BlueNC - The people's think tank

Weekend wound up

James Protzman — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 22:49:48 +0000

Friday funnies at the Puppetshow, courtesy of Sir Jack the Hawke.

The liberals understand the significance of electing a liberal president and moving the Senate to a filibuster-proof liberal majority. They were motivated, well-financed, and united. Until conservatives can say the same, our country will continue sliding toward socialism.

Earth to Jack: The conservatives have been saying the same for eight long, destructive years. This election was a clear and convincing rejection of the Republican approach to governing. You lost on the merits of issues and on your lack of vision beyond "cut taxes" and "deport brown people."

"We're No Longer A Southern State"

lomaprietaleigh — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:59:25 +0000

I went to the drugstore today. Better living through chemistry, and all.

For the second time since I voted, I saw the man who helped me with my touch machine at election time. A big bear of a man, a white senior citizen, oozing friendliness and goodwill.

This time, in the drugstore, I decided to say hello. "Did you work at the polls?" I asked. "Yes," he said, "for early voting." "I thought you looked familiar," I said.

"Did you see me in the newspaper?"
"No, I saw you at the polls."
"You don't read the newspaper?"
"No. My husband does."
"I said some things I shouldn't have."
"Like what? That you were happy with how things went?" I smiled.
"I said 'We're no longer a Southern state.'"

I stared at him silently, uncomprehending. "What do you mean, 'we're no longer a Southern state?'"

"We're no longer a Southern state," he said regretfully. "Not like Kentucky. Or Tennessee. And Virginia--Virginia's no longer a Southern state." He elaborated, allowing as how he didn't like what had gone on with the election. No racist language was used, yet I was troubled by the sentiments implied.

I could sense my face becoming guarded, as if in a poker game. I looked at him blankly; disappointed, regretting I'd initiated conversation.

He complained of people going to the polls in droves simply to vote Obama and a straight Democratic ticket.

I stared; a little surprised that he still didn't get it. "That's what I did," I said. "Well, I voted for some Judges."

It became clear that while I had assumed he was a Democrat; he assumed I was Republican.

Then I remembered. My candidate won. I can afford to be gracious.

We got into a discussion about acne medicine.

And I realized I still liked him.

"Welcome back to North Carolina," he said as he headed toward the cash register.

"Thank you."

As I walked away, he called out: "Forget everything I said."

I smiled. I can afford to be gracious.

Cross posted at A Smut-Filled Tome.

No State Rule Book for Hazardous Land Development

Lynne Vogel — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 01:13:19 +0000

Photo 1-View looking up the track of the August 31, 2006 embankment failure-debris flow from the development road near lot 107.
Photo 2-View looking downslope at the debris deposit and damage to lot 107
Photo 3-View of cracks in embankment extending northeast from the head scarp of the August 31, 2006 embankment failure-debris flow
Photos compliments of the North Carolina Geological Survey

A little over two years ago a road-building crew caused a massive landslide on Eagles Nest Ridge in Haywood County. Luckily, no homes were in the path of what has been called a “A Whopper of a Slide.”

The August 31, 2006 landslide occurred in a 700-acre development, called Cascades, which was being built by Maurice Wilder of Clearwater, Florida. The subdivision plat shows that the 90 foot wide by 1300 foot long debris flow would have severely damaged or destroyed any structures that would have been built on Lot 107 in the development.

After the landslide Dennis Franklin, contractor for the project, notified county officials and instituted temporary measures to stabilize the area. Marc Pruett, Haywood County’s erosion control supervisor, said that without notification he probably would not have known about the slide since no homes or residents were in danger.

Maggie Valley engineer Kevin Alford, who investigated the slide for a Cascades property owner, said that the failed section of the road bed occurred because

The upper road was built out of shot material (from) where they had to blast the roadway in there. It got too heavy. The sliding material acted like a bulldozer, scouring the slope of almost all soil and vegetation. It wiped out a path down to bedrock. It was like an elliptical -shaped bulldozer. It is an amazing thing when you see that kind of material go down the mountain. When you get up in the mountains and start building roads, there are good ways to build roads and bad ways to build roads. In a situation like that I think it would have been reasonable to do subterranean work to find out what was there. When you have a large amount of uncompacted rock fill that gets a lot of water in it, you have potential for slope failures. There is still more material up there, so it could happen again.

North Carolina Geological Survey’s Findings

Geologists investigating the landslide site found that the collapsed slope embankment was composed of highly unstable woody debris and graphitic-sulfidic bedrock fragments. Rain on this weak, improperly-constructed, roadbed probably precipitated the landslide.

During the course of their survey the geologists determined that the still standing ~ 300 foot long road embankment showed evidence of additional failures. They warned that if the fragile embankment is not properly stabilized, this land mass will pose a future threat to public safety. Recommendations to the developer included a professional investigation of the failed site in conjunction with extensive and expensive stabilization measures or removal of the remaining roadbed.

In their assessment report the NCGS reference other Western North Carolina landslides caused by contractors' use of graphitic-sulfidic road fill.

No State Rule Book for Hazardous Land Development

It is unknown whether Mr. Wilder followed the safety recommendations outlined by the North Carolina Geological Survey. Mr. Wilder, along with all other developers conducting business in the state, are left to their own best judgment on landslide remediation.

Interested parties should be aware of these pertinent facts:

1. Landslides and weak soils endanger most mountain construction sites in Western North Carolina.

2. Developers do not have to report landslides to the state or to their clients.

3. There are no independent safety experts on-site to monitor construction practices.

4. North Carolina does not provide any measure of regulation over hazardous land development even though the region was devastated by landslides in September 2004.

5. North Carolina does not require real estate land risk disclosure.

Wouldn't You Want to Know the Risks of Buying Real Estate in Haywood County?

Landslide hazard maps for Haywood County are scheduled to be released this year, yet commissioners have chosen not to share this relevant information.

Officials only acknowledge that there are "difficulties" such as steep slopes and water quality issues associated with mountain development. The fact is most of the county's developable land is extremely hazardous. Evidence proves that building sites are impaired by unstable soils, the threat of landslides and dangerous unsupervised construction practices.

Haywood County Commissioners and their Planning Board know that hazardous land development is a threat to public safety and homeowners' financial security. There is no reason for this information to be hidden from public view.

For a comprehensive look at landslide-triggered losses in Haywood County please read the following reports.

Gambling with the Unknown
Haywood County Landslide
Rain Triggers Mudslides in Two Western North Carolina Counties
Study brings bad news
Hunters Crossing Landslide...It's Still Moving
Building Homes Where Nature Didn't Intend Them to be Built.
Deadly Landslide in Maggie Valley
Western North Carolina Mudslides Damage Private Mountain Roads. Who is Responsible?
Mudslides and Landslides Affect Property Values in Western North Carolina

Hahahahahaha

James Protzman — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:21:18 +0000

NC Republican woman say lay off Sarah Palin. Hilarous!

NC Advocacy Group Travels to DC to Lobby!

tarheel_advocate — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:07:10 +0000

On Monday November 10, I (along with about 50 more amazing people) visited Capitol Hill to lobby for something I am passionate about; THE RIGHTS OF TEENAGERS! My state met with staffers in NC Senator Burr's office and NC Representative Brad Miller's office to discuss the benefits of comprehensive sex education in public schools as opposed to abtinence-only sex education.

As teenagers, we deserve to be educated about certain things so that we will be able to make responsible, informed decisions. And...comprehensive sex education does just that! It teaches young people about ways to protect themselves if they choose to be sexually active, but still empasizes that abstinence is the only 100% effective way to prevent pregnancy and the transmission of STIs. Comprehensive sex education presents students with resources to refer to if needed and also teaches about healthy relationships. So why not cut the funding for abstinence-only funding and spend that money on something more useful: COMPREHENSIVE SEX EDUCATION.

In Senator Burr's office, we met with staffer Mark Fellin. He was a very personable and understanding staffer. He listened to what we had to say and was polite when he spoke. We gave him the shocking statistics about the reproductive health of teens in NC and he was very shocked, especially when he heard that NC had the 9th highest pregnancy rate in the nation. Also, he was amazed that 95% of people who get married in the US are not virgins. Now...Senator Burr has continuously voted against comprehensive sex education, so why would his staff be so shocked to hear these statistics if he was sure abstinence-only was getting the job done? Also, the staffer mentioned something about Sen. Burr being anti-abortion. With respect to his position on such a controversial issue, we successfully and effectively refuted. We explained that if Senator Burr would simply vote of comprehensive sex education, the number of pregnacies would decline, therefore reducing the need for abortions. Overall, our meeting with Sen. Burr's office went well.

On the other hand, we met with Rep. Brad Miller's office, which happens to support comprehensive sex education. Our main focus during this meeting was to cordially thank Rep. Miller for his support and ask him to vote against Title V and CBAE (Community-Based Abstinence Education) funding. His staffer, Heather Parsons, was of great company and was pleased that such young people took a firm stand on an issue. She could tell that we were passionate about what we explained. We asked her to discuss with Rep. Miller if he could work towards gaining the support of other legislators who opposed comprehensive sex education. We also asked him to continue to support comprehensive sex education, becuase this is the time for change and it would soon come to be. Hopefully, in the future Rep. Brad Millier will sponsor of co-sponsor a comprehensive sex education bill!

My time in DC was fun! i met lots of cool AFY staff: special shouts out to the online advocacy coordinators (Will, Joe, and Emily) and Meg! I met other intelligent young people who were passionate about the same issues as myself! Most of all, I became one step closer to making a difference in the lives of many young people in America. It Is Time for CHANGE...and we will be catalysts for improving this social injustice! Thanks AFY and APPCNC!

Daylight "Wastings" Time

James Protzman — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:14:10 +0000

For all the talk about energy savings in today's political environment, effective actions are few and far between. So when a simple opportunity to save millions of dollars in energy costs comes along, we should take advantage of it. North Carolina should abandon the outdated and misguided practice of Daylight Savings Time.

Two professors tackled the issue in today's New York Times.

Recently, however, we were able to conduct a study in Indiana, where daylight time was instituted statewide only in 2006. Before that year, daylight time was in effect in just a handful of counties. This change of policy offered a unique, natural experiment to measure the overall effect on residential electricity consumption. We could compare the amount of energy used by households in the late-adopting counties during the two years before they switched to daylight time with the amounts they used during the year afterward — while using counties that always practiced daylight time as a control group.

We found that daylight time caused a 1 percent overall increase in residential electricity use, though the effect varied from month to month. The greatest increase occurred in late summer and early fall, when electricity use rose by 2 percent to 4 percent.

Daylight time costs Indiana households an average of $3.29 a year in higher electricity bills, or about $9 million for the whole state. We also calculated the health and other social costs of increased pollution emissions at $1.7 million to $5.5 million per year.

What explains this unexpected result? While daylight time reduces demand for household lighting, it increases demand for heating in the early spring and late fall (in the mornings) and, even more important, for cooling on summer evenings. Benjamin Franklin was right about candles, in other words, but he did not consider air-conditioners.

I've always thought the practice of moving clocks back and forth was an exercise in delusion, but I've never had evidence to suggest it might actually be destructive. It seems reasonable to extrapolate from the analysis in Indiana to conclude that we in North Carolina could be flushing upwards of $15 million each year when we implement Daylight Savings Time - with literally nothing to show for it.

No one can point to North Carolina and say we're a hotbed of innovation and independence. But perhaps by taking a step in the direction of energy efficiency - by abandoning Daylight "Savings" Time - we can begin to pull our policies into alignment with our rhetoric.

Is an "odometer tax" a good idea?

James Protzman — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:43:40 +0000

Mark Johnson, writing for O-No! yesterday, reported on recommendations from the 21st Century Transportation Committee. One of those recommendations includes a tax on mileage (to be calculated annually with vehicle inspections) to either replace or supplement the gas tax:

The tax on vehicle miles would be collected during the car's annual inspection and could replace or supplement the current gas tax. The gas tax has produced less money than in the past because of better fuel efficiency, a cap on the tax and, more recently, declining gas prices.

...

The committee is charged with finding new ways to pay for the state's growing road and transit needs as the population mushrooms and current revenue sources plateau or drop. North Carolina maintains more miles of roads than any state except Texas, because the Tar Heel state does not require counties to pay for roadwork. And North Carolina cities are reaching the size at which officials are building or contemplating light rail systems.

Good idea? Bad idea? Somewhere in between?

Wayne Goodwin on Voter Financed Elections

Betsy Muse — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:59:14 +0000

I caught up with Wayne Goodwin this week and asked him about his campaign. I was specifically interested in how public financing worked for him. Both he and his opponent participated in public financing, so were on equal footing in that regard. The most obvious result of their participation is that insurance industry money was kept at a minimum in both campaigns reducing the appearance that those who are regulated by the office also hold influence over it.

This year the voters booted the insurance industry and its employees out of this campaign, not that the current or future office holders were or would have been influenced by their contributions in the first place.

The following is a bit of my Q & A with Commissioner-elect Goodwin:

BlueNC: Did public financing make campaigning easier or more difficult?

Goodwin: In my opinion, the pilot program for public financing of the Insurance Commissioner race made my 2008 campaign much easier. Frankly, public financing allowed me to (1) spend a finite period of time fundraising (2) among a broader group of persons (3) who were all limited to between $10 and $200 each and (4) with no involvement of PACs - particularly of the special interest variety - that could otherwise give up to $4,000 each. The program also (5) significantly marginalized special interests and, most importantly, (6) after May 6th allowed me to spend 100% of my time and energy meeting with voters, listening to their concerns, and sharing both my ideas and my credentials with them. Public financing also (7) forced my campaign to be ever more frugal and strategic on campaign expenditures, further underscoring the grassroots organization necessary for victory.

In my opinion, the program made it easier for both me and my opponents because it leveled the playing field on finances but increased the premium on and impact of grassroots organization, well-thought plans and proposals, and relevant experience for the office of Insurance Commissioner.

BlueNC: How did it make your fundraising more transparent?

Goodwin: The public financing program made the campaign more transparent because it prohibited involvement by PACs and made it clear to the public that the very most any contribution could be was $200. There was also an increased emphasis on identifying the employer and/or occupation of the contributor. Furthermore, the pilot program also limited contributions to those from NC residents registered to vote in NC. That meant the contributors who helped me qualify for public funding were the exact same people who could either elect me or my opponents. Thus, there would be no financial intervention or involvement in this race by out-of-state interlopers or special interests.

BlueNC: Did you have to work harder or spend more time raising money?

Goodwin: As for whether I had to work harder to raise money, I believe it is a matter of perspective: As opposed to spending more and more time raising money throughout the length of the campaign - which in my instance stretched eight months but theoretically could have lasted for years - my campaign team and I had to raise all of the allowed funds only during a finite, truncated period between February 29 and May 6. That 2-1/2 month period took a burst of energy and organization to do all the requisite fundraising, but it helped tremendously that a qualifying contribution of $10 had almost the same qualifying weight as the maximum contribution of $200.

BlueNC: In that past the industries regulated by this office contributed heavily to candidates for this office. While these folks might not have had greater access to the office, it could have appeared that way to some people. How has public financing changed all that?

Goodwin: Regarding my relationship to those I would work with from the insurance industry or any other industry regulated by the office of Insurance Commissioner, the public financing program made my campaign dramatically less reliant on the very persons regulated by the Department of Insurance. As recent reports revealed, the percentage of campaign funds raised from the insurance industry by the Democratic and Republican party nominees for NC Insurance Commissioner dropped from 65% in the 2004 race to approximately 5% in my successful campaign. That, at least to me and to other observers of the process, means that the 2008 candidates spent more time than ever before campaigning among rank-and-file voters who are not "special interests." Another piece of trivia that has not been reported in the media is this: Because of public financing available in the Insurance Commissioner race, I was able to participate in more head-to-head debates and forums with my Insurance Commissioner opponents than ALL the other 2008 statewide races for other offices combined. (We had at least 20 such debates or candidate forums, not counting the events involving campaigns for other offices.) Public financing gave me the freedom to spend more very valuable time visiting businesses, homes, churches, families, schools, offices, civic clubs, professional groups, insurance experts, and media of all types and sizes that might not have seen me otherwise due to the usual pressures of major fundraising and holding events that are money-driven and not idea-driven.

As for those who may believe they have no influence over the office, I simply state that those persons who are affiliated with special interests have the same way of helping publicly-financed candidates through ideas, organization, and voter education that persons who are not affiliated with special interests have. Influence is "democratized" or spread among all the people.

BlueNC: Any further thoughts on the process?

Goodwin: It is my hope that the legislature will see the very positive effects that public financing had in this race and quickly consider expanding the pilot program to additional Council of State offices. I will personally advocate for the program, and will tout as proof the comparison of my 2008 campaign with my 2004 race, as well as comparisons with other campaigns that became obsessed with "the money chase."

Though the program was successful, there are a number of amendments needed to the pilot program to provide greater incentive for participation and to ensure that the funding mechanism is adjusted for the cost-of-living and anticipated increases in media and transportation by the candidates.

Meanwhile, in expressing my support for public financing I do not cast any negative light on Commissioner Long or on any other candidate. The vast majority of those candidates merely played by the laws and rules as they were for those other elections. Now, with the creation and successful operation of public financing in statewide judicial and certain Council of State offices, we have a political climate that will allow the State to institute greater reforms and new rules that change campaigning for the better and which dilute the impact of special interests. In that respect, everyone wins!

Thank you, Wayne for taking so much time to answer these questions. I hope that other candidates who participated in publicly financed campaigns will share their thoughts as well.

Do you have any thoughts on this?

Where do you stand on Joe Lieberman?

James Protzman — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 18:12:52 +0000

The US Senate today voted by secret ballot to retain Joe Lieberman as chair of one of its most critical committees. Folks at Daily Kos mostly think the guy should have been dumped. Here's the New York Times coverage.

Death on trial today

James Protzman — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:21:45 +0000

Dan Kane writes a good, clear story today about what's at stake as the NC Supreme Court hears arguments about the role of doctors in killing criminals.

The state's highest court will hear legal arguments today that could break the two-year stalemate on executions in North Carolina -- or extend the de facto moratorium. The N.C. Medical Board has effectively shut down the executions, which are done by lethal injection, by prohibiting doctors from taking part. The board contends such participation violates the profession's mission to preserve life.

But state law requires a doctor to be on hand, and botched injections in other states in recent years have emphasized that need.

I've never quite been able to get my head around the stunning contradictions our legal system has tried to finesse when it comes to capital punishment, though plenty of people here have written about it.

If the court rules that the medical board cannot bar doctors from taking part in executions, lawyers representing death row inmates have another legal avenue to pursue. They have challenged a Council of State decision setting up the execution procedure because the statewide elected officials did not allow for comment from the lawyers.

For those who enjoy watching Boston Legal and are interested in stopping capital punishment, last night's episode was a must-see.

Next on Boston Legal: Kill, Baby, Kill!