The Gloves Come Off: Unfounded Accusations - Wilmington Council Race

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.