Perception, Politics, and Parks

When people think of “parks” the first things that come to mind are likely open spaces, athletic fields and playground equipment - lots of public greenery.  However, to make all of these things possible there’s another kind of public “green” that’s also needed in large quantities – money.  One thing you can also be sure of is that wherever prioritizing and spending public dollars is concerned, political maneuvering is sure to follow.

On August 8th at a combined meeting of the Mecklenburg County parks department, and town staffs and Park-Rec committee members of the towns of the North Mecklenburg towns,  Michael Kirschman, Deputy Director of the Mecklenburg County Park and Rec Department gave a Powerpoint presentation on the current state of priorities for the county’s parks projects.

Based on conversations with multiple people in the room, there was a fair amount of disappointment as it sunk in the long planned Regional Recreation Center on County owned land at 73 and 115 would not be the first one built by the county. That’s despite the North Center being sold during the 2008 election cycle as the top priority center for the 2008 Parks bond money.  The bonds passed countywide with 61.68% support including majorities in all North Mecklenburg precincts.

Instead, it looks like the first regional center will be built in East Charlotte.

While the perception may be this seems like a  broken promise to North Mecklenburg voters who supported the 2008 bond, the truth is a little more complicated.  In response to a question about the subject, Kirschman had this to say.

“The fact that funding was allocated for the design work to begin on the East Center has not changed the status of the North Center. Since 2014, it was known that funding for the North Center would not be until sometime after FY18. This is similar to the 20 other P&R projects that were ranked back in 2014, but that did not rank high enough to be funded in the current capital program that runs through FY18.”  Kirschman goes on to say  “at this time nothing has changed. The North Center is still unfunded until after FY18. The county will embark on a capital prioritization process later this year for capital projects to be funded FY19 and beyond. Once that is completed, we will potentially have a better idea of when the North Center (as well as other P&R projects) may be funded.”

While all of that may be true it still doesn’t explain how/why the East Center is moving forward ahead of the North.  That’s where the “politics” comes in.  District 1 County Commissioner Jim Puckett was able to shed some light on the situation.

According to a conversation with Puckett, Parks projects all over the county were delayed due to the Great Recession.  That included the planned rec centers as well as phase 2 of the 90 acre Eastway regional park which would have added amenities to the existing park started in the early 2000s.  When things finally got moving again as the economy improved, it made more sense to roll the Phase 2 of Eastway and the East Rec Center into a combined effort.  Besides making economic sense East Charlotte residents had been waiting for enhanced Parks & Rec facilities even longer than North Meck has been waiting for its new Rec Center.  Helping set that new plan in motion also involved continuous effort by East Charlotte residents and neighborhood groups.

So, what are the lessons North Meck residents can take from all this?

First, approving bonds does not guarantee you’ll get what you think you are voting to approve.  Bonds typically authorize spending for categories of things, not specific projects.  Second, if citizens don’t like how a plan is proceeding, then get organized and get active.  It’s been 8 years since the 2008 bond referendum.  Maybe a rec center costing tens of millions isn’t the best use of money?  Maybe that money would be better spent on something like more greenways which have become more and more popular in recent years here in North Mecklenburg?

Just a thought...

This post first appeared in this week's Herald Weekly at HuntersvilleHerald.com

#MeckBOCC : Vote 'No' on Four Year Terms

As voters head to the polls in Mecklenburg County in large numbers starting today with all early voting sites now open, there is one question on every ballot that deserves a resounding 'NO' vote.

Mecklenburg County Commissioners put a question on this year's ballot to extend their terms from 2-years to 4-years starting with next year's elections.   The question of putting it on the ballot was put forward by Commssioner George Dunlap and approved this past July by a vote of 7-2.

Only Commissioners Matthew Ridenhour and Pat Cotham voted against the idea.

Supporters use the same old justifications that are trotted out every time this kind of idea comes up locally.  "Everybody else is doing it" and "it would be easier for us elected officials" are the reasons they give.

Just because most counties in North Carolina have 4-year terms is really pretty meaningless if you give it more than 2 seconds worth of thought.  The old adage "if your friend jumps off a bridge would you do it too?" comes to mind.

As for making it easier on commissioners, that too should get the blunt retort of "so what!?!?"  If commissioners don't want to run every two years, then don't run!  Let someone else who does want to be accountable to the voters have the job.

Mecklenburg County has had multiple major issues facing it in recent years.  The tax revaluation and the I77 HOT lanes as examples.  Do you really want to give Commissioners more time between elections if they make the wrong dicisions on these issues?

For me, the answer to that is a resounding "No!"

CRTPO Meeting Tonight - Will they dump HOT Lanes

With Mecklenburg County now on-board with postponing the HOT lanes project on I77 until thhe contract is audited for more irregularities, our state Rep John Bradford has stepped into the fray.  After Tuesday's vote he posted the below on the LKN Election Connection Facebook page.

"I am respectfully encouraging all CRTPO members to work to amend their agenda tomorrow night and formally consider asking the NCDOT for a delay in the financial close of the I-77 project. The ground rules of this project have changed with the introduction of a possible new funding option (i.e. bonds) since MUMPO (now called CRTPO) decided back in 2007 to sanction a Fast Lanes study that would ultimately recommend express managed lanes. I do not think this group of elected officials would have made the same decision if they knew that a possible third funding option (i.e. bonds) was a possibility. It seems to me that a request for a delay in the project's closing is very reasonable and it would send a clear message to NCDOT that the decision over 7 years ago to support managed lanes was made under a very different set of funding possibilities."

Of course, after revealing Tuesday night that he cannot vote on the project, Mecklenburg County's, Dumont Clarke should not vote not be the project as the county's CRTPO member.  At the Tuesday MeckBOCC meeting Clarke had to admit publicly that he has a conflict of interest on the toll road project via his firm's involvement with a client.  Clarke recused himself from voting on the MeckBOCC amendment.  Clarke works for high powered law firm Moore and Van Allen.

If you are interested in supporting Rep Bradford in his request CRTPO change course, email members at the below addresses asking them to include a vote on a HOT lanes resolution in tonight's agenda.

Huntersville Commissioner Sarah McAulay chairs the body.  She can put this on the agenda if she wants to do so.  Hers is the first address.

sMcAulay@huntersville.org, brad.s.horvath@wellsfargo.com, pcnrb01@yahoo.com, vlyles@charlottenc.gov, wtwasham@cornelius.org, bjenest@colejeneststone.com, jbiggers@charlottepipe.com, gsavoie@council.indiantrail.org, ken.robertson@dsm.com, ntcarp@windstream.net, lannyopenshaw@marvinnc.org, jtaylor@matthewsnc.com, dumontclarke@mvalaw.com, dena.diorio@mecklenburgcountync.gov, msncmayor@yahoo.com, bwelch@admin.minthill.com, dnash@monroenc.org, edingler@ci.mooresville.nc.us, tracy.dodson@lincolnharris.com, lswetmore@ncdot.gov, lgladden@pinevilledsl.net, wdunn@council.stallingsnc.org, ehr413@gmail.com, michaeljohnson@earthlink.net, richard.helms@co.union.nc.us, duane.gardner@waxhaw.com, bdeter@townofweddington.com, bgbraswell@hotmail.com, reschert@aol.com, btrimbur@cornelius.org, rgraham@ci.davidson.nc.us, elong@fairviewnc.gov, jswain@huntersville.org, johnsonspartssup@att.net, joepollino@marvinnc.org, joseph.pata@bankofamerica.com, jim.puckett@mecklenburgcountync.gov, jbclivingwater@windstream.net, minthillmickey@carolina.rr.com, bkilgore@monroenc.org, lqualls@ci.mooresville.nc.us, ncurran@bissellcompanies.com, WKline@council.stallingsnc.org, ckutteh@popemcmillan.com, phenkel@roadrunner.com, lance.simpson@co.union.nc.us, steve.maher@waxhaw.com, barbarafarrison@townofweddington.com, jeanninekenary@wesleychapelnc.com, jbmoser@carolina.rr.com

Questionable Tactics in “Education” Tax Campaign

The size of the defeat for the “education” sales tax referendum in Tuesday’s election likely surprised many in Mecklenburg County Tuesday night.  Whether you supported it or opposed it, it’s doubtful too many thought the margin would be over 20 points. (38.8% For, 61.2% Against to be exact.)

As someone who longs for transparent and honest government, it was very disappointing and hard to watch how this sales tax referendum unfolded from beginning to end.  There were several troubling aspects which taken together make it feel like it was the right thing that this did not pass.

Was this a process that had community buy-in from the start?  No.  The Chamber of Commerce and even the School Board were taken off guard when the County Commissioners decided to put the tax on the ballot in a split 5-4 vote - mostly along party lines.

Was a sales tax the best way to fund CMS salaries long-term?  No.  It is too variable a revenue stream.  What happens when the next economic downturn hits?   Would those raises turn into pay cuts when sales tax revenue dips as it always does during a recession?  Would the other organizations slated to receive funds from this tax face cuts to keep CMS salaries from falling?  Too many outstanding questions were left unanswered.

Was the tax even a guaranteed source of revenue for education?  No.  While supporters of the tax claimed during the course of the debate that it would always be for education, the truth is that a future Board could have redirected this money to anything.  This tax revenue would have been general revenue and not legally tied to education spending.  The reason the ballot question on Tuesday did not mention education was that this was not an “education” tax.  Those who supported the tax were anything but clear on this fact.

This last point came up at the candidate forum at River Run in Davidson.   The candidates for NC House - 98 were asked whether or not they supported the tax increase. Republican John Bradford said he did not - citing this lack of a guarantee as his reason why.  Democrat Natasha Marcus who supported the tax shot back that Bradford's stance was a "dodge". The truth is that Bradford was right.

But maybe the hardest thing to watch was how public institutions targeted to benefit from this tax, danced right up to the line on what was legal for them to do in promoting its passage.  On more than one occasion they did things which were questionable and possibly over the line while pushing for the tax.  In addition to a small body of case law, there are two general statutes in North Carolina that govern what can and cannot be done by public institutions regarding elections – including referendums.  One set of laws is about spending public money.  The other is about “electioneering” around polling places. 

G.S. 160A-499.3 states “a municipality shall not use public funds to endorse or oppose a referendum, election or a particular candidate for elective office.”  G.S. §163-166.4(a) states “No person or group of persons shall hinder access, harass others, distribute campaign literature, place political advertising, solicit votes, or otherwise engage in election-related activity in the voting place or in a buffer zone.”

At some point both of these laws were bent well past their breaking point by our public institutions and officials, but since nobody will likely challenge them in court nothing will be done about it.  A cynic would say our public institutions know that they will not be challenged in an expensive court case, so they have no fear of stepping out of bounds when it suits their needs.

The library system and CMS created fliers that indirectly promoted passing the tax.  They technically stayed within bounds and did not explicitly encourage voting for the tax.  However, both fliers certainly implied bad things would happen if it did not pass.  The Library was challenged on the placement of its fliers inside facilities that also served as early voting sites.  To avoid running afoul of the electioneering law these were removed – a sign the library knew they were pushing the legal limits.

The Arts and Science Council and the Town of Davidson went even further.  They both explicitly encouraged voting for the tax in materials they created.  The ASC had multiple posts on its website encouraging people to vote for the tax.  Davidson Mayor John Woods was encouraging the same in the town’s latest newsletter which came out late last week just prior to election-day.  It’s hard to see how the ASC’s actions do not break rules governing non-profits.  The same could be said about Davidson’s use of a publicly funded newsletter to encourage passing the tax.

As County officials go back to the drawing board on the question of funding education, the size of this defeat as well as the actions of these institutions need to be taken into account when deciding how to do it.  Using questionable, strong-arm tactics to raise revenue has proven not to work.  Maybe now it’s time for Commissioners to figure out how to live within the County’s existing means. 

Bonus Observation: Check out this interactive map for where the sales tax actually passed.  It's telling that Davidson precinct 206 was one of the few precincts where it succeeded (just barely).  Overall it, still failed for the two town precincts, but Davidson was closer as a municipality than any other in Mecklenburg County.  

Having the Mayor use public funds to tell everyone to go vote for something likely made the difference.

MeckBOCC Chair Dodges HOT Lanes Questions in Davdison

Mecklenburg County Commission Chair, Trevor Fuller, rolled into Davidson last night, but instead of some excitement and hard questions around HOT Lanes from the packed house topics stayed focused around the pending sales tax increase and education.  (At least that was the case for the first 45 minutes up until this blogger had to head home.  If things took a different turn later, please let us know.)

That's not to say WidenI77.org supporters weren't there in force.  They were.  It's also not to say they didn't ask hard and informed questions.  They did.

What was a bit unexpected was how Commissioner Fuller responded, or more accurately - preempted the questions.  As Commissioner Fuller was giving his opening remarks he worked in that the counties have little to no responsibility for roads in North Carolina, and more specifically on the I77 HOT Lanes project he said that he "knows almost nothing about it."  He even went as far as to say it would be improper for a County Commissioner to comment much on roads because they were the responsibility of other elected bodies.

A wily response from a wily politician.

I guess the Iredell County Board didn't get the memo though.  Back in January 2013 when the debate over HOT Lanes really began to rage, they showed the courage to step into the fray rather than hide from it. 

From DavidsonNews.net January 2013...

Widen I-77 finds an ally: Iredell board says no to HOT lanes