What are your thoughts on long term solutions for Greensboro's household and construction waste? Costs are going to go up regardless of the options with White Street closing, but I'd be hestitant to relinquish full control to a private entity without some realistic ability to control future price increases for hauling waste.
The expansion of the Piedmont landfill would have helped a lot, but that obviously didn't work out. I've not really heard much said on progress developing a regional" trash solution that everyone seems to default to when pushed on this subject.(Be aware that city staff has not completed their evaluation of the latest bids the city received for disposal of our trash. Therefore, city councilmembers have not yet been briefed on the new options available to us and were responding to the reporter's questions "in the dark.")
Regarding longterm solutions: Construction waste will continue to be placed in the White Street landfill so that aspect is already taken care of. With the decision to no longer place household waste there, a transfer station will be needed whether we ship it to a landfill far away or eventually develop a regional landfill somewhere in our own area. So the big question is, do we contract with a private firm or build our own?
Each option has pros and cons. Going with a private firm would likely be less costly in the beginning since the city would not have to pay to construct its own facility. The biggest questions are: Will the contracted prices rise over the years and eventually become more expensive in the long run? Building and operating our own transfer station will be more expensive in the beginning, but the ability to "control our own destiny" may be cheaper in the future. Our own facility is designed to handle the constant flow of garbage trucks in a timely manner and not slow down collection time. Would a private firm be able to guarantee that same level of service?
As for a regional landfill, Greensboro is on record of being very much in favor of doing this. But such an effort requires willing partners - other cities and counties in the Piedmont region - and so far, no one else is stepping up to the table to join us. Until that happens, that idea is going nowhere.
I am awaiting city staff's analysis of the options and financial implications so I can make an informed decision, trying to keep that longterm solution in mind.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Transfer stations/solid waste disposal
Today's article about the transfer station bids in the News & Record prompted Mike to post the following comment:
What's good for the goose...
Mayor Holliday and I enjoyed a good laugh with Rep. Earl Jones this evening during the Elected Officials Reception sponsored by the Greensboro Chamber of Commerce at the City Club. In a previous post, I mentioned H635 filed by Rep. Jones which would require the city council to schedule "Speakers from the Floor" for up to 30 minutes at the beginning of all our council meetings.
Mayor Holliday approached Rep. Jones and requested that he (the mayor) be allowed to address the General Assembly for 30 minutes at the beginning of the session when the House reconvenes next week. Rep. Jones immediately began explaining why this could not be allowed and how the General Assembly has other procedures in place for the public to be heard. The mayor and I gently reminded him that we (the city council) also have procedures in place for this.
Anyway, we all had a good laugh about it, but I hope the point was well made - "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."
Mayor Holliday approached Rep. Jones and requested that he (the mayor) be allowed to address the General Assembly for 30 minutes at the beginning of the session when the House reconvenes next week. Rep. Jones immediately began explaining why this could not be allowed and how the General Assembly has other procedures in place for the public to be heard. The mayor and I gently reminded him that we (the city council) also have procedures in place for this.
Anyway, we all had a good laugh about it, but I hope the point was well made - "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Annexing the Urban Loop
I was disappointed that today's News & Record article about the city council annexing part of the Urban Loop did not include my explanation of why I support the proposal. So, here are the reasons I like the idea, and they have nothing to do with billboards whatsoever.
When the city council was asked to consider economic incentives for both CitiCards and Dell (one potential site was across I-40/85 from the current CitiCard location), we had a problem. We prefer the proposed company to be located inside Greensboro's corporate limits or close enough to be immediately annexed so that the city can collect property tax from the business to finance those incentives. One of the state law requirements that must be met in order to annex land is that the property be within a certain distance of the current city limits - and those sites did not meet that criteria. With the annexation of the loop, that problem is solved because it brings the city limits close to those properties (and other prime locations on the eastern and southern sides of town) and makes them "annex-able" (not sure if that's a real word or not, but hopefully you know what I mean) and eligible for consideration of economic incentives if a business choose that site. I see annexing this part of the Urban Loop as another economic development tool.
Annexing the loop should also eliminate any confusion for city police officers about which portions of the loop they are responsible for patrolling and answering calls. Right now, with parts of the loop being "in" and parts of it being "out," where does their jurisdiction begin and end? This action should clarify that.
If the annexation of this part of the Urban Loop allows the city to restrict placement of billboards on it, that's an added bonus as far as I am concerned. But I support the proposal because of the reasons I explained above, billboard control or not.
When the city council was asked to consider economic incentives for both CitiCards and Dell (one potential site was across I-40/85 from the current CitiCard location), we had a problem. We prefer the proposed company to be located inside Greensboro's corporate limits or close enough to be immediately annexed so that the city can collect property tax from the business to finance those incentives. One of the state law requirements that must be met in order to annex land is that the property be within a certain distance of the current city limits - and those sites did not meet that criteria. With the annexation of the loop, that problem is solved because it brings the city limits close to those properties (and other prime locations on the eastern and southern sides of town) and makes them "annex-able" (not sure if that's a real word or not, but hopefully you know what I mean) and eligible for consideration of economic incentives if a business choose that site. I see annexing this part of the Urban Loop as another economic development tool.
Annexing the loop should also eliminate any confusion for city police officers about which portions of the loop they are responsible for patrolling and answering calls. Right now, with parts of the loop being "in" and parts of it being "out," where does their jurisdiction begin and end? This action should clarify that.
If the annexation of this part of the Urban Loop allows the city to restrict placement of billboards on it, that's an added bonus as far as I am concerned. But I support the proposal because of the reasons I explained above, billboard control or not.
The coliseum and smoking
I agree with Richard Rosen's Counterpoint article in yesterday's News & Record regarding the unhealthy situation created by allowing smoking in the lower lobby of the Greensboro Coliseum. Patrons entering the facility through the northern entrance, many of whom are individuals with disabilities trying to use the handicap-accessible elevator there, are forced to wade through the smoke. I also wonder if the city is subject to OSHA liability for the employees - ticket collectors, security and concessions workers - who have to work in that area. A ventilating system that was installed there years ago to handle the smoke just is not getting the job done. It's time to correct this problem, and I hope our state legislators will grant the city the power to do so.
To all my friends who smoke - please don't get upset! Having the authority to move smoking out of this lobby area does not necessarily mean that there will be no smoking allowed at all in the coliseum (although that IS a possibility). Coliseum staff and the War Memorial Commission which advises on coliseum issues have discussed alternative ways to accomodate smokers. Perhaps a separate, well-ventilated smoking room like those provided in some airports could be constructed. [Are you paying attention, Lorillard? Excellent sponsorship opportunity!] Maybe we can designate an adjacent outdoor area where access can be controlled. There may be other innovative options. However, with the current state law, we cannot do these things without triggering requirements to set aside a full 20% of the coliseum space for smokers - totally unreasonable, expensive, and out of the question!
I agree with Dr. Rosen -- it's time to clear the air!
To all my friends who smoke - please don't get upset! Having the authority to move smoking out of this lobby area does not necessarily mean that there will be no smoking allowed at all in the coliseum (although that IS a possibility). Coliseum staff and the War Memorial Commission which advises on coliseum issues have discussed alternative ways to accomodate smokers. Perhaps a separate, well-ventilated smoking room like those provided in some airports could be constructed. [Are you paying attention, Lorillard? Excellent sponsorship opportunity!] Maybe we can designate an adjacent outdoor area where access can be controlled. There may be other innovative options. However, with the current state law, we cannot do these things without triggering requirements to set aside a full 20% of the coliseum space for smokers - totally unreasonable, expensive, and out of the question!
I agree with Dr. Rosen -- it's time to clear the air!
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Transportation funding woes (and solutions?)
The recurring theme of the state transportation forum I attended last week was the lack of sufficient funding for transportation, whether it be highways, transit, railroads/Amtrak, or the state ports at Wilmington and Morehead City. The growing backlog of construction and maintenance needs, paired with strong reluctance to raise gasoline taxes to generate additional revenue to fund them, means our traffic problems are not going to disappear any time soon.
One of the best statements I heard during the whole conference was "No one in history ever made money moving people, not even the stagecoachs!" You need look no further than the massive amounts of money poured into highway construction, mass transit, Amtrak, and the airlines to know how true that is.
The US House of Representatives, the Senate, and the President disagree on how much money should be budgeted in the long overdue reauthorization of TEA-21, the federal transportation funding program. Even the "richest" of the proposals under consideration comes nowhere near supplying the needed amount of funding. One of North Carolina's big concerns is that we are a "donor state" - of every $1 in gasoline tax we send to Washington, only 90 cents of that is returned to us for transportation spending. So we are not getting our fair share of federal funding for our projects, whatever amount is eventually agreed upon by Congress and the President.
Things aren't any rosier at the state level - $88 billion in needs have been identified for the next six years with revenue projections coming in at $54 billion. I'm dreading next week's release of the state's 2006-12 TIP (Transportation Improvement Program) document to find out which of our local projects will have to be delayed AGAIN.
One possible funding source that is being heavily promoted on both the state and federal levels is toll roads. The General Assembly has authorized the NC Turnpike Authority to select and build toll projects in North Carolina. Two roads in the Charlotte area (one near Gastonia and one near Monroe), a road in the Research Triangle Park area, and a bridge in Wilmington are currently under active consideration for these toll projects. (Note that the Greensboro/Triad area has zero under consideration at this time.
Many people despise toll roads (me being one of them), but if it means that a road could be constructed within the next 5 years as opposed to 20, 25, 30 years or never, I'm willing to consider it. One potential project for our area is the Winston-Salem/airport connector identified in the Airport Area Transportation Study. This road would come east off Winston's outer loop (whenever it is finally constructed) and connect into our airport area in or near Bryan Boulevard, providing a much-needed alternate route to I-40 between Greensboro and Winston. The PART board discussed this possibility, but there was little support for the toll road idea at that time. The Turnpike Authority will hold their June meeting here in Greensboro to educate us about their work and to gauge whether or not there is interest in Greensboro for a toll road project.
Okay, your turn - what is YOUR opinion on a potential toll road in the Greensboro area? What do you see as the pros and cons?
One of the best statements I heard during the whole conference was "No one in history ever made money moving people, not even the stagecoachs!" You need look no further than the massive amounts of money poured into highway construction, mass transit, Amtrak, and the airlines to know how true that is.
The US House of Representatives, the Senate, and the President disagree on how much money should be budgeted in the long overdue reauthorization of TEA-21, the federal transportation funding program. Even the "richest" of the proposals under consideration comes nowhere near supplying the needed amount of funding. One of North Carolina's big concerns is that we are a "donor state" - of every $1 in gasoline tax we send to Washington, only 90 cents of that is returned to us for transportation spending. So we are not getting our fair share of federal funding for our projects, whatever amount is eventually agreed upon by Congress and the President.
Things aren't any rosier at the state level - $88 billion in needs have been identified for the next six years with revenue projections coming in at $54 billion. I'm dreading next week's release of the state's 2006-12 TIP (Transportation Improvement Program) document to find out which of our local projects will have to be delayed AGAIN.
One possible funding source that is being heavily promoted on both the state and federal levels is toll roads. The General Assembly has authorized the NC Turnpike Authority to select and build toll projects in North Carolina. Two roads in the Charlotte area (one near Gastonia and one near Monroe), a road in the Research Triangle Park area, and a bridge in Wilmington are currently under active consideration for these toll projects. (Note that the Greensboro/Triad area has zero under consideration at this time.
Many people despise toll roads (me being one of them), but if it means that a road could be constructed within the next 5 years as opposed to 20, 25, 30 years or never, I'm willing to consider it. One potential project for our area is the Winston-Salem/airport connector identified in the Airport Area Transportation Study. This road would come east off Winston's outer loop (whenever it is finally constructed) and connect into our airport area in or near Bryan Boulevard, providing a much-needed alternate route to I-40 between Greensboro and Winston. The PART board discussed this possibility, but there was little support for the toll road idea at that time. The Turnpike Authority will hold their June meeting here in Greensboro to educate us about their work and to gauge whether or not there is interest in Greensboro for a toll road project.
Okay, your turn - what is YOUR opinion on a potential toll road in the Greensboro area? What do you see as the pros and cons?
Monday, March 28, 2005
Sometimes, there are things I'd rather not know!
In a workshop on Homeland Security and Transportation at last week's state transportation conference, I learned about the routine shipment of spent nuclear fuel rods on NC rail lines when a NC Highway Patrol major outlined security measures taken during those occasions. Then this article appeared in today's Washington Post. Sometimes, I think I'd rather not know!
Incentives for Market America
An article in Sunday's News & Record reports on Market Amercia's request for $30,ooo in economic incentives from the city that will be considered at the April 5 city council meeting. Market America is one of Greensboro's good corporate citizens, providing much-needed employment for area residents as well as giving the local economy a boost with the big bucks spent by the thousands of attendees to their annual convention at the Greensboro Coliseum.
With that said, here is why I do NOT support their request.
r Market America's proposed investment of $700,000 does not meet the minimum eligiblilty requirements stated in the city council's Financial Assistance Guidelines that calls for a minimum capital investment of $3 million by an existing business seeking to expand. This is less that one fourth of that amount.
I will note there is a statement in these guidelines - "...the Council may, as it deems appropriate, waive or modify eligibility requirements...to determine the desired level of assistance." That 'out' means we can ignore these guidelines and do whatever we please if we so choose. I don't like to bend the rules!
r Payment for this incentive will come out of taxpayers' pockets, not a grant (or rebate) of additional property taxes to be paid by Market America. In most cases, the city council approves a grant equal to the amount of new property taxes paid by the new/expanding company over a 3-year time period - one could argue we are "giving the company their own tax money back." The Market America proposal calls for a flat-out payment of $30,000 - $1000 per job created, no where near the amount of new property taxes to be generated by their $700,000 facility expansion. Thus the "extra amount due" will have to come from revenues generated from other taxpayers' - you and me. I do not agree with this approach.
The whole practice of giving economic incentives is distasteful to me, but I understand the need to offer them into today's cut-throat competition to attract new businesses and jobs. Because of that, I have voted FOR them from time to time when I felt the proposal fell within council's established guidelines and the offer would genuinely make a difference in the company's decision.
For me, this is not one of those times!
With that said, here is why I do NOT support their request.
r Market America's proposed investment of $700,000 does not meet the minimum eligiblilty requirements stated in the city council's Financial Assistance Guidelines that calls for a minimum capital investment of $3 million by an existing business seeking to expand. This is less that one fourth of that amount.
I will note there is a statement in these guidelines - "...the Council may, as it deems appropriate, waive or modify eligibility requirements...to determine the desired level of assistance." That 'out' means we can ignore these guidelines and do whatever we please if we so choose. I don't like to bend the rules!
r Payment for this incentive will come out of taxpayers' pockets, not a grant (or rebate) of additional property taxes to be paid by Market America. In most cases, the city council approves a grant equal to the amount of new property taxes paid by the new/expanding company over a 3-year time period - one could argue we are "giving the company their own tax money back." The Market America proposal calls for a flat-out payment of $30,000 - $1000 per job created, no where near the amount of new property taxes to be generated by their $700,000 facility expansion. Thus the "extra amount due" will have to come from revenues generated from other taxpayers' - you and me. I do not agree with this approach.
The whole practice of giving economic incentives is distasteful to me, but I understand the need to offer them into today's cut-throat competition to attract new businesses and jobs. Because of that, I have voted FOR them from time to time when I felt the proposal fell within council's established guidelines and the offer would genuinely make a difference in the company's decision.
For me, this is not one of those times!
Sunday, March 27, 2005
What do YOU want to discuss?
So far, I've been doing all the talking and selecting the topics of conversation. In response to Rich's question, I'm adding this post to "open the door" for YOU to tell me what you'd like me to address. So here's your chance -- what do YOU want to talk about?
Red-light cameras
Here's my response to Eric Townsend's column about red-light cameras in yesterday's News & Record .
l Regarding the issue of the warning signs still being up: The agreement the city council approved with Peek Traffic (the operator of the red-light camera program for Greensboro) states that all their equipment can remain in place until this issue is finally resolved in the courts (potentially 18 months - 2 years). This accommodates the provision that the program will resume if the court ruling favors the cities' position.
My question: "Are the warning signs considered part of that equipment?" Even if they aren't, why waste taxpayer money twice to remove them when it's possible they will be erected again? In my opinion, drivers will still reap the safety benefit with the signs in place if they make those lawbreaking red-light runners think twice before blasting on through intersections on red.
l Regarding the comment about safety vs. money: The beauty of the red-light camera program is that it allowed the city to enhance safety at intersections at no cost to the taxpayers. City Council never intended for this to be another revenue source for the city coffers. Several of us councilmembers made statements to the effect of "this will be worth it even if we never get a dime from it" when the program was initially discussed. We asked that any "profits" be used for traffic safety enhancements. The only money the city has spent so far has been used to pay for the appeals process for persons who dispute their citations; the rest is being held in escrow until the final court rulings.
The current estimate that the city will owe $3+ million to the school system from the previous years of operation means that it would cost the city around $1 million a year in "operating costs" to continue. Would the safety benefits we gain from the cameras be worth the $1 million a year? Maybe, maybe not.
IF council does decide that reducing the number of red-light violations is a priority, perhaps there is a more cost-effective way to accomplish it if we can't get the service "for free" with the cameras. According to figures supplied by our budget analysts each year during budget preparation, 20 additional police officers can be hired, trained and equipped for $1 million. In my opinion, it would make more sense to spend that $1 million on those 20 additional officers instead of operating the cameras for the same amount. The city would have more officers to handle the thousands of calls for service in addition to better traffic enforcement. The tickets issued by officers have much costlier consequences than the $50 fine from the cameras so violators would be more severely punished. (Maybe the extra dollars and points on their drivers license would finally get their attention!) In addition, the problem of citations being erroneously issued to funeral processions would be eliminated. Dumping the red-light cameras because the city has to foot the bill does not mean safety is not important -- it just means there may be more cost-effective ways to enhance that safety.
Of course, if drivers would just obey the "stop on red" law we've all known since kindergarten, there wouldn't be a problem and need to spend money to address it in the first place. DUH!!!!
l Regarding the issue of the warning signs still being up: The agreement the city council approved with Peek Traffic (the operator of the red-light camera program for Greensboro) states that all their equipment can remain in place until this issue is finally resolved in the courts (potentially 18 months - 2 years). This accommodates the provision that the program will resume if the court ruling favors the cities' position.
My question: "Are the warning signs considered part of that equipment?" Even if they aren't, why waste taxpayer money twice to remove them when it's possible they will be erected again? In my opinion, drivers will still reap the safety benefit with the signs in place if they make those lawbreaking red-light runners think twice before blasting on through intersections on red.
l Regarding the comment about safety vs. money: The beauty of the red-light camera program is that it allowed the city to enhance safety at intersections at no cost to the taxpayers. City Council never intended for this to be another revenue source for the city coffers. Several of us councilmembers made statements to the effect of "this will be worth it even if we never get a dime from it" when the program was initially discussed. We asked that any "profits" be used for traffic safety enhancements. The only money the city has spent so far has been used to pay for the appeals process for persons who dispute their citations; the rest is being held in escrow until the final court rulings.
The current estimate that the city will owe $3+ million to the school system from the previous years of operation means that it would cost the city around $1 million a year in "operating costs" to continue. Would the safety benefits we gain from the cameras be worth the $1 million a year? Maybe, maybe not.
IF council does decide that reducing the number of red-light violations is a priority, perhaps there is a more cost-effective way to accomplish it if we can't get the service "for free" with the cameras. According to figures supplied by our budget analysts each year during budget preparation, 20 additional police officers can be hired, trained and equipped for $1 million. In my opinion, it would make more sense to spend that $1 million on those 20 additional officers instead of operating the cameras for the same amount. The city would have more officers to handle the thousands of calls for service in addition to better traffic enforcement. The tickets issued by officers have much costlier consequences than the $50 fine from the cameras so violators would be more severely punished. (Maybe the extra dollars and points on their drivers license would finally get their attention!) In addition, the problem of citations being erroneously issued to funeral processions would be eliminated. Dumping the red-light cameras because the city has to foot the bill does not mean safety is not important -- it just means there may be more cost-effective ways to enhance that safety.
Of course, if drivers would just obey the "stop on red" law we've all known since kindergarten, there wouldn't be a problem and need to spend money to address it in the first place. DUH!!!!
Saturday, March 26, 2005
This week's official schedule
We're getting a break from council meetings this week due to it being the "fifth week" of the month. That does NOT mean council members are not performing city council tasks - it just means there are no official meetings on the schedule. My daily routine - areading and responding to constituent email, letters and phone calls, areading the never-ending stream of information that comes across our desks, and now a keeping this blog updated - never shows up as an item on my calendar, but I spend LOTS of time getting it done. This short reprieve is most welcome in light of the pending marathon of meetings over the next couple of months dealing with selection of a new city manager and adopting the 2005-06 city budget.
l Tuesday morning , March 29 is the Annual Employee Service Awards Breakfast held at the Coliseum where Service Award recipients, retirees, and Employees of the Year are recognized. While this is not an official city council function, many of us councilmembers try to attend and show our support and appreciation for our hard-working city employees.
l Thursday evening, March 31 from 5:00-7:00PM is the Greensboro Chamber of Commerce 2005 Annual Elected Officials Reception at the Greensboro City Club. Again, this falls in the "optional" category, but most elected officials try to take advantage of this opportunity to "mix and mingle" with the many constituents who attend.
Barring the unforeseen, that's it for this week!
l Tuesday morning , March 29 is the Annual Employee Service Awards Breakfast held at the Coliseum where Service Award recipients, retirees, and Employees of the Year are recognized. While this is not an official city council function, many of us councilmembers try to attend and show our support and appreciation for our hard-working city employees.
l Thursday evening, March 31 from 5:00-7:00PM is the Greensboro Chamber of Commerce 2005 Annual Elected Officials Reception at the Greensboro City Club. Again, this falls in the "optional" category, but most elected officials try to take advantage of this opportunity to "mix and mingle" with the many constituents who attend.
Barring the unforeseen, that's it for this week!
Unanticipated benefits?
Wow! For two days in a row, information from this blog has been referenced on the editorial page of the News & Record - the 3/25 editorial and the 3/26 grafitti letter editor's note . Does this mean I can anticipate a paycheck from them soon? <big smile>
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Out of touch
I'll be in Charlotte the next two days at the state transportation summit plus I have agreed to keep three of my grandchildren Friday-Saturday. Hopefully I'll be back online by Sunday, assuming I survive the grandkids (or my husband doesn't kill me for being out of town for our wedding anniversary - #37)!
Community watches, gangs, graffiti, and drugs
This evening I attended the community watch meeting of the Highland Park Neighborhood Association, described by Officer Jeff Carter as "the best community watch in the city." This neighborhood association, one of the most active in City Council District 5, was formed about 10 years ago to address a noise problem generated by a nearby business. They've put the "power of community" into practice and have really improved the entire area through their efforts (plus they put on a fantastic National Night Out event, complete with pony rides for the children).
Gang and drug activity in Greensboro was the program topic presented by Captain Harold Scott and Detective Ernest Cuthbertson, and it was an EYE-OPENER. As a council member who is supposed to know about everything that's going on in town, I was shocked to learn how much I don't know about these problems. Captain Scott's observation that "we have a small fire now, but it could burn the city down" really got my attention. I highly recommend this program to every neighborhood and parent group in Greensboro so you will be better informed about what we and our children are facing. You can reach Detective Cuthbertson at 373-2216 to arrange for this presentation.
Part of that presentation focused on the grafitti found all over the city. The Police Department is teaming up with the Greensboro Merchants Association on an April Saturday to remove all the grafitti they can find in Greensboro. If you are aware of locations where grafitti is a problem, contact Detective Cuthbertson(373-2216) to add that site to the clean-up list. Check the city's webpage for additional information.
Gang and drug activity in Greensboro was the program topic presented by Captain Harold Scott and Detective Ernest Cuthbertson, and it was an EYE-OPENER. As a council member who is supposed to know about everything that's going on in town, I was shocked to learn how much I don't know about these problems. Captain Scott's observation that "we have a small fire now, but it could burn the city down" really got my attention. I highly recommend this program to every neighborhood and parent group in Greensboro so you will be better informed about what we and our children are facing. You can reach Detective Cuthbertson at 373-2216 to arrange for this presentation.
Part of that presentation focused on the grafitti found all over the city. The Police Department is teaming up with the Greensboro Merchants Association on an April Saturday to remove all the grafitti they can find in Greensboro. If you are aware of locations where grafitti is a problem, contact Detective Cuthbertson(373-2216) to add that site to the clean-up list. Check the city's webpage for additional information.
Today's Council Briefing Session
Our briefing session provided some good information on a number of topics. Mayor Holliday was absent due to illness; everyone else was present.
Following is a brief summary of what we learned and discussed:
l The Police Chief updated us on the multiple ways his department deals with high crime areas of the city. There is already considerable coordination between the police and other city departments (as well as state and county agencies) occurring, but there's always room for improvement. The City Manager will be bringing us recommendations on how to do a better job. The "highlight" of this presentation was when Tom Phillips placed a paper bag of crack pipes on the table purchased by activist Ben Holder from stores in the city on his way to our meeting.
l We decided NOT to pursue the merger of the Planning Board and Zoning Commission. Issues regarding the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan seem to have smoothed out, reducing the need for that action. There was also concern about wearing out citizens who would serve on the combined board with lengthy or multiple monthly meetings.
At my suggestion, we ARE going to appoint alternate members to a number of key city boards and commissions. who would serve in the place of regular members when they are absent or must abstain due to conflicts of interest. This should alleviate the attendance problems that have delayed city business on numerous occasions. So if you are interested in serving, let a council member know!
l Shrinking the area covered by the mandated Downtown Fire District with its stricter fire codes will make it easier to build and renovate structures downtown. Advances in fire and building safety have made this possible. The highlight of this presentation was when Butch Simmons shared the city's 1921 building code manual, a postcard-sized 11 page booklet with advertising printed on some of those pages. My, how times have changed!
l We were updated on one of Greensboro's best kept secrets - our Workforce Development program overseen by Director Lillian Plummer. You can see for yourself on this one!
l We instructed the city manager to include a resolution of support for the Piedmont Greenway Master Plan on the next agenda. Once completed (funding NOT identified at this point), this trail would link Guilford and Forsyth counties through Triad Regional Park and Kernersville.
So, there was nothing really earth-shattering today, just routine city issues.
Following is a brief summary of what we learned and discussed:
l The Police Chief updated us on the multiple ways his department deals with high crime areas of the city. There is already considerable coordination between the police and other city departments (as well as state and county agencies) occurring, but there's always room for improvement. The City Manager will be bringing us recommendations on how to do a better job. The "highlight" of this presentation was when Tom Phillips placed a paper bag of crack pipes on the table purchased by activist Ben Holder from stores in the city on his way to our meeting.
l We decided NOT to pursue the merger of the Planning Board and Zoning Commission. Issues regarding the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan seem to have smoothed out, reducing the need for that action. There was also concern about wearing out citizens who would serve on the combined board with lengthy or multiple monthly meetings.
At my suggestion, we ARE going to appoint alternate members to a number of key city boards and commissions. who would serve in the place of regular members when they are absent or must abstain due to conflicts of interest. This should alleviate the attendance problems that have delayed city business on numerous occasions. So if you are interested in serving, let a council member know!
l Shrinking the area covered by the mandated Downtown Fire District with its stricter fire codes will make it easier to build and renovate structures downtown. Advances in fire and building safety have made this possible. The highlight of this presentation was when Butch Simmons shared the city's 1921 building code manual, a postcard-sized 11 page booklet with advertising printed on some of those pages. My, how times have changed!
l We were updated on one of Greensboro's best kept secrets - our Workforce Development program overseen by Director Lillian Plummer. You can see for yourself on this one!
l We instructed the city manager to include a resolution of support for the Piedmont Greenway Master Plan on the next agenda. Once completed (funding NOT identified at this point), this trail would link Guilford and Forsyth counties through Triad Regional Park and Kernersville.
So, there was nothing really earth-shattering today, just routine city issues.
Public disclosures
Be aware that all written correspondence to us city council members (including emails, faxes, and letters) addressing city council issues are considered public information under provisions of the Open Meetings Law. That means I am required to pass along that correspondence to the media, even the emails I receive on my own personal home email account. Please keep that in mind when you communicate with me!
Follow-up on the TRC debate
Reaction to my first post on The Truth & Reconciliation efforts seems to have calmed down, and I would probably be wise to "leave well enough alone." However, I have been participating in an ongoing "off-blog" email conversation with one of the "Commenters" in which you may be interested. That conversation has centered around my stated concerns about accuracy and bias/conflicts of interest in the TRC process.
I still have grave concerns about accuracy and bias and have NOT moved from my original position. However, I am somewhat more comfortable that all sides of the issue might be heard and explored. The latest email from "the commenter" is why I say this:
I still have grave concerns about accuracy and bias and have NOT moved from my original position. However, I am somewhat more comfortable that all sides of the issue might be heard and explored. The latest email from "the commenter" is why I say this:
"I know from the Commissioners involved and their staff that the final report by the Greensboro Truth & Reconciliation Commission will deal with all the hard facts of Nov. 3rd. However, the "reflections, memories and feeling" of the community cannot be ignored. I assume that many of those memories will be very critical of the CWP -- but those memories and feelings are a real part of our community and cannot be discounted by the Commission. Again this is not a court trial but an attempt to create and nurture dialogue. All voices must be honored. To tell someone that their "reflections, memories and feelings" cannot be considered is only a way to block conversation. It is certainly not the way we communicate with our friends and family.
One story that I heard is that a person working in the Guilford County Court House on Nov. 3rd was hoping to get off very early that day for her special birthday party. She was instead stuck in the Court House processing the tremendous amount of paperwork created by Nov. 3rd. In the course of processing the paperwork she heard many interpretations of the horror that happened at Morning Side Homes. She finally left the Court House very late, her special birthday party had long ago been cancelled. She had great sadness and sympathy for the people killed that day and left by walking close to a group of CWP members who were outside the Court House. Her intention as she walked by was to say "I am sorry for what happened." As she got close the CWP group began to yell at her and curse her and someone spit on her. She said that whole day was the worst day of her life -- she was deeply humiliated. I hope she will tell her story to the Commission. Such stories from all the sides of Nov. 3rd exist. To tell that women that her story is not important because we just want the facts about the shootings is to deny real and important community dialogue.
Lastly, YES! several CWP marchers had guns on Nov. 3rd and several marcher fired their guns that is all a clear part of the "hard facts" and court records that are carefully preserved in the Southern Historical Collection at the Wilson Library at UNC Chapel Hill. "
So, the conversation continues...
Monday, March 21, 2005
City Connections
If you are not already signed up to receive the City Connections e-newletter, I strongly urge you to do so. It's a great source of information on city projects and happenings.
When Should "Speakers from the Floor" Speak?
David Hoggard raised an often-asked question in the comment section of my "Official schedule" post -- why not alllow "Speakers from the Floor" at the beginning of city council meeting? The topic seems to be one of great interest (plus my response was getting so long), I decided to use it as the topic for another post. Thanks for the writing prompt, David!
Three points immediately come to mind in response suggestions about scheduling a "Speakers from the Floor" session at the beginning of the council meetings:
1) While comments from the public are an important part of the meeting, the main purpose of the council meeting is to conduct the city's business. We are painfully aware that our council meetings often last too long already. Should important business items be pre-empted by anything and everything that comes up during Speakers from the Floor? Shouldn't important business items be addressed while council members are (hopefully) alert and fresh?
Plus, if the impromptu item generates significant council discussion and/or the need for staff clarification or instruction, the entire 30-minute time period could be consumed by one speaker or issue. (Remember that the 5-minute speaker clock gets turned off whenever council members or staff are responding, asking questions, pontificating, etc.) So it's entirely possible that some potential speakers would still have to wait until the end of the agenda anyway.
2) Next is the issue of fairness. The very first items on council's agenda after the opening formalities are the "Public Hearing" items, public issues on which citizens are specifically invited and encouraged to speak up. In my mind, these "Public Hearing" speakers have an "appointment" on council's "schedule" (agenda) to be heard. I don't know about you, but I'd be ticked off if I had a doctor's appointment and the doctor chose to see a walk-in patient ahead of me (assuming a non-emergency). Should I be kept waiting longer just because that walk-in didn't want to have to wait (and that is usually the reason that is given when we are asked to change our current practice)? Doe the same principle apply here?
3) This issue may become a moot point if a bill filed last week - H635 -by Rep. Earl Jones is adopted that WOULD REQUIRE BY STATE LAW that all city councils, county commissions, and school boards schedule a Speakers from the Floor period at the beginning of their agendas. I personally believe the General Assembly should focus on its own issues such as balancing the budget and allow local governments to decide for themselves how to structure their own agendas.
Does the General Assembly allow for "Speakers from the Floor" during their meetings? I know from personal experience in testifying at some of their committee meeetings that they severely restict speakers - you're lucky if you get 60 seconds! So why apply different standards to local governments?
I'm looking forward to your comments!
Three points immediately come to mind in response suggestions about scheduling a "Speakers from the Floor" session at the beginning of the council meetings:
1) While comments from the public are an important part of the meeting, the main purpose of the council meeting is to conduct the city's business. We are painfully aware that our council meetings often last too long already. Should important business items be pre-empted by anything and everything that comes up during Speakers from the Floor? Shouldn't important business items be addressed while council members are (hopefully) alert and fresh?
Plus, if the impromptu item generates significant council discussion and/or the need for staff clarification or instruction, the entire 30-minute time period could be consumed by one speaker or issue. (Remember that the 5-minute speaker clock gets turned off whenever council members or staff are responding, asking questions, pontificating, etc.) So it's entirely possible that some potential speakers would still have to wait until the end of the agenda anyway.
2) Next is the issue of fairness. The very first items on council's agenda after the opening formalities are the "Public Hearing" items, public issues on which citizens are specifically invited and encouraged to speak up. In my mind, these "Public Hearing" speakers have an "appointment" on council's "schedule" (agenda) to be heard. I don't know about you, but I'd be ticked off if I had a doctor's appointment and the doctor chose to see a walk-in patient ahead of me (assuming a non-emergency). Should I be kept waiting longer just because that walk-in didn't want to have to wait (and that is usually the reason that is given when we are asked to change our current practice)? Doe the same principle apply here?
3) This issue may become a moot point if a bill filed last week - H635 -by Rep. Earl Jones is adopted that WOULD REQUIRE BY STATE LAW that all city councils, county commissions, and school boards schedule a Speakers from the Floor period at the beginning of their agendas. I personally believe the General Assembly should focus on its own issues such as balancing the budget and allow local governments to decide for themselves how to structure their own agendas.
Does the General Assembly allow for "Speakers from the Floor" during their meetings? I know from personal experience in testifying at some of their committee meeetings that they severely restict speakers - you're lucky if you get 60 seconds! So why apply different standards to local governments?
I'm looking forward to your comments!
Sunday, March 20, 2005
"Official" schedule for the coming week
I'm taking a halftime break - GO WOLFPACK! - to preview the coming week's activities.
The City Council Briefing is scheduled for Tuesday, March 22 at 9:00AM. Items to be discussed include:
3City Response to "High Crime" Areas of the Community: We've asked staff to identify ways various city departments such as Police, Code Enforcement, and Housing and Community can work together better to address the multiple problems found in high crime areas of the city.
3Discussion of Possible Merger of Zoning Commission and Planning Board: In response to issues raised by the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, would it make sense to merge these two bodies to simplify the process? Or would the workload be too much for a single board?
3Proposed Change to Code with Respect to Fire District Limits (Downtown): We haven't seen any prior information on this so I don't have any details at this point.
3Update on Workforce Development via Employment and Training Services: self explanatory
3Report on Piedmont Greenway Initiative by Piedmont Land Conservancy: self explanatory
As you can see, not everything we deal with is exciting or controversial . <smile>
You'll find me in Charlotte on Wednesday-Thursday participating in the North Carolina Transportation Forum. I think this will be a good, informative conference. I'm on a panel discussing regional transportation issues on Wednesday afternoon.
That's what's on my "official" schedule for this week.
The City Council Briefing is scheduled for Tuesday, March 22 at 9:00AM. Items to be discussed include:
3City Response to "High Crime" Areas of the Community: We've asked staff to identify ways various city departments such as Police, Code Enforcement, and Housing and Community can work together better to address the multiple problems found in high crime areas of the city.
3Discussion of Possible Merger of Zoning Commission and Planning Board: In response to issues raised by the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, would it make sense to merge these two bodies to simplify the process? Or would the workload be too much for a single board?
3Proposed Change to Code with Respect to Fire District Limits (Downtown): We haven't seen any prior information on this so I don't have any details at this point.
3Update on Workforce Development via Employment and Training Services: self explanatory
3Report on Piedmont Greenway Initiative by Piedmont Land Conservancy: self explanatory
As you can see, not everything we deal with is exciting or controversial . <smile>
You'll find me in Charlotte on Wednesday-Thursday participating in the North Carolina Transportation Forum. I think this will be a good, informative conference. I'm on a panel discussing regional transportation issues on Wednesday afternoon.
That's what's on my "official" schedule for this week.
Saturday, March 19, 2005
Thanks for Today's Teach-in!
Many thanks to all those helpful Greensboro bloggers who gave up their Saturday morning to teach a novice like me to blog! I'm not going to try to name names for fear of leaving someone out, but you know who you are. Your assistance, patience and encouragement are most appreciated!
Friday, March 18, 2005
The Truth and Reconciliation Project
One of the most controversial issues dumped onto City Council's plate lately is the Truth & Reconciliation Commission's quest to get us to endorse their re-examination of the facts surrounding the 1979 shooting tragedy in our city. I was accurately quoted in the News & Record as being opposed to this project and will explain why I feel this way.
Despite the admirable credentials of the persons selected to serve on this commission, my underlying concern is that I feel that any "facts" presented to them will be woefully inaccurate.
325 years have passed since that horrible event, and time has a way of altering memories. I know that my memory isn't what it used to be, and I don't think I am the only one in my age group with this affliction. How many memories have been forgotten or altered over time?
3With so many accounts of this event being published over the years, how much of the testimony will be of the actual experiences of a particular witness and how much of it will be something that person heard or read and unintentionally incorporated into their own "recollections?"
3CWP members refused to particpate and testify in the criminal trials of the Klan/Nazi members, so there is no official record of their sworn testimony with which to assess the accuracy of their current "memories."
3The testimony of some key participants will not be available, either because of their choice not to testify or because of the deaths of some during the intervening years. Therefore it is likely that testimony will be extremely one-sided. No matter the reason that testimonies are not available, one's "house" (truth) is extremely shaky when essential building blocks are missing from the foundation.
3Statements published by founders of this project over the last year have contained numerous inaccurate and biased inflammatory statements. For example, one recent flyer stated the November 3, 1979 event was a labor meeting and completely omitted the fact that the event was promoted as a "Death to the Klan" rally at the time.
Secondly, I have serious concerns about the obvious bias of some of the project participants. Several of the founders are victims of the shootout who are certainly not impartial. In addition, one of the current project co-chairs has already stated in a National Public Radio interview what the final results of the study are going to be.
Next, I have had no calls for city council action on this issue except for those directly involved in the project. It does not appear that many Greensboro citizens are supporting this effort. Indeed, the WFMY News2 poll indicated 87% of those respondents oppose city council's involvement.
Lastly, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission can move forward with its work, with or without the blessing of the Greensboro City Council. Our action -- or lack thereof -- will neither help nor hinder their efforts.
One additional note: Here is a link to a magazine article sent to me by a constituent that offers a very different interpretation of the "facts" that are being presented about this event. It is a lengthy article, but well worth your time.
The new baseball stadium
Notwithstanding the likelihood that some folks probably label me a"naysayer" due to my stance during the new baseball stadium controversy, I must say that the new stadium - First Horizon Park - is absolutely gorgeous! City council members toured the facility from top to bottom last Tuesday before our council meeting, and I was very impressed with the sight lines, amenities, and fantastic view of downtown Greensboro. (See this week's March 17 print edition of the Rhino Times for a picture of that visit - it's not on the Rhino website as of today.) I think this new stadium is going to be another plus for Greensboro.
I am interested in knowing if the steps taken to eliminate noise and light intrusion into nearby neighborhoods are effective. Fisher Park and Westerwood residents -- let me know!
And so there is no misunderstanding, I still very much support restoring War Memorial Stadium and look forward to receving the recommendations from the committee exploring the possibilities for that historic facility!
I am interested in knowing if the steps taken to eliminate noise and light intrusion into nearby neighborhoods are effective. Fisher Park and Westerwood residents -- let me know!
And so there is no misunderstanding, I still very much support restoring War Memorial Stadium and look forward to receving the recommendations from the committee exploring the possibilities for that historic facility!
Thursday, March 17, 2005
NCDOT does listen!
As chair of Greensboro's TAC [Transportation Advisory Committee], I attended an informational meeting in Pleasant Garden's new town hall (beautiful facility!) between staff of the NC Department of Transportation and some members of the Pleasant Garden Town Council and several interested citizens. We were discussing project number R2612 which proposes to add interchanges and/or grade separations [bridges over the highway] on US421 South at Woody Mill Road and at Neeley Road. There have been ongoing discussions for several years now, with concerns being expressed about the 421/Neeley Road intersection -- whether it should be an interchange or grade separation, some potential additional street connections in the area, impacts on wetlands, etc. -- the usual concerns we get anytime we start messing around with streets.
The good news is that NCDOT designers and engineers assigned to this project listened closely to those concerns, and everyone left that meeting pleased with the proposal they came up with. They still have some tweaking to do in hopes of lessening impacts on some homes in the area, but the basic plan looks good. So, whenever the funding becomes available (and that could easily be 5-10 years away), it looks like we'll be getting a half-cloverleaf interchange at Neeley Road and US 421 South without some the feared street connection in nearby Hunters Ridge.
The best thing? People were actually happy and thanking the NCDOT staff for their helpfulness and willingness to work with them. Refreshing to hear that for a change!
The good news is that NCDOT designers and engineers assigned to this project listened closely to those concerns, and everyone left that meeting pleased with the proposal they came up with. They still have some tweaking to do in hopes of lessening impacts on some homes in the area, but the basic plan looks good. So, whenever the funding becomes available (and that could easily be 5-10 years away), it looks like we'll be getting a half-cloverleaf interchange at Neeley Road and US 421 South without some the feared street connection in nearby Hunters Ridge.
The best thing? People were actually happy and thanking the NCDOT staff for their helpfulness and willingness to work with them. Refreshing to hear that for a change!
Here goes!
Thanks to the urging and encouragement from numerous bloggers, I am going to attempt to publish this blog and focus on the various issues I must deal with as a Greensboro City Council member. I hope to explain my stands on issues and solicit your input and concerns in order to make more informed decisions. So here I go with this GRAND EXPERIMENT! Please bear with me while I learn as I go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
