenes, and had no obvious involvement in this request; although in the case of the city's funding, she initiated the original request letter to City Manager Sterling Cheatham.

One of the most obvious of unanswered questions is why was this project never put out to bid by either local government entity? McColl simply assumed the role of Chairwoman for the committee, easily got the funding, and the rest is history. The lesson here seems to be that it really does pay to sit on many public boards, and also serve as political consultant and campaign manager for as many local political figures as possible. When the time comes for a financial shot in the arm, your charges will certainly no doubt come to your rescue and deliver the funds without delay.

The entire event, though it may be a shallow, emotional, feel-good sort of honor; is being touted as an economic savior, by city and county officials alike. WWAY reports:

County finance director Avril Pinder says the money spent on the USS Gravely commissioning is a return on investment and it will make a huge impact on the local economy. Pinder says every time you spend one dollar, it is spent 2.5 times in our community. It's called the multiplier effect. Based on $1.5 million in sales tax, that would mean the community would generate $3.75 million.
WWAY Article

The question of the veracity of the funny math used in such equations aside; how does general fund taxpayer dollars spent in an elite circle of political allies ease any burden on the taxpayer himself? We have no reason to believe that Wilmington would not have been chosen anyway, even if the local taxpayer was spared from footing the bill. The United States Navy probably spends $50,000 on toilet paper every 4 minutes - certainly they could have easily paid for this event.

The truth is that we didn't give them the chance. McColl and her army of expensive self-assigned do-gooders were there from the get-go promising goodies and perks all under the thinly veiled guise of "economic development". A portion of the money spent by visitors during this event will find its way into local shops and businesses, no doubt. But the tax rates and burden to the taxpayer will remain the same - if not increase given recent history. The money generated will have to be used to pay down a looming tax bill. This money winds up in the same hands - politicians - no matter how you cut it. More money to spend on boondoggles, unnecessary projects, and soirées thrown by political insiders. The taxpayer's burden is in no danger of lessening in any way, and will surely ultimately increase as more and more of the public treasury is wasted on frivolous items. Politicians often use terms like "return on investment" to ease the public's concern - when they really mean a political investment, where the spoils return to from whence they came. Taxpayers will always be on the short end of that stick.

When questioned about the public's support of the funding on The Big Talker 93.7FM's Morning Beat with Chad Adams, Chairman Jason Thompson self-assuredly stated that the people elected him, so by extension, that equates to public support of this and every decision that he renders. Thompson apparently believes that his elected position insulates him from any accusations of bad decision-making or poor leadership while serving on the board.

Wilm. City Council Uses Taxpayer Money to Prop Up NAACP; Assume Expenses for Building

2010-10-05T17:06:00.000-04:00

The final city council meeting in September was certainly an eventful one. As reported earlier by The Wilmington Watcher, Louise McColl was able to score a chunk of taxpayer dollars for her coffers, but council wasn't through being generous, or doling out the goodies.

The Cape Fear Area Resource Center (CFARC) has been in a financial mess for some time now. Finally, when they couldn't hack it anymore, they came to the taxpayers of Wilmington for help. Since they were leasing a building from the City of Wilmington, they respectfully requested to have the lease terminated and all responsibilities thereof be terminated as well. Also requested, was that the city kick in $20,000 to assume the payments on their installed phone system. The ordinance passed unanimously; however, that's not the end of the story.

The local chapter of the NAACP, a well known political organization who holds political rallies, voter registration drives, etc.; holds space at the location as well. City Manager Sterling Cheatham seems to wrestle with the ethics of the agreement, and then rationalizes it in his proposal letter to the city council here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/38780224/CFARC-Proposal

On page 5 of the document, CFARC lists its revolving monthly expenses and other liabilities. Note how the monthly payment for the phone system is $572.00. If the $20,000 that the city is supposedly paying for the phone system is only really being used for such, that would cover the phones for 35 months. It seems unlikely that they would continue such an expensive phone system in a building that is being vacated; however, the NAACP is still there. Are these funds covering phone expenses for them as well?

City Manager Cheatham mentions in his proposal letter that the city is putting the building on their insurance, meaning of course that city taxpayers are liable. Since the NAACP occupies the building, it would stand to reason that the insurance covers their space as well.

Page 8 of the document is quite interesting. CFARC's list of conditions for the city vary quite far from the truncated version that Cheatham mentions in his letter to council. Among the conditions are that the city will continue to provide insurance coverage; protect CFARC, its board, and its members from any legal responsibility; pay CFARC $670.00 a month; and honor the lease agreement with the NAACP.

Based on everything provided, it seems that city taxpayers are being forced to fund operations for a left-wing political organization without such being disclosed in the final ordinance passed by the city council. The ordinance merely says that the city will pay $20,000 for a phone system. Certainly there are more questions than answers; but using taxpayer money to fund political operations and organizations, either directly or indirectly is a crime.

Either way, CFARC is a publicly-funded organization, who is too close for comfort to the NAACP. CFARC's mission is to "build and operate a neighborhood based, one-stop campus with facilities to provide programs and services and access to services needed by the underserved population in Wilmington’s inner city"; does this also include political indoctrination, and activism?

Perhaps Mayor Saffo was so appreciative of being chosen as "Citizen of the Year" by CFARC, that he felt like using our money to show his thanks: http://www.greaterdiversity.com/index.php/gdn-news-resources-weekly-headlines/52-weekly-headlines/204-saffo-to-be-honored-as-citizen-of-the-year.html

Final ordinance passed by council: http://www.scribd.com/doc/38781529/CFARC-Ordinance

USS Gravely Exploited for Slush Fund; Political Payoff

2010-10-04T15:53:00.001-04:00

It's a noble event. The USS Gravely, a Naval Guided Missile Destroyer named after the first African-American officer in the US Navy, is going to be commissioned in the Port City. However, as is typical with our quiet little town, no event involving our local elected officials is complete without ethics being challenged.

The Chair of the USS Gravely Commissioning Board is none other than Mayor Bill Saffo's own campaign manager, Louise McColl, who is also Councilwoman Kristi Tomey's campaign manager as well. McColl is also very active in local politics and sits on many so-called public boards and commissions. In order to properly "entertain" the crew and illuminaries that will be in town during the event, McColl figures she needs $50,000 to do it right - $25,000 from both the city and the county.

Being the campaign manager for the mayor certainly has its perks. McColl did not even have to submit paperwork on her own behalf for the request, as the mayor was more than happy to do it for her, as evident in the proposal here, where it begins, "This Resolution is being brought to you at the request of Mayor Saffo": http://www.scribd.com/doc/38704030/McColl-Proposal

Yes folks, it's good to be a political operative in the good graces of those who have the power to reach into the taxpayer's cookie jar and dole out whatever political favors they deem necessary at the moment. It's especially important to wrap such actions in phrases like "economic development", "tourism", and other feel-good terms that attempt to justify the expense.

The real crime here is that the citizens of Wilmington choose to not be engaged, and not hold their elected officials accountable for their actions. This sort of dealing is done everyday in downtown Wilmington, and the people who are affected by this, ignore it, and then later wonder why their taxes go up, their basic services are not provided for, and their local government is a joke. Worse yet, often they head to the polls on election day to re-elect the very ones who make political corruption a way of life for us all.

EXCLUSIVE: Sid Causey Campaign Finance Law Violations

2010-09-28T16:03:00.002-04:00

According to Sid Causey's second quarter campaign finance report posted to the New Hanover County Board of Elections website, two contributors - husband and wife Ronald Beasley and Lynn Beasley; both retired, have each contributed over the $4,000 election cycle threshold to Causey's campaign. Both husband and wife made donations in the amount of $50.00, and then each wrote a check for $4,000. Click here for the report.

This is explicitly prohibited by North Carolina law, which states that an individual can only contribute a maximum total of $4,000 in any election cycle.

According to North Carolina General Statute 163-278.13:

(a) No individual, political committee, or other entity shall contribute to any candidate or other political committee any money or make any other contribution in any election in excess of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for that election.

(b) No candidate or political committee shall accept or solicit any contribution from any individual, other political committee, or other entity of any money or any other contribution in any election in excess of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for that election.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) of this section, it shall be lawful for a candidate or a candidate's spouse, parents, brothers and sisters to make a contribution to the candidate or to the candidate's treasurer of any amount of money or to make any other contribution in any election in excess of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for that election.

(d) For the purposes of this section, the term "an election" means any primary, second primary, or general election in which the candidate or political committee may be involved, without regard to whether the candidate is opposed or unopposed in the election, except that where a candidate is not on the ballot in a second primary, that second primary is not "an election" with respect to that candidate.

[Click here to read entire statute]

Causey's former career as Sheriff of New Hanover County demanded that he know and enforce the law. Abiding by it may prove an entirely different task altogether.

This incident certainly calls into question the motives of a retired couple, perhaps on a fixed income, that would want someone elected to local political office so desperately, that they would sacrifice over $8,000 toward the cause. As pure conjecture, your blogger can't comprehend such a generous contribution out of mere philanthropy and benevolence. Perhaps the bigger impending story is what kind of bang they expect to get for their enormous buck.

McIntyre Breaks Pledge to District 7

2010-08-20T10:36:00.001-04:00

Way back in 1996, when NC District 7 Representative Mike McIntyre was making his debut as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, he put ink to paper, signing a document and making a pledge to only serve six terms, or 12 years, as a representative in the U.S. House.

Mcintyre 6 Term Limit Pledge - 1996

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law defines "pledge" as: "a binding promise to do or forbear". 14 years later, we still have Mike McIntyre as a representative, and he's campaigning for another run for the same seat. With his soft smile, "favorite uncle" wrinkled brow; and tendency to shower the region with federal taxpayer money carefully donated to specific friendly causes, McIntyre is quite beloved in this district. However, one should not be quick to dismiss the intentional, wanton ignoring of this pledge. What else is McIntyre dishonest about? This pledge was not merely a political game or a photo-op moment; but a commitment to the constituents that he serves right here in District 7.

Recently, McIntyre has been feeling the pressure from the Tea Party movement, and has been airing television ads openly attempting to distance himself ideologically from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid - it doesn't go unnoticed however, that McIntyre voted for Pelosi to become Speaker - twice; the latest just last year.

So who is the real Mike McIntyre? As demonstrated here, I think it's fair to say that he's dishonest to say the least; if not an outright liar. How can one pledge themselves to their electorate; sign their name to a binding document promising to do a thing; and then turn around and ignore it; all while asking that same electorate to cast their vote for him yet again? It is quite mind-boggling.

The Founders envisioned citizens SERVING their communities and their states in Congress temporarily, and then returning home to private life to live, work, and take care of their families. Not suddenly obtaining a political career, and a lifelong free ride on the backs of taxpayers simply by virtue on being elected to office.

McIntyre is a career politician who will say whatever to whoever to get elected, and will even sign his name - which has been symbolic of assigning personal honor to something for centuries - and not think twice about ignoring and violating that which he pledged to do. It's time to dismiss the career politicians in Washington; and begin to elect true citizen-representatives.

Meet NHC's New Highly Paid Community Affairs Specialist - Carl Anthony Byrd

2010-08-13T15:52:00.002-04:00

NOTE: At the time of this post, your blogger had forgotten that DWI charges go from Level 5 being the least, to Level 1 being the worst. Byrd's Level 2 conviction was the worst of the two.

When New Hanover County decided to close its five member Human Relations Department as a budgetary decision, four workers were out of a job. One member, former director Carl Byrd, was retained and repositioned with the county in one of the two newly created community affairs specialist roles, which pays significantly less, at anywhere between $41 - $63K/year . As director of the Human Relations Department, Byrd earned about $89,000 a year. As a community affairs specialist, Byrd earns about... $89,000 a year; minus what is withheld due to mandatory furlough days. In addition, his Rotary Club dues are picked up by the taxpayer as well for good measure. The other community affairs specialist earns within the salary window for the position.

Why the discrepancy? Part of the reason is that the county has a rule that says if someone is given a lesser job title, then as long as it's not for disciplinary action, they are entitled to keep their salary intact. Plus, it's probably a good idea to have some friends in high places - especially if you're the same Carl Anthony Byrd with a rap sheet.

That's right folks - meet the guy in charge of dealing with the affairs of the community. Byrd was convicted of a Level 2 DWI; but somehow skated away from doing time by being found "not medically able to serve a sentence". Next, "carrying a concealed gun". This time, the charges are dropped by the D.A. Remember how important I mentioned it is to have friends in high places? Last, but certainly not least, Byrd graduates to a Level 5 DWI; is found GUILTY - but manages to get out of that as well with a small fine.

Who is Carl Byrd? Well besides being a convicted criminal, he's apparently really good friends with some prominent political figures, and pretty cozy in the judicial system here in NHC. Oh yeah - he's also your new highly overpaid community affairs specialist.

Byrd's criminal record:

Byrd Criminal Record

Wilm and NHC Weight Loss Spectacle: Taxpayer Expense

2010-08-09T09:43:00.002-04:00

Most readers are probably aware that leaders in both the City of Wilmington and New Hanover County have engaged in an pointless effort to boost their already over-inflated egos - a local contest framed after NBC's "The Biggest Loser" between Mayor Bill Saffo and Chairman Jason Thompson. (Please Visit: http://wilmingtonrants.ning.com/forum/topics/government-finally-trimming) Politicians losing weight has now become an official function of government, as evident by the costs incurred as a result of this exercise. Some say this is a vicious slap in the face after taxes have been raised across the board in both the city and the county this year - on a citizenry struggling to make ends meet in these currently poor economic conditions.

Cutting the Fat Out of Government Web Site - Invoice

That's right - taxpayers have footed the bill for a county-owned dedicated website to track and monitor this nonsense. www.CutTheFatNHC.com was purchased by the County from GoDaddy.com for $22.13. It's not the monetary amount that is the cause for concern. At the heart of this issue is the question of 'what is the proper role of government?' Should government be able to launch and fund entertainment enterprises at its own arbitrary will with the taxpayer's resources and money? Conducting this little initiative costs us more than the 22 bucks because a team in the county's IT Department, on taxpayer-funded salaries had to design and execute the website; not to mention the other administrative and functional costs in other departments in both the city and the county to conduct this little game.

It would be best for politicians to lose weight in the privacy of their own lives - like the rest of us. To make this a spectacle by calling it an official function of government is a disgrace and a bitter insult to struggling taxpayers. How much better it would be if cutting the fat out of government for REAL - i.e. saving the taxpayer's money - was an official function of government, as it used to be.

Letter from LaNasa to New Hanover County

2010-07-19T09:38:00.000-04:00

North Carolina statute 163-182.14 says: "A copy of the final decision of the State Board of Elections on an election protest shall be served on the parties personally or through delivery by U.S. mail or a designated delivery service authorized under 26 U.S.C. § 7502(f)(2) if that delivery provides a record of the date and time of delivery to the address provided by the party." (emphasis mine)

The latter part of that statute is where the controversy exists. Justin LaNasa, a successful businessman and former county commission hopeful, has been embattled with the county and state Boards of Election for some time now, challenging the legitimacy of New Hanover County's sales tax referendum that appeared on the ballot May 4th of this year; barely passing voter approval. LaNasa's argument has consistently been that county officials were aggressively advocating versus educating the public regarding the facts behind the referendum.

The latest chapter in this sordid tale is the fact that in order to comply with state law, the Board of Elections had to serve LaNasa with official election results in accordance with the statute spelled out above. The delivery of such a letter must provide "a record of the date and time of delivery", which would indicate that one must send such a notice via registered and/or certified mail. However, LaNasa's letter arrived to him via regular First Class mail, sans the recorded date and time delivered stamp. Whoops!

Here is a copy of the letter sent from LaNasa to county officials regarding this matter:

Justin LaNasa Order

Lies & Deceit from the Caster Campaign

2010-06-18T10:44:00.002-04:00

WWAY has uncovered deceitful tactics being employed by the Bill Caster campaign. David Benford, a Caster campaign worker, crafted a letter to the editor blasting opponent Brian Berger, and echoing messages in Caster's radio ads almost verbatime. Caster and Benford crafted a plan via email to have a regular citizen to sign the letter as if they had submitted it of their own accord.

Enter Phyllis S. Smith, the lackey for their plan. She signs the letter and it gets published in the Star News. WWAY did a inquiry into the county's email system and uncovered the whole thing. When they called Benford, he said he knew nothing about it and had nothing to do with any of it. Caster denied everything as well. When WWAY divulged that they had the emails to prove their involvement, both men got real quiet, and then changed their whole story.

Watch this video and read the report on this incredible story: http://www.wwaytv3.com/video/only_3_we_uncover_email_proves_caster_campaign_not_truthful_about_letter_editor/06

Wilmington City Council tries to Play God

2010-06-16T15:52:00.000-04:00

Several heated discussions took place on Tuesday night's City Council meeting; one which we will discuss in detail here. For starters, the ridiculous proposed budget passed 5-2; which you can read about here: http://wilmingtonrants.ning.com/forum/topics/unbelievable-breakdown-of
and here: http://wilmingtonrants.ning.com/forum/topics/cow-finalizes-tax-increase

Another interesting subject of discussion was that of the proliferation of internet sweepstakes gaming parlors. You would think that these places are nothing more than some horrible den of debauchery and fornication due to the way they are presented and vilified by Kevin O'Grady. The freshman councilman made numerous remarks on these establishment's profitability and how that was a reason to seriously regulate them. As if lawyers (of which is his profession) do not make serious profits as well. He would go back constantly to an argument concerning simply that of land use and zoning, but then back it up with the profitability and the preferential arguments that these places just don't match his vision of what Wilmington should look like.

The supporting documents that accompany the resolution are very evident of a government trying to step outside of its role and play God with the business sector; picking winners and losers based on their personal taste and preference.

Please see this document to see what I'm talking about: http://wilmington.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=20&clip_id=2263&meta_id=73397

Councilman Sparks exhibited about as much disdain for such businesses; but for different reason. They prey on the poor and weak, and only "godless heathens" would support their existence. Never mind the common sense approach that people only walk into one of these places and spend money if they so choose of their own accord, and are not coerced in any way. Never mind that the NC State Lottery could essentially be subject to the same argument - although nothing was ever mentioned of this.

The hearing and vote on the resolutions were postponed until the next City Council meeting. Whether or not you frequent these establishments, or even care about their existence is beside the point. If you care about your own liberty and prosperity, and the right you have to be safe from government interference into your personal economic decisions, this issue should scare you. We cannot allow this city government to proceed forward with their plan to order businesses to operate within a severely limited framework, and one that limits their profits. That is not economic freedom, and no government has this right. We are seeing the same thing trying to take place in Washington today, and the same arguments apply.

If councilman O'Grady has his way, he will order these business owners to come before the mighty Wilmington City Council, present their tax forms, balance sheets, and profitability figures; and he will render a decision that impacts whether or not they continue to be in business or not. These are people who play by the rules, make their investments in business, hire a workforce, and feed their families based on what they make from their business. We cannot allow government to rule tyrannically in this manner. This affects each and every one of us.

New Hanover ABC Board pays Attorney Rountree $102,000+

2010-06-11T16:54:00.000-04:00

A document obtained by the New Hanover County ABC Board shows that from 2008-present, the Board compensated attorney George Rountree III a total of $102,221.72 for services rendered.

Late last year and into the beginning of this year, the former members of the county board were under heavy fire for openly disobeying state open meetings law, competitive bidding laws, and a whole host of other questionable activities due to little or no oversight by the county. During those proceedings, it was reported in the Star News that attorney Rountree was retained by the Board to represent the members, although they were never officially charged with any crime or wrongdoing whatsoever. The entire issue cleanly disappeared when the three members of the ABC Board promptly resigned just as their house of cards was beginning to topple.

However, there is absolutely no answer as to why the ABC Board has had Rountree retained permanently, and has compensated him so much over the past two years. In the State of North Carolina, ABC Boards are public boards, and by law are to operate in the view of the public, and even are supposed to be comprised of members of the public. On the surface, there appears no need or reason for a public ABC Board to retain an attorney for an extended period of time; and even their deferral to Rountree in the wake of the public scrutiny surrounding their activities remains questionable.

More to come - stay tuned.

Document revealing compensation for Rountree:
ABC Board Rountree

Invoice from Capitol Communications to NHC Taxpayers

2010-06-09T09:23:00.000-04:00

Remember that little poll that our county commission had done to see how well liked they were, to find out if you were a liberal or a conservative, to see their re-electability chances, and to find out if you would support paying more taxes?

Turns out, despite being in the so-called budget "crisis" that we're in, that piece of business cost you and I $13,200. See the actual invoice and check stub that paid for it below:

NHC Capitol Invoice

Why would anyone re-elect any of these clowns?

The Pay to Play Chronicles: Chapter One

2010-06-08T11:33:00.000-04:00

When the term "pay to play" comes up, certain venerable established local politicians may come to mind for some. Bill Caster, no doubt, rightfully earns a spot in this distinctive class.

The latest example, among many, is revealed in his latest campaign finance report. Caster, one of the leading proponents of buying off Airlie Gardens from the Corbett family in the late 1990's; and subsequently adding its expense to the burden of county taxpayers, is still reaping the rewards of his efforts. From Caster's own website:

I was the Chairman of the New Hanover County Board of Commissioner when the County purchased the Gardens in 1999. I, along with Commissioner Greer and Camilia Herievich, of the Coastal Land Trust, were committed to save Airlie Gardens from development of 47 home sites. I took the lead in the negotiations with the Corbett family and sealed the deal.
http://www.billcaster.com/issues.php

I wonder what all of terms of this so-called "deal" included? It's been more than a decade since the Corbett's received an attractive taxpayer subsidy for their land thanks to Caster, and even now, they are extending their thanks through their checkbook. On page 10 of Caster's 1st Quarter Campaign Finance Report filed with the New Hanover County Board of Elections, a contribution in the amount of $500 was made to Caster courtesy of Diane Corbett of Corbett Management Corp.

Caster 1Q Campaign Finance - Page 10

$500 may not be a whole lot of money, but if you were to go back and calculate the total amount that Caster has raked in from the Corbett family, I'm sure that would raise some eyebrows.

While none of these actions are illegal, they are interesting pieces of the puzzle that form a total picture of an incestuous relationship certain elitist families in the business community enjoy with our elected leaders. This is only the very point on the tip of an enormous iceberg. As we discover more of these cozy relationships, and the money trail that accompanies them, we will bring that information to you.

The Ruse of the Creative Class

2010-05-29T15:30:00.000-04:00

It's a great title - but I can't take credit for it. "The Ruse of the Creative Class" was the title of an article that appeared in the left-wing liberal magazine The American Prospect, January 4, 2010. The importance of this, is that "The Rise of the Creative Class" was a book written by Dr. Richard Florida, who is a proponent of the idea that a pro-gay city is a city of great economic health. According to Wikipedia:

Prof. Florida's theory asserts that metropolitan regions with high concentrations of high-tech workers, artists, musicians, lesbians and gay men, and a group he describes as "high bohemians", correlate with a higher level of economic development. Florida posits the theory that the creative class fosters an open, dynamic, personal and professional environment. This environment, in turn, attracts more creative people, as well as businesses and capital. He suggests that attracting and retaining high-quality talent, versus a singular focus on infrastructure projects such as sports stadiums, iconic buildings, and shopping centers, would be a better primary use of a city's regeneration resources for long-term prosperity.

What does any of this have to do with anything? In the aforementioned article in The American Prospect, Wilmington, NC is one of the cities mentioned that has been hoodwinked by Dr. Florida. At the cost of $250,000, Wilmington taxpayers found out such pertinent information such as, "how to be more gay-friendly"; and:

"Wilmington, North Carolina, recently received some of the first recommendations from its $250,000 Catalytix investment, including such tips as "Consider hiring a blogger to create, stimulate and participate in virtual conservations [sic] about the Cape Fear Region."

Another one of Florida's recommendations, was to form an agency, funded by taxpayers, dedicated to discovering ways and recruting creative talent for the economy of tomorrow. That group, is called Cape Fear Future. According to CFF's website: "Cape Fear Future was initiated by the Greater Wilmington Chamber of Commerce and was facilitated by the Dr. Richard Florida Creativity Action Team, Catalytix Inc."

One of the most telling things of all is, that if a liberal, leftist, pro-statist publication like The American Prospect is willing to throw fellow leftist Dr. Richard Florida under the bus, then just how much of a ruse is all of this?

In the economic condition that our city and its taxpayers are in, was a quarter of a million dollars an appropriate expense to lern about enhancing our "gayness" and blogging? This non-taxpayer funded blogger thinks not.

Wilmington: Another "Economic Development" Board? Guess Who...

2010-05-28T09:12:00.004-04:00

The City of Wilmington's proposed budget for fiscal 2010-11 is available on the city's website here. There are some interesting items in the budget, some of which cannot go ignored. A new unaccountable and mysterious so-called "economic development" agency has been formed called Cape Fear Future. The 47 member list reads like a roster of the city's elitist power brokers.

Among those members include Mayor Bill Saffo's campaign manager, Louise McColl, who is conspicuously featured at the head of the table in a position of power, in the photo above, which is from Cape Fear Future's website. The Mayor himself, is a member, and is featured in the photo to her right. McColl does not appear on any list as a leader in the organization, although the only picture of the group meeting clearly shows her to be in a position of influence and power.

Why does all of this matter? And what does this have to do with the city's proposed budget? The taxpayers of Wilmington are paying the way of this group, with an inaugural contribution of $20,000 in this year's proposed budget. An amount like that will slip through without a whimper, but one must acknowledge the convenience of having the Mayor's campaign manager in a position of power with the organization, and the group receiving taxpayer funding. A portion of the city's proposed budget reveals the funding on page 24:

City of Wilmington - Proposed Budget 2010-11 - General Gov. FUnds

Also noted in this budget are the other handouts given to agencies such as Wilmington Industrial Development, Wilmington Downtown Inc., and the Wilmington Film Commission. With unemployment in the city hovering around 11%, and the film industry a mere memory in the mind's of long-time Wilmingtonians, what in the world are the taxpayers receiving for their money?

We continue to fund these organizations, who conduct their business behind closed doors, completely unaccountable to the public, and who wield extraordinary power to influence decisions by our elected officials - and we see absolutely no benefit from this. We the taxpayer should have every right to audit the financials of these organizations that receive our money. It is time for fiscal responsibility, accountability, and transparency in this city.

Other articles on Cape Fear Future:
Cape Fear Future about attracting and keeping good workers
New chamber initiative gets creative
Local business leaders want input on New Hanover Co. Superintendent search
Cape Fear Future's visionary
Wilmingon 2.0 - An Update

Caster Sports, Inc. Under Penalty by Secretary of State

2010-05-25T15:52:00.004-04:00

A corporation by the name of "Caster Sports, Inc.", which lists New Hanover County Commissioner Bill Caster's wife Diane as the principle, has received a letter of "Administrative Dissolution" by the North Carolina Secretary of State for failure to comply with the North Carolina Business Corporation Act by being delinquent in filing 5 annual reports. Caster Sports-Bill Caster-Letter of Administrative Dissolution

That's not all. Back in December of 2003, the same corporation, listing the name Diane Caster, received a notice of Revenue Suspension from the Secretary of State.

Caster Sports-Bill Caster-Revenue Suspension

There is absolutely no financial records for this company for what seems to be the last 7 years or so. Are they trying to hide something - or is this merely a 7 year oversight, or fault on the part of the NC SOS?

Perhaps some questions should be asked of Mr. Caster, seeing that he is asking for our votes, again, for yet another term as county commissioner. Why isn't his corporation adhering to the law and filing their financials like every other company has to do?

Federal Money Given to Wilmington

2010-05-25T10:10:00.002-04:00

I often wonder why we can't efficiently and effectively operate our city responsibly on our own revenue sources, without having to rely on outside money just to make ends meet. Of course the reason is because too many handouts and special interest are the top priority in our local budget, leaving big gaps to fund necessities, and resulting in the all too familiar pleas of "revenue crisis" and "budget shortfalls" - which invariably lead to tax increases.

Ever wonder how much the federal government has a hand in local spending here? Take a look at this document, filed in November of 2009, which shows all of the federal dollars given to the city for projects we should either be able to fund ourselves, or cut from the budget.

Welcome

2010-05-24T12:47:00.000-04:00

Welcome to The Wilmington Watcher. This resource is dedicated to the revealing of evidence regarding public corruption, unethical behavior, and questionable practices employed by our local government and its officials.

Your input is not only appreciated, but absolutely necessary as we rely on your information and corroborative support for the evidence exposed here.

The vision of The Wilmington Watcher is to provide legitimate paper trails suggesting certain behavior or actions; given that in today's society freedom of information is relatively easily obtained.