Wilm. City Council Votes to Deny Property Rights

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

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

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.