Untitled Document

(Atlanta) Reports are pouring into the Centers for Disease Control and the Food and Drug Administration that a virulent new form of political ideology has infected and is threatening to take over and ruin local politics in Raleigh, NC.

Called develocrat, the infectious agent stems from a political philosophy based on real estate business values. Traditional political/ideological values are watered down or forsaken in favor of business ideas at the expense of the social contract. The incubation period can take several years, or just overnight, and the result is a person called a develocrat. Side effects can include balancing growth costs on the backs of citizens, a desire to give huge tax breaks to developers, and ignoring citizen and neighborhood concerns.

Officials have documented massive headaches on the part of people trying to negotiate with develocrats. So far the only cure is to surgically remove the develocrat from office.

“We haven’t reached the epidemic stage yet, but we are worried that citizens will be caught off guard and unprepared,” said a city official. “High voter turnout could help stem the outbreak.”

On Tuesday there will be an election in Raleigh, the same day several forms of develocrat are slated to be removed from the body of city hall. One form of develocrat found in district A is extremely resistant to any change or reform despite claims by the local paper of record of being “pragmatic.” Another form of develocrat from district B is not “classifiable” from newspaper reports, which is particularly toxic because it can be well nigh impossible to trust the direction in which political decisions might mutate. What makes these two forms of develocrat particularly galling in tandem is that they are ostensibly from opposite poles of the traditional political/ideological spectrum.

“We have seen develocrat on the city council for several years,” said a close observer of public hearings. “If it is not contained, we are afraid that we could have a major outbreak that could last two years.”

Voters have a chance to reduce the spread of develocrat by exercising their right to vote on Tuesday, October 9, 2007.

Various officials and people with nothing else to do but sit at computers praise belowthebeltline.org for doing pro bono work inoculating people against the spread of develocrat for the last three years. “We have an antidote for the possible release of develocrat into the general population,” said The Intern, a spokesperson for btb.org. “On Tuesday, vote for Rodger Koopman, Nancy McFarlane, and Russ Stephenson and help erase develocrat from the local political process.”

Hey Friends, Thanks for reading this far. Since it will be election day tomorrow, we have a cheesy sweepstakes. The winner gets the credit for adding a new word to Urban Dictionary.

We supply the info, you send it in, and bingo, you go into the history books for adding a new word to the popular lexicon.

We are amused at the hybrid use of “developer” and “democrat” to describe people that were heavily influenced by real estate industry money. It's a word we've heard tossed around by readers, but google it and you get not a single hit. Perhaps the person that actually coined the word will make that post. Given the current state of affairs in Raleigh, we think develocrat is ready for the lexicon of politics. Start using develocrat in your everyday language and watch it spread!

City Council Election Recommendations:

At-Large - each voter gets two choices

First Choice: Russ Stephenson

Second Pick: Nobody

District A

Nancy McFarlane

District B

Rodger Koopman

All Other Districts

Is this a joke election? Only half of the seats are contested???

Bonds

County Open Space - YES

County Libraries - YES

Wake Tech Community College - YES

City of Raleigh Parks - NO!

Election Coverage:

IN CASE YOU AREN'T SHOPPING FOR A SPRINKLER
Dr. Walter de Gama
October 5, 2007

Being in a generally foul mood at the moment, and walking around all day with a chronic headshake and spasmodically sardonic gutteral giggle since the paper of record turned to yellow journalism, of the spinal kind, in their kissy-face baby-rabbitt pink-marshmellow support today of Tommy "pragmatic consensus-builder" Craven and Jessie "in need of balance (!!!) with a willingness to listen more" Taliaferro, and nearly hitting a tree on the way home from Lunsford's just now because I am so totally annoyed with what will be a pathetic voter turnout, I decided to just let somebody else speak for us today. We don't ever do that as a rule, but it is the truth, Ruth.

I do have one question: we would not deign to call ourselves anthropologists, but after you read the Indy article just what in the blue blazes do you think we have been trying to pound into your skulls for three years?

COPs AND ROBBERS
Dr. Walter de Gama
October 2, 2007

This is the last thing I will ever write about tax increment financing (TIF). (You’re welcome).

In the current local incarnation it is strictly a developer welfare giveaway and does not, nor will it EVER in these parts, embrace the original intent of helping truly blighted property that would never get developed if government didn’t get involved. If Raleigh adopts the TIF scam in any way, shape, or form, the taxpayers get royally hosed since the taxes --- that get generated from private development purposes --- will get frozen for 20 years or more as the rest of the taxpayers pick up the slack.

The three candidates for City Council we support have said NO to this flagrant ripoff of the taxpayers: district A: Nancy McFarlane, district B: Rodger Koopman, and At Large: Russ Stephenson. Vote for them and make sure this lunatic policy attempt goes the way of the dinousaurs.

On page 6 of the February 23, 2007 issue of the Triangle Business Journal there was an article titled, “Panel: Beware of non-voter approved bonds.” It has been turning yellow on my desk since then waiting for me to use it in the last week of the 2007 Raleigh City Council campaign. It hammers the final nail into the coffin of tax increment financing.

Actually, the article was about COPs, or certificates of participation. (Read some of this and this to get a definition and a feel for how they work). I won’t kill you with the details. COPs are things a government entity uses to build public stuff, like convention centers, when they can’t get money other ways. (Read up on what happened after Proposition 13 in CA if you want to know why taxation became a dirty word and governments had to figure out new ways to keep going).

But COPs “don’t require voter approval, carry higher interest costs, and receive lower ratings from the three national bond rating agencies.” Plus they get paid for differently than taxpayer dough because they are “[n]ot backed by a government’s power to tax, COPs have payback mechanisms attached to them.” (Note to government: don’t borrow from Peter to pay Paul).

The phrase “don’t require voter approval,” is the part that should have raised your eyebrows. In other words, elected officials get to create debt without you saying yay or nay. You can get on the council agenda during the citizen petition part of a public hearing to complain, you can email, call and write letters, you can attend any workshops or hearings or public process in advance of the vote, but the City Council makes the call.

Several caveats about COPs: first, technically we live in a republic, so that means you elect people to make decisions for you, but you trust that the purposes for spending money are for the public good. Second, and a key part that makes this finance tool palatable, is that municipalities use COPs for public purposes to build all sorts of stuff. Third, citizens don’t usually feel COPs in their wallets like they feel other kinds of taxes. This is an extremely important point. “The city of Raleigh, for instance, is financing construction of a new convention center with [COPs]. The payback mechanism is tax on hotel room rentals.” So in this case, unless you’re shacking up with your back door man, or you store your mother-in-law at the Holiday Inn when she comes to visit, you won’t feel a thing. Google COPs and you’ll get pages of hits from all kinds of governments. Everybody has jumped into the act.

Paraphrasing the article, the downside is that total debt to the state due to COPs, since allowing them since 2002, is around 13% now but is estimated to rise to 27% by 2012. That would represent almost a third of state debt due to COPs, meaning North Carolina “may move closer to falling into the ranks of lower-rated states without a “more balanced” approach to authorizing new debt.”

In other words, NC better watch it or it could COPs itself to death. BTW, Mayor Meeker argued the case for allowing COPs.

In contrast, and what we are all familiar with on a regular basis in a growing place, and what we all trust from decades of use, are general obligation bonds (GO) that are “[p]ut on the ballot for voter approval, …receive the highest, Triple A ratings, carry the lowest interest costs and are backed by the full taxing power of the state.”

Now that has an honest, solid democratic ring to it, no? We’ll have some GO bond issues on the ballot in this round. The citizens decide if the money gets spent as every voter gets to have a say at the ballot box. And this right, my friends, is the most fundamental component of living in a free society. Your vote matters. (Call me sappy, but I will never forget that when apartheid ended in South Africa people stood in long lines all day to cast their first vote).

Well, on to the scam of tax increment financing. Not a single candidate for office has raised what I consider the core problems with modern tax increment financing (TIF). (Conservative candidate David Williams came close in the News and Observer the other day). Indeed, they are problems so glaringly obvious, so egregious, so noxious, it is almost enough to make me think that Mayor Meeker and I alone should run the city because he hates these things as much as I do.

CITY COFFERS ARE DEPRIVED OF TENS AND HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF TAX DOLLARS FOR DECADES.

THIS IS THE POSTER CHILD OF DEVELOPER WELFARE IN THE GUISE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

I’m yelling as loud as I can at the computer, can you hear me? Folks, forget the various tax incentive scandals elsewhere, TIFs in Raleigh will be like the crack cocaine epidemic in NYC in the 1980s. One hit and the whole town is hooked.

Hold your horses, you say, the enabling legislation for this scam, Amendment One, is legal. Correct. TIFs are “off the books” and you allegedly get long term “net revenue gain.” So what? We need tax money now, not some tax rebate/future gain for some private project.

We don’t have to do it and don’t even need a policy, especially not in the form as presented. Let the market work as it does just fine around here. COPs sprout like weeds in a dead yard in October. What do you think TIFs will do?

Unfortunately, not a single candidate caught the clue and climbed onto the high horse of Constitutional Issues and the Right of the People to freely choose in order to hammer the angle that with TIFs, citizens get stiffed for private, not public, purposes and that freezing taxes for future gain is a smoke and mirrors game.

Is not the larger point that TIFs rob the people of “fair taxation” and thus “fair representation?” I mean, how much more historically riled up can you get?

When your government wants to cut you out of the loop so they can shuffle tax dollars it is over. This is fundamentally what TIFs do. Again, the market works just fine here, and the notion that we are in some post-NAFTA-outsourcing-privatizing-economic development-slump is a fallacy.

Now for the slippery slope part. The News and Observer threw city council candidates a bone last week and asked if Raleigh should develop a TIF policy. Okay, if the Raleigh City Council made up a TIF policy, and then citizens got to hack it to death in some workshop downtown, and then it was put to a REFERENDUM so that everybody could vote on it? Then yeah, maybe tax increment finance could work here. Total transparency, point systems, the “but for the intervention of government the project wouldn’t get built” main historical purpose of TIFs, and a super-ultra strict definition of “blight” might work in some combination.

When you factor in that Big Real Estate fibbed and fudged about impact fees, dodged and dissembled about housing affordability, ruthlessly and reprehensibly threatened the legislature into submission over campaign dough, flagrantly and fallaciously tried to cut citizens out of the loop on transfer taxes, acts like any other big union that they so hate in concept, not to mention the first proposal for a TIF deal in Raleigh was a parking deck in the next stage of a successful privately built mall in suburbia thus negating every favorable component of free market forces, plus the local county commissioners floated a phony basket case of a TIF plan that nobody bought, plus a planning commission that is a rubber stamp for any idea that might make a buck, plus the "Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice and Tommy and Jessie and Philip and Joyce " politically incestuous vortex that pervades the current council, well kids, it should be pretty damn obvious that tax increment financing needs to be summarily killed like some outer space alien baby hatching from an egg that crashed through the roof of city hall---before these people can take it home and give it a bottle of milk.

(Note from LL - is that last paragraph one single sentence? I think the Doc is losing it.)

ARMED CAMPS ALL AROUND
Dr. Walter de Gama
October 1, 2007

Well, kids, we're getting down to the wire. A week from tomorrow we all make choices for the future of Raleigh.

I will cut to the chase: when you go into the voting booth on October 9th, you will have two chances to vote for an At-Large City Council candidate because both seats are up. You can expect a blizzard of gibberish from various campaigns as they attempt to tell you differently from what we're going to say. Tune 'em out.

Now, pay attention, as this is absolutely crucial for this round, so read it thirty or forty times until it sinks in:

You must vote for only one At-Large candidate, and that candidate is Russ Stephenson.

There, are you hypnotized? This is called a "single shot" vote. The reason is simple: voter turnout will be low, and if you vote for two candidates then you risk diluting the vote --- and giving another candidate power. If everybody voted in town it would be a different story, but it ain't. I’ll run through some examples so you understand this better, plus you can read what I wrote two years ago to get the idea. Some names have changed but the premise hasn’t.

Most Stephenson supporters get this premise already, and other campaigns will no doubt figure it out. Well, why does Raleigh need Stephenson back on the Council? He is smart, progressive, thoughtful, fair, and he knows more about planning than most everybody else on the council combined. He is beholden to nobody but voters. Raleigh needs his voice to counteract the drumbeat of formulaic gibberish emanating from special interests. Such interests have tried to paint him as elitist, which is like calling a fighter pilot too cool to fly crop dusters.

My apologies to Helen Tart and Will Best for being so blunt. The polls ain’t perfect, but they are indicators. We wish them the best of luck, but they aren’t going to sit on the city council in this round, no matter what endorsements we make. Tart may have the biggest heart in this campaign, and she does know her stuff, but if you have ever watched a city council meeting on tape, and Helen is a regular, then you understand that Helen's ability to deliver her message needs improvement. Even she wants Stephenson on the Council more than she wants herself there.

Will Best is smart, young, and energetic, and he will learn a lot from his first campaign. He is developing the right credentials, so expect to see more of him. The City Council put Paul Anderson on the Planning Commission when he lost the District A race two years ago, to give him some much needed political experience. Unfortunately, he squandered that opportunity, but Best is not likely to do the same if he is appointed.

This is going to sound cold, but we mean well because it is what they call a gentle truth. If you are going to vote for Tart or Best first on the ballot, and we know they have supporters, then please give Russ Stephenson your second vote. Why? Because Helen and Will have ideas that line up with Stephenson's. More importantly, second votes for Paul Anderson or Mary-Ann Baldwin will ultimately help their cause, meaning Big Real Estate, and not yours. I don’t count Best as a potential real estate shill, at least not yet, even if they did like him in the straw poll at the pig pickin’. Be your own man, Will, you can survive on your own merits.

Anyway a first and only vote for Tart or Best will generate an overall small vote total that can't win; it is your moral victory, but if you vote twice then the second vote could become part of a larger voting block to preserve a space on the council for a voice not dominated by special interests. Ms. Tart has all but acknowledged this facet of the election. You can hedge your bets knowing that you gave a moral vote to the candidate of your choosing, but by giving Stephenson the second vote you are being strategic for a better Raleigh.

If I was Paul Anderson, I would be really worried by this talk. Aren't we one big happy family? Absolutely not. Voter turnout will be low, and if Anderson thinks he is going to get a city-wide victory based on his ability to be articulate (until your eyes glaze over), that is a tough nut.

There is no point in discussing the historically low African American vote, unless you are dumb enough to think the black vote means vote for blacks only. No, they don't, people of all types vote issues (unless they are deeply delusional Republicans), and they'll make the call on Anderson.

However, if the "single shot" rule were to apply to African-Americans trying to simply gain more representation in the civic arena, or if there was a push for "Anderson only" in certain precincts, then he gets only first votes from them, and nobody gets a second vote. Thus Anderson needs to be the only choice of voters supporting him through the Home Builders Association endorsement since they threw their support his way. That, plus some first votes from around town, plus some second votes from people that vote for Mary-Ann Baldwin, is what Anderson is hoping will be enough.

If people give Anderson a first vote, but then, say, give Mary-Ann Baldwin a second vote, can Anderson be sure that he can make a total that will beat voters that only vote for Stephenson?

If I am Mary-Ann Baldwin then I am hoping to be the first choice of people in Raleigh. How about we drop the charade and just say that she'll get the first vote of lots of folks with real estate ties, unless of course they vote for Anderson only, heh heh. But more importantly, and this is strictly playing the numbers, she has to be the number two vote if there is somebody else a voter also likes. So if she was the second choice of, say, people that vote for Paul Anderson, or the second choice of people that vote for Russ Stephenson, or anybody else for that matter, then guess what? She picks up second votes from different camps, the overall vote gets diluted, and with a share of number one votes easily skates into office.

Back to Anderson. We'll bet that when the real estate organizations announce who they are supporting you will see an Anderson/Baldwin tag team choice. However, people took note of what we said about "single shot" voting in the last round, as the people in Joyce Kekas' camp were annoyed that we didn't endorse her then.

Same deal this time around: we play to win, not to not lose. If you see that some organization, and there are several, has endorsed only one At-Large candidate, you will know that they are in "single shot" mode because of low voter turnout and dilution of the vote. So let Big Real Estate chop their votes in half, meaning dilute their own vote with an Anderson/Baldwin vote. Believe me, it won’t matter if they vote A/B or B/A, either way they just get that particular voting block.

It will be the second vote for others that adds up to a loss.

You might like Anderson, or you might like Baldwin, and not like the other for whatever reason, and we can think of several. Then do yourself a favor, if you have a progressive bone in your body and can move to the middle from either side, and either vote once, or hedge your bets like Tart and Best voters and give Stephenson your second vote. Don’t give the other camp the satisfaction of a second vote, because it only dilutes your vote. No hedging with A/B, because you are competing straight up for the same votes.

Best case scenario - lots of folks single shot Stephenson, he wins outright, Baldwin and Anderson make a runoff. Then we all get to vote again for one of those two.

Like I said two years ago: armed camps all around. Good luck to the campaigns as they agonize over what to do, heh heh.

You hire a plumber when you need some work on your pipes, you hire a mechanic to fix your car, you hire a geek to fix your computers. Hire Russ Stephenson to do the work of building a sustainable future for the city of Raleigh. Compared to everybody else he is simply the most qualified person for the job. By some.

NO EXIT
Dr. Walter de Gama
September 27, 2007

Right around Labor Day I went for a long drive in the minivan. No tunes, just the windows down and the hot wind in my face. In fact, I drove the entire 540 northern loop around the City, from the 64 bypass over on the east side to the 55 exit over by RTP. That drive goes quicker than you'd think, but then again it wasn’t rush hour and I didn’t have to get off on that infernal single lane exit to I-40. I had the camera with me, and this picture is the last exit where I got off to make the turn back north.

I have looked at the picture a lot over the last month, looking for inspiration as it were, and almost posted it a few times with various issues attached. The truth of it? Anybody can pick up a pen, but if people do not act, it is all for naught.

But since I didn’t post the picture sooner, and with less than two weeks to go til the election, it seems fitting to let y’all ponder it. For what it’s worth, you could take the symbolic route: the end of the highway represents where this city, county, and region have been (the past), and the treeline in the distance represents where we’re going (the future). Think of all the infrastructure, housing, businesses, schools, parks, roads, all the jobs, all the environmental issues and governmental policies---to sum up, all the human effort to tame the wilderness and create civilization.

Now add in all the debate, arguments, meetings, and ink that will be generated over that treeline...

Every generation takes its turn in creating the world we live in. We have the benefit of hindsight, we can look back down the symbolic highway hence we came, and ask ourselves: how can we create a better world next time? Who has the power to make decisions, and who does not? Who gets their voice heard, and who is denied? That it all comes together is a wonder to behold and never ceases to amaze me. I hardly expect you to get as crazed about local politics as we did, but something has to give.

Allright, snap out of it. Elections aren’t decided in cyberspace so turn off the stupid computer and get your Cheesecake Factory behinds to Cameron Village or North Raleigh to offer your services to the Stephenson, McFarlane, and Koopman campaigns. These folks will make good decisions for the treeline. What are you waiting for?

BOOTS ON THE GROUND
Walter de Gama
September 19, 2007

Well, Kids, it is less than three weeks until election day High Noon.

For several years Lunsford and I have done our best to educate the citizenry about local politics and how real estate interests drive decision-making. We tried our best to back up everything we said with facts, tried to stick to the high ground of debate, and we also tried to elevate our stance to the level of political parody when we could. Hey, we're the underdogs here; you need to laugh when you're on the downside of a Davy and Goliath battle.

We want progressive leadership representing citizens running the show, not just rubber-stamping cronies winking at each other. We remain ever optimistic, but Opportunity only rolls around every two years...

So now we have to ask a serious question of our readers and their pals:

If you really want political change on the Raleigh City Council, what have you done to further that remedy?

If you need a refresher course, go into our archives and read all the 2005 election stuff we wrote in the last round. If it reads like deja vu all over again, then my question, what have you done, should either have the ring of truth or ring hollow. The candidate forums are in full swing, and we'll assume that folks are getting out to hear what they have to say. But two years ago we implored folks to act and here we are again two years later: Are you calling your buddies to tell them to vote? Are you offering your time and/or money to candidates?

Have you figured out that political change takes action and involvement on the part of the citizens?

Just in case you haven't figured this out yet, and if you think like we do, and if you are ready to act because you know the score, then contact these campaigns and ask them what they need.

www.russforraleigh.com/

www.rodgerkoopman.com/

HEY BIG SPENDER
Dr. Walter de Gama
August 31, 2007

The Big Real Estate crowd got together the other night to serve up pork and political candidates.

They call it "Political Pig Pickin." Irony, good humor, or maybe a subliminal plug for public-private partnerships?

Recall what I said back in July: "Imagine getting invited to a mixer at a country club, rubbing elbows with power brokers willing to donate money to campaigns, practicing the right words about issues in order to garner those valuable campaign contributions..."

Golly, what a surprise to see that Mary-Ann Baldwin won the Developer and Realtor's straw poll endorsement for At-Large Candidate for City Council. (The other endorsement for At-Large Councilor went to Will Best, meaning as long as Mary-Ann gets on the Council, they'll be happy if Will can split up and confuse the rest of the voters).

Make no mistake, with this revelation the cognitive dissonance gears in the minds of progressive Baldwin supporters will be churning into the midnight hour. Heh heh, good luck gnashing your teeth over who this candidate will represent if elected. You'll get no tea and sympathy from us.

By the way, no surprise here, turns out incumbents Tommy Craven of District A and Jessie Taliaferro of District B both "won" in the straw poll, too (all the other races are uncontested). Gotta spread the dough among the stalwart defenders of the faith, eh?

Can't you hear an updated political version of The Hollies singing in the background?

"....Heyyyy Mary-Annnnnnn, what's your game now, can anybody play?"

So many wealthy, powerful campaign donors....so little time. 43 days to go...

SOUTH SIDE BLUES
Dr. Walter de Gama
August 21, 2007

The blizzard of shilling and spin over Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is cranking up here in Raleigh. Letters to the editor, a local columnist, and Mayor Meeker have all weighed in during the last few days.

As a recipe for election season and campaign fodder this is one part trial balloon - two parts public debate and ten parts traveling snake oil medicine show. See if there is any irony in the following sequence of events.

Last Wednesday, News and Observer columnist Rick Martinez wrote a piece about corporate welfare and the North Hills parking deck debacle. With classic fuzzy thinking, he rails against corporate welfare for two thirds of the article, but closes saying he supports the Wake County Commissioners finance proposal for the North Hills parking deck. Labeled "Synthetic Project Development Financing (SPDF)" (synthetic is defined as "artificial or contrived," meaning fake), Martinez says, "...Kane would get back 75 percent of taxes paid...[he] would agree to use that money to pay off the [privately financed] parking deck loan."

Hmmm…a special circumstance government created finance mechanism that forgives taxes is somehow defined as not corporate welfare.

On Thursday, out of the blue and all over the media, Raleigh’s Mayor Meeker fired both barrels into the SPDF beast (if it walks like a duck...). The Mayor is no fan of tax increment financing or this latest bizarre basement homebrew designed to skirt the perception of government subsidies for developers at the expense of taxpayers. He mentioned a general statute, saying in a memo to the City Council that, "State law prohibits the refunding of taxes and imposes a severe penalty...on any public official who does so."

Quite the public slap in the face to the County Commissioners, notably former Raleigh Mayor Paul Coble, telling them in essence that not only did they not do their homework, they are fools for floating a proposal that breaks the law. (In the Martinez column, “commissioners don’t like TIF bonds.” Okay, why didn’t they just stop there and tell Kane to keep building with what he has instead of playing banker?) Maybe we missed it, but have you heard or read any rebuttals from the county commissioners defending this mess? We’ll wait for the legal opinion, but since Meeker is a lawyer this seems like a moot point.

Anybody paying attention took note, because Meeker usually plays his cards pretty close to his vest. For him to go public means something is up. The whole TIF thing has been languishing at the City Council since they took no action after hashing it over earlier this year. Nobody is holding their breath waiting for somebody to stick their neck out, er, speak up in favor of it.

Stay with me while I tease this out for a minute. Supporters of TIF-style funding on the City Council include Philip Isley, Tommy Craven, and Jessie Taliaferro. Isley is running unopposed, but Craven in District A and Taliaferro in District B both have opponents that will beat them like a gong over this issue. Gee, what a shame: no way around the issue, no way to lie about it, no way out… right at election time. Others have noted this but it is worth commenting on again: for political strategists, outsiders moving at the speed of business may not translate into political expediency and could be detrimental to the cause. Kane, and the long line of developers waiting in the wings to swoop in for their piece of the action, notably the Soleil Center gang, are chomping at the bit. Can you blame them if politicians create the circumstance?

In other words, is John Kane hoping for a vote on some TIF variant before or after the election? For example, if the vote is before the election, then all the pressure is on District C City Councilor James West to flip. This was noted by The Independent. As it is, Mayor Meeker, District D Councilor Crowder, and At-Large Councilor Russ Stephenson will vote it down in a heartbeat; with West’s no vote Kane's TIF is DOA. Anyway, if the vote comes up before the election, political promises to West to flip his vote will be dripping with honey. For the moment, the vote seems deadlocked at 4-4, with lame duck Joyce Kekas firmly in the development camp, but you never know with this crowd.

Really, by ignoring the “but for” clause, which would in pure form guarantee redevelopment of true blight under TIFs and thus funnel money to southeast Raleigh, but which at the time is nothing but a concept to be twisted into purposes for diversion of taxes from the public purse, outside the beltline no less, what can TIF lovers offer West and the people of southeast Raleigh?

Absolutely nothing. They have watched his neighborhoods decay for years. They pay lip service to reform and redevelopment. They could care less about affordable housing. Gentrification might be a dirty word because it displaces long-time residents, but so what?

West is running unopposed so he needs no campaign help. He knows that the “but for” test is in the toilet (but for the intervention of government no development would occur), and that southeast Raleigh, as an extension of Downtown, will never get a dime - no matter how many promises are made. Why? Because outside-the-beltline TIF development would bleed the tax base dry. This is part of last years “downtown versus suburbia” money debate that never got any traction, but that joke is for another day. Anyway, one developer gets in, they all get in. Development will get subsidized at North Hills and points north and west, and West will be crying foul when he is an old man. So why should he give a rat’s derriere about some parking deck in North Raleigh?

As for a vote after the election, if the balance of power on the Council remains the same, say Mary-Ann Baldwin replaces Joyce Kekas, and Russ Stephenson retains his seat, then the deadlock continues, and if West doesn’t flip TIF remains in agenda limbo for the next two years. However, if the balance of power on the council changes, then the vote could go either way depending on who wins; we’ll comment on that later. Which basket does a developer put her eggs in?

In his broadside, Mayor Meeker also mentioned the health of the market at North Hills and several comparable surrounding areas for the benefit of philosophically delusional politicians interested in giveaways to business. So much for perverting the terms “blight” and “but for.” Oops...

Okay, where was I? Also on Thursday (and again on Saturday) the News and Observer reported that it can't get anywhere trying to find out the details of the first TIF deal in North Carolina over the financing of The Randy Parton Theater in Roanoke Rapids. The citizens up there are into this project for around $20 million, and they can’t get straight answers on the money trail? This is extremely instructive for reasons that will become clear in a bit.

Continuing the debate in the paper Friday, and critical of the Martinez column explanation of SPDF, one letter writer opines, "...what about the extra room or garage we build onto our homes? Where's the government money for that? After all, it increases the future tax base of the home and neighborhood. Isn't this the same logic being applied to the Kane project? The potential for future tax revenues?"

Uh huh, like we could all get back 75% of our taxes to pay off our private loans for our six car garages and you can tax our 1200 square foot homes when they're worth three million 20 years from now.

Indeed, on Saturday another letter writer chastised Martinez for “not being conservative enough.” Martinez wrote, “This deal is so good for taxpayers that the county commissioners gave it unanimous support in a straw poll.” The letter writer shot back, echoing Mayor Meeker, “ …Synthetic Project Development Financing is as phony as its name sounds.” Martinez also said, "[e]very other Wake County taxpayer would be off the hook," but the letter writer retorts, “Who do you think will be paying for the $125 million in lost taxes over the next couple of decades? The rest of the taxpayers in Wake County, including small-business owners who will be trying to compete with corporate welfare recipients like John Kane---while paying his taxes for him.” Economically and philosophically, this letter writer got it right on all counts.

Y'all need to do some reading on tax increment financing (TIF). I will do you the favor of offering two links from Chicago to get you started. It will take you a while to wade through this so turn up the A/C and turn off the television and phone.

The first is a series of articles strictly about TIFs written by journalist Ben Joravsky in the Chicago Reader.

The second is a serious analysis of TIFs from Cook County Commissioner Mike Quigley. I liked the part where he and his staff say they are city planners and because of the obfuscation of politicians and lack of transparency and accountability even they can’t get answers to questions about local TIFs…shades of Roanoke Rapids!

After you read up on what happened in Chicago, see if any of it squares with the swill being floated around these parts as Gospel In A Jar. Yessir, step right up and take a sip, it’ll cure what ails ya…

RAINY DAYS AND MONDAYS
Dr. Walter de Gama
July 6, 2007

Folks, we truly couldn't make this stuff up. At the last Planning Commission meeting, Ed Sconfienza, P.E., of Integrated Design presented a site plan for Creedmoor Lynn Commons – Phase 2 at the Northeast corner of the intersection of Creedmoor and Lynn Roads. The plan indicated that the bus stop would be relegated to the stormwater pond. Nobody with the City seemed to care. Nobody on the Planning Commission seemed to care.

STEP RIGHT UP FOR THE BIG SHOW
Dr. Walter de Gama
Fourth of July, 2007

Money and power have always influenced political decisions! Doing what is “right” is rarely the end result and open to debate!

On this 4th of July I’ll reread the Declaration of Independence and wade through the Constitution as I hope for the best for Raleigh.

From a practical standpoint, because everybody is either on vacation or not paying attention, and because it is still a little early, we don’t have a lot to say about the candidates running “at-large” for the Raleigh City Council, or the district “races” for that matter. The BTB.org office pool handicapping hasn’t even started, so for the moment a few comments will suffice.

Note to those paying attention to this process: there is a line around the block of folks associated in some way with the development/real estate industry willing to “run for public office,” sit on the Planning Commission (see Lunsford today for details), or fill some other appointed position, lobby the City Council, etc. Call it patriotic duty, or call it status quo. The non-commercial sector can barely get anybody to step up, much less hope to get in the club. The shortage of viable candidates means that the lopsided tilt in representation, and thus decisions that favor real estate interests instead of all our interests, will continue. Yes, I know this is a gross generalization, but the CAC’s don’t even come close as political breeding grounds in terms of ultimately gaining representation. Where is Cincinnatus when you need him?

Anybody joining the fray has their homework cut out for them. Serious homework, because all of our interests are at stake. Raleigh has a raft of issues that affect you personally and wallet-wise, but we’ll save them for another day…just like your elected officials.

Astute observers will note that we didn’t make too much noise when Joyce Kekas announced she was retiring. We wish Joyce well as she leaves the civic stage. We hope she has fun with her family, and we wish Mrs. Kekas good health.

(Lunsford wanted to go out and toast the opportunity for new progressive representation on the Council when Kekas announced she wasn’t running, but I reminded him that the hotel bar in the Soleil Center wasn’t open yet).

Remember when Mayor Meeker, Joyce Kekas, James West, Thomas Crowder, and Russ Stephenson were on television two years ago, standing together in that bar downtown after they’d all won? What I saw on the TV was five votes, gang, five votes that I thought could push Raleigh into the future and past the lame politics that marks so many political landscapes.

Didn’t happen. It was telling that the lone “democrat” missing from the mix was Jessie Taliaferro, but at the time I thought, who needs her? Turns out she had the last laugh, as Mayor Meeker’s pseudo-democratic voting block crumbled into factions.

Politically…Kekas was a cipher. Her political cohort is a soon-to-be fading photograph on the wall in the hallway to the bathrooms at City Hall. From a “five votes” standpoint, (what you need to get anything passed), an empty seat at the table now means incumbent maneuvering. Thomas Crowder (District D) and Russ Stephenson (running again at-large crowd) will be doing some math from the progressive standpoint, but James West (District C) and Mayor Meeker will probably just wait to see who shows up. The voting block of “democrat” Jessie Taliaferro and “republican” Tommy Craven will need to regroup. Philip Isley has to be laughing all the way to the votes because as the Republican Ideologue he got a lot more gravy than he should have over the last two years.

So much for fresh faces and 6-2 votes favoring progressive politics. You didn’t get it in this round, and you won’t see it for another two years. Folks, skip all the July 4th mumbo jumbo about flag-waving democracy. Maybe I am stating the obvious, or maybe I sound cynical, but there are only a couple of real questions that need to be answered for this fall election cycle.

The first question is how much money from all those 6% commissions on home sales, land deals, commercial paper, and dough saved from 1031s is the real estate industry willing to spend to maintain their stranglehold on decision-making? This will become evident later this summer. They’ve spent a bundle fighting various forms of “taxation” under the guise of housing affordability. Plus, they don’t want you or your local government to have the opportunity to decide how your government(s) can either tax or not tax. Taxation itself is not the issue, it is control of information and the process. So much for free debate and the right of the people to choose. They want you out of the loop.

(For those of you that think big the story basically goes like this: the high tech bubble burst in the late 90’s, but the Feds shifted the boom to real estate with low interest rates which resulted in the real estate bubble, not to mention record profits. A zillion people caught the clue and got their real estate licenses to cash in on soaring appreciation in listing prices, (same paperwork for a 50K house or a 500K house but a much fatter commission…), and bingo, the people in control of the various real estate organizations now have a ready-made list of contributors willing to pony up dough to protect their wallets, er, political ideology. Thus, the continuing power of money and influence…)

The second question, realpolitik, is which fledgling political candidate, in or out of the industry, bursting with civic pride, will take the bait dangled by the real estate interests? Imagine getting invited to a mixer at a country club, rubbing elbows with power brokers willing to donate money to campaigns, practicing the right words about issues in order to garner those valuable campaign contributions, getting voted in as either a democrat or a republican (but really as an industry proxy) due to extensive marketing …and never having your own opinion again because of the “influence” of those who supported your candidacy.

LAST STAGECOACH WEST
Dr. Walter de Gama
June 21, 2006

BIGFOOT
Dr. Walter de Gama
June 18, 2006

So you wanna buy a little ‘ole bungalow in a swanky part of town and rip the thing out and put in your monster dream home? Not a problem. In fact, we’re going to make you the poster child for the new buzzword: “sustainability.”

Folks, I’ve figured out part of the tear-down conundrum. You know the issue: neighborhoods that are being gentrified by class, not race. I’ve commented about this before, but the article in the N&O the other day - Tear Down Fever Pumps Up Values - with the characterization “gentrification on steroids” made a little bell ring in my head. Ergo, my New Law from the Raleigh City Council:

Any re-use of a property, tear-down-wise, has to have the Greenest Footprint in town.

That means maximum energy efficiency, minimum resource use. The whole LEED concept. Water, heat, materials, building design, you name it, every new home resulting from a tear-down will be a Parade of Homes monument to conservation and cutting edge technology. Plus all the other bells and whistles these places offer. You may have heard the term “carbon footprint,” but the forward thinking term is “carbon neutral.” Cool, huh?

Naturally, investors, developers, and spec home builders will scream that this costs too much money. People sniffing around to buy and build in tear-down ‘hoods will scream that the extra cost could’ve been spent on the wine cellar and a second master bedroom. Meaning my idea is D.O.A.

I don’t want to spend all day sorting out the politics, but here is a blurb from five years ago laying out some of the issues that we’re facing:

Hey kids, is this or is this not an energy issue? Which by extension means it is an equity issue.

Raleigh, as you know, is hardly one of the most progressive places in the nation regarding the tear-down issue, or anything for that matter. Golly, has your progressive City Council even bothered to sign the U.S Mayors Climate Protection Agreement?

It’ll take 10 years, if ever, for Raleigh to sort out the issues of tear-downs and fossil fuels reduction. (Heard us called “Sprawleigh” lately? OUCH). First, we’ll have a blue ribbon citizen/developer task force that will offer watered down remedies, then we’ll have some out-of-town consultants that will cost us a bunch of money only to be ignored, then some lame resolution will languish in a Council sub-committee, follow this up with pages and pages of city staff input that nobody will act on (they talked about hiring somebody to study the issue and “craft new regulations”), throw in occasional blather from interested parties in the paper, the occasional energy scare, and zzzzzzzzz from the populace….

All you folks living inside the beltline in 1200 square foot homes on a quarter or half acre get a choice: a bunch of investors that want your house for a rental that they can ignore until it crumbles, or a bunch of investors that want your house so they can tear it out. Either way, don’t waste your time looking for help from this City Council.

POLITICAL SPEECH DURING REPRESSIVE REGIMES
Dr. Walter de Gama
June 4, 2007

Around once a week for the last three weeks the local paper of record has run articles about housing issues in Raleigh. All these articles have what I see as a common thread: city de jure protection of de facto policy regarding some aspect of housing. You make the call.

The first article was the conclusion of an investigation of a residential rental property business. Prostitution, drug paraphernalia, public nuisance and housing code violations… 80 plus calls by police officers to problem rental properties…

Can you help but ponder the number of hours of the police force’s time, plus the cost of police car gasoline, plus the inevitable police paperwork, all on the taxpayer dime?

The city manager reported in the May 10th News and Observer that “"[the owner] is operating his properties in accordance with the law." In other words, de jure support for a Raleigh City Council de facto housing policy that ignores landlord accountability for criminal activity at a rental property is costing you and me thousands and thousands of dollars. The “law” says there is not a problem at all…

The second article is an example of de jure policy formalizing de facto policy. The de facto policy in this case is that no town in Wake County wants “affordable housing.” The town of Knightdale, wanting to be as swanky as Morrisville and Rolesville, which have no affordable housing, created a “law” that would limit the amount of affordable housing. Affordable housing is a chronic issue, and we salute those fighting the good fight, but in general developers don’t go out of their way to create it, and it isn’t a stretch to imagine a response cloaked in official terminology to cover for xenophobic attitudes in 2007. The N&O reports on May 21st that, “The initiative is officially couched as a policy to use part of the town's limited water and sewer supply to promote affordable housing, although the effect is to limit it.”

I imagine the developers were scratching their head, thinking they had done something for the good of the community. Naturally, affordable housing advocates were outraged and dumbfounded by Knightdale’s move and threatened to sue. Stay tuned for Court TV cameras to showcase progressive Knightdale, NC to the masses. The paper reported that a city staffer said, “Knightdale is cutting-edge." Hmmm. Maybe they should change the name of this low rent ‘burb (that’s a compliment) to “Knifedale” as they cut out housing for the working poor. (Note to city staffers: for years, San Jose, CA has had real estate so expensive that nobody in the public sector can afford to live in town and thus are forced to commute). Since everybody seems to be throwing around Faulkner’s quote about bygone eras these days, what the heck: “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”

The third article…one that should be pasted to the office door of every Raleigh City councilor, one that should be dropped as leaflets from airplanes over every new subdivision outside of I-540, one that should be read word for word in every church every week for a month in a fifty mile radius…chronicles city de jure and de facto polices working hand in glove regarding the residential rental property business.

Folks, those words, from a front page article in the Capital City's paper of record, in one of the most prosperous regions in the nation, speak volumes about who we are as a community. Go figure: one neighborhood gets a volleyball court instead of a dog park in the brand new park next door, and another neighborhood is in such rotten condition the citizens get evicted. The Sunday paper lead op-ed piece was about this place, and buried in the city section was a blurb that an account has been set up to help a blind woman being evicted from this hellhole. “Beyond shameful” was the way the paper characterized it. Indeed.

I like to think that a city would never allow the sort of rental business behavior that condones steady neighborhood decay with resultant loss of quality of life and waste of taxpayer dollars. Regimes would. After all, history is littered with examples of people in control hiding behind “laws” that justify egregious inequity (outstandingly bad…instance of injustice or unfairness).

In this instance, neighborhood rental property neglect on the part of our fair city is the de facto policy, and it is backed up by de jure blather about landlord accountability and city programs. So what if this is a worst case scenario and it was in the ETJ? Are you telling us that reporters could find this place but city inspectors couldn't? This property was under city oversight, pun intended. Who speaks for those with no power to speak for themselves? Certainly not the politicians!

Watch this case, because the BTB.org crystal ball forecasts that the endgame of de facto and de jure neighborhood neglect is that the trailer park property, or say decaying rental properties near downtown for that matter, will probably be demolished, rezoned, and sold off at a hefty profit.

NO PRIOR BUSINESS EXPERIENCE NEEDED
Dr. Walter de Gama
May 15, 2007

GAMES OF SKILL AND CHANCE
Dr. Walter de Gama
Cinco de Mayo 2007

Snoopy and the big dogs have given their wives the slip and are lapping it up at the North Raleigh Kennel Club. It's a box of Kibbles just to get in the game, and they've just anted up for some high stakes gentlemen’s poker and the usual political banter that goes with it. In the middle of the first hand…

Astro: What do you make of that new dog park going in at Carolina Pines Park down there in south Raleigh?

Rin Tin Tin: Mayor Meeker said that dog parks are amenities, in fact he actually said, “This is actually an amenity, this is not some burden on the area, this is something that will serve the area that dozens and dozens of residents and their pets will enjoy, and in my view will enhance the area.”

Astro: That’s some memory you got there, Tinny, for not being a border collie. I heard they just neutered our dog park slated for Leesville Community Park here in North Raleigh.

Rin Tin Tin: Those big ears of yours heard correct, Astie, I'm not just sleeping all day on that rug in front of the television, I'm taking it all in. The cat-lovin' neighbors wanted them to move it to the other side of the park or bury it altogether. But they have a couple of other chances with future parks in north Raleigh, you know, “…other areas in the City that are more conducive for off-leash dog areas.”

Snoopy: Wow, do I envy those Carolina Pines mutts in South Raleigh. Just two weeks before, the City Council gave them a dog park, even though the neighbors there didn’t want it either. I mean, the houses east of Leesville Park must run into the 400’s; those around Carolina Pines average around 100 bones. You’d think those Leesville folks would be drooling for a dog park.

Rin Tin Tin: Funny you should ask. I just happened to oversee the streaming video of the public hearing that my owner was watching on his computer the other day, and this is what Councilor Jessie Taliaferro had to say about the lay of the land when Councilor Thomas Crowder questioned why the dog park had to be nixed: “The problem with the Leesville Community Park is the topography---there is not much flat land and dog parks are put on flat land so that you don’t lose sight of your animal over the crest of a hill…” So Crowder tries to scratch that flea bite again, “It looked pretty flat from the pictures we got…”, and Taliaferro barks back, “It’s not, topographical maps that we’ve seen shows clearly it’s not…”

Rin Tin Tin continues: Not only did they kill the park because the rich neighbors complained, they also guaranteed them a 50 foot natural buffer on the eastern edge of the park plus another 20 feet of plantings.

Augie Doggie guffaws: Golly, 70 feet of buffer, that's really putting us on a short leash. Isn’t that considerably more than required when PetSmart builds a new superstore next to your dog house? I never knew neighborhoods had to be so insulated from parks! How could they possibly be considered amenities? Will that buffer be the standard for every park from now on in order to protect the neighbors?

Scooby Doo: You know, I just happen to have the April 24th minutes from the City Council's Public Works Committee with me. (A couple of aces inadvertently fall from his vest pocket as he pulls out the pages). We can verify this slope thing. Shall I read?

All of the dogs drop their cards and fall to the floor laughing their heads off.

Doggie Daddy: The first floor of my house is flat as a pancake…give me the “crest” of a hill any day even if my pet human is too lazy to wander up there.

They pause to scratch, then Rin Tin Tin tops off the doggie bowls with Hair of the Dog, Astro deals another hand as Scooby Doo continues to read…

Another round of cards flies into the air as the dogs all fall down laughing again. Scooby begs to finish:

Snoopy: Are you telling me that the planners laying out the park were inept with their layout?

Rin Tin Tin: No, you silly hounds, this was supposed to be a dog park for dogs, not an exercise area for owners. You’re still gonna be stuck dragging your pet human on a leash around the bike path.

Snoopy: Lucky for those mongrels down south that their neighbors couldn't afford a dog-bite lawyer.

Astro: Yeah, looks like the City Council rolled over and played dead for Taliaferro on this one.

MARCH MADNESS
Dr. Walter de Gama
The Ides of March, 2007

You would be justified in thinking that I am going to wax wise about the secrets and science of bracketology regarding the looming college basketball lovefest. But no, this Ides of March tome is about the continued shilling for TIFs - tax increment financing - as a tool for development.

Might as well drive a few more nails into the TIF coffin while waiting for the hoop dreams to kick in.

Simply put, TIF is the wrong idea, at the wrong time, offered up by City Councilors captivated by a shiny new marble, for all the wrong reasons.

Think BTB.org is a bunch of fiscal liberals? Then take some of your precious park bench time and read the raft of articles about TIFs offered up by the Heartland Institute, a free market think tank in Chicago.

Folks, you can’t read this stuff, with detractors outnumbering the con artists, er, proponents and come to the conclusion that supporters of TIFs want the best for Raleigh taxpayers. “Net revenue gain” ain’t gonna do it for an argument in favor. Tell me, quick, what your net worth will be in 20 years? There hasn’t yet been a crystal ball invented that can predict revenue streams. Period. So freezing tax rates in anticipation of future gain is still just freezing tax rates. Everything else is speculation and politics.

We haven’t completely figured out how to link directly to video content onn the new and very cool Raleigh Television Network streaming-meanie-technology- public-hearings-on-your-computer website yet, so I’ll stick to the old format of telling you what happened on videotape. On February 20th, the City Council met and had a brief discussion of TIFs. They were deadlocked 4-4 and there was no motion, so Mayor Meeker took TIFs off the agenda, saying any Councilor could put it back on the agenda at a later time.

Nevertheless, the TIF dream team of At-Large City Councilor Joyce Kekas, District B's Jessie Taliaferro, and A's Tommy Craven had all made lame attempts to stall and thus keep TIFs alive for future discussion. District E's Philip Isley, who had previously floated a proposal from Fort Worth, TX that went absolutely nowhere, more or less stayed out of the fray. (Tip: Heartland has a Forth Worth TIF assessment and it ain’t pretty).

Kekas wanted to know if there was any place outside of North Carolina that used TIFs and COPs (Certificates of Participation). That is like asking what the speed limit is on the outskirts of every capital city on the planet. Good luck digging up that research, Joyce, because nobody on city staff is going to waste their Starbucks time studying 50 states worth of laws.

Taliaferro wanted information from Charlotte on their TIF policy and the “sustainability index” which sets up the “objective scoring of public purpose.” In other words, what are the warm and fuzzy TIF rules from Charlotte and do they have any application to Raleigh?

Taliaferro probably figured out, after the fact, that Council supporters of TIFs might look like naked shills for corporate welfare instead of genuinely caring about economic development in more desperate areas of the city. Looks like she is trying to backtrack and tie her concerns to those of District D's Councilor Thomas Crowder and thus appear more interested in the “higher-minded” uses of TIFs to address true blight, public purposes that serve everybody, etc. Maybe we should wring our hands about brownfields…

Nobody here at BTB.org buys her angle; we think Taliaferro is just looking for a loophole to wedge TIFs in like Isley’s pitch that we needed them to finance a central park at Dorothea Dix. Go ahead, Jessie, call Charlotte and see what they have to say and get back to us. Better, have some Charlotte city staffer come over and give us all a primer because none of us at BTB.org believe a word you say.

Tommy Craven came out of left field to say that the Wake County Commissioners “…by unanimous vote…chose to send a discussion of TIF as a means of funding school construction to their work session.” He wanted to know if some Raleigh city staffer could sit in and get some info. After all, don’t we want to promote cooperation and regionalism? Earth to Tommy: read the NYC piece, says Chicago is building a couple of schools with TIFs.

Little did they know, and had they really done any homework they could have figured this out, that Mayor Meeker was something of a finance wiz when he ate their lunch at the December 7th TIF showdown. Not only that, but Meeker’s law firm, Parker Poe, was in the top 10 bond counsel firms in the nation in 2002.

That is no small potatoes, gang. Meeker also shared at the Council table, with a certain amount of pride and a certain amount of you-never-saw-it-coming, that regarding COPs, “…sixteen years ago I briefed and argued the test case about COPs here in North Carolina, and the Supreme Court in it’s wisdom gave a very powerful opinion allowing their use.”

COPs are widely used in North Carolina; Google COPs and you’ll get pages and pages of hits from municipalities. No, I am not going to explain COPs in detail or discuss their merits at the moment; I’ll leave that to the dream team. (Note to study group: COPs don’t require voter approval either). However, if you want to get your feet wet in the COPs water off Santa Barbara, CA…

Okay, I started off my last (noncartoony) blog on this topic with 12 questions…on to the next round. As HST used to say, how long, oh Lord, how long? Really, I think I should get a pliers and just yank out my remaining teeth.

When the ULI gang gave their opinion on Dix last October (the presentation has been on RTN cable channel 11 only 100 times or so) a gentleman banker from PA named Bill Lashbrook stood before the crowd and laid out the TIF framework for financing the purchase. His words about TIFs: “Try it, you’ll like it. Mikey’s already eaten this in other states. It’s okay.”

I will not question Mr. Lashbrook’s expertise, however at one point he refers to Tom Murphy, former mayor of Pittsburgh, as “my mayor,” so I am guessing that at some point Lashbrook must have lived in Pittsburgh. If he didn’t, chances are good he knows Pittsburgh politics. Soooo….did you think I would find an article saying there are problems with TIFs in Pittsburgh? Read what the conservative think tank Allegheny Institute has to say about what happened with TIFs in Pittsburgh, then ask yourself if your City Council TIF supporters have educated the voting public on the issues and concerns mentioned in any of the articles I have offered up so far…

The Triangle Business Journal (TBJ) reports on the front page of its March 2nd issue that “Duke [Realty Corporation] may team with Kane at North Hills.” This was a week after Mayor Meeker took TIF off the agenda. The TBJ reports, “…Kane Realty Corp. is still in negotiations with the city of Raleigh to help pay for a $75 million parking deck…”

Bottom line: Duke Realty is a big, big player (“market capitalization of almost six billion” and “manages 4.3 million square feet of office and industrial space in Raleigh, Cary, and Morrisville”) and if they are going to invest in North Hills for any reason, cool, leave the taxpayers out of it.

The News and Observer reports on the March 9th front page of the Business section that “Tower to Rise at North Hills.” A subtitle says, “The City Council would decide on public financing.” This is almost three weeks after the public hearing. The paper goes on to say, “Mayor Charles Meeker said Thursday that the partnership with Duke, an Indianapolis real estate investment Trust [REIT], is proof that “the full North Hills East can be built without major public involvement.” Meeker said he doesn’t expect the current City Council to revisit the issue.”

Not like we put any real stock in what they have to say, but I asked about this before because the John Locke Foundation ragged so hard about Amendment One three or four years ago. Yet recently we haven’t heard much out of them on this major league municipal finance topic. Maybe a clue to their silence is in the comment of Tommy Craven about the Wake County Commissioners pondering TIFs to build schools. It is no secret that people affiliated with the John Locke Foundation would like to see the creation of a bunch of charter schools. What if they could build charter schools with TIFs?

Well, you’re asking the wrong blogger. The only member of your City Council who can talk about this in any detail, and he demonstrated this already, is the Mayor. As far as I can see anybody else has either staked out a political position or is pretending.

Curiously, Scott Custer, the CEO of RBC Centura Bank, wrote a Point of View article in support of TIFs in the February 27th edition of the N&O. No mystery there, as any banker loves to find a way to loan people money, and there are megabucks in TIFs.

The interesting thing is that Mr. Custer’s position is a bit of a double-edged sword. On the one hand, he was paying attention when the hotshots from the “Designing a 21st Century City” presentation (gotta watch that RTN) said in effect that local business leaders had to step up and push for reform, progressive ideas, etc. as Raleigh moves into the future. Cool, a local CEO pushing politicians to pursue “strategic corridors,” “urban environments,” and “transformative investments.”

For example, lobby for and help build the TTA light rail after development at the various stations gets cranked up. Good luck and we’re with you.

On the other hand, I would suggest to Mr. Custer that given TIF issues and concerns from all over the nation, the fact that the local political scene is totally tilted to the development industry, business incentives, and more or less status quo development, a continuing mobius strip debate over paying for services and infrastructure due mostly to politics and not facts, not much in the way of public knowledge about TIFs, and worse, City Councilors pursuing personal agendas as they jockey for power and campaign money in an election year, puh-leez, some silver bullet finance tool is not the answer. The problem in Raleigh is not money, it is leadership and political will.

Hey, maybe the RBC bankers could loan Kane and Duke Realty the 75 million for the North Hills East parking deck.

From a headline in the March 13th News and Observer: “Raleigh’s bonds get AAA rating.”

According to the paper, Raleigh gets high marks because of “…the city’s “large stable and diverse economy with a robust private sector and strong financial position.”

Beats me, but back in December of 2003 the Triangle Community Coalition - aka Big Real Estate - hosted a luncheon. The topic was paying for infrastructure and a woman with numerous pedigrees came to town to talk about options. In attendance were Philip Isley, and former City Council and current State Senator Janet Cowell. One of the options was TIF, and there was a powerpoint extolling the virtues of same, namely that in Chicago…

Anyway, kids, there is no big mystery here. If Meeker, et al., had proposed TIFs to help nothing but blighted communities the current supporters would be crying foul.

RIFF ON TIF
Dr. Walter de Gama
February 19, 2007

On Pearl Harbor Day of 2006, your Mayor Meeker single-handedly fended off a furious attack on the citizens of Raleigh.

The argument at the table was all about Tax Increment Financing, a budget/financing battle for a seasoned lawyer/politician if there ever was one, and Meeker masterfully parried every attempt to pump TIFs as a viable economic strategy for your City’s future. Seriously, Meeker used facts and logic in a way that made me cheer when he counterpunched. The dude was on his game.

City Manager Russell Allen and City Attorney Tom McCormick also sat tall in the saddle and told the Raleigh City Council point blank that TIFs were not needed in Raleigh, and that we could do everything with the tools we already have. It was the closest I have ever seen those two come to actually being politicians at the table, because they know as much if not more than some of the elected players.

We almost fell out of our chairs when District E City Councilor Philip Isley unveiled his “proposal” for Raleigh TIFs, a rewrite of Fort Worth, Texas' policy. I can't recall over the years Isley offering anything in writing to the Council, and suddenly he has an entire policy on TIFs? From another city? Ho ho, we don’t need no shtinkin’ studies is SO yesterday…

Isley’s strategy was transparent: wedge in TIFs as a way to pay for the Dix property, a financing strategy suggested by the ULI gang, with Meeker trapped “in support” by default because the Dix plan was dumped in his lap...and passage would ultimately open the floodgates for developers to get TIFs.

We laughed out loud when District B's Jessie Taliaferro said later in the conversation that she wanted to be “proactive” in preserving quality of life in Raleigh. Go ahead, contact community activists and tell them Taliaferro is a champion of neighborhoods. Be sure to duck.

As it stands right now: Councilors Philip Isley, Tommy Craven, Jessie Taliaferro, and Taliaferro’s hand puppet, Joyce Kekas, are all in favor of TIFs. Go figure on the political gymnastics. The Ciy Council meets tomorrow to discuss TIFs and Hillsborough Street, with Kekas the Hillsborough Street swing vote and West the TIF swing vote. Right, like they would cut this deal: we’ll give you three million of already voter approved dollars for Hillsborough Street---if you’ll give us a 75 million dollar parking deck at North Hills without any citizen input!!

Our opinion: TIFs are a scam and a fraud for Raleigh and if this Council does one TIF they will do 100. So forget it.

Anyway, we're ready to weigh in on Tax Increment Financing. For our purposes here we’re using "TIFs," as in "TIF deals," because it just rolls off the tongue easier. This blog could have been a case of link overkill, but now it is crunch time, and who wants to read 10,000 words? Google TIFs and you can read all day; start with Wikipedia and go down to the links on the bottom because they take you to the red meat of shtinkin’ shtudies.

Okay, below are a variety of questions that have to be answered if you’re going to give away the store, er, pass free bond money to developers without any citizen input…

Nope. Forbes just said we’re the number one place in the nation for jobs. Gee, where do jobs come from?

Nope. Newspaper says yesterday that since the Triangle is running out of available land, with businesses looking for land in Vance, Granville, Warren, and Franklin Counties. We’re talking boomtimes 50 miles from the Raleigh city limits, people. RTP land is at a premium, with less than 600 acres left at 100K per acre. The Holly Springs area is red hot. North and east of town are taking off…

3) Is Raleigh having trouble competing with her neighbors in terms of attracting investment?

Are you kidding? Cash is pouring into Raleigh. If we do TIFs everybody else will have to get into the act and the trend will ruin local economies. Think Google deals in Knightdale and Louisburg and Honda Jets in Apex. It would simply be giving away the store because everybody else is giving away the store. If other municipalities do TIFs first Raleigh still doesn’t have to worry because we’re established.

Another laugher. Last October 4th, the News and Observer, in a story on bank loans, reported “the unprecedented surge in commercial real estate loans that has financed new hotels, shopping centers, and subdivisions in the Triangle over the past four years.” Even Sanjay Mundra, a cofounder of the Soleil Group, said that, “Banks are everywhere with 90 percent financing.” The paper reports that “[t]he development company [Soleil] has offers pending from three lenders for $100 million to build the 47-story hotel and condominium tower.” (At Crabtree). And Soleil wants a TIF if North Hills gets one…

That question would be moot if you happened to be former NC Supreme Court Justice Robert Orr. He and several others have filed suit challenging Amendment One, the enabling legislation for TIFs.

Is it not odd that the Raleigh City Council continues to debate TIFs in the wake of the lawsuit? Or do they want to try and pass it ahead of any legal decision to make it harder to undo any TIFs?

8) How can conservative Republicans like Jessie Taliaferro and Joyce Kekas, oops sorry, Philip Isley and Tommy Craven, justify voting for bonds without a citizen referendum?

Well, one angle is a variation of the old “starve the beast” strategy of 1980’s Republicans. Instead of chopping taxes to nothing, push tax revenues so far into the future that you can claim you’ll get a bunch of money, “net revenue gain,” and guess what? No dough now for services, roads, schools, etc., so you have to privatize, partner with the private sector, etc. Another old angle is that they have thrown out any economic philosophical foundation in favor of cheap political gain.

The John Locke Foundation (JLF) furiously lobbied against Amendment One and TIFs. Part of their angle was along the lines that this would lead to an orgy of eminent domain “takings.” Another angle was that Amendment One removed the constitutional right of the people to appropriate money. That is part of Orr's argument. It is weird to think that Republicans wouldn't want people to have constitutional rights...

Ho ho, the weirder irony in this is that City Councilor Philip Isley periodically bangs the gong of "property rights." (In the spring Isley’s former Council colleague Kieran Shanahan started an organization to "preserve" property rights from the corrosive effects of the Kelo v. New London case). How can Isley and the JLF square the circle of TIF eminent domain provisions and property rights? Or is the eminent domain angle moot because, as I understand it, NC law already offers property owners protection against the Kelo decision?

Tax Increment Financing started in California in 1952. Voters in North Carolina rejected Amendment One type legislation in 1982 and 1993. After five decades of TIFs we are over the testing stage. Problems are everywhere, like Cleveland, and St. Paul, and words like “reform” rountinely pop up. TIFs for blight only? Nah. The “But for” (the help of government) test? Nobody cares. We don’t need no shtinkin’ shtudies unless it supports our position…

Good luck reading because there is a blizzard of information. Chicago is on a TIF bender and has been for a while. There is some pretty technical stuff from academia, but start with Dye and Merriman and that will lead you to other critics.

Hey, in this town you get what you pay for…and you should also get a loan you can afford without me having to finance your schemes.

A THOUSAND PEOPLE IN THE STREET
Dr. Walter de Gama
January 18, 2007

As we ponder the fate of the Hillsborough Street Project I have to ask, "Where were the NC State University students in this process?"

After all, as the dominant herd of people using the area they are the main beneficiaries of a safer street. Forget economic incentives, a safe driving zone and a pedestrian-friendly streetscape are the first and foremost goals of this plan. On the other hand, since this project has been going on since 1999 many kids most certainly have moved on. Still, I have to think that they could have been the main engine driving the changes.

Kids these days... It would be easy to pick on them for their lack of interest in all things political, or maybe they just gave up in this instance in the face of the overt and benign neglect on the part of their elected officials. I'm sure they were invited to the table, and I am sure that some students did offer input. I don't intend for this to be a sociological treatise on the current state of the social contract. However, just to refresh my memory I did jump in the Way Back Machine and found that on May 8, 1970, four days after National Guardsmen killed four students at Kent State University, about 6,000 people, mostly college students, marched to the North Carolina State Capitol to protest Governor Scott's support for sending troops into Cambodia during the Vietnam War.

That was long ago in a different time, no? In the world of today we hear barely a whisper of protest, on any topic, from the current crop of tomorrow's leaders, much less a spirited public protest about a war by 6,000 people.

Students cannot deny that their lack of interest and participation in the Hillsborough Street Project in part enabled the current sorry state of affairs. After all, they are old enough to vote and should understand the implications of politicians directly ignoring voters who authorized bond money for a problem in their own front yard.

Not that we would ever advocate for or encourage people to break the law, because in Raleigh you need a permit to exercise your first amendment right of assembly, but I have the delusional fantasy that a bunch of students, incensed over the failure of the Raleigh City Council to take care of business, stage their own modern guerilla theater.

What might my imaginary army of protesters do if the Council won't vote for the project to make Hillsborough Street safer? Well, what if a mob of kids walked into the middle of the street and stopped traffic during rush hour, and at other random times, for weeks? Hey, what if they were all wearing masks with Joyce Kekas on the front and Jessie Taliaferro on the back? Golly, that would be easy to do and totally disruptive, because by the time the cops arrived the kids could have simply walked away in all directions with their masks in their pockets. Maybe they would write graffiti (in chalk) on the street, stating in big block letters the amount of money lost due to car accidents on Hillsborough. Or what if a rogue film crew with a projector beamed all of the sorry Hillsborough statistics---on the side of City Hall?

Naturally, in keeping with our media savvy times, I also imagine a camera crew on hand to chronicle the events for the evening news in order to turn up the heat on the politicians.

Nah, it is 2007 and none of this is gonna happen. When the students do get organized, as they on rare occasion do, they always do too little, too late.

Oh well, I guess we'll just wait to comment after the vote. As for the students, whatever. Maybe they will someday take to heart one of Thomas Jefferson's more famous quotes: “A little rebellion now and then... is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.”

DANCING WITH THE STARS
Dr.Walter de Gama
January 10, 2007

Joyce...Joyce...Joyce...c'mon, Ms. Kekas, vote for the project...you're really going to like it once you get used to it...we have been waiting so long... Sigh.

Remember the days of yore at a school dance, when clusters of girls would be standing next to the dance floor, waiting for some suitor to ask them to hit the boards and do The Bump? They looked over the boys and judged them for looks, prospects, etc. But every now and then a girl would dance with a boy that the rest of the girls despised, and when she did they sometimes turned their backs on her partly out of jealousy. But she had so much fun, and she really liked the boy, that she moved on and lived happily ever after.

C'mon Joyce, we know you want to dance with the Democrats, and we know that you desperately want to vote for Hillsborough Street. We see your nervousness, and it is okay to show that you are conflicted; every girl has her moments of doubt and we want you to know we are here for you. We know that you want to be loved by the Hillsborough neighbors down there, too, but in order to do that you have to leave Jessie Taliaferro, Philip Isley, and Tommy Craven on the sidelines. They don't like those people down there, do they, Joyce? We'll bet they gossip in the hall behind their backs. Hey, all you neighbors, show Joyce the love and respect and hospitality she deserves. Invite her over for a little tea and sympathy.

Joyce, did you think that we had abandoned you? We were standing on the sidelines during your campaign when we found out the Home Builders Association was supporting you. We felt jilted and alone because we thought you only wanted them and not us and we wrote about it in anger. You probably thought we abandoned you because we told people to vote for Russ Stephenson only. Call us cads, or call us really shrewd, but we knew deep down that you were a shoo-in and we wanted to make sure another Democrat was there to support you. Don't be mad at Russ, be mad at those of us that wanted to dance with you and you spurned us for those other guys with more dough than heart. As it is, two Democrats made it to the council that night, so why don't we move on?

Believe us when we say that Russ' neighborhood crowd will embrace you, Joyce, they really will. They are good, thoughtful, commited people. Give them a chance.

Now about Hillsborough Street. C'mon, Joyce, you said yourself that you had done your own research, and you have had over a month to figure out the parking scene. No fair playing coy or hard to get now... The girls and boys in planning, plus the folks that did the feasibility study, are all happy to help you figure it out. Go ahead, ask them for help and ask as many questions as you want. The answers are there, and there is no way to ignore this option.

You can get out front and be the Belle of the Ball here, Joyce. You can also break the spell of those people on the sidelines. If you're being threatened by Taliaferro's real estate supporters, don't worry, stand up to them and we'll stand behind you. If you feel threatened by Craven's single-minded dismissal of Hillsborough, don't worry, Craven is obviously more concerned about the lack of real estate redevelopment than he is about the safety of the street, and besides, there aren't many Craven supporters in District D for obvious party-line reasons. They aren't your friends, Joyce. Just like at the school dance, they don't like you for you, they just like that you hang out with them and nobody else.

Dr. West is on board, Joyce, because as a member of the Law and Public Safety committee he knows that stalling Hillsborough will not only reflect badly on the Council but on the LPS committee (Isley is the chair but this fact seems currently lost on him, Taliaferro is the other member but responsibility to the citizenry seems to have never stopped her special interest positions). Dr. West also understands that making citizens wait forever for a remedy for something as fundamental as citizen safety has voter backlash written all over it. Not a good time for that, eh? You can't use the "that was then, this is now" argument, Joyce, because the problems of a dangerous street were never remedied, and you represent everybody's best interests at heart.

It'll be alright, Joyce, really, it will. Call the Mayor and say you're in. It'll be done, the five million will get the ball rolling on Hillsborough, a street four times more dangerous than other streets around the state, and the town will love you for doing the right thing. Tell Isley you can figure out the rest of the money later, he knows that this is a problem that has to be addressed.

What is the downside, Joyce, really? Let Taliaferro and her pals stand on the sidelines and harangue you as you step out on the dance floor, but don't listen to them, they hate the fact that you might think for yourself and leave them behind. We know they'll be yelling at you and telling you to get something for your vote that will favor, guess who, only them. How selfish are they, Joyce, that they would simply use you? What have they promised you in return? Is campaign money more important than the support of thousands of people who like you and vote for you because you do the right thing and stand up to people that would bully you into submission?

You can do it, Joyce, we know you can, and we know that once you're out on the dance floor with the rest of the Democratic majority they will welcome you with open arms. We're right here to hold your hand if you get nervous. Don't hesitate another minute, pick up the phone and call Mayor Meeker and tell him you'd love to dance. You might find that the minute you run out on the dance floor Ms. Taliaferro might follow your lead and run out there too because she doesn't want to be left behind.

Watching y'all doing The Bump together on Hillsborough Street in the honest spirit of good government is something we'd all like to see.

HILL(SBOROUGH) STREET BLUES
Dr. Walter de Gama
January 7, 2007

You haven’t lived until you hit a Hillsborough Street roundabout in third gear going about 35 mph…merge into the circle, drop it down into second, accelerate into the turn, tires squealing…engine whining… passengers screaming, hug the curb and hang on as centrifugal forces tug you and the back end of the car, do a full lap and time it so you drift out of the loop to your exit, ram it into third and rocket off into the sunset…

In order to get the best handle on what is happening to the Hillsborough Street project, a proposal before the city involving 11 “roundabouts” or traffic circles, you should first read these official minutes of the meeting. If you don't want to read all that blather, just jump down the page. Later or sooner, see you below:

Seems pretty straightforward, a group of politicians just hashing over the details of some mundane project that has been around since, oh….1999!!! But if you ask me, Hillsborough Street could be headed for another eight years of languishing in planning hell. Why? Because the comments of Councilors Taliaferro, Craven, Isley, and on the outside maybe West, set the bar for passage so high that final approval could only come from some Higher Power.

For example, what the minutes don’t record, but what is there in living color on tape, is a snide comment from District B Councilor Jessie Taliaferro aimed right at city staffers: “I’m a librarian, I can do my own research if you’re not going to provide it.”

She was lamenting the lack of information about Las Vegas, a comparison city, but at-large Councilor Russ Stephenson, who actually reads the background information provided before each Council meeting, pointed out that there was information in the packet and that “they’ve done a tremendous amount of homework.” Taliaferro backtracks and says, “I do stand corrected,” but then she goes on to say “…that the one community that is most like ours I didn’t see the kind of backup I was looking for.”

Folks, I want to alert you to a very subtle aspect of politics. If you view the council meetings with any regularity, watch how councilors acknowledge or ignore research or data depending on the political angle they are trying to press. You would think that a “best practices” approach would benefit citizens most, but nothing is more galling than a councilor that one minute ignores data from other cities that might help the cause, and the next minute embraces the idea of comparisons if it hinders the cause.

Not that this is the case here, and I am not suggesting some sort of rift between what city staff digs up and what a Councilor is looking for, but certainly there will be debate over research. So by all means, Ms. Taliaferro, please, do your own research, and be sure to cover all the bases---pro and con---on every issue. We’re all ears.

Think we’re being too hard on Taliaferro and that she doesn’t want to stiff the project? Look back to when the Council passed this year’s City budget last June. Mayor Meeker didn’t have five votes for his budget – Isley and Craven were saying no no matter what to just to defy the Mayor, and Russ Stephenson, who made impact fees a central issue in his campaign, wasn’t voting for any budget that didn’t have a meaningful increase in impact fees. Crowder was the lone holdout, and he bargained for an additional $2 million for the first three Hillsborough Street roundabouts.

Crowder felt the Council owed him, having stiffed him in 2005. Then, left the second of three scheduled budget sessions, asking to be excused (which is customary). Other Councilors seized the opportunity and refused to excuse him (which was unprecedented). Councilor Taliaferro seized the moment to change the bond referendum to divert $2.1 million earmarked for improving Jones Franklin Road, a plum for Crowder, to other uses.

Taliaferro was clearly peeved that Crowder was vying to get his money back in 2006. She complained that the allotment would shift money from other projects, prompting City Manager Russell Allen to point out that none of these bond funds were allocated, and to suggest taking the $2 million out of the pedestrian safety bond funds and moving it into reserve for 2006/07 with the understanding it could be appropriated for the Hillsborough Street roundabouts or whatever else the Council wished. Taliaferro pressed this point several times, would the Council get to vote again sometime in the future on whether or not to put the money into Hillsborough Street? Yes, final action or appropriation would have to be made by the Council to move the money from reserve. The Council agreed to take $2 million of pedestrian safety bond funds and placing it in reserve to support the first two roundabouts on Hillsborough Street, subject to the City Council approval.

So Crowder voted for the Mayor’s budget thinking he got an additional $2 million for Hillsborough Street. But the stage was set by Taliaferro, who voted for the Mayor’s budget knowing darn good and well she will fight (with a fair chance of winning) against Crowder and the Mayor for the five votes necessary to put this money into Hillsborough.

Tommy Craven makes a comment which is also not in the minutes but recorded on tape: “I don’t know that we got a good comparison.” He was referring to Colorado examples of aerial photos of roundabouts.

If you ask me, Craven’s comment has echoes of the impact fee debate from last year: attack the study in order to discredit the whole process. This reminds me of a variation of currently popular media theory, which basically says there is no way to be objective, like a newspaper can’t be objective, so by extension every “fact” occupies a place on the political spectrum and is therefore subject to scrutiny. The endgame of this is that you end up deconstructing your conversations with your dentist, the girl at the gas station, etc. Everything is suspect. Bottom line, you won't find a perfect comparison for Hillsborough, so that “fact” in itself can be used to end support.

Dr. James West, waxing eloquently as only he can, had this to say, also unrecorded in the minutes: “I will confess that I have not followed this project as close as I would have liked to…I think it’s a great project." At one point he says, “Do we truly have a common definition, a shared vision as it relates to how all the pieces tend to fit together?” Also, he would like to “get the commitment of the various stakeholders.”

To paraphrase West: we only have 99% agreement among citizens, businesses, the University, and the City, therefore we need to make sure that the 1% opposed doesn’t have their rights trampled or their feelings hurt. (Make up your own numbers, but most everybody is on board).

District D (where Hillsborough Street is located) Councilor Thomas Crowder piped up and brushed West’s comments aside: “I think the community has done that, Dr. West…I don’t know how much more the community and the university and the stakeholders can say,” and West replies, “I agree with you I guess in concept…I’m not sure you ever get to perfection.”

Golly gee willikers, given that contentious issues routinely get passed or canned with 51/49 support, since when have we seen such broad stakeholder support for anything in this town? West says, “When it comes to the final commitment, that’s where the rubber meets the road.” Exactly, Dr. West, and what will encourage your commitment to Hillsborough?

Philip Isley says on tape, “I have not still been sold on just the science behind the roundabout concept.” Well, Phil, you could always ask the developer of North Hills, where you want the City to invest $75 million of tax money into a parking deck, why he put a roundabout at an intersection instead of stop signs, yield signs, or a light.

Okay, that was a cheap shot, but what the hell? Isley is the long-time chair of the City Council’s Law and Public Safety Committee, so it is his business to know the science of safe roads; with students and citizens crossing back and forth across Hillsborough, and the grim statistics that give it a horrible driving reputation, it is incumbent upon Isley to act to reduce accidents and make the area safer. Granted, people will continue to ignore well-lit crosswalks across roads at their own peril, but if anyplace in town qualifies for a roundabout remedy, it is Hillsborough. (Shoulda put roundabouts on Fayetteville Street, eh?).

This is stating the obvious, but government is responsible for infrastructure, like roads, and when public safety is at stake infrastructure becomes a governmental imperative. If it takes 11 traffic circles to make Hillsborough safe, (the first priority, with the added benefit of spiffing up the area), then duh, build them.

I could have ended this blog here, but what brought the project to our attention were two Point of View (POV) articles in the News and Observer pointing out the pros and cons of the project. The first was a POV from the John Locke Foundation (JLF) poo-pooing roundabouts, but Lunsford jumped on the facts about roundabouts immediately, proving their viability and shredding the JLF “argument.” It struck us as odd that the JLF would sic some graduate student onto the plan to rehab Hillsborough. We had a hard time believing this was a “UNC/Franklin Street chiding NCSU/Hillsborough Street” thing, I mean, we’re in the game to rag about local politics, but is the JLF going to offer their services as the definitive “research arm” on every major city decision from now on? If so, we’re in for a constant spin cycle.

However, Hillsborough is hardly a case on the level of a convention center or school bonds, so if we adopt the conspiracy theory angle, did somebody ask the JLF to do a hatchet job on roundabouts in order to sway councilors to kill Hillsborough? For that matter, why is the University not more vocal in lobbying support for the project?

With so much public input and city time as mentioned by the Mayor in the minutes, why wouldn’t the City Council simply rubber stamp this plan like they have everything else in recent memory? After all, we're talking about fixing a stupid street, for crying out loud...plus the added benefit of the largest employer in town, NC State University, rubbing elbows with local businesses and neighborhoods. Note to Council: the University won't commit to anything until you commit, but what is there not to like about what seems to be a thaw in City/University relations? The “historic” angle of Hillsborough pales in my mind to the juggernaut of our current go-go attitude, (36 of 39 Hillsborough business owners on board according to Crowder), so I don’t get the general drift of disapproval. After all, the feasibility study was done by a local firm and I am sure they can answer any questions.

Anyway, given Meeker’s glowing intro, Hillsborough seemed like a no brainer, at least until Councilor Isley started talking about the money, which is of course the bottom line. Taliaferro and Craven danced around the issue with their blather, but Isley was blunt, “The one buy-in that we have to have going forward is some state funding, otherwise if we’re going to be responsible for building all 11 roundabouts ourselves we’re looking at a 30 to 40 million investment and I am concerned by building just a fraction of what has been planned…what would happen if nothing else would get built because we don’t have any money?” He adds, “I have yet to see a plan B." Isley, for his part, is worried about not being able to start something they can’t finish, and this was an undercurrent in other comments. Fair enough, but the free market doesn’t fix dangerous roads. Stalling now will be seen as a political tactic to stave off action at the expense of the safety of the citizenry.

So finally, after roundabout chit chat hammering… roundabout methodology, we get to the red meat: if money isn't spent on Hillsborough, voter commitment notwithstanding, gee, where else could it go? Think of Hillsborough Street in the context of what is happening around town. I just spent twenty minutes looking at a city map after writing that sentence. Hmmm.

District E rep Isley is enjoying growth at Crabtree, and Isley and district A rep Tommy Craven share the growth at North Hills. Surely other road improvements will be needed around Crabtree and North Hills. Where will the money come from? On the other hand, District B rep Taliaferro and District C rep West are getting the bulk of new development on the fringe of the city. Ditto various road issues. Again, where will infrastructure money come from? This is a serious question, and it seems obvious that this council can’t figure out the answer. In fact, the meeting’s next agenda item after Hillsborough involved road money and the state of North Carolina, with Isley commenting whether Raleigh is, “…in fact getting the allocated monies we deserve.”

The map reveals other things. For example, the area north of Hillsborough is a bastion of Democratic support for the entire city and has been for years. Lots of names, connections, history, money, etc. Definitely Russ Stephenson’s turf since he lives there. It is also Meeker’s turf, since he lives nearby in Boylan Heights. Thomas Crowder counts support there, too. Cross into District E north of Wade Avenue and now you’re in Republican Isley’s district, but not quite into Bluebloodville around Five Points. Still some Democrats to be found. Taliaferro’s District B dips a pinky toe into that area and touches Wade Avenue, but hardly qualifies as local when you consider how far north her district goes. Finally, James West’s District C is on the east side of Downtown, cut off from the Hillsborough area, but certainly Dr. West can sympathize with road revitalization efforts. After all, with Wake Med on the east end, New Bern Avenue could sure use some sprucing up... All of this made me wonder: if Hillsborough was in any other district, would this council be haggling over the premise of roundabouts?

And what of Councilor Thomas Crowder? Hillsborough is in his district, and he is practically the lone standard bearer on this council for the Comprehensive Plan. This is to his own detriment, as the newspaper seems to regularly report that he gets pounded in votes on cases that seemingly counter the CP but get passed anyway. Still, in the big picture Crowder’s district is pretty hot and is in the local news: Glenwood South next door to a booming downtown, plus the ripple effect of growth west from Fayetteville Street, NC State University under new leadership and looking sexier by the day, Dorothea Dix and environs on the launching pad to link downtown, the university, and the south side of the city, and now Hillsborough Street. Harrummphh! It is all coming together in that part of Raleigh, after years of neglect as Taliaferro would mention near the end of in the topic, (she apologizes “on behalf of the City to Hillsborough Street” and “we do not have a good history of maintaining what we start…”). No matter, because it must drive the other councilors batty to think Crowder benefits from all that swanky real estate… maybe we can punish the bastards around Hillsborough, and keep Crowder begging for every crumb since he won't sell out.

So is the bar for passage of the Hillsborough project being set deliberately high to poke Stephenson and Meeker and Crowder in the eye and siphon off the dough for elsewhere? When Joyce Kekas said, “I don’t think there is anyone on this Council that is not looking to revitalize Hillsborough Street,” I shook my head. After all this time, talk is cheap. I have to wonder about such a qualifying statement: if Taliaferro et al. want to stiff Crowder et al. to free up money for projects in North Raleigh and elsewhere, can they convince Kekas to vote against Hillsborough Street? With Isley and Craven in tow, Kekas would be the fourth vote Taliaferro needs to kill whatever initiative is put on the table.

Conversely, Kekas could be the fifth vote for passage, and if Meeker wants passage he should be spending some of his political capital and massaging Kekas’ concerns since this is his backyard. More important, and bottom line, Kekas’ fiduciary allegiance as an At-Large Councilor is to the entire city and not just the will of North Raleigh Councilors. Even though it isn’t the real issue, she needs to sit down with the engineers that did the Hillsborough feasibility study, as does Isley, and study the science and the engineering.

Will Kekas, as a citywide rep realizing that the local Democratic Base in the area will be watching her vote, separate herself from Taliaferro’s influence? I gotta think Kekas will be under tremendous pressure.

Like Kekas, I also have to think Taliaferro needs to have one eye on the neighborhood north of Hillsborough, too. Okay, maybe a sidelong glance. Her campaign money base might be the real estate industry, and not that she would really care, but the folks in the democratic base living between Wade and Hillsborough aren’t fooled by platitudes or token attempts at landscaping or trash cleanup. Taliaferro needs their imprimatur to remain what some might call a viable candidate for higher office (Mayor?) in the eyes of voters, recent events notwithstanding.

Funny, but nobody, not Isley, Craven, or Taliaferro, mentioned tax increment financing as a remedy. Guess this part of town doesn’t qualify as blighted, heh heh. I mean, why would a place with around 32,000 people showing up per day need a $75,000,000 parking deck next door to a revitalized street, streetscape, and real estate market?

Eleven roundabouts, your necktie. Is this government providing infrastructure (the chicken) so that the market and the university can redevelop (the egg)? Is it an amenity for the whole city, or a perk for the largest employer in town? Is it a safety remedy for a really dangerous street, or a traffic nightmare for nearby neighborhoods? We don’t need no shtinkin’ studies, but it sounds like a great go-kart track for me and Lunsford to conduct midnight time trials…

Come to think of it, as our election season kicks off maybe we’re simply witnessing a bizarre City Council Love Quadrangle: Crowder and Taliaferro sniping at each other in a terminal War of the Roses quarrel, and Joyce Kekas wishing that Russ Stephenson loved her more than he loved winning a seat at the table. So much for reasoned debate… Is there any penalty associated with voting down Hillsborough with the voters? After all these years, that discussion had nothing to do with roundabouts, and everything to do with love, er, money. For a discussion from a group of people not wanting to go around in circles, well…

Bottom line, folks, is that Mayor Meeker needs to make this happen. He reminds the council at the end: “…it has been approved by our citizens [2-1 margin in a bond referendum] who expect us to go ahead and take care of this.”

P.S. I wish the minutes were simply council hearings verbatim. I told Lunsford I’d have this set in hard before the holidays, I tried to get quotes perfect, but any mistakes in transcription, which took forever and a day, are my own. Thanks for hanging around, Happy New Year, it is good to be back.

Mutts around Carolina Pines Park				Purebreds around Leesville Park
	tax value	recent sales price	date of sale		tax value	recent sales price	date of sale
1612 Evergreen Ave.	$64,056			7921 Pine Timber Dr	$317,874	$325,000	6/29/2004
1614 Evergreen Ave.	$60,276			7925 Pine Timber Dr	$323,548	$425,000	7/13/2006
1620 Evergreen Ave.	$105,886	$83,000	2/20/2004	7929 Pine Timber Dr	$294,995	$340,000	12/19/2003
1712 Evergreen Ave.	$105,612	$150,000	10/3/2005	7933 Pine Timber Dr	$282,583	$325,000	7/15/2003
1716 Evergreen Ave.	$102,526	$120,000	8/15/2002	4312 Oakthorne Way	$435,968	$575,000	7/3/2006
1720 Evergreen Ave.	$111,734	$127,000	4/24/2000	4315 Oakthorne Way	$406,156	$472,000	2/28/2006
1800 Evergreen Ave.	$55,115			4314 Russling Leaf Lane	$338,633	$380,000	12/13/2004
1808 Evergreen Ave.	$253,953
1814 Evergreen Ave.	$97,599	$95,000	5/9/2001
1900 Evergreen Ave.	$63,781
1904 Evergreen Ave.	$123,333
1908 Evergreen Ave.	$100,148	$123,000
1912 Evergreen Ave.	$53,817	$61,000
1916 Evergreen Ave.	$79,402	$79,000
average	$98,374	$104,750			$342,822	$406,000

JUST SAY NO Dr. Walter de Gama October 8, 2007

City Council Election Recommendations:

Election Coverage:

IN CASE YOU AREN'T SHOPPING FOR A SPRINKLER Dr. Walter de Gama October 5, 2007

COPs AND ROBBERS Dr. Walter de Gama October 2, 2007

ARMED CAMPS ALL AROUND Dr. Walter de Gama October 1, 2007

NO EXIT Dr. Walter de Gama September 27, 2007

BOOTS ON THE GROUND Walter de Gama September 19, 2007

HEY BIG SPENDER Dr. Walter de Gama August 31, 2007

SOUTH SIDE BLUES Dr. Walter de Gama August 21, 2007

RAINY DAYS AND MONDAYS Dr. Walter de Gama July 6, 2007

STEP RIGHT UP FOR THE BIG SHOW Dr. Walter de Gama Fourth of July, 2007

LAST STAGECOACH WEST Dr. Walter de Gama June 21, 2006

BIGFOOT Dr. Walter de Gama June 18, 2006

POLITICAL SPEECH DURING REPRESSIVE REGIMES Dr. Walter de Gama June 4, 2007

NO PRIOR BUSINESS EXPERIENCE NEEDED Dr. Walter de Gama May 15, 2007

GAMES OF SKILL AND CHANCE Dr. Walter de Gama Cinco de Mayo 2007

MARCH MADNESS Dr. Walter de Gama The Ides of March, 2007

RIFF ON TIF Dr. Walter de Gama February 19, 2007

A THOUSAND PEOPLE IN THE STREET Dr. Walter de Gama January 18, 2007

DANCING WITH THE STARS Dr.Walter de Gama January 10, 2007

HILL(SBOROUGH) STREET BLUES Dr. Walter de Gama January 7, 2007

JUST SAY NO
Dr. Walter de Gama
October 8, 2007