McCrory's Cortez Moment: Is it the fiction or the fact?

When Governor Pat McCrory signed bills H4 and S4, respectively limiting Unemployment Insurance and Medicaid Expansion, one could see the combination as his "Cortez Moment" - as in "there's no turning back now."

The signing of these two bills in many ways forces McCrory to deliver on the promises of job growth and economic prosperity he made on the campaign trail.  If the economy does well, there is much less need for both unemployment insurance and Medicaid.  If he delivers, there's not much political downside from the middle of the road voters who decide our elections.  He will have thrown a meaty bone to the conservatives who support him and will have marginalized the progressives who will never support him no matter what he does.

However, there are two versions of the Cortez story - one fiction, one fact.

The fictional version is more inspiring....

"As legend has it, after his men got ashore, Cortés burned the ships that brought them. He wanted his men to understand fully that their only option was to win or die – there would be no retreat. Knowing their options were limited now, the Spanish army would fight harder and with more determination.

Interestingly, though, the message Cortés sent was not just intended for his army. After word of what happened on the beach spread, the Aztecs knew that the Spanish were literally fighting for their lives at every juncture. This meant that the Aztecs would be unable to force the Spanish to retreat because there was nowhere for the invaders to go. On the other hand, with an entire empire behind them, the Aztec forces would always be aware of their own option to retreat. In the face of the Spanish commitment to total victory, the Aztecs would themselves be more inclined to retreat and less inclined to fight hard to hold ground.

By 1521, Cortés and his small army had conquered the Aztecs. While it is clear that superior weaponry and military training gave the Spanish certain advantages in this situation, it is also clear that Cortés' strategy and the value of his commitment to it, was invaluable to the final outcome." - From the Melbourne Business School

The factual version of the Cortez story is more a lesson in political gamesmanship...

Fact: Cortes didn't burn his boats. Technically, he didn't even scuttle them. He did order the captains of nine ships to run their vessels onto the sand. But that left him with three other vessels -- and a master shipbuilder among the crew. 

Fact: Cortes wasn't "motivating" his men -- he was protecting his backside. According to Hugh Thomas's "The Conquest of Mexico," Cortes grounded the ships to win at palace politics in Spain. Cortes's Mexican mission revolved around his intense rivalry with Diego Velazquez, the governor of Cuba. When Cortes obtained his first boatload of treasure, he dispatched it to the king with three letters pleading his case for more power.

Among Cortes's own men were some of Velazquez's supporters who disapproved of Cortes's actions. They plotted to steal one of his ships to take a message of warning to Velazquez, who would then have time to overtake the treasure ship and seize the letters.

Cortes learned of the plot and captured the four ringleaders. He hanged two of them, cut the foot off another, and let the fourth, a clergyman, go free. Then he ordered the nine ships run aground. According to John H. Coatsworth, director of Harvard's David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies, "Cortes beached the ships to prevent anyone from heading back to Cuba to report to the Spanish nobilities that he was engaged in an utterly unauthorized and illegal expedition. He was running for cover." From Fast Company June/July 1997

Last week's Met Life jobs announcement, bought with nearly $100 million in State and local incentives, plays into both narratives.  "The largest jobs announcement in State history" headlines supports the first while the use of corporate welfare - not to mention the Governor's former employer helping to cement the deal - requires accessing some of the political "cover" referenced in the second.

Interestingly, that political cover may not be working so well with many on the right - including the award winning Daily Haymaker blog and the blog of the conservative Civitas Institute.

Mecklenburg's Bill Brawley Signs onto H267.

First thing Monday morning, Rep Bill Brawley of Matthews signed on as a sponsor of H276 filed last Thursday in the NC House.  While there are unconfirmed rumblings that this bill might not impact the I-77 HOT Lanes project, the fact that Rep Brawley is now a sponsor is definitely interesting.

Here's Bill Brawley at the January 14th WidenI77.org meeting in Cornelius describing his roll in helping push through the bill authorizing the P3 concept for the project.  His comments start at minute 15:00 of this clip.




In January, on the eve of starting his new role as Chair of the House Transportation Committee, Rep Brawley seems to be a fairly ardent supporter of the I-77 HOT Lanes project while still seeming to understand the concerns of those in the room.  Two months later, he signs on as a sponsor of a transportation bill which could derail that project (rumblings to the contrary notwithstanding).

When the Chair of a committee sponsors a bill directly in the purview of that committee, it has a good shot at passing.  H267 now sits in the House Transportation Committee.

Update 3/12: The rumblings continue out of Raleigh that this bill will not impact any decision on I77. If that is the case it certainly is intentional as this bill certainly could be structured to do so.

Update2 3/13: And the other shoe drops...Mr Brawley appears to actually have signed onto the bill to ensure that it does not interfere with the toll plans, not the other way around  See here.

HOT lane usage...Bait and switch coming?

The 10 second version of the HOT Lanes sales pitch sounds pretty positive, but a look behind the curtain says the fast talking salesman is prepping his mark for the old bait and switch.

Here's what they tell you, the citizen, the voter, the mark...

HOT lanes will reduce congestion.  Some users will be able to ride for free.  The road will be open to all comers.

Sounds good doesn't it?  Except that HOT lane supporters don't even really believe it...

In a 2011 piece by the Reason Foundation's Robert W. Poole Jr, one of the leading proponents of HOT lanes, he outlines why this is not and more importantly should not be the case.  (See Automating HOT Lanes Enforcement, Reason Foundation 2011.)

Who is Robert Poole?  From the above linked article...

"Robert W. Poole, Jr. is the director of transportation policy and Searle Freedom Trust Transportation Fellow at Reason Foundation, the free market think tank he founded. Poole, an MIT-trained engineer, has advised the previous four presidential administrations on transportation and policy issues.

In the field of surface transportation, Poole has advised the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, the White House Office of Policy Development, National Economic Council, Government Accountability Office and state DOTs in numerous states.

Poole's 1988 policy paper proposing privately financed toll lanes to relieve congestion directly inspired California's landmark private tollway law (AB 680), which authorized four pilot toll projects including the successful 91 Express Lanes in Orange County. More than 20 other states and the federal government have since enacted similar public-private partnership legislation. In 1993, Poole oversaw a study that coined the term HOT (high-occupancy toll) Lanes, a term which has become widely accepted since." (Emphasis added)

Poole coined the term HOT Lanes.  He is one of the field's leading experts.  Yet, his paper says the only way to effectively manage HOT lanes like the ones proposed for I-77 is to effectively do none of the things tossed out in the HOT Lanes 10-second sales pitch.

The I-77 project is actually described as a HOT 2.0 facility where tolls will finance the actual construction of much of the project. (The small HOV conversion portion being the exception.)  As a HOT 2.0 effort, toll collection and enforcement become vital to the success of the project.  They are critical because they are used to actually pay for the construction of the road.  To ensure these critical needs are met, changes from the promises of the "sales pitch" are necessary for the project to meet it's funding requirements.

• Instead of "reducing congestion" for all travelers, we get a "congestion-relief lane" for those willing to pay a premium.
• Instead of "some users get to ride for free", we get a system designed to reduce the number of free riders by as much as possible.  According to Poole, 83% of vehicles on existing HOT 2.0 projects pay tolls. That's compared to 35% of riders on HOT 1.0 lanes which are entirely converted HOV-2 facilities.
• Instead of "the road being open to all comers", we get proposals from Mr Poole that only pre-registered and audited carpoolers should be allowed to use the lanes for free with all others needing some sort of transponder.

These proposals don't come from people opposed to HOT lanes or tolls in general.  These proposals don't come from people who have a vested interest in seeing these projects fail.  These proposals come from the person who coined the term HOT and who is one of its biggest supporters.

But Mr Poole didn't coin the term HOT 2.0.  No, according to Mr Poole, that honor goes to David Ungemah.

If you would like to hear Mr. Ungemah, he'll be participating in the HOT 2.0 sales pitch this Wednesday at the Lake Norman Transportation Commission meeting in Mooresville - 7PM at the Charles Mack Center.

Just remember, as with any sales pitch it isn't always representative of what they are truly trying to sell you.

Update:

Having spoken to a few people who attended this meeting, the media reports don’t do justice to the outrage expressed by most of the non-governmental attendees.

Starting with the setup of the room itself, the LNTC meeting was intended to marginalize the public. The public was segregated from the staff and elected officials. Also, minimal questions were allowed from the audience with one questioner being cutoff by the moderator and only being allowed to finish after chants of “let him finish” were launched from the crowd.

It was apparently a very, very stage managed affair. A sure sign of a bad idea is when it can’t even stand up to a little questioning or debate, and this appears to be one of those cases.

For those of us in Davidson and Mooresville who had Mi-Connection rammed through with little debate and to disastrous effect, this HOT issue seems eerily similar.

NC House Files to Require NCGA Approval of Tolls on "Existing" Interstates

Following on the heals of the NC Senate bill to stop any potential toll plans on I-95, the NC House filed a bill on Thursday that could stop actual plans for tolls on any interstate highway.  Bi-partisan H267 filed by two Republicans and two Democrats would require an NCGA vote of approval before implementing tolls on any "existing" road.

Questions are out to the Bill's sponsors as to whether this bill would impact the decision to toll I-77 via High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes.  A simple straight forward reading of the bill, would indicated that it should since the existing HOV lanes will be converted to HOT as part of the project.  However, since the I-77 HOT project is a combination of HOV conversion and new construction, that opens the door for interpretation.

If those who support the HOT project are willing to engage in Bill Clintonesque splitting of linguistic hairs, they could try to say the HOT facility is new and not existing. The inclusion and exact meaning of the word "existing" in this bill is important.

A second important point with this bill is the last statement which is common to most bills in the Legislature..."This act is effective when it becomes law."

When it comes to giant government construction efforts, the I-77 HOT Lanes project is on the fast track.  The plan is to select a concessionaire and get the contract underway this year.  If H267 is not equally fast tracked, it will not become law before a contract may be signed - making it irrelevant to such a contract.

If those who support the HOT project are willing to play the standard political game of "run out the clock", they will stall this bill just long enough to not impact this project.  

To be very clear, if the Legislature was able to pass complex and controversial bills on Medicaid expansion and unemployment insurance in a matter of weeks, they could most certainly pass a simple bill that requires a vote on a simple subject such as tolls.  Not doing so will be very, very intentional.

Keep an eye on this one.  It will be interesting to see where it goes.

Update: Looks like the Legislators are going the route of splitting those very fine political hairs.  See here.

NC Senate Files to Stop Tolls on I-95...I-77?

On Wednesday, S218 was filed in the State Senate by to explicitly prohibit tolls on I-95.   One would have to expect a warm welcome for this bill if it makes it to the House.  See this video of Speaker Tillis commenting back in June 2012 on his opposition to tolling our Interstates..

If passed it would protect citizens from a "money grab" to use Speaker Tillis's own words.

Tolling I-77 via HOT lanes would seem to be consistent with that "money grab" scenario.  Hopefully, if that eventually comes before the legislature as indicated in this Fox Charlotte segment, it would receive the same jaundiced reception from Speaker Tillis.

The Economics of Turning I-77 into a Toll Road

When the politicians get it right...

I give our local pols a fair amount of grief, but never let it be said I don't recognize when they get it right.  

Today, they got it right.

This morning at the CharMeck government center in Uptown Charlotte, State and County elected officials held a press conference where they unveiled for the media companion bills introduced today at the NC General Assembly - H200 and S159 - Require Certain General Reappraisals.  These bills are intended to repair the botched 2010 Mecklenburg County revaluation.

However, as tax bills their impacts if/when passed could affect up to 70 counties across the state.  Getting a revenue impacting bill to this point with such wide possible consequences is no small feat.  Also, the bi-partisan nature of this bill is critical.  Much has been said in the media about the inflated valuations in North and South Mecklenburg - heavily Republican areas.  Less has been said about some areas of the county where there were also widespread artificially low valuations - some of those are in heavily Democratic precincts.  In light of those facts, while the press conference was led by the dynamic duo of Senator Jeff Tarte and Representative Bill Brawley, both Republicans, much praise was given to the leadership of Meck BOCC chair Pat Cotham and several other Democrats were mentioned favorably for their contributions and support.  

All involved deserve praise and recognition for doing what is right to correct what was done so, so wrong. 

But maybe my favorite moment of the short press conference came near the beginning.  Senator Tarte opened his remarks by recognizing the citizen activists who drove this issue from the start.  People like Bob Deaton of Cornelius (standing between Karen Bentley and Pat Cotham in the top picture).  Senator Tarte was almost effusive in his praise of the work done by those activists - including former Cornelius board member Jim Bensman.

It was really nice to see that recognition. 

The reality is that with all the heavy lifting that the politicians now appear ready and willing to do, this issue would not have been addressed if it was not for those activists.  If they had not stood up and continued to push for what is right, the press conference that occurred today would not have happened.

Maybe more than any event I've ever seen, this one epitomized good, bi-partisan government driven by active citizens to solve real problems.  I wish we could see it more often.

Big Shoes to Fill in Davidson

With the news that the Venzon family of River Run will be moving out of the area, Davidson has big shoes to fill - not just one pair, but two.

Losing John Venzon as Chairman of  the Mi-Connection Board of Directors and Laurie Venzon on the Davidson Town Board removes the two people who have done more than any others to stabilize Davidson's financial situation and repair the damage done by the creation of the locally owned cable company.  It is hard to overstate the potential impact of this dual loss. 

While neither of them has given an exact date for their departures from their respective boards, those dates are surely coming.  Davidson needs to prepare.

On the Mi-Connection side of the equation, John Venzon's eventual departure as Chairman of the Board removes a significant amount of big business experience from an organization competing in on of the biggest and most cutthroat of big business industries.  It comes at a time where Mi-Connection appears to be turning the corner or at least no longer sliding backwards.   His leadership directly helped push through the interlocal agreement renegotiation which encourages Mooresville to more aggressively promote the company, and he deserves credit for bringing in more experienced executives to run the company's day-to-day operations.

It's safe to say that without John Venzon's leadership, Mi-Connection would be in a much worse situation than it is today.

If you ever attended a Mi-Connection Board meeting you would immediately recognize that the questions John Venzon asks helped guide the company in the right direction.  You would also recognize in years past that the answers received were often not complete or were along the lines of "we'll get back to you".  The changes implemented in the past year should remedy that, and John deserves the credit for making it happen.

A similar loss will be felt by the Town of Davidson.

In recent years Laurie Venzon worked diligently with Town staff to transform the Town budgeting process into something more transparent and organized - making it possible to compare year to year numbers.  Whenever asked she provides citizens clarifications and detailed explanations around where the money comes from and where it goes.  If you are interested in "numbers" Laurie is the person to speak with on the Board.  She played a leading role in last year's renegotiation of the interlocal agreement with Mooresville on Mi-Connection - greatly improving Davidson's cash-flow situation.  She is often the lone voice on the Board expressing the financially conservative position on any given subject.

In fact, as recently as this past Tuesday she played that role.

During the budget discussion at the Tuesday work session, the idea was floated that Davidson might consider issuing some bonds to speed along some additional spending projects.  Commissioner Venzon immediately spoke up that the State's Local Government Commission (LGC) would likely frown on that  - in light of the Town's debt burden due to Mi-Connection.

Commissioner Venzon understands that tax dollars are your dollars.  Losing that "voice of reason" on the Davidson Board will have an impact.

So how should Davidson proceed?

The decision to select a new Chairman for Mi-Connection requires agreement from Mooresville on the replacement of John Venzon in his at-large seat on the board if and when that becomes vacant.  The rules are set out in this amendment to the interlocal agreement.  Davidson was fortunate to have a town resident fill that position.  However, going forward what the company needs most is solid business experience and a tremendous amount of dedication.  Finding someone with strong industry experience would also be a big plus.  Chief executive David Augur brings that to the table, but it would be great to have a second industry expert on the Mi-Connection Board in addition to Steven Miller

Regardless of who is selected, whether the person comes from Davidson, Mooresville or from somewhere else, the replacement needs to be committed to the goal of getting Mi-Connection to the point where it can be sold.  John Venzon stated this goal very clearly last year.

"This is our singular focus," Venzon says. "To grow the system and prepare for an exit that protects the towns and the citizens."

A change in leadership here should not result in a change in direction.

As for filling the vacancy on the Davidson Town Board...

The need to replace a member of the Town Board makes last year's decision to abandon efforts to create 4-year terms seem almost prescient.  If the Town had moved to 4-year terms, it is highly likely that Laurie Venzon would have been one of the two Board members receiving those longer terms.  Since joining the Board she has always been one of the top two vote getters.  In a way, her leaving the Board validates that decision and proves the point that longer terms does not ensure less turnover.

See here for the General Statute governing the subject of vacancies on municipal governing boards.  The Town Board could appoint a successor.  However, just like during the 4-year terms debate, just because the Board can do something unilaterally, does not mean they should do something unilaterally.

With filing for the 2013 elections taking place in July, the appropriate decision is to leave the seat unfilled until this year's vote.  The voters should be allowed to decide without the existing Board handing someone de facto incumbency by appointing a replacement mere months before the scheduled election. 

Doing otherwise could and should be seen by voters as an effort by the Town to stack the deck in favor of one candidate over any potential others.  It would discourage qualified individuals from filing if they believed the "fix is in" prior to the campaign season even starting.

As the next few months unfold, there will be much discussion on how these two vacancies will affect the town.  Who the replacements are and how they are chosen will set the tone for Davidson's immediate future.  Let's hope our leaders choose wisely.