The Conservative Forum

Still Spinning...

2007-09-13T09:24:00.000-04:00

VICTORIA CHERRIE
Transit tax supporter Pat Mumford touted the results of Tuesday's Republican primary, saying voters consistently chose candidates who support the half-cent sales tax. But those trying to repeal the tax said the results are meaningless to the debate that will be settled in a Nov. 6 referendum.
"It was real easy to pick the winners of those races the day filing ended," said Jim Puckett, a former county commissioner whose group launched the petition drive to get the transit issue on the ballot. "To draw these conclusions is a real stretch." But Mumford, a Charlotte city councilman and chair of Vote Against the Repeal Committee, said anti-transit-tax voters had a chance Tuesday to show their disapproval.
"They did not do that," he said. "And I think you would have heard a different response (from the opponents) if the numbers were closer." A day after Mayor Pat McCrory and other transit tax supporters swept to easy victories, forces on both sides of the issue talked about the primary that drew only 5 percent of eligible voters. Both groups are knee-deep in drawing residents into their corner by November.
McCrory handily defeated Ken Gjertsen, a first-term school board member who made his anti-tax stance the center of his campaign.
In the City Council's at-large race, four candidates who supported the tax prevailed, while two who opposed it lost. Warren Cooksey, also a supporter, won the chance to compete for the District 7 seat. Though some people probably cast votes against McCrory and other candidates because of their support of the transit tax, Puckett and others said, voters more likely picked candidates who could beat Democrats in November.
Gjertsen was a good candidate, but he didn't raise nearly the money or campaign like McCrory, Puckett said. "You have to be willing to give up some things to get others," said Larry Bumgarner, a transit tax foe who said he voted for McCrory. "I want a Republican in office."
Many repeal supporters couldn't vote because they don't live in the city or are registered as Democrats, Puckett said.
Bumgarner also said the losing candidates who supported the repeal weren't "heavy hitters," or well-known candidates. Still, he said he talked to lots of voters who are fed up with problems, such as cost overruns, with light rail. "I think we'll see a much larger turnout for the transit issue in November," he said.
Choosing the mayor based on transit issues could be a challenge for voters since McCrory and his Democratic opponent, state Rep. Beverly Earle, both support the tax.
"We believe the tax itself is a good idea in the sense that it shares the cost with people who live outside Mecklenburg County," Earle said. But she said she is concerned that the mayor has mismanaged transit projects, adding, "There seems to be a lack of accountability." McCrory said his goal is to "take the burden of transportation off the property tax payer of Charlotte and have people throughout the region pay." Decision 2007

Round and Round we go where it stops, well nobody knows. However, we can debate this subject and those of you who do wish to know the facts, here is where to go on September 19th, 2007:

Repeal It? Keep It? Transit Tax Debate in Charlotte

Contact: Mitch Kokai 919-828-3876
What: John Locke Foundation Debate

When: 8:30-11:30 a.m. Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Where: Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Government Center

600 E. 4th Street, Charlotte, NC

(Directions are available at www.JohnLocke.org/events.)

Price: Free, but registration is required

Who this affects: The people of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County face an important vote in the November election. They must decide whether to keep or repeal the half-cent sales tax for mass transit.

The John Locke Foundation hosts a free, public debate on the topic.

Jeff Taylor of the Meck Deck blog and Sam Staley, director of urban and land use policy at the Reason Foundation, will speak for the tax’s repeal.

Pat Mumford, chairman of Vote Against the Repeal Committee, and Todd Litman, executive director of Victoria Transport Institute, will speak in favor of the tax.

UNCC Inquiry is Ordered

2007-07-22T16:40:00.000-04:00

Bowles ordersUNCC inquiry
VICTORIA CHERRIE
University of North
Carolina system President Erskine Bowles assigned a member of his staff to investigate whether there was misconduct by UNC Charlotte in its study of the future light-rail system in Charlotte. The controversy centers on a university study earlier this year that was mostly favorable to the Charlotte Area Transit System, saying its operating and construction costs were in line with those of other transit systems. Voters will decide in November whether to keep a half-cent tax dedicated to mass transit. The tax would help pay for light rail.
Critics have said taxpayer money shouldn't have been used for the report, released in early May. And they question the Charlotte Chamber's role in the study,especially since the chamber has taken a public stance in favor of the tax. University officials have defended the study.
On Tuesday, David Harrison, a UNC system attorney, said he was appointed by Bowles to investigate complaints about the study, mostly from people opposed to the half-cent sales tax. After about two days of culling through e-mails and other documents, Harrison said he felt a misconduct investigation was warranted. He declined to give specifics as to why. "That's a huge concern for anyone in my job, in academia. The biggest question is, `Was the research sound?' " said Harrison. "The key is that we do it objectively, fairly and without misconduct." When he contacted UNCC, it was already conducting its own investigation, Harrison said. He said he will take the report, review it and make a recommendation to Bowles.
Several Charlotte residents said Tuesday they had asked for an outside investigation. "This needs to give way to common sense," said Tom Ashcraft, an attorney who opposes the half-cent sales tax. "It makes sense for someone who doesn't work with the university to take a look at it." A spokeswoman for the Attorney General's Office said her office would investigate only if the Board of Elections asked. Don Wright, an attorney for the state Board of Elections, said the office did not have jurisdiction to determine whether public money was being properly spent to support the bond issue. He said Bowles' office should investigate any concerns about UNC Charlotte's spending.
What about bias? This report was done egregiously, it was colluding with public officials to obfuscate facts, twist truths, and sway public opinions. What makes matters more concerning is the fact that this was an orchestrated campaign, using public funding. The City of Charlotte's official policy for responding to requests for information or analysis, is that Staff may answer questions and provide information to the Mayor and City Council, citizens, and the media in normal and appropriate ways. Staff shall not however, engage in the development or implementation of referendum/campaign strategy.
There is evidence through email, of this happening and it is improper for them to engage thusly. Just like there is truth in billing, there is ethic concerns with truth in representation, after all the public has to be able to trust the information given is unbiased and untampered with. Yet here is evidence to the contrary. All I can say is stayed tune.

UNCC to probe transit study

2007-07-14T16:28:00.000-04:00

UNCC to probe transit study
ERIC FRAZIER
UNC Charlotte has launched a formal investigation in response to allegations that its employees skewed a research report to boost support for the city's light-rail system.

The probe, announced Friday, marks the latest development in an intense debate over whether the county should keep a half-cent sales tax for mass transit that generates about $77 million annually and helps fund the light-rail system.

Critics say the report, unveiled in April by UNCC's Center for Transportation Policy Studies, manipulated data to make a favorable case for the light-rail system. They say the report's authors acted with undue influence from the Charlotte Chamber, a strong proponent of light rail.
UNCC denies any impropriety.

Chancellor Phil Dubois sought the investigation "to assure the public that the study was conducted in an objective manner free from any university administrative or political influence," said David Dunn, a vice chancellor. "This university holds its integrity in this community at a premium. We will do everything we can to protect it." The report's release came amid growing opposition to the light-rail system. In May, a group opposing the transit tax gathered 48,000 signatures to place the issue of repealing it before voters this November.

The petition generated some controversy over its methods -- pollsters were paid per signature and some signers said they didn't know they were signing to repeal the tax, although the petition was labeled as such. Critics allege that the chamber asked UNCC for the report to help bolster the rail system's chances.

E-mails obtained by the Observer show that in March, chamber President Bob Morgan e-mailed Dubois suggesting a study on how constructing the light-rail line compares with transit projects in other cities. Morgan later sent 20 questions he hoped would form the basis for the study, the e-mails show. Light-rail critics have cited cost overruns and Mecklenburg's low-density style of growth among reasons for killing the tax.
Accusations of influence
Light-rail backers, including Mayor Pat McCrory, say budgets have grown on other large transportation projects, including I-485. They also say 60 percent of the revenues from the mass-transit sales tax support the city's bus system.Calls to Dubois and Morgan weren't immediately returned Friday.
Martin Davis, a light-rail opponent who complained to UNC system President Erskine Bowles, questioned whether UNCC could fairly investigate. "They are, in a nonacademic, partisan way, trying to sway the public to keep that tax," Davis said. "They'll never admit to it. They'll cloak it."
Critics have also seized on apparent conflicts between e-mail records UNCC released in June and public statements by the study's author, professor Edd Hauser. Hauser has said he chose to conduct the study after watching officials debate transit issues at a March 26 City Council meeting.
Questions of conduct
E-mails, however, suggest that, four days earlier, he was already lined up to handle the study. University officials say there was no discrepancy. They say four days before the Council meeting, Hauser was only considering a study; he didn't commit to do it until after the City Council session, they said.

Dunn, the UNCC vice chancellor, said the investigation will focus on the university's research misconduct policy. That policy prohibits "serious deviation" from commonly accepted research practices, including fabrication, falsification or plagiarism. Asked if the policy would prohibit outside influence in the initiation of a study, he said no. The university has about a dozen research centers and invites suggestions from citizens about topics to study.

"It doesn't matter how studies originate," he said. "Anybody at any time can ask us to study anything. That's why we're here." Other critics said the study itself doesn't withstand scientific scrutiny.

Jim Puckett, a leader of a group fighting the transit tax, said Hauser selectively picked comparison cities to make Charlotte's light-rail system look good. "Dr. Hauser clearly manipulated the data," Puckett said. "By cherry picking data sources he corrupted the study. ... We're completely different than a city running a large rail system because they cost a lot more than what we would have."

Hauser didn't return a call or an e-mail from the Observer on Friday. Dunn, the university spokesman, defended Hauser and the study, saying it was solidly done.

Probe by UNCC employees
The probe will be conducted in the next 30 days by a group of UNCC employees overseen by the school's general counsel, Dunn said. That news wasn't comforting to Davis.

"I don't hold out a lot of hope for any of this," Davis said. "But at least (Bowles) was honest enough to at launch an investigation." -- Staff writer Josh Lanier contributed.

Board approves $8 million for Ball Park

2007-07-11T11:47:00.000-04:00

The County Commissioners approved a $8 million grant to the Charlotte Knights to help the team prepare a stadium site in Third Ward.The grant would help the Knights improve roads, install traffic signals and make other improvements around the site, where the team wants to build a $35 million stadium. Commissioners voted 6-3 to approve the grant, with Republicans Bill James, Dan Bishop and Karen Bentley voting no. A second vote, authorizing County Manager Harry Jones to execute the deal, passed 7-2, with James and Bishop opposing.

For nearly two years, since local boosters first pitched a complex land swap to free land for the stadium, local officials have negotiated with private businesses to try to make uptown baseball a reality. The decision doesn't guarantee the Knights will start playing in an uptown stadium in 2009, as the team plans, there are some other hurdles to be jumped over.
However, last night's decision gives team officials access to the site and money they say they need to prepare it and build the stadium.

Quote from Observer Article:

Uptown business leaders hope minor-league baseball can complement the growing
center city, which already hosts NFL and NBA teams."It's a perfect fit for Charlotte at this point in time, in our still-surging progress," said Jeff Beaver, director of the Charlotte Regional Sports Commission, at a public hearing before the vote.

For the team to move, though, the county still must reach additional agreements with the Knights and a firm that owns land nearby. It also must weather a lawsuit that challenges the transfer of Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools property in Second Ward to the county -- part of the land swap that would open up the stadium site.
The agreement that commissioners approved Tuesday allows the team to begin work on the site, bounded by West Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and South Graham, West Fourth and South Mint streets.

The Knights hope they can raise the $35 million stadium cost mainly through loans and other financing with Wachovia and Bank of America. If they don't what then? It brings up the question, are we going to be funding another arena?

A few things still could derail the move. Chief among them is a lawsuit by Charlotte attorney Jerry Reese, who wants to block transfer of the Education Center property. I understand his reasoning, they (the Commissioners) promised an uptown park. Instead we are getting more steel and glass.

Stay Tuned....

Light Rail Sneak Peek

2007-07-11T11:43:00.000-04:00

Photos taken by Shanna

Thin line between politics, policy

2007-07-01T02:27:00.000-04:00

VICTORIA CHERRIE AND STEVE HARRISON

Is it proper for Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory to use his publicly funded television show to defend a half-cent sales tax to pay for light rail and extend bus service?

Was City Manager Pam Syfert trying to sway voters when she announced possible "draconian cuts" if the city loses the tax and has to find $77 million to replace it?

And did the Charlotte Chamber orchestrate a study by a state-funded university that produced results favorable to light rail?

As the transit tax debate heats up, critics say public officials in Charlotte are walking a fine line between policy and politics in their fight to defeat a November ballot issue that would kill the tax.

Experts contacted by the Observer said public officials have considerable leeway in discussing ballot initiatives, but shouldn't actively promote them.

Leaders of the effort to repeal the tax say the city has an unfair advantage. They question the legality of the mayor and city manager using tax-funded television to present information that could sway voters.

State law says public funds, supplies or equipment can't be used for political or partisan activities.

"Sure, the city has a right to inform the City Council, but you can inform the City Council without telling the entire city and talking (on television) about what will happen when the tax will be repealed," said former county commissioner Jim Puckett, a spokesman for the anti-tax group known as SCAT (Sensible Charlotte Area Transportation). "This is just an attempt to sway voters."

City Attorney Mac McCarley defends the mayor and city manager, saying city officials are allowed to educate the public about existing policies. The potential financial impact of losing the tax is part of that, he said.

"Talking to the public is part of my job," McCrory said. "I'm not going to be hamstrung or stifled to stop talking."

Ferrel Guillory, director of UNC Chapel Hill's Southern politics program, said, "I don't see how stifling the mayor adds to the public dialogue of Charlotte. And I don't see how the mayor can be prohibited from voicing his views on policy and advocating for the kind of government he was elected to foster."

Guillory said elected officials, by virtue of their jobs and roles in the community, have an advantage when it comes to discussing policies that sometimes become political in nature.
"The question becomes, `Where do you draw the line?' " he said.

The mayor, manager and UNCC

In May, a group opposing the tax got 48,000 signatures to place the issue before voters. The looming referendum has heated community debate on both sides of the issue.

In April, while opponents were collecting signatures, McCrory taped a segment of his monthly show, which critics say he used to promote the transit tax. During a discussion about the region's transportation plan, the mayor told viewers they had a choice to "react or plan for growth."
"I chose to plan," he said.

The segment, which aired on Charlotte/Mecklenburg Government Access Channel 16, ran until June -- about a month after the petition drive was certified.

The mayor says his critics are reaching and that he's acting within his duties as mayor.
"What's next?" he told the Observer. "Are they going to try and stop televising City Council meetings because we are allowed to express our opinions?"

Questions also are emerging over how much influence the Charlotte Chamber had in a UNC Charlotte study earlier this year that was largely favorable to CATS.

In March, Chamber President Bob Morgan e-mailed university Chancellor Phil Dubois suggesting a study on how constructing the light-rail line compares with transit projects in other cities. Morgan later sent 20 questions he hoped would form the basis for the study, e-mails obtained by the Observer show.

The study, conducted by UNCC's center for transportation policy studies, showed Charlotte's light-rail construction costs and bus operating expenses were similar to other projects and transit systems nationwide. Light-rail critics have cited cost overruns as a reason for killing the tax.

Furthermore, UNCC would benefit if a projected light-rail line to campus becomes reality.
Dubois was traveling and could not be reached for comment.

David Dunn, vice chancellor for university relations and community affairs, defended the study.
"Anybody at anytime can ask us to study anything," he said. "We took the request and overlaid that against the mission of the center. It all lined up pretty well."

The possibility of a tax repeal led Syfert to present what-if financial scenarios, which she called "draconian cuts," to city officials and the public Monday at the televised City Council meeting.
Puckett and others said the council could have gotten the information at a work session instead of during a televised meeting.

"I can't say the city manager did anything wrong," council member Don Lochman said. "But I also think they (transit opponents) have a valid point. They're not buying into at face value the doomsday analysis. Is that reasonable? Seems reasonable to me."

Light-rail opponents have also been accused of pushing the limits. During the petition drive, numerous signers complained that people collecting signatures did not say their names would help kill the transit tax.

'Judgment call' in Cary

Similar debates have flared in other N.C. cities. In 2002 a Cary resident sued the city for engaging in a tax-funded campaign about growth management during an election year. A court ruled that the town's mail-out campaign went beyond information to promote an issue.

"That was a judgment call that could've gone either way," said Michael Crowell, a Raleigh attorney who represented Cary.

Crowell said elected officials also have been challenged when using tax dollars to promote bonds.
They can provide information in an objective way without saying how people should vote, he said.

"If it gets into advocacy, that's when it gets into trouble," Crowell said. "It's obviously a judgment question."

What the Transit Vote is About
Mecklenburg voters will decide in November whether to repeal a half-cent sales tax for mass transit, approved by voters in 1998.

Supporters of the repeal say that light rail doesn't make sense for Charlotte, and it will do little to relieve congestion or improve the environment. They are pushing the repeal because they say it's the only way to stop CATS from building multiple rail lines as part of its 2030 transit plan.

Those seeking to keep the tax say that light rail will not only help move people, it's also an effective way to create "transit-oriented development," with high-density housing clustered around train stops. Roughly 65 percent of the tax supports the bus system, which would face deep cutbacks if the tax were repealed. They have said the city would have to raise property taxes or cut the budget to offset the loss of the tax.

What if Tax is Repealed?
The city estimates that a family with the area's median income -- just under $60,000 -- pays about $40 a year for the half-cent sales tax for mass transit. Should that tax be repealed, the city predicts four possible scenarios.

Two are unlikely. One would involve cutting bus service and not running the light-rail line. That isn't likely because CATS would have to repay the state and federal government $306 million used to build the south corridor rail line. Another unlikely scenario would replace the sales tax with a property tax to build transit corridors.

The two most likely scenarios:

• Stop all future rail construction. Operate the south corridor light-rail line, though service would be reduced. Cut bus service, including dropping Sunday service, cutting 41 of 76 routes, and increasing fares. This would spur a property tax hike adding roughly $58 a year on a house with a taxable value of $159,900.
• Stop all future rail construction but fully operate the south corridor light-rail line. Keep the bus system as it is today with no expansion plans. This would cost $171 a year in new property taxes for that same house.

CATS could also choose a level of service somewhere in between. The city could also raise property taxes and make budget cuts, though officials have said there is little room in the budget.

Critics have said they agree that the south corridor line should operate, and that it's important to have bus service, though some believe the system is too large and could be reduced. Opponents also have said they don't believe the city would need to cut police and fire, as has been suggested.

CATS moves forward with north rail plan

2007-06-29T02:58:00.000-04:00

Organization hopes to borrow money to close huge gap in funding
STEVE HARRISON

CATS inched forward Wednesday with its plans to build a commuter-rail line to north Mecklenburg, despite uncertainty over whether the half-cent sales tax for mass transit will survive. The Charlotte Area Transit System discussed details with the Metropolitan Transit Commission of how it plans to pay for the commuter-rail line, which will run on existing Norfolk-Southern tracks from uptown to either Davidson or Iredell County.

For several months, the biggest question has been how to bridge a $76 million funding gap. The line overall will cost between $241 million and $261 million, with an estimated completion date of 2011.

CATS said Wednesday at the MTC meeting in Cornelius that it plans to borrow the money from the federal government, tapping a low-interest loan available for the improvement of rail corridors. The federal government has previously said it won't give CATS money to build the North Corridor. It has helped fund the light-rail line along South Boulevard, which is nearing completion.

CATS's plan is to pay that money back by borrowing against new property tax revenues that the commuter line is expected to generate. It estimates that land around train stations will generate $5.2 billion in new development by 2019. Nearly 80 percent of the new property tax revenue would be left over for basic services, CATS said. CATS hopes the MTC will approve its finance plan in July or August so it can begin awarding design and engineering contracts later in the year.

Critics who want to repeal the sales tax, which is a major source of CATS funding, have said the North Corridor commuter train won't be effective. They have said the fact that CATS is still searching for funding is a sign that it shouldn't be built.

The MTC also discussed a city presentation detailing possible budget cuts if it loses the half-cent sales tax. County Commissioner Dan Bishop questioned the analysis. He said city staff should have instead presented a scenario in which property taxes were raised and budget cuts made.

They are bound and determined .....we will see what the future brings.

Boundaries of free speech: High Court opens door for wealthy interest groups ...

2007-06-27T19:33:00.000-04:00

Here's a question to ponder: Should corporations, unions and others with much deeper pockets than most people be able to spend as much as they wish to influence elections, even though there's widespread agreement that special-interest money is corrupting politics and government?

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a 5-4 Supreme Court majority, provided an answer Monday that changes the rules of the nation's tawdry political game. "Where the First Amendment is implicated," he said, "the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor."

In other words, free speech, particularly political speech, is so important that it must be protected, even when there's a huge downside. Money spent on a political message, whether by an individual or an interest group, is free speech.

The sentiment is right, and the decision is narrowly focused, but it poses a huge problem. It rips a hole in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, which since 2002 has been the primary vehicle for limiting the corrupting influence of special-interest money.

Specifically, the court invalidated a part of the law that bars corporations and unions from using their treasuries to fund "issue ads" that mention a candidate's name in the weeks preceding a vote for federal office. That includes lobbies that function as corporations, such as the Sierra Club, the National Rifle Association and Wisconsin Right to Life, which produced the 2004 ads at issue in the case. The ads urged Wisconsin's senators not to block President Bush's court nominees.

Other aspects of McCain-Feingold weren't touched, but the court's logic suggests that might not last. Regardless, special interests have already found ways to evade the law's intent because, as the Supreme Court noted in an earlier ruling, "money, like water, will always find an outlet." Monday's ruling just opens the spigot wider.

Rather than try to plug the leaks in McCain-Feingold, Congress would be wise to consider a different approach, one that has withstood court challenges and is taking hold in seven states and two cities: voluntary public financing of campaigns. Candidates get public money to wage campaigns in exchange for agreeing not to accept large donations from special interests.

This is already working. Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano won office twice under the state's public financing law. In Maine, 84% of the winning legislative candidates in 2006 chose public financing. And in North Carolina's top judicial races, eight candidates, including five of the six winners, used the system.

Public financing doesn't muzzle the special interests, but it keeps them from drowning out the public's voice. And it protects free speech, too.

Now, if this would trickle down locally, perhaps we would find equitable balance on issues.

So the people have all the facts, where they can look and learn for them-selves.

More on Transit issues...

2007-06-27T00:51:00.000-04:00

City staff predicts deep cuts if tax goes
Budget director says without half-cent tax, police and fire services could decrease
VICTORIA CHERRIE

Charlotte's budget director Monday night presented a grim picture of the City Council's options if the half-cent sales tax that pays for it gets repealed by voters in November. The scenarios include raising property taxes and cutting police, fire, solid waste services and road improvement projects. The options also include major job layoffs and requiring the incorporated towns in Mecklenburg County to pay for their own bus and rail services.

"Every single one of these scenarios puts the Charlotte taxpayer in a worse position," councilwoman Susan Burgess said. "We're better off just staying the course." The half-cent sales tax generates about $77 million in annual revenue. About 68 percent of that pays for bus operations. The severity of cuts would depend on whether the city chooses to totally cut bus service, rail service or a combination of both. If the city doesn't operate its future rail corridors as promised when it borrowed the money to build them, it would be on the hook for about $300 million, officials said.

"We can't absorb the half-cent sales tax," City Manager Pam Syfert said Monday during her last meeting before she retires. "This will require fairly draconian cuts in the general fund budget."
Light-rail opponents say the city is using scare tactics to influence voters into supporting the tax.

"I don't think the people who sold us the tax in 1998 were completely forthcoming, and we can't trust what they say today," said Tom Ashcraft, a local attorney who is opposed to the half-cent sales tax.

The mass transit dispute has put the city in an unusual position: in the middle of a heated political debate. It's being accused of spinning data in favor of the half-cent sales tax and presenting scare-tactics to voters.

Syfert said her staff was simply presenting options the council can decide to carry out. After the November referendum the council will have about seven months to decide what to do. Monday, light-rail opponents accused Mayor Pat McCrory of using his monthly program "Agenda Charlotte," on Charlotte/Mecklenburg Government Access, Channel 16, to spin the message in favor of keeping the half-cent sales tax. The program, which covers a range of topics, focused most recently on the city's transportation plan. It aired weekly through June 6, station officials said. It is now off the air, but still can be watched on the city-county Web site.

"The mayor has every right to defend the city's position on any number of issues at the same level as any citizen," said Jim Puckett, an opponent of the half-cent sales tax. "It is when he takes advantage of the airwaves paid by the public that I have a problem with it." State law prohibits the use of tax money for political purposes. But it's hard to say that discussing issues on a program is a platform, said David Lawrence, a professor at the UNC Chapel Hill School of Government.

He said he didn't know enough about the show to comment further. "The opponents of mass transit do not get to muzzle the mayor and elected officials during this referendum campaign," City Attorney Mac McCarley said. "The mayor is doing what mayors do. He is articulating and defending council policy. There is absolutely no prohibition against him doing that." The City Council will discuss light rail again Wednesday in Cornelius with the Metropolitan Transit Commission. MTC Meeting June 27, 2007 4:30 pm - 8:00 pm Cornelius Town Hall First Floor Training Room 21445 Catawba Avenue Cornelius, NC 28031

Agenda

2007-06-24T01:54:00.000-04:00

Commissioner ponders job options

Mecklenburg County commissioner Dan Ramirez may be ready to switch seats -- and jobs. Eight months after winning election, the Charlotte Republican is mulling a race for Charlotte City Council. He expects to make a decision next week.
Why?
"The answer is really very simple," says Ramirez, a 60-year-old businessman. "It's not that I don't like the county commission -- I really love it. But I think my skills are more attuned with the business of the city ... the infrastructure ... projects in general."Ramirez would run at-large. At least one incumbent, Republican Pat Mumford, is stepping down. If elected, Ramirez would sit at the same government center dais he does now. But on Monday nights, not Tuesdays. -- Jim Morrill

Edwin Peacock Jr. was just a kid when his dad, Ed, was elected to the Charlotte City Council. Now he's running himself. Peacock, a 37-year-old Republican, will run at-large. That's the same position once held by his father, who also chaired the Mecklenburg County commissioners and ran for mayor. Peacock Jr. says his dad never pushed him to run. "He's just told me how much he enjoyed it and how much I would enjoy it," he says. ~Jim Morrill

Light-rail facility tour today
Building opens to public as part of CATS' push to promote mass transit

The South Boulevard Light Rail Facility will open today with fanfare from local officials eager to show off the building and the LYNX blue line rail cars to the public.
Light rail has come under attack recently by critics who say it's unnecessary and overpriced. They want to repeal a half-cent sales tax dedicated to mass transit and have collected enough signatures to put the matter to voters on the Nov. 6 ballot.
The Charlotte Area Transit System, meanwhile, has been working to open the $462.7 million South Corridor line early to persuade voters to keep paying the tax.
The original cost estimate for the line was $227 million in 1998. CATS will celebrate the grand opening of its 92,000-square-foot facility from 10 a.m. to noon today. Jennifer Roberts, chairman of the Mecklenburg County commissioners, and Charlotte City Council member Patsy Kinsey, District 1, will join CATS chief officer Ron Tober to open facility.
"We want the community to come out and see the LYNX light-rail vehicles, walk through the cars and learn how they operate," Tober said in a statement. "Visitors will also get to see how the trains are maintained and other operational features at this new site." ~KAREN CIMINO

Keep your heads up there is a MTC Meeting regarding the repeal of the half -cent sales tax coming up very soon.

School Bonds

2007-06-20T06:32:00.000-04:00

Charlotte, NC (June 18, 2007) - Three weeks ago, Republican County Commissioners reached-out quietly to forge consensus on a school bond referendum for this fall. On our behalf, Commissioners Dan Ramirez (At-Large) and Karen Bentley (District 1) opened discussions with Democrat Commissioner Jennifer Roberts, Superintendent Peter Gorman, County Manager Harry Jones and Chamber of Commerce President Robert Morgan aimed at unifying the Board of County Commissioners, the CMS Board and the business community in support of a balanced and reasonable bond proposal likely to draw voter support in November. Others have been involved at points. To promote compromise, we conducted these talks in private and avoided publicity.

Regrettably, our efforts appear now to have failed. Repeating unfortunate history; the majority of Democrat Commissioners decline to compromise. They are poised to approve on Tuesday—by a bare and partisan 5-4 vote—a $620 million package suggested by the Board of Education. The undersigned Republican County Commissioners, School Board Members and City Councilmen respectfully submit that this course of action, would be a serious mistake that undermines the will of the citizens and the message that the people of this County sent us in 2005.

The $620 million package now proposed is far in excess of not only last summer’s mutual commitment to $400 million, but also the $427 million measure voters rejected in 2005. The Chamber’s reported polling data indicates that public support is very marginal for the larger sum, even among registered voters (i.e., not screened for likely voters). We should not risk another voter rejection by overstuffing the referendum, particularly when a smaller amount could attract unanimous Board support and wide public acceptance. The community needs a win.

We have not insisted on strict observance of the previously agreed $400 million limit.

We have offered to support $56 million more for construction cost escalation. This week, the County’s Citizens Capital Budget Advisory Committee (CCBAC) proposed $486 million. It is more than we originally suggested but it does have a sound principal of equity and fiscal responsibility, we have offered to support that. But the Democrats won’t budge. Children in overcrowded and dilapidated public schools need new schools and renovations. We can continue to meet the most urgent needs through Certificates of Participation (COP)s financing if we must, but the Board of County Commissioners should send to voters a consensus bond referendum that will enjoy broad voter support. Let’s not have another showdown. We urge the adoption of the CCBAC recommendation on a unanimous vote of the County Commission.

We’ll keep working toward this goal through the meeting Tuesday night, and we ask for the community’s help.

Karen Bentley (Dist 1) BOCC Dan Bishop (Dist 5) BOCC
Bill James (Dist 6) BOCC Dan Ramirez (At-Large) BOCC
Kaye McGarry (At-Large) BOE Larry Gauvreau (Dist 1) BOE
Ken Gjertsen (Dist 6) BOE

Andy Dulin (Dist 5) City Council
Don Lochman (Dist 7) City Council

For more information, contact Dan Ramirez at 704-277-1633 or 704-551-1055 or Dan
Bishop at 704-716-1202 or 704-618-7580

The ramification of this issue is long reaching, perhaps it is time to alleviate some of the pressure by allowing Charter Schools to take on some of the over crowding, instead of capping them. It is time to start thinking outside of the box, instead of boxing.

From the Observer:
County Manager Harry Jones proposed, nearly $617 million in school bonds, about $4 million short of the amount recommended by the school board.

With the board's four Republicans standing behind a $486 million proposal, Democratic commissioner Valerie Woodard -- a potential swing vote on the nine-member board -- pitched her own figure of $540 million.

Commissioners are expected to vote on a bond package July 10.

CMS Superintendent Peter Gorman reminded commissioners that they are faced with exploding growth, the system's building needs total $2.5 billion over 10 years -- $3.7 billion with inflation. On Tuesday, no one disputed the need.

Instead, commissioners asked: How much is enough for now? And how much would voters approve?

They're all aware that voters rejected $427 million in school bonds in 2005. Republican Dan Ramirez warned that a large bond proposal this year would also fail. More than $600 million, he said, "is an amount the community is not going to buy, and we're going to be further behind."

Democrat Norman Mitchell disagreed, saying Republican opposition helped kill the 2005 school bond proposal.

"I would dare them to do that again," he said. "This community will not vote against their best interests twice."

The debate grew testy. Republican Bill James called the manager's proposal "a little on the sneaky side" for granting virtually the entire school request while delaying other construction projects. He bristled when commissioners Chairman Jennifer Roberts asked him to get to the point.

"That's the type of attitude that's going to (tick) people off," James shot back.

Jones' $617 million proposal would pay for 54 projects, including 748 classrooms. More than half the money would go for 16 new schools and just over a quarter for renovations.

Michael Murdock, chairman of a citizens advisory committee, outlined its recommendation for a $486 million bond issue, suggesting the county could ask for more in two years. That's the proposal the county body's four Republicans support.

"You can only spend `X' amount of dollars over the next two years," Murdock told commissioners.

Gorman said even if voters approve $486 million every two years for the next decade, CMS would still be $1 billion short of what it needs.

"At some point," he told commissioners, "I think we have to stand up and say we're never going to address the schools' needs."

Democrat Dumont Clarke said the smaller, $486 million figure would make "just a small dent in the total need."

But Republican Dan Bishop said the system would be worse off if another bond referendum failed.

Asked later about the prospect of passing a larger bond issue, Gorman said, "I know the need sells itself, and we've got a huge need."

Jones' school proposal was part of $677 million in bonds he would put before voters this fall. That includes $25 million for Central Piedmont Community College and $34 million for parks.

Reported by Jim Morrill

The Mad, Mad, Dash

2007-06-19T03:40:00.000-04:00

RAIL'S EARLY OPENING HINGES ON STATION UPTOWN STOP MUST BE COMPLETE BEFORE ANY PART OF LINE CAN OPEN SIGNATURE STATION SCHEDULED TO BE FINISHED NOV. 15

Observer Story by Steve Harrison

CATS is working furiously to open the light-rail line early, before the Nov. 6 election - a move that some transit boosters believe could persuade voters to keep paying a half-cent sales tax dedicated to mass transit.

While much of the line is on schedule for the official Nov. 26 opening, the Charlotte Area Transit System faces one significant hurdle in opening the line early: finishing the "signature" station above Trade Street, which will have an architecturally distinctive canopy and was partially funded by private dollars.

The Trade Street station - officially called the Charlotte Transportation Center/Arena station - is scheduled to be finished Nov. 15. But CATS is pushing the contractor, Archer Western, to work as fast as possible.

The hurdle in finishing the station stems from a dispute with a subcontractor over the source of its steel. Columbia-based Gira Steel was kicked off the job earlier this year by Archer Western for allegedly using foreign steel, which violates federal regulations requiring domestic steel in some transit projects that it funds. Getting a new subcontractor set the project back between two and three months, said David Leard, the CATS project director for the South Boulevard light-rail line.

Gira Steel didn't return calls from the Observer.
Most of the light-rail stations feature simple awnings. At the Trade Street station, the entire platform is covered by a roof made of synthetic materials and supported by curved steel.
CATS has discussed opening the northern part of the line early. But if the CTC station isn't ready, no part of the line can open.

"The CTC station is really the driver (of whether the line can open early)," Leard said.
Leard said CATS won't spend more to finish the station early. He said the light-rail line's final price tag is still $462.7 million, the most recent estimate after several cost increases. The first estimate, made in 1998, was $227 million in noninflation adjusted dollars. CATS has an unspent, budgeted contingency of $6 million.

The distinctive design at the CTC station was scrapped when bids came in too high. But Charlotte Center City Partners lobbied to restore the design and raised $500,000 from uptown businesses to help fund it.

"I made the plea that this is too important, that we can't miss this opportunity," said Michael Smith, president of Center City Partners. "And they immediately got it."
The total cost will be between $1.2 million and $1.3 million, Leard said.

Earlier this year, Republican activist Jay Morrison launched a petition drive to put the half-cent tax back on the ballot. Morrison and others believe that light rail doesn't make sense in Charlotte, which they say doesn't have enough people or density to sustain it. The Mecklenburg Board of Elections certified the petition drive June 6, placing the tax on the November ballot.
City Council member Pat Mumford is leading a group trying to persuade voters to keep the tax. He said that if the train is running, voters may no longer see it as a theoretical project and may be more inclined to support the tax.

"Certainly if it were running flawlessly, I think that could help our case," Mumford said.
Even if the tax is repealed, the South Boulevard light-rail line will likely keep operating. But there would likely be cuts to bus service, and future light-rail expansion would be scrapped.
Transit chief Ron Tober stressed last week that he is working at the behest of the City Council and the Metropolitan Transit Commission, and they have asked about opening early. But he said his personal view is that an early opening will correct what he said are "misconceptions" about the project.
"I would open tomorrow if I could," Tober said.

Where Light-Rail Line Stands
Other than uncertainty over the Trade Street station, CATS said the rest of the light-rail line is either at or ahead of schedule.
The northern part of the line - from Seventh Street to the maintenance facility near the New Bern station - is essentially finished. Track has been laid, and the overhead electric wires have been installed. Trains can run on this section.

Still unfinished: Installing signs and vending machines at stations. That won't be done until 90 days before opening, to deter vandalism.

Overhead wires are still being installed in the middle section of the line - from the New Bern station to the Arrowood station. In addition, CATS is still doing most of the station work. It's concerned about possible delays in building the Tyvola and Archdale stations because those are on bridges. CATS hasn't built an elevated station yet, and officials said there could be unforeseen problems.

CATS must also complete a surface parking lot at the Scaleybark station.
The final segment of the line is the most incomplete. Archer Western recently tore down a bridge entering the Lance plant, at 8600 South Blvd. The old bridge was too short to allow trains to pass underneath.

As part of the project, CATS built a new bridge for Lance last month. Getting the new bridge finished was a small setback for the project, and CATS also faced problems in building retaining walls just north of the Interstate 485 station when it had to drill through unexpected granite.
The parking deck is still under construction.

Links to read:

And get a load of this.... Click

Catching Up....

2007-06-10T19:51:00.000-04:00

Jun. 07, 2007

Will support stay on track?
STEVE HARRISON AND TED MELLNIK
Mecklenburg County voters will decide in November whether to keep a half-cent sales tax dedicated to mass transit, or to rebuke plans for expanding bus service and light rail by killing it.
With little fanfare, the three-person Mecklenburg Board of Elections voted Wednesday afternoon to ratify a transit petition, a move that places the issue before voters. Light-rail opponents collected 48,765 signatures of Mecklenburg registered voters, about 100 more than needed, said elections director Michael Dickerson.

"I think Charlotte is finally waking up," said Larry Bumgarner of Mint Hill, who speaks out frequently against the city's plans to expand light rail. "We've had an arena put on us ... now we're waking up."

Bumgarner clapped when the vote was taken. He was one of a few spectators at Wednesday's meeting, which was a formality.

The fall vote on the half-cent sales tax will determine the future plans of the Charlotte Area Transit System.

Keeping the tax will likely mean that CATS will continue to build its ambitious 2030 Transit Plan, which includes multiple rail lines and expanded bus service. Repealing it would mean the South Boulevard light rail would likely open this year and continue to operate, though future train lines would be difficult to build. Bus service could also be trimmed, and property taxes could be raised to offset the loss of the sales tax.

Wednesday's vote marks a new phase in the light rail campaign. It also will subject parties for and against the repeal effort to campaign finance laws.

Jay Morrison, who launched the petition drive effort by hiring Michigan-based National Voter Outreach to collect signatures, has refused to disclose how much he spent. Those close to Morrison say he's paid for about half of the cost for the petition drive. National Voter Outreach pays its circulators between 75 cents and a $1 per name.

Morrison couldn't be reached for comment. Former county commissioner Jim Puckett, a spokesman for the petition drive, declined to say how much was spent on the repeal effort.

He said the next step will be fundraising. "We have to start raising money to educate the public," Puckett said.

The Charlotte Chamber of Commerce, which supports the tax, conducted a poll this spring on voters' feelings towards the repeal effort, as well as school construction bonds for Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools. The chamber found 57 percent of voters were against the transit tax repeal.

The 48,669 signatures required represents 15 percent of the Mecklenburg turnout in the last gubernatorial election, which was in November 2004.

Thedora Roseman-Bost, 54, who lives in east Charlotte, signed the petition because she believes that transit spending has been unreasonable, she said. Transit centers, she said, have been a waste of money. She said she supports light rail, but doesn't want to be taxed for it.

"I feel like we're just being taxed to death," she said. "It's just excessive taxes everywhere."

Instead, the county should use money more efficiently, she said.

Margaret Brumfield, 68, of east Charlotte, also signed the petition because transit money has not been well spent, she said.

"I think there are some places they probably need to eliminate (buses) and some places they need to have more," she said.

The signers were mostly black, female and Democrats, according to an Observer analysis this week. Most live west and northwest of uptown. That surprised some because many precincts where support for the petition was high voted strongly in favor of the tax in 1998, though turnout was light.

Here's to more transit facts
It's all but official that there will be a November referendum on whether county voters want to repeal the half-cent sales tax for transit, which voters OK'd in 1998. A few things are now expected to happen. They should be illuminating.

First, those campaigning for and against the referendum will have to file campaign expense reports so the public can see where their money's coming from. Second, as the campaign intensifies, voters should start seeing more facts. At least, we hope they will.

Expect appeals to emotion, of course, and sloganeering from both sides. Those are part of every political campaign. But more is at stake than the simple question of whether the first light rail line built -- the South Corridor, or the Lynx Blue Line -- was too much over budget and took too long. This referendum will have a serious impact on the future of the city and the region, and whether they can survive what's certain to be growing traffic congestion, as well as air quality that currently doesn't meet federal standards.

Building a rapid transit system won't mean fewer cars on the road in 25 years than there are today, of course. But it will mean fewer cars clogging the roads and spewing pollution than would be on the road without a transit system.

So, the car idling during the wait for the light rail train to pass and the road to clear won't spew pollution? Cars idling in one place for minutes, clogging the roads,density and other pollution causing effects will still be there, mass transit or not.

Remember, in 25 years Charlotte growth is expected to add roughly as many people as now live in the city of St. Louis. Without more transportation options, including mass transit, the Queen City will strangle in traffic congestion.

Much is riding on the November voting. Voters should arm themselves with facts. Indeed depending on which version you subscribe to, how about reading and researching for yourself ? Rather than be spoon fed the information by those who wish to spin it, look for yourself and decide.

Hard research facts on both sides say, that mass transit will not ease traffic congestion, that the idling of cars, in high density areas like uptown will add to the pollution. What is next? Are they going to start fining cars that idle, like they do in NY City? Rockland drivers will soon face criminal penalties for leaving their vehicles idling for more than three minutes. The Rockland County Legislature passed the idling bill in April, 2007.

The law carries fines as much as one thousand dollars and 15 days in jail. Some drivers might be ticketed for letting vehicles idle for more than three minutes to keep the air conditioning on for disabled passengers while they are loading and unloading. Some exemptions to the law include emergency vehicles and vehicles stuck in traffic. Also exempted are vehicles that need to have the engine running to perform services or for cargo temperature control.

How ever there are versions out there that don't exempt truckers, so woe to the truckers who use this corridor, can you imagine the cost to them?

When they idle their trucks to cool their cabins and sleep? If something like this is passed in Charlotte, imagine the impact to the truckers who use the I-85 route. The cost of shipping will sky rocket. Then of course there are those who would argue to buy locally, well there just some things you cannot get locally. Laws like this, will outlaw cars, make things more difficult in our transportation needs, rather than ease things as promised.

Council says `Not now' to adding a seat on MTC

The City Council on Tuesday nixed the idea of looking at whether to try to add a City Council member to the Metropolitan Transit Commission, the governing body for the Charlotte Area Transit System. It was a close vote, but in the end council member Anthony Foxx, who brought up the idea, couldn't convince enough of his colleagues. Mr. Foxx, who's a supporter of regional mass transit, says he thinks it would be a good policy move and maybe alleviate some distrust in the community at large to have more Charlotte representation on the MTC. Others on council questioned whether now is the time for such a move, given the upcoming November referendum on the transit tax.

The pro- and anti-transit campaign promises to be contentious. Tinkering with the MTC's governance would be a distraction for some of the transit system's biggest supporters. The council was right. This is not the time.

Then when is it the time? When it is all said and done? Come on, now! If this is a great thing why are they afraid of having someone from the council on board? Could it mean they are afraid of accountablity? We need hard answers to hard questions, because the way it is now, it isn't working. Common Sense!

A Monument to Waste:

2007-06-05T00:02:00.000-04:00

Demolition of Charlotte Coliseum Shows Poor Stewardship of Tax Dollars
Over the north door of St. Paul's Cathedral in London is written in Latin: "If you would see his monument look around," referring to the great architectural work of Sir Christopher Wren (1632-1723)

If you're looking for a monument to the misguided political leadership of Charlotte , then go to the intersection of Tyvola Road and Paul Buck Boulevard, Sunday morning and watch as the perfectly fine 465,000 square-foot Charlotte Coliseum is imploded in 10 seconds by 550 pounds of explosives. This exercise in waste of taxpayer assets is brought to you by the elected officials and bureaucrats who run the City of Charlotte.

The Tyvola Coliseum and surrounding acreage were originally created in the late 1980's with $86 million, principle and interest of taxpayer funds. The property was sold in recent years by the City to an Atlanta developer for approximately $25 million. As a condition of the sale, the City made the buyer promise not to use the Coliseum as an arena; and that is why it is being demolished.

In a 2001 referendum ~ 57 percent of over 100,000 Charlotte Voters, rejected building a new arena uptown. They seemed happy with the existing one on Tyvola. Despite the vote, City leadership went ahead anyway and built an arena now operating uptown at 333 E. Trade Street. This project cost the taxpayers over $430 million, in principle and interest. The chief beneficiaries were the owners of the Charlotte Bobcats Basketball Team and the National Basketball Association. The uptown building has several thousand fewer seats than the Tyvola Coliseum does and the available parking, ingress and egress are far inferior to what was available at Tyvola.

This same Charlotte political leadership, which has brought about the demolition of the Tyvola Coliseum, is now carping that the taxpayers should not repeal, by referendum this November, the half-cent transit sales tax. But this tax is only part of the financing for a scheduled multi-billion dollar, multi-corridor mass transit plan, including a light rail system, which according to many transportation experts is doomed to failure.

Though S.C.A.T will have more to say about the referendum in the coming months, remember this: You cannot trust the political leaders of Charlotte to make sound judgments about spending your tax dollars. The Charlotte area has many needs, including funds for schools and resources to reduce our high rate of violent crime.

If the transit sales tax is not repealed, you can count on City leaders spending every dime and much more, on an extravagant system, which will have little, if any impact on traffic congestion and pollution. Just think of the waste in evidence this Sunday, as the cloud of dust goes up on Tyvola Road.~ Don

Money, Money, Money,

2007-05-31T13:43:00.000-04:00

Mecklenburg property tax increase likely
VICTORIA CHERRIE

Mecklenburg County property owners will likely pay more in taxes next year. In a series of preliminary budget votes, Mecklenburg County commissioners agreed Wednesday night to increase the county property tax rate to 83.87 cents per $100 of assessed value. That's about a 2 percent increase from the current rate.

The increase would mean a $39.60 annual increase in the tax bill for a county home with a tax valuation of $200,000. Charlotte residents also would pay city property taxes. County Manager Harry Jones had recommended a higher tax rate in his proposed $1.46 billion budget. After two days of debate, the commissioners, divided along party lines, agreed to cut the proposal by about $11 million. The board is set to formally adopt the budget Tuesday.

The budget includes more money for employee raises, the county's share of Medicaid health costs and debt service for school and other construction costs. It also includes $25.2 million more than last year for Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools. That's about $4.8 million less than the school board's $346.5 million request.

Commissioners also gave $24.9 million to Central Piedmont Community College, $1.7 million more than its current allocation. The school had asked for $26.1 million, but Jones had recommended an increase of only $300,000. Under the proposal, a small percentage of property owners in the county's unincorporated areas would see their tax rate increase an additional 1.15 cents to pay for police services. To pay for the changes, the commissioners allocated $9 million in lottery proceeds to help pay for CMS debt service.

The board also cut about $2.6 million from the $28 million the manager recommended for its pay-as-you-go capital program. The program is like a long-term savings account designed to avoid interest when projects are paid for with bonds.

Republicans Bill James and Dan Ramirez said they understood the theory of the program but questioned a property tax increase paying for projects that could be funded with bonds. About $6 million from the program is earmarked for refurbishing the county's 440-bed jail annex to ease overcrowding.

This of course was backed up by Bill James' Newsletter.

Double paying on PAYGO and doubling up on pork the County Commission's 5 Democrats worked in lockstep to raise taxes two cents and add programs from those that where their friends and supporters.

The tax rate was 81.89 cents and is now 83.87 cents, a 2 cent increase that equates to about 2.4 percent. The budget has some big winners including $25 million for CMS.

The budget has some big losers including Mecklenburg County taxpayers who will have to pay another tax increase to re-establish the PAYGO fund the Democrats raised taxes for in 2005, and raided in 2006. Had they not raided the fund in 2006 the budget would not have a tax increase today. On May 30th 2006, Commissioner Dumont Clarke and the other Democrats voted to remove $18 million from PAYGO. Now, to replenish that fund, a tax increase was voted in.

In the Clinton White House days folks used to joke about the lavish treatment a 'friend of Bill' received with guest stays in the Lincoln bedroom and such. If you contributed to Clinton's campaign, you got special treatment.

This County budget is essentially 'friend of Democrat' budget.

The pork was ladled hot and heavy as one program after the other received 100% increases (new programs) and others who 'only' received 60% increases.

The strangest of the new budget items was the funding of $50,000 in new money for "Aerobo-Cop". See copy of DVD from his WTVI show from the 90's. For those new to Charotte he is the buff guy in blue spandex who teaches kids to get exercise.

One of the issues that remains to be seen is what effect a tax increase will have on the voting public's decisions about CMS bonds this fall and questions about Transit.

Transit Spin

2007-05-23T08:54:00.000-04:00

These articles by Jeff Taylor, will give you some indication of the desperation and fear of the transit bureaucrats/politicians. They fear that we will be able to repeal the transit tax and stop the nonsensical light rail spending. You simply can't trust them to tell the truth, but you can expect them to bend facts. Below is the latest spin effort.
Don

Click the underlined links:

CATS Squeals Foul On Tax Repeal Effort ~ March 8, 2007

CATS Intervention ~ March 22, 2007

Bogus Tax Hike Scares And CATS Bus Wraps ~ April 5, 2007

Charlotte Chamber says 57% of residents favor half-cent sales tax
by STEVE HARRISON

The Charlotte Chamber said Monday its recent telephone poll shows that Mecklenburg residents want to keep a half-cent sales tax for mass transit. The chamber, which supports the half-cent tax, said 57 percent want to keep the tax while 40 percent want to kill it. The survey of 600 likely voters -- which has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points -- was conducted last month by Charlotte-based MarketWise, which was hired by the chamber. The half-cent sales tax passed in 1998 with 58 percent of the vote.

The telephone poll also asked voters their opinion on proposed school construction bonds for Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, which will likely be on the November ballot. Support for school bonds declined as the price went up. Support for a $400 million bond was 61 percent with 35 percent opposed; a $520 million bond had 54 percent in favor, with 41 percent opposed; and a $620 million bond had 51 percent in favor, with 45 percent opposed.

Chamber President Bob Morgan said MarketWise first asked voters if they would support a $620 million bond. If they said no, they were asked if they would support a $520 million bond. If they said no again, they were asked if they would support the smallest bond.

"The school board has recommended a $620 million package," Morgan said. "The county commission must decide what to do, and we'll encourage the commission to look at the numbers. Clearly, $620 million is pushing the limit of public support."

Morgan said a concern over the transit repeal effort is that voters could get confused. If the referendum is on the November ballot, a "yes" vote will mean voters want to repeal the tax, while a "yes" for school bonds would mean they support spending for construction.

Former county commissioner Jim Puckett, who is acting as a spokesman for the anti-light rail group known as Sensible Charlotte Area Transportation, said the state Republican party did a poll last year that showed voters were evenly divided on the half-cent sales tax. But when the question was tweaked to ask if they would like to shift the money to build roads or schools, voters "overwhelmingly" preferred that option, Puckett said.

An ill-conceived transit vote?

2007-05-15T12:29:00.000-04:00

Mr. Koconis’ article in this mornings Observer is full of misinformation, speculation and falsehoods……and the Observer lets him get away with it. Here is the article and Tom Ashcraft’s response. ~Don

What Mr. Koconis wrote:

An ill-conceived transit vote If measure hits ballot, be aware it will kill more than light rail

Nothing is free. That's true in business as well as government. All services which governments provide to citizens cost money, and the primary place that money comes from is taxes. Nobody likes taxes, but unless we want anarchy, we have to pay them, so our government can function.

In Charlotte, as in most cities, one of the services that our local government provides is the mass transit system. Fares pay some of the cost to run it and tax revenue pays the rest. And part of that comes from the half-cent transit tax. This is the tax that the group calling itself "SCAT" is trying to get eliminated, by placing a referendum on the ballot this fall. To get this measure on the ballot, SCAT is circulating a petition which needs 48,000 verified signatures. It appears likely they will reach this goal before the August deadline for making the November ballot.

The acronym "SCAT" stands for "Sensible Charlotte Area Transportation." Interesting. Because that's exactly what repealing the transit tax would not be. This is a great example of an organization naming itself deceptively. Its real goal is to kill the light rail line soon to be completed between Charlotte and Pineville. SCAT even calls the tax "the light rail tax" on its web site. That's not correct, as the tax funds all mass transit, not just light rail.

Opponents never wanted rail
This is an attempt to kill light rail by the folks who never wanted it in the first place. Don't be fooled by their name. And don't think that just because they got a lot of signatures, people really support them. Most people probably signed the petition without even reading it. (You see it all the time, on your way into the grocery store, someone says, "Here, sign my petition." Most people just do it.)Even if the tax is repealed, they will not succeed in stopping the rail line. It is almost complete and will begin service sometime in fall, very near the date of the likely vote on this ill-conceived measure. Yes, it's true it has gone over budget, and this should and will be investigated. But it makes no sense to abandon it at this point. If you were building a house and had only a few shingles left to put on the roof, would you tear it down, because the cost was higher than expected? Of course not.

Kill rail, repay feds

A large portion of the cost for the light rail line was paid with state and federal funds. If we don't operate it, Uncle Sam and the state will want that money back, $306 million. Killing it simply isn't an option.

If the transit tax is repealed, what will actually happen? Bus service will have to be cut, which will hurt those who depend on it: the poor, disabled and elderly. They use the bus because they have no alternative. If we care about them, we should keep the transit tax.

Remember, the tax we are talking about is just one-half of 1 percent. Boy, I can tell you, I'm looking forward to getting that back, come November! Just what will I do with all that money I'll suddenly have? Gee, maybe buy a few extra cans of diet cola each week? That's about what the tax is costing me.

I can understand that people who don't use mass transit might not want to pay for it. If you never ride the bus and you don't plan to use the light rail line, maybe you feel you shouldn't pay for them.
I suppose people who don't drive on it shouldn't pay for Interstate 485 or any other major highway projects, then. Of course, they do. Even people who don't drive cars pay for street and road projects, through state and federal taxes and city property taxes. Bus riders indirectly support the cost of road construction and maintenance through registration fees and fuel taxes paid by the transit system.

We all depend on each other
We are all interdependent here, which is exactly as it should be. There shouldn't be a feeling of any "us" and "them," between the drivers and the mass transit riders. Should each of us try to eliminate every function of local government that we do not personally use? That's not how a city works.

Everyone who lives and works here should want all government services to work for everybody. This includes the mass transit system, and that now includes both the buses and the south corridor light rail line.

It makes no sense to repeal the small tax that supports it. If that appears on the ballot in November, don't vote for it.

Frank A. Koconis

Observer community columnist Frank A. Koconis is a database consultant. Write him c/o The Observer, P.O. Box 30308, Charlotte, NC 28230-0308, or at fkoconis@windstream.net

Please note that, Mr. Koconis is a community columnist, which means he is publishing his opinion. Please also note that in this write up he never quotes anyone from SCAT or spoke to any representative of that organization. Opinions... well everyone has one.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Mr. Koconis:

The above column by you and its accompanying photographic depiction contain a factual falsehood. I’m part of the embryonic SCAT group, and I do not want “to kill the light rail line” along South Boulevard as you wrote. Obviously, with the money already spent, that line should be run; indeed, it was supposed to have opened months ago, but as with many things coming from CATS you can’t trust what they say.

Attached is the official report of cost overruns on the south corridor line, a disgrace by any measure. If the transit sales tax is not repealed this fall, there will be, in my opinion, many more cost overruns in the future.

The photo depiction with your column shows the south corridor line with a caption asserting, “The real aim of SCAT is to kill the light rail line.” As to the line shown, that’s a fabrication as far as this SCAT supporter is concerned. You and The Charlotte Observer owe your readers an apology and a correction. Will we get one?

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,
Thomas J. Ashcraft

Tax Repeal Targeted by M.E. Pellin

2007-05-15T10:31:00.000-04:00

(Click image to enlarge)

When City Manager Pam Syfert unveiled her recommended 1.61 billion budget at a Monday afternoon press conference, she was quick to launch yet another salvo in the ongoing war against efforts to repeal the half-cent sales tax for transit.

In fact, during the press conference and later, during a budget presentation to the City Council, it required multiple fingers to count the number of times Syfert warned that repealing the transit tax would pose a "serious threat" to the viability of the no-tax-increase budget she was recommending.

While avoiding a tax increase on the heels of last year's 9 percent hike to the property tax rate, Syfert's recommended budget includes a 6.25 percent increase to water and sewer fees, along with a 7 percent increase to storm water rates. That would add about $3 to a typical monthly water and sewer bill. The property tax would remain 45.86 cents per $100 valuation.

But the no-tax-increase budget, Syfert said, carried two major caveats. If the N.C. General Assembly approves any of the bills currently under consideration to shift half on the one-cent local sales tax to state coffers to pay for Medicaid, Charlotte would lose about $6.7 million in sales tax revenue for 2007-2008, which would jump to a loss of nearly $10 million in 2008-2009.

Syfert also said successful transit tax repeal would have dire budgetary consequences. It wasn't the first time she has tossed out doom and gloom forecasts concerning the repeal effort, and it likely won't be the last.

As recently as two months ago, Syfert and Transit Czar Ron Tober claimed that repealing the tax, which for years has served as a spending-spree credit card for Charlotte Area Transit System, could trigger more than a 10-cent property tax hike to keep the vaunted South Corridor light rail line on track and retain a decimated bus system.

Syfert said Monday that if the transit tax repeal were successful, the city would have to find the $73 million it was expected to produce next year somewhere else. That somewhere, as Syfert has repeatedly made clear, would likely be from the pockets of taxpayers. That doesn't have to be the case, as shown in a recent study by the John Locke Foundation, a conservative, Raleigh based think tank that studies government policies and practices.

The Locke study showed that by reducing CATS' operating expenses, which have exploded by 234 percent since 1998, marginally increasing bus fares and shifting just 2.5 percent of the city's general fund budget to transit, Charlotte could avoid a property tax hike and retain a fully functional transit system.

But that would require some degree of fiscal discipline, and Syfert's recommended $1.61 billion continuation budget made it clear the city has no intention of cutting anything. So does past performance. Over the last 10 years, the city's population has grown about 34 percent. By contrast, the city's budget and spending has exploded at nearly triple that rate, up overall by about 84 percent, from a $876.3 million budget in 1998 to the whopper Syfert pitched Monday night. The city manager's recommended budget represents a 16.9 percent increase over the current fiscal year's $1.37 billion budget. The city's general fund also increases under Syfert's proposed budget, up 4.6 percent from $399.4 million to $417.9 million. The city's Capital Investment Plan would jump 34.2 percent to 621.7 million and the operating budget totals $985.2 million, up 8.1 percent.

The city manager office's budget alone tops out at a staggering $13.3 million, up from last year's $11.7 million. That includes Syfert's parting gift to city taxpayers: A $20,000 line item for city manager transition expenses such as new furniture, office refurbishing and technology.

The city manager office's budget also includes an additional $175,530 to expand the CharMeck 311 Call Center and $21,000 to fund "The Answer Guy," a marketing video production that runs on the Government Channel. Perhaps the Answer Guy can explain why the city's budget increased nearly 17 percent, while most home incomes would be lucky to match even half that pace. Also new this year, an after-school program to be run by Partners in Out of School Time adds $ 282, 204 to the Police Department's budget. The police budget also adds $790,522 for one Sergeant and seven officers to support CATS operations, bringing the total CATS' police staffing to two Sergeants and 10 officers. Money for the positions is reimbursed by CATS, which, of course, means by taxpayers.

The budget includes $24 million in revenue growth with $8.9 million coming from property taxes, up 3.5 percent, and $7.5 million from sales taxes, up 14 percent, Budget Director Ruffin Hallsaid. The remainder comes from business privilege licenses, up 14.9 percent, and a utility franchised tax, up 2 percent.

About 42.5 cents of every general fund dollar expenditure goes toward police and about 20.4 cents for fire, Hall said; solid waste siphons off another 10.3 cents , transportation about 5.2 cents and engineering and property management about 4.9 cents.

About 16.7 cents is for other ventures such as planning, neighborhood development and business support services. The proposed budget would continue the city's street resurfacing initiative approved last year to pave city streets on a cycle of once every 14 years, still short of its 12-year goal.

The budget also would continue paying for the 70 new police officers the council approved last year, along with providing all city public safety employees a 3.7 percent pay increase. Police and fire fighters eligible for step-pay increases –below the rank of captain for police and battalion chief for firefighters- would receive an additional 5 percent increase.

All other city employees would receive an average raise of 3.7 percent, but some could be eligible to receive an increase as high as 8 percent based on performance. On the flip side, city employees’ base medical insurance premiums would increase by 6.7 percent and dental insurance premiums by 8 percent. Emergency co-pays would jump from $100 to $150.

The budget also includes more city employees: Two new positions in the Economic Development and 11 new position sin the Solid Waste Department. Councilmember Andy Dulin, a Republican, said Syfert’s recommended budget was a good starting point, but that it offered plenty of opportunities to possibly return some money to taxpayers.

“It’s great that the budget didn’t have a property tax increase,” Dulin said. “But all that really means is it’s showing the revenues of a 9 percent tax hike from last year. There’s no question having an extra 70 police officers is a positive thing.” Dulin said of the budget’s continued funding of that initiative. “The question is; was the tax hike really necessary to get them. I don’t think it was.”

Because the recommended budget is essentially a continuation budget, Dulin said, “I think there are multiple places where we can cut out some fluff.” By contrast, Syfert said she had cut all she could cut. “We’ve gone to that well so often, we decided not to go there again,” she said of spending reductions.

That well, one can only assume, includes a host of program and initiatives that have little if anything to do with the core responsibilities of government: $3.3 million for the city’s tourism marketing services contract with the Charlotte Regional Visitors Authority, along with $5.8 million for financial partners that includes five after school programs, that Charlotte Housing Authority’s relocation services, the Regional HIV/AIDS Consortium and, new this year, United Family Services, which will provide foreclosure counseling.

The city’s eight “general fund financial partners” receive a combined $5.8 million to include $2.9 million for the Arts & Science Council; $1.9 million for Charlotte Center City Partners; $193,750 for Advantage Carolina; $323,714 for United Family Services victim assistance program; $80,721 for the Mayor’s International Cabinet and $ 66, 878 for the Sister Cities program.

Last but not least, the budget also includes: $453,385 for business incentive grants; $300,000 for miscellaneous grants and contributions; $200,000 for the CIAA Men’s Basketball Tournament; $221,665 for city memberships and subscriptions; and $100,000 for the City Council’s discretionary account, which provides a source of funds for unanticipated projects that may crop up that the council wants to fund.

“What the city manager has recommended is just that-a recommendation,” Dulin said. “Now the real work begins and I can certainly tell you that around my table that’s going to include looking long and hard at some of these programs. We need to focus on priorities,” Dulin said. “And I think that most folks would agree it’s more important to make sure the bad guys don’t back your wife’s car out of the driveway, as opposed to being able to go to a neat show somewhere.”

A public hearing on the city manager’s recommended budget is scheduled for Monday, May 14 at 7 p.m. at the Government Center. That will be followed on May 16 with council budget adjustments and a May 30 straw vote on the budget. The council is slated to approve a final budget on June 11.

Source: Rhinocerous Times

Whitewater center lossesmay cost taxpayers $1 million

2007-05-12T08:45:00.000-04:00

Whitewater center lossesmay cost taxpayers $1 million
by Victoria Cherrie
Expected losses at the U.S. National Whitewater Center could leave taxpayers covering about $1 million in operating costs through 2010. Charlotte and Mecklenburg County leaders learned of the projected losses last month as the center's operators announced they are borrowing $6 million to pay for rising costs in construction and other areas. The increases have raised concern among city officials.

"Anytime there's a greater chance our money will be accessed, we'll be watching very closely," Assistant City Manager Ron Kimble said. "We'll be asking a lot of questions." The center, which opened in November, is a private nonprofit organization run by an executive director who answers to a board of directors. It has the world's largest man-made whitewater river, a lodge, conference center and rock-climbing tower about 11 miles west of uptown Charlotte.

Proposed in 2000 as a major economic-development tool, the center was built by private developers on county-owned land. Six governments from Mecklenburg and Gaston counties pledged up to $12 million to pay operating costs in case of shortfalls during the center's first seven years. Charlotte pledged $2 million, not to exceed $285,700 a year. Mecklenburg pledged $7 million, or up to $1 million a year.

The pledges are to be a safety net for the center, which was estimated in 2003 to cost about $21.5 million to build. That figure has increased to $38 million. If the projections of operating losses pan out, each government would distribute its share to the center after a financial analysis and audit, Kimble said. The center has drawn thousands of people, from families to company meetings to two national kayaking competitions, said Mike Applegate, director of research for the Charlotte Regional Visitors Authority. "Hopefully, the projections are conservative," said Charlotte City Councilman Pat Mumford, who is a member of the center's board of directors. He referred financial questions to the executive director, Jeff Wise. Numerous attempts to reach Wise by telephone and in person were unsuccessful. The center's marketing and finance directors could not be reached for comment. The center has generated a lot of phone calls from meeting planners interested in booking events and coordinating activities during conventions in Charlotte, Applegate said.

"I'm still confident this park will be a long term success," Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory said. "But I do think it got off to a rocky start, which has had a major negative impact."

Road problems
In a letter to the Charlotte City Council, Wise said cost increases are due to unanticipated expenses that followed inspections and the center's inability to open last summer. He said that cost the center about $2.8 million. Road delays also have been a major factor, his letter said.
The lack of a good road limited visitor access and drained time and resources as the center negotiated with neighbors about dust and traffic along Hawfield Road. Neighbors complained last year and even blocked access to Hawfield when dust kicked up from traffic prevented them from opening their windows.

The city contributed $100,000 of the $220,000 spent last year to pave part of the road in front of the neighbors' homes, Kimble said. And just two weeks ago, the center, developers and the regional visitors authority chipped in about $65,000 to pave the rest, he said. The fresh paving, which includes speed bumps, is a temporary solution until the Whitewater Parkway is built.
The N.C. Department of Transportation will spend $1.8 million for the parkway, but engineers and developers are still working out mostly aesthetic issues, said division engineer Barry Moose.
The designs are expected to be completed in the next month. The goal is to construct the parkway by next spring.

In his letter, Wise said: "It will be considerably difficult to meet business projections if we continue to have to use Hawfield Road as an entrance for too long." The whitewater center is projected to be operating without public money by 2011, according to a summary provided by center officials to Mecklenburg County last month.

It's unclear how operators reached the numbers or what kind of revenues the first summer season is forecast to generate. Three members of the center's board of directors and advisory board referred those questions to Wise, who could not be reached.

The park just needs a chance to operate for one season to be on sound footing, said Bobbie Shields, the county's general manager for development. "We're really pleased," he said. "There's no way the county could have built a park like this for the public." McCrory said city and county officials should keep talking with the nonprofit group about the center's progress. "The idea and vision have been accomplished," he said. "Now we just have to make sure it is operating at 100 percent."

Here we go again folks! Our City Government gave us another failure and on a “sure thing” as it was presented to us taxpayers. We are again short changed, by our leaders who buy into these types of feel-good projects. They are in such a rush to grab at anything, that they do not protect us, the taxpayer from being fleeced. How many times are we going to fund projects like this?

We have seen it from pet projects like this, to purchases, to affordable housing, light rail. It makes one wonder what their home budgets are like. Do they make personal decisions like this at home? I do not think so; however, it brings the question up. Does the City Government think, because it is the public dough, that it is expendable? Do not worry if it fails, there is more where that came from. Public trust is at a low as it is; it would be so refreshing, if they took a project and made a smashing success of it.

Center City Sluggers

2007-05-12T05:12:00.000-04:00

by Alan Hodge

Rhioncerous Times

Despite the fact that language in the 2005 parks and recreation bond said it's taboo, the reality of pro baseball in Center City rounded third base Tuesday night and seems headed for home after county commissioners approved a land swap deal between Mecklenburg County, the City of Charlotte and private developers.Republican commissioners Bill James, Dan Bishop and Karen Bentley voted against the baseball land-swap shell game, which would clear the way for the minor league Charlotte Knights to build a stadium in uptown's Third Ward.Democrats Parks Helms, Dumont Clarke, Valerie Woodard, Norman Mitchell and Chairperson Jennifer Roberts voted for it, along with Republican Dan Ramirez.Helms said the baseball deal had more value than anything he had been involved with as an elected official, other than the time he shepherded the bill for liquor by the drink through the General Assembly in Raleigh.Helms said the land swap deal would have the same effect as the booze bill.

James smelled a rat and said the land swap was "inextricably linked" to baseball, while Bishop delivered a scathing rebuke of the deal."It's not right to tax individuals to pay for frivolous entertainment," he said. Charlotte attorney and businessman Jerry Reese, who has vowed to file a lawsuit to keep the Knights and their stadium from locating in Third Ward, made a presence at Tuesday night's meeting. Reese was accompanied by high-profile Charlotte barrister Bill Diehl, who Reese hired to represent his case. Reese, along with others, contends that the 2005 bond issue for a Third Ward park (the open space kind, not the baseball kind) restricted the land from being used for a stadium. Reese contends that the Knights and the county, through the land swap, are breaking the law by going ahead with the stadium.

"This is about the unlawful, illegal use of the Third Ward park land," Reese said. "When the time is right, I can assure you there will be extensive and protracted litigation all the way to the appellate level if need be. I hope there is a change of heart, because soon it will be out of the commissioners' hands and into the appellate courts."Last year, Reese had attempted to get help from Charlotte to entice the Florida Marlins major league baseball club to the Queen City.

That assistance never materialized and the Marlins are still jumping in the Sunshine State.The land swap Interlocal Agreement approved Tuesday night, which County General Manager Bobbie Shields swore had nothing to do with baseball, nonetheless contains language stating plain as day that, "Within 120 days after the City transfers title to the Conveyed Properties to the County, the County and the Knights shall enter into a legally binding Lease Agreement to develop the Baseball Stadium……"Almost as an aside, the land swap deal will also create revitalization of Second Ward into a complex of housing, retail and office buildings; as well as two city parks, one in Second Ward and the other in Third Ward near the ball stadium.Construction of a $35 million pro baseball stadium in Third Ward would be paid for by the Charlotte Knights AAA semi-pro team. Part of the transaction would see the Knights actually pick up the tab for $8 million in infrastructure work tied to the ballpark – or so it would seem at first glance.In fact, the county and taxpayers will still get stuck, for 20 years or so, with paying the Knights back for loans the team dredges up to pay for any infrastructure improvements near the hoped-for stadium to include sidewalks, streets and drains.

The proposed stadium site is two pieces of property separated by Third Street, which will have to be rerouted. Moving the road will eat up about 50 percent of the total infrastructure costs.The Third Ward land where the ballpark will be located was first slated for an urban park, but then baseball and money came along. The city originally took the lead in pushing the land swap for baseball, but when councilmembers balked, the county stepped up to the plate. The county was going to pay for the infrastructure work outright, but a fly appeared in the Knight's oatmeal in the form of the delayed sale of Spirit Square, funds which would have provided the infrastructure cash.In a move that no doubt put the Knights in a pickle, the fate of Spirit Square got a reprieve on March 7, when a large group of arts boosters turned out at a Board of Commissioners meeting and gave the politicos an earful concerning selling the venue. That resulted in a reexamination of the situation, which has led to Spirit Square likely getting a lease extension until March 31, 2009.Now, with the clock ticking on a target opening date of spring 2009 for the stadium – just 20 months from now and 18 months from July 2007, when site work could begin – the Knights have come begging to the county and taxpayers for $8 million, claiming that if the stadium project doesn't go ahead as scheduled, the team will lose millions of dollars both in construction costs as well as operating losses at their present location at Knights Stadium in Fort Mill.To avoid what the Knights regard as disaster, team officials said the Knights would gladly search for and take out loans to do the required infrastructure work – with a stipulation that the county pays them back over the next two decades.

This deal would include interest and other costs on what loans the Knights are able to secure, a situation that could conceivably see the county getting soaked for, among other things, a higher interest rate than what might normally be the case.Using an economic development grant is one way for the county to get the money flowing so the stadium could be built in time for the 2009 baseball season. The idea of using an economic development grant to back door public money to private interests isn't a new one. Other projects that have gotten a chunk of cash by that means include the Wachovia Cultural Arts development and the Epicenter, Elizabeth Avenue and Metropolitan developments.Proponents for paying off the Knights' infrastructure bill contend it's a winning deal for the county because the stadium and team is projected to generate about $1 million each year in direct and indirect local taxes.On the other hand, others see the situation as little more than something Charlotte is well known for: Using public money to subsidize a private sports venture – think arena/Bobcats/billionaire owner. There are other parallels in that same vein. Just as voters rejected the idea of using taxpayer money to build an arena, voters who approved the 2005 park bond said they wanted a major league open space park, not a minor league baseball one, in Third Ward.

The idea of an uptown baseball stadium has been brewing for years. It came to a boil most recently in January, when the Board of Commissioners signed Memorandums of Understanding with the Knights and Spectrum Investment Services Properties to consummate a land swap deal that would put the Third Ward property under the county's control and see it basically handed over to the Knights for a one-dollar-a-year lease.If and when all the land swaps are done (the City Council and Board of Education still need to sign off on the deal commissioners approved Tuesday) uptown's Second Ward would be redeveloped into the Brooklyn Village project, a sprawling mix of retail, residential and office components. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools' Ed Shed on Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard would be razed and CMS staff relocated to new offices in either the Government Center or another site to be determined.The next step for the baseball, uh, land swap saga will be when the issue comes before the school board on May 8 and the Charlotte City Council on May 14.

If it gets the nod, then work could begin on the stadium site by this summer.Also on Tuesday night, it was learned that Charlotte Whitewater Park, Inc. – a.k.a. the US National Whitewater Center (USNWC) – appears to be up a financial creek without a paddle, and is looking to the Board of Commissioners to throw out a life preserver in the form of raising the cap on the paddler's paradise development financing by $6 million.Commissioners heard a report from USNWC Director Jeff Wise on the cash flow situation at the park. As the figures showed, in places it looked rougher than Class IV rapids. Even so, the request to raise the cap was approved.According to projections of the park's expected revenues and expenses over the next three years, the county will have to make up a shortfall of $664,000 – and perhaps even more if things don't improve financially for the operation – under the increased financing cap.The original budget for the USNWC was set at $25 million, but it didn't take long for that to be blown out of the water. After languishing for a short spell at $32 million, the number currently stands at a tsunami-like $38 million.According to a USNWC cost-control report dated Feb. 28, a number of factors have figured into the rough surf the outfit has gotten into financially.Some of the more unusual cost increases for the park included $100,000 for rope, $500,000 for a restaurant and $125,000 for a temporary road.

The temporary road was a big news item last summer. In a case of very poor planning, or complete lack of planning, the USNWC intended to use what nearby residents considered a private road as an entry point for the park. In a show of solidarity, residents basically set up a lawn chair blockade and shut the road down to construction vehicles, a move that forced whitewater center officials to use an alternate route until a settlement was reached. That fiasco set the park back several weeks and delayed its opening until warm weather was running short.Other factors that whitewater officials say have increased budgetary woes include a $1.7 million overrun on the main channel and pump structure; an $84,763 increase in costs for what's termed "boater orientation buildings; and $17,206 in unexpected construction costs for a building to store paddles. In another tidbit of mismanagement, the cost of a kayak boathouse jumped from an original estimate of $122,867 to $167,488 – an increase of $44,621.

The bottom line on construction costs at the USNWC is that there is a projected overrun of $6 million. That should be troubling news to county officials, along with officials from the City of Charlotte and a host of other municipalities, who all agreed to back loans for the USNWC.Also on Tuesday night, and continuing a public hearing from their April 17 meeting, commissioners revisited Project Bryton, a planned development close to the intersection of Old Statesville Road and Hambright Road near Huntersville. The development will be on 425 acres and feature a blend of retail, residential and commercial structures, along with a business park.Plans for Project Bryton have been in the works for three years. When it's completed, the development will include about 1 million square feet of retail space, a 1.2 million square-foot business park and 100,000 square feet of medical office space.

In addition, there will be 2,000 residential units including single-family and multi-family homes, condos and townhomes.Last month, representatives from the Project Bryton developers – American Asset Corp. and Rhein-Medall Communities – floated a proposal to have the county chip in $33 million worth of COPs (bond-like funding that doesn't require voter approval) to relocate a Norfolk Southern rail line that borders the property and reconfigure several roads to make ingress and egress to the community easier.Besides the rails, streets that will be impacted by Project Bryton will include NC 115, I-485, Eastfield Road, Hambright Road, Alexanderana Road, US 21 and Everette Keith Road.The developers want the railroad to be routed through rather than around the property. But according to American Asset Corp. President Paul Herndon, light rail similar to the vaunted South Corridor was not a top priority because it was, he said, "too unpredictable."The Town of Huntersville will also get in on the Project Bryton action and expenses. Several folks spoke Tuesday night on the prospect of the county and taxpayers helping Project Bryton. Huntersville resident Neal Howes called it "corporate welfare" and said the $30 million-plus could be better spent on a senior center or shelter for battered women.On the other hand, Huntersville Commissioner Sarah McAulay said the idea was great.

Jerry Broadway with the Lake Norman Economic Development Commission, who said Project Bryton would make someone a lot of money, echoed McAulay's enthusiasm.Perhaps he wasn't listening when developers of Project Bryton said they had no plans for a light rail setup, but David Carroll with Charlotte Area Transit System spoke and painted a lovely vision of folks hopping on choo-choos and having what he called a "nice 15-minute ride" to Charlotte.

After everyone had their say, the proposal to fork over $33 million of the taxpayers' money to another private development was approved unanimously. Tuesday also saw a case of the commissioners getting fresh information on another subject that had appeared on a previous agenda. This time it was an updated report on the Post-Construction Storm Water Ordinance that was originally introduced last December and was the subject of a public hearing in January. Following that, the ordinance was sent to the state where it was perused and a couple of tweaks made.Following action by the Board of Commissioners on Tuesday, the next step will see another public hearing set on the latest version of the ordinance for May 15. That should be followed on June 15 by its adoption.The ordinance would affect homes in a two square-mile area near Pineville and is designed to control the possible discharge of storm water pollutants from new construction jobs.

The City of Charlotte is also considering a post construction controls ordinance, and similar ones have already been approved by some local municipalities.Opponents of the ordinance say it will drive the cost of development up by as much as $32,000 per acre. Fines of up to $5,000 a day await violators.On a more positive, but equally wet note Tuesday night, commissioners named Parks and Recreation Department staff member Rodney Sellars as the Mecklenburg County Gerald G. Fox Employee of the Year.Sellars has been especially active in his role as recreation coordinator/supervisor at the Mecklenburg County Aquatic Center, where he has developed swimming programs for youth, coached programs and taught aquatic safety. Sellars is also the founder of the Queen City Dolphins minority swimming team.

Lawsuit File Against Baseball Deal (Happened May 11, 2007)

One man has filed a lawsuit to stop a plan that would bring a minor league baseball stadium to Center City Charlotte. It is the first of two lawsuits Charlotte Attorney Jerry Reese intends to file in an effort to stop the deal. The Charlotte Knights baseball team currently plays in Fort Mill, South Carolina. If the lawsuit succeeds, the team won't be coming to Charlotte. Reese claims the deal to build a minor league stadium in Center City is illegal, but the county attorney says he's carefully looked over the deal and it is legal.

Source

NAFTA Superhighway

2007-05-10T09:11:00.000-04:00

By now, many Texans have heard about the proposed “NAFTA Superhighway,” which is also referred to as the trans-Texas corridor. What you may not know is the extent, of these plans for this superhighway and how fast this plan is moving forward without congressional oversight or media attention. It is a concern for those who are concerned with border security, this in essence is an open door way.

This superhighway would connect Mexico, the United States, and Canada, cutting a wide swath through the middle of Texas and up through Kansas City. Offshoots would connect the main artery to the west coast, Florida, and northeast. Proponents envision a ten-lane colossus the width of several football fields, with freight and rail lines, fiber-optic cable lines, and oil and natural gas pipelines running alongside.

This will require coordinated federal and state eminent domain actions on an unprecedented scale, as literally millions of people and businesses could be displaced. The loss of whole communities is almost certain, as planners cannot wind the highway around every quaint town, historic building, or senior citizen apartment for thousands of miles.

Governor Perry is a supporter of the superhighway project, and Congress has provided small amounts of money to study the proposal. Since this money was just one item in an enormous transportation appropriations bill, however, most members of Congress were not aware of it.

The proposed highway is part of a broader plan advanced by a quasi-government organization called the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,” or SPP.

The SPP was first launched in 2005 by the heads of state of Canada, Mexico, and the United States at a summit in Waco.

The SPP was not created by a treaty between the nations involved, nor was Congress involved in any way. Instead, the SPP is an unholy alliance of foreign consortiums and officials from several governments. One principal player is a Spanish construction company, which plans to build the highway and operate it as a toll road. But don’t be fooled: the superhighway proposal is not the result of free market demand, but rather an extension of government-managed trade schemes like NAFTA that benefit politically-connected interests.

The real issue is national sovereignty. Once again, decisions that affect millions of Americans are not being made by those Americans themselves, or even by their elected representatives in Congress. Instead, a handful of elites use their government connections to bypass national legislatures and ignore our Constitution-- which expressly grants Congress the sole authority to regulate international trade.

The ultimate goal is not simply a superhighway, but an integrated North American Union--complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the Union. Like the European Union, a North American Union would represent another step toward the abolition of national sovereignty altogether.

A new resolution, introduced by Representative Virgil Goode of Virginia, expresses the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a NAFTA superhighway, or enter into any agreement that advances the concept of a North American Union. I wholeheartedly support this legislation, and predict that the superhighway will become a sleeper issue in the 2008 election.

Any movement toward a North American Union diminishes the ability of average Americans to influence the laws under which they must live. The SPP agreement, including the plan for a major transnational superhighway through Texas, is moving forward without congressional oversight-- and that is an outrage. The administration needs a strong message from Congress that the American people will not tolerate backroom deals that threaten our sovereignty.

Written by J. Walker Jax

http://journals.aol.com/jwalkerjax -source<>

NASCO

The trans-Texas corridor should not be mentioned without putting it in context as part of the Plan Puebla Panama (PPP), which encompasses Canada, the US, Mexico, central and South America in a massive transportation hub travel route through the all the Americas:

The PPP

This is from the source of these plans:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep10/nhs/hipricorridors/index.html

The first leg of this corridor is to start to be built in June, 2007. It should be interesting to see what comes of this. Because it will head Charlotte's way in the future, to connect.

Hysterical Heretics

2007-05-09T12:00:00.000-04:00

Click title to view source.

The Spin Doctors of Charlotte are fast at work trying to do damage control. Stating that those who challenge the Transit Project and want fiscal responsibility are hysterical, emotional people, who cannot comprehend reports, spread sheets, and have a tendency to be reactionary. Over the years, the City and County both have ignored the people, bypassed them and their concerns, when it came to pertinent questions regarding this project. Accountability, Responsibility and Public Trust, well that left the building a long time ago.

They (the City and County) implemented a flawed plan and now they want to continue on pretending that nothing is wrong. What is more irresponsible? For us to continue to wade deeper into this quagmire or taking a step back and look at this issue with fresh eyes?

There is there is good reason to re-group and regain perspective on where this project should be going. Unfortunately, the only way to do that is to put the decision back into the hands of the people. Hence the Tax Repeal Vote, which is an opportunity for the citizens to decide to go forward or hold with this project. One has to ask the question, why is the City fearful of this vote, if this transit plan is such a good one?

Mary Newsom asked some questions:

Are Charlotte's bus system costs way out of line for similar cities?

Does the cost for building the South Corridor light rail line make it among the most expensive in the country?

Have the South Corridor construction costs gone up so much that it stands out among public projects as bloated and wasteful?

I would ask Mary, if she read these studies.

To read the Report Mary based her "Myth Buster" upon, Click here.

Transit

2007-05-08T02:24:00.000-04:00

Please read carefully this editorial, that is in the Los Angeles Times. It is about the rising costs of the Los Angeles transit system. We are headed down this same path in here in Charlotte. Just as in Los Angeles, our costs are out of control, the Black community is not being served. This project is the greatest threat to having a good bus system. Unfortunately, we are continuing to throw gobs of money down the light rail black hole. Charlotte’s Black community, will not be served by light rail, the community core, relies on efficient and flexible busing. This community should be very concerned.

Repealing the transit sales tax is the only way to save their bus service. You just can’t trust the politicians and bureaucrats to present the facts. To date, they have not met any of their projections on costs, ridership or construction schedule. Moreover, they do not care what the taxpayers think or want. Remember how the voters rejected the arena and arts projects, yet the mayor, council and bureaucrats ignored the voices of the people. We at this very moment have built the uptown arena and have all the arts projects under construction. For the first time in Charlotte’s history, the people have the opportunity to cut off their money supply and force them to listen. REPEAL THE TRANSIT TAX!~ Don

The MTA's road to ruination

Huge fare increases and disproportionate rail subsidies are reminiscent of the MTA's mid-1990s racially discriminatory ways.

By Eric Mann and Manuel Criollo, ERIC MANN is the director of the Labor/Community Strategy Center. MANUEL CRIOLLO is the lead organizer of the Bus Riders Union.
May 7, 2007

ON THE MORNING of May 24, the Los Angeles MTA board will hold a public hearing to consider a series of draconian fare increases — raising the $3 daily pass to $5 and then $8, the $52 monthly pass to $75 and then $120 — rates put forth as a trial balloon by its employee, Chief Executive Roger Snoble.

It's all a calculated ruse. The board of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority hopes that when, under massive pressure, it tries to make only unbearable increases rather than excruciating ones, a naive and servile public will thank the board for its mercy. In fact, any fare increases would be a disaster for Los Angeles, reducing transit ridership, increasing pollution and hurting the city's poorest residents.

Bus riders, in particular, cannot afford a fare increase. The core of the MTA's 500,000 public transit riders are the black and Latino working class who use public transportation every day. The majority can hardly afford the current $3 daily pass ($90 a month) or the $52 monthly pass.

Say the MTA tries to raise the monthly pass price $10. That would mean $50 a month for a family of five, $600 more a year, and an annual family transit bill of $3,720.

We have been down this road before. In 1994, the MTA almost destroyed its bus system in order to subsidize contractor-friendly rail projects that were racially discriminatory. Light rail costs $150 million a mile and subways $280 million — and to pay for construction overruns and operations, the MTA raided the bus funds. At the same time, the MTA announced its plan to raise fares to $1.35 from $1.10 and eliminate monthly passes.

The Labor/Community Strategy Center and the Bus Riders Union, represented by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, rushed into federal court to charge that the MTA was violating Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which forbids the government from allocating money in a racially discriminatory manner. The court issued a temporary restraining order and forced the MTA to re-institute the monthly pass. Among those who testified in support of the Bus Riders Union was Antonio Villaraigosa, then deputy to MTA board member Gloria Molina.

Out of that litigation, the center and the Bus Riders Union signed a 10-year consent decree with the MTA, which agreed to dramatically improve the bus system. The consent decree secured a $42 monthly pass and an $11 weekly pass (though pass fares went up $10 at the start of 2004). The MTA replaced 2,000 dilapidated diesel buses with 2,500 natural gas buses and now boasts that it has "the largest clean-fuel bus fleet in the U.S."

The not-so-secret story is that the MTA refused to buy those buses, appealed every court ruling and buckled only after the Supreme Court refused to hear its hollow appeals.

The federal District Court lifted its oversight of the MTA in October, and only seven months later the MTA is regressing to its race- and class-biased policies — cutting bus service and threatening to raise fares. The MTA is back to creating a separate and unequal public transit system, giving massive subsidies to the significantly whiter rail ridership while complaining that it cannot afford what are truly tiny subsidies to bus riders, who are 60% female, 85% black, Latino or Asian and many of whom have family incomes under $15,000.

Buses are the only viable alternative to cars for a county of 10 million people spread over 4,000 square miles. Just four miles of subway drilling cost $1.2 billion; for the same price the MTA could buy 2,600 clean-air buses and double the size of the existing fleet.

By contrast, service cuts and fare increases will depress ridership, leading to more cars on the road and dramatically increased pollution. (In L.A. County, 70% of greenhouse gas emissions are from cars and trucks.) Any attempt to raise fares should require an environmental impact report. High-speed bus-only lanes — combined with prohibiting cars altogether in auto-free zones and during auto-free days — are the only ways to reverse the rise in respiratory illness and global warming.

The MTA, claiming a $100-million operating deficit, wants us to believe that punishing its riders is its only choice. But it continues to subsidize rail projects at absurd levels.

About $57 million is spent on operations for Metrolink — a subsidy of about $5 a rider — which serves the whitest, most affluent suburban transit users. For the Gold Line, weekday ridership is 19,000 at an operating subsidy for each passenger of almost $7. The three Wilshire/Whittier bus lines, the most heavily utilized and effective in the nation, carry 90,000 daily passengers at a subsidy of 79 cents each.

The 13-member MTA board needs a two-thirds majority to raise fares, so five "no" votes would kill any fare hike. If Villaraigosa and his three appointees (Bernard Parks, Richard Katz and David Fleming) vote against it, then just one more "no" vote — maybe from Molina or one of the other county supervisors — would stop this attack on passengers and put the MTA's rail addiction back in permanent rehab. Source