Wilmington Leaders Cling to Ignorance

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

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

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

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...

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

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

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/