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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CFPUA Analysis Benchmarks Itself Against... Itself

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PR Disaster: When Government Interferes, We All Lose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LINKS:

Tourism Development Authority taps officers

Tourism Development Authority budget adoption hearing Monday

City of Wilmington - Tourism Development Authority

ONLINE UPDATE: River, beaches illustrated by new TDA logo

Some visitors fond of ‘Cape Fear Coast' name

Connie Nelson of WCFCCVB Reaction to Public Scrutiny

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

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

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

The proposed changes in question include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The devastation is reported here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wilm. City Council Votes to Deny Property Rights

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.