Amending Oriental's Zoning Law

Of all of Oriental's ordinances, the most consequential by far is the Growth Management Ordinance (GMO). The GMO has the greatest effect on the look and feel of the town, the value of real estate, the possibilities of real estate development, and the opportunities for the town's growth.

North Carolina General Statutes rightly provide explicit rules for initial adoption of a zoning ordinance and its subsequent amendment. The goal of these rules is to foster an open process and provide members of the public meaningful opportunities to make their views and wishes known.

In discussions about zoning, we hear frequent admonitions that we must be friendly to business - after all, businessmen and real estate developers invest a lot of money in their projects.

It is worth remembering that, for most of our residents, their home represents the largest investment they will ever make. Maintaining the value of that investment as well as the look and feel of their neighborhoods is often of supreme importance to them.

The town's planning board, made up of volunteers, has significant responsibilities to advise the town's board of commissioners on zoning matters. They are, in effect, the substitute for what, in a larger municipality would be the town's planning department. But they are an advisory board. Both NCGS and our GMO make it clear that the board of commissioners is not bound by the planning board's recommendations.

The Town Board is, after all, the governing body.

Last Tuesday night's kerfuffle between the planning board and the town board shouldn't have happened. In one case, the town board rejected the request for a public hearing on a proposed new section 88. In another case, the town board tabled a motion to schedule a public hearing for a seven-page (single-spaced) complete rewrite of Article XV of the GMO, so that board members would have time to compare the proposed draft with what exists now.

There is a widespread misconception that "tabling" a motion is a back door means of killing it. Not so. Properly used, tabling a motion is appropriate whenever the proposal is seen as not quite ready for a vote (as in not being understood by the board members) or it may even provide an opportunity to build stronger support for the measure. In any event, I believe it is inappropriate (except in case of a quasi-judicial proceeding) to schedule a public hearing on a draft ordinance unless a majority of the board has reviewed the draft and is comfortable putting it before the public. Those conditions did not exist last Tuesday.

I have a number of problems with the draft amendments, including the form of the amendments as put before the town board. I will have more to say about that later.

In the meantime, anyone with an interest in Oriental's GMO, including anyone for whom an amendment might at some time in the future jeopardize any provision of the GMO of personal importance should read the proposed amendments here.

All interested citizens should be sure to attend the public hearing now scheduled June 7.

It isn't clear to me why the planning board is in such an all-fired hurry, or what the actual problems are to which these five drafts are the purported solution.

Oriental Zoning Controversy

There were fireworks at last Tuesday night's meeting of Oriental's Town Board even before the vote on a proposed town dock.

At the beginning of the meeting, the board considered whether to schedule public hearings on five separate amendments to the town's Growth Management Ordinance (GMO), the town's zoning ordinance. When the proposal to schedule a hearing on changes to Article VI of the ordinance failed due to lack of a motion and the motion to schedule a hearing on changes to Article XV was tabled because some commissioners wanted to read it before voting on it, one member of the planning board stormed out of the meeting and the other members present expressed displeasure in other ways.

In view of the board's actions on the two most controversial GMO amendments, the subsequent public comment period was devoted entirely to the town dock issue (previous post).


At least one member of the public, who had come to the meeting for the specific purpose of speaking out against the change to Article VI, did not speak on that subject, since the board did not act. She left, thinking that business was over.

Apparently intimidated by the planning board reaction, though, the town board reconsidered its vote to table Article XV and voted to schedule a public hearing for Article XV and Article VI as well, except for a new Section 88 exempting religious institutions from the maximum footprint limits of Section 77.

That didn't make the planning board happy either. The next day the mayor scheduled a special meeting for Friday to address Article VI again. This morning the town board scheduled a public hearing for all of the changes to Article VI, including the new Section 88.

(According to some townspeople, the new Section 88 is solely designed to alleviate a concern of the church attended by the mayor and his wife I have no idea if that is true). The truth is, it is impossible for a member of the public, by reading the five draft amendments to the GMO or by attending last Tuesday's town board meeting, to have any idea why the proposed changes were drafted, what problems they were designed to solve, or what justification exists for the solutions recommended by the planning board.

Regrettably, the emotions expressed, the misunderstanding of proper legislative procedure and the failure to have effective and transparent communication between the Town Board and the Planning Board has made a situation far worse than it needed to be. Neither did it build confidence among the public that this isn't a scheme to railroad the changes through the system.

I have some ideas about how to improve procedures that I think could go far to prevent this kind of thing in the future. I just looked at the clock, though, and decided to save my ideas for the next post.

A New Town Dock

Last Thursday's agenda meeting of Oriental's Board of Commissioners revealed that Tuesday's meeting will discuss building an additional Town Dock at the end of South Avenue.

This parcel, to which the town won the rights in a case decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals in 2009, gives the public direct access to the harbor. One appropriate use of the parcel is to build a simple pier extending about 100 feet from shore, for use by transient vessels.

A recurring complaint in some circles is that Oriental isn't sufficiently friendly to business. Otherwise, some contend, we would have more businesses and they wouldn't keep failing.

I wonder how many businesses a population of 875 (latest census) can support. Even the "greater Oriental" population of 2,000 can't support many. We are at the end of the highway.

On the other hand, from 14,000 to 20,000 (estimates vary) boats cruising the East Coast via the ICW each year pass less than two miles away. That represents more than 40,000 potential customers. The best thing we can do for Oriental businesses is to attract more boats to stop here. That would be good for every business.

Last Thursday, one commissioner opposed additional free dockage, on the grounds it may compete with nearby commercial marinas.

This misses the point. Cruising sailors select where to stop based on the reputation a town has as a hospitable place. Availability of transient docks and free anchorage space is among the factors affecting this reputation. The goal is to improve Oriental's brand. The better the brand, the more boats stop. The more boats that stop, the more will come back. Some even stay.
As I contended almost two years ago, the question of what to do about South Avenue is about the future, not the past.

Those of you who support the new town dock project and the effort for Oriental to become even more welcoming and hospitable to cruising sailors, please come to the meeting of the Town Board at 7:00 pm Tuesday, May 3 at Town Hall. And bring other supporters.

The important competition is between Oriental and other towns along the waterway.

The Wicked Witch is Dead

The television scene of a wildly enthusiastic crowd dancing and waving flags in Lafayette Square last night across from the White House reminded me of nothing so much as the dance of the Munchkins in the Wizard of Oz when Dorothy's house fell on the wicked witch. The enthusiasm was understandable, but at the same time, there is something unseemly about it.

So I was relieved to learn that the military force that killed Osama bin Laden and retrieved his body treated his remains with respect. That is in keeping with an older military tradition.

An example of this older tradition occurred during the Battle of Santiago during the Spanish American War. The Spanish fleet, which had been bottled up by the US Navy, attempted a break out. They had not gone far when the battleship USS New York engaged the ships in a withering fire from her big guns. Spanish ships burned and sank, to the cheers of New York's sailors.

"Don't cheer boys, the poor devils are dying" New York's skipper, Captain John W. Philip, a Civil War veteran, chided his seamen.

Ninety years later, in July 1988, USS Vincennes, an Aegis cruiser, shot down Iranian Air flight 655, killing 290 passengers and crew. The aircraft was in Iranian airspace in an international civilian air corridor. A television crew on board to film the ship in action recorded the crew on the ship's bridge cheering the shoot-down. I'm sure those crew members later regretted their cheers.

War is a solemn business, not like a football game. Save the cheering for later.

At this writing, it appears our Seals successfully limited collateral damage to civilians. We should be very thankful for that.

Town Manager

At today's special meeting of Oriental's Board of Commissioners, the Board announced its appointment of Bob Maxbauer as town manager.

Bob has been the town's interim manager for about six months, and will now serve as the permanent manager.

Water and Taxes

Two years ago, I explained that the Town of Oriental had a problem with water rates. I pointed out, as I had at Town Board meetings, that the Town had been losing money on water. Not only that, the water system had been subsidized by the general taxpayers.

This meant, among other things, that taxpayers had paid for reduced water rates for the Town's biggest water users.

Our interim town manager has recently done a more thorough examination of costs properly chargeable to the water system. His review revealed that the general taxpayer's subsidy to the water system was even higher than I had thought.

An inevitable consequence of this subsidy is that it reduced tax resources available for other town priorities. Many times over the past few years, Board members have avoided expenditures for projects that residents desired, claiming we don't have the resources. The money ($150 - $250 thousand) unknowingly spent over the past decade subsidizing the water system could have gone a long way toward meeting those needs.

US Pays Low Taxes

The idea constantly hammered into our heads by Republicans is that we pay high taxes, which must be reduced. Not so.

In fact, of all the advanced western-style market economies and democracies (what we used to call the free world), only Australia has lower taxes than the United States.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has published this helpful series of charts showing how we compare.

Friday Flick

Last night at the Old Theater in Oriental, we had a showing of the movie Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.

It's among my favorite movies, but I had never seen it on the big screen. When the movie came out in 1964, I was too busy learning how to be a department head on a destroyer to see movies. That spring, I spent some weeks in Norfolk, Virginia learning about nuclear weapons and their control and use.

The previous fall, at 1:00 pm November 22, 1963, I had joined my fellow students in the US Naval Destroyer School at a command performance - a speech by the US Navy's Chief of Naval Personnel. As the Admiral stepped up to the podium, we muttered among ourselves wondering if he knew the president had been shot. He showed no sign of awareness. The speech turned out to be an attack on the defense policies of the Kennedy administration and, in particular, those of Defense Secretary MacNamara and his "whiz kids."

About half way through the speech, the admiral's aid approached the podium and handed the admiral a note. The admiral read it and said, "I regret to inform you that the president has died." He then completed his speech.

After that, I would have to say that nothing in the dialogue of General Jack D. Ripper, General Turgidson, Colonel Bat Guano, or any of the other outrageous characters in the movie seemed impossible. In particular, Major Kong as played by Slim Pickens, was spot on.

There was much about our national obsession with and fear of the Soviet Union and Soviet Communism in those years that was irrational. A movie like this does a great service by revealing absurdities instead of taking them too seriously.

On Growing Older

Received from a friend:

"Growing Older is Mandatory; Growing Up is Optional."

Is It a War or a Squirmish?

The former half-term governor of Alaska has apparently blessed us with another coined word.

Just as a reminder: the first United States military action against Tripoli began in 1801 and continued for the entire first term of Thomas Jefferson. We did not declare war, though Tripoli did. The only military forces we deployed in this First Barbary War were the Navy and Marine Corps.

Was that a war or a squirmish? For that matter, what do we call our two-year long conflict (1798 - 1800) with France under our second president, John Adams? Historians frequently refer to it as our "quasi-war" with France. Is a quasi war something like a squirmish? Both words have a "qu" in them.

From the beginning of our republic in 1788 until after World War II, we have often dispatched the Navy/Marine Corps team abroad to deal with crises, many times for extensive, protracted engagements. We never declared war in any such case.

March 8, 1965, my ship's guns (I was Weapons Officer of USS Higbee (DD-806)) stood by at Danang, Viet Nam, to provide gunfire support (if needed) for 3,500 Marines who went ashore there. These were our first combat forces, later reinforced by another 20,000 Marines.

Had our intervention remained at that level, using the Navy and Marine Corps, we would probably have been better off.

Twenty years later, using the Navy/Marine Corps team was no longer an option. Not that they couldn't have handled Panama and Grenada just fine, but the policy of the day required that it be a "joint" operation, whether needed or not. So the Pentagon jumped through hoops to find something for the Army and the Air Force to do.

Let's not go down that path in Libya.

Inherently Safe Nuclear Reactors

A few days ago I mentioned that China is proceeding with an inherently safe nuclear reactor design called the "pebble bed" reactor.

Today's New York Times has an article with details and illustrations of the design here.

But China isn't putting all their energy pebbles in one basket. They are building more conventional reactor designs and moving ahead vigorously with other energy alternatives as well, including wind and solar.

A further benefit of the pebble bed reactor design is that it operates at much higher temperature than the boiling water reactors like the ones in Japan. The higher temperature is not only more efficient for generating electricity, it may also be used to produce vast quantities of hydrogen - sufficient for fueling automobiles. This could free the automobile from dependence on petroleum, while abolishing exhaust pollution. When you burn hydrogen, the only waste product is water.

Critics of each of the above approaches often complain that "[fill in the blank]" isn't the answer. China seems to say, "no problem - we'll just try them all."

Who do you suppose has the best chance of leading the way into the world's energy future?

Radiation is Scary - But It's All Around Us

Like most folks, I've been watching the TV reports of the disaster in Japan. I'm in awe of the courage and persistence of the nuclear plant workers. They didn't give up, despite the hazards, and they seem to be gaining the upper hand. And the populace hasn't panicked.

What about those face masks so many Japanese are wearing? They won't do any good against gamma rays, but they can be very effective against alpha particles. You don't want alpha particles to get inside your body.

Does all this mean we must abandon nuclear power?

No.

How hazardous is nuclear power?

Today's Dot Earth blog on the New York Times site addresses the issue of "Dread to Risk." The article is worth reading. The most interesting link is to a chart comparing radiation dosage in various circumstances. It shows, for example, that eating a single banana exposes one to more radiation than living for a year in the vicinity of a nuclear generation plant. Living near a coal powered generation plant exposes you to three times as much radiation as living near a nuclear plant. Take a look at the table.

The risk is low. But clearly not zero in case of a major disaster such as an earthquake and tsunami.

The present disaster in Japan is a result of the 40-year old design, which requires a very complex cooling system with backups.

What this suggests is that we should investigate other types of nuclear reactors. The most dangerous kind of reactor is the graphite moderated reactor of the Chernobyl variety. Next most dangerous are the boiling water reactors like Three Mile Island and like those used in Japan. A better reactor type is the pressure water reactors like many of our newer reactors.

All of these reactors require intact and functional cooling systems to insure safety.

China is moving ahead with an ambitious plan to mass produce an inherently safe reactor design, known as a pebble bed reactor. There are other candidate designs that will not overheat and explode if cooling fails.

It is past time to invest in safer designs.

One thing to remember: there is no risk-free way of producing and using the large amounts of energy needed for modern civilization.

Each year, about 2500 Americans die in residential fires. Many of these happen in winter and result from use of kerosene heaters.

Let's put our hazards in perspective.

Japanese Serenity

It has been 45 years since I lived in Japan.

Much has changed, but much remains the same.

Forty-five years ago, it was not clear that Japanese would accept nuclear power.

What was clear even then was the ability of Japanese society to pull together.

American newspapers write of panic in Japan. As I watch the coverage, I see no signs of panic. Everyone is going about their business with purpose, and the purpose is to help each other.

It reminds me of Reinhold Neibuhr's Serenity Prayer:

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

Brains, Education and Jobs

My favorite economist, Paul Krugman, has just begun to address computerization and its effects on employment. Today's column addresses the "hollowing out" of the distribution of jobs. He includes an interesting graph comparing job distribution by skill level in the 80's the 90's and the first decade of the current century.

In a nutshell, mid skill level jobs are disappearing. In the past decade, so are jobs at the higher skill level. In another post, he shows how the ratio of pay for college graduates compared to high school graduates stabilized more than a decade ago.

If your children and grandchildren want an occupation with a reliable future, they need to find something that isn't easily replaced by computers and can't be readily outsourced offshore. Crafts such as plumbing, cabinet making and welding might be good candidates.

Computers and Lawyers

About three weeks ago I called attention to the effect of computerization on jobs in my post at:
http://mile181.blogspot.com/2011/02/robotics-and-economics.html

Today the New York Times reports on the ability of computer software to replace entire platoons of lawyers with software in complex litigation cases. The article here explains how new advances in software allow firms to screen vast volumes of computer files for relevant documents responding to discovery requests. The impact is substantial. In some cases provided as an example, five hundred attorneys can be replaced with a single attorney.

Experts familiar with the developments suggest that the effect will be that in the future there will be fewer legal jobs, not more. Similar effects are being felt among loan and mortgage officers and tax accountants.

Ironically, computers are also replacing computer engineers who once worked designing computer chips. In fact, unemployment in information technology leads the list of fields tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in unemployment.

The bottom line: the United States economy is being “hollowed out.” New jobs are coming at the bottom of the economic pyramid, jobs in the middle are being lost to automation and outsourcing, and now job growth at the top is slowing.

The only thing left to do seems to be to replace the financial manipulators at the top of the pyramid with software.

Let them look for a job.

What's the Hurry?

A local media outlet described the pending amendment to Oriental's Growth Management Ordinance as including "a provision to grant automatic rezoning approvals."

This is not completely accurate. In fact, the draft amendment to GMO Article XV would apply to any amendment to any provision of our zoning regulations, not only amendments to the growth management map. It would apply to changes in setbacks, for example, to height limitations, to density provisions or any other zoning rule. The proposal would provide automatic granting of any application for any amendment if the Board of Commissioners fails to take final action on the application within 95 days of their first meeting to consider the application.

What's the hurry?

The good news is that the Board of Commissioners has returned the draft to the Planning Board.

Zoning - On Getting It Right

Oriental's March 1 meeting of the Board of Commissioners decided to send the present draft amendment to the Town's Growth Management Ordinance back to the Planning Board for further work.

This is one of those times it seems best to make the effort and take as much time as necessary to do it right. The issue under consideration is how to proceed with amendments to the Town's zoning ordinance.

There seem to be no urgent projects on the horizon at present. The Board has apparently decided it is more important to get it right than to rush forward.

Good decision.

Zoning in Oriental

And now for some local news.

Last Tuesday evening, at the request of the Oriental Town Board of Commissioners, the town Planning Board recommended some changes to the Growth Management Ordinance, Article XV, Sections 230 - 237 (Amendments).

Some of their recommendations, if adopted, will fix things that need to be fixed.

Some won't. Accordingly, I oppose the present draft.

The proposed draft is on line at the Town of Oriental web site. The agenda packet can be found here. Click on "proposed amendments."

The impetus for amending the GMO was last year's application by developer Sylvan Friedman to change the zoning of a residential (R-3) parcel he owns on Midyette Street to MU. The public hearing (required by law) and action by the Town Board were delayed three times (twice at the request of the applicant). The application was opposed by neighbors during the public hearing. The neighbors submitted a formal petition opposing the measure, thus establishing a requirement for an affirmative vote by three fourths of the Board.

Because of the delays, the Board failed to act within the 65 days required by the GMO, thus effectively denying the Friedmans' request. Some Board members expressed the view that the failure to act should be deemed an approval.

The planning Board recommends extending the period to 95 days from first consideration of the request and changing the rule to stipulate that failure of the Board to act constitutes approval.

There are some who believe the applicant deserves a timely response from the Board. This misses the main point. It's about the public, not the applicant. As the GMO explains: "The Town Commissioners shall not regard the advantages or disadvantages to the individual requesting the change, but shall consider the impact of the proposed change on the public at large."

Other than requiring a public hearing before any amendment is adopted and requiring a three-fourths vote in event of a valid petition opposing an amendment, North Carolina General Statutes do not require the town to act in accordance with the opinions of the public voiced at the hearing. This is a political process - a legislative process, not a quasi-judicial proceding. That means it is not only proper but strongly advisable for Town Commissioners to seek the advice of residents before making a decision.

The public should expect Commissioners to take their views seriously. Accordingly, I believe any action deadline should be tied to the public hearing. For example, it makes sense to require that the Commissioners act within thirty-five days following the required public hearing. That way, the views of the public will be fresh in the minds of the commissioners.

Should the Commissioners be unable or disinclined to act within a deadline, the default position should be to maintain the status quo.

The public should not be penalized for inaction by a Town Board.

A One-Armed Economist

President Truman once complained about his economic advisers.

"They come in," he said, "and tell me 'on the one hand, this,' and 'on the other hand, that.'"

"What I need," he lamented, "are some one-armed economists."

Starving the Beast

So why did President Reagan and both Bushes follow a "borrow and spend" fiscal policy instead of making sure the national expenditures were paid for, as they could easily have done?

Because they didn't want to balance the budget. They wanted to follow the policy of "starving the beast."

Don't take my word for it - read the analysis by Bruce Bartlett, writing for Forbes.com.

Here is how economist Paul Krugman describes the scheme in the Pittsburg Post-Gazette.

Although the Republican Party has complained about deficit spending ever since the Great Depression, this was never previously a big deal with the GOP, with their predecessors the Whig Party, or with their original predecessors, the Federalist Party. In fact, President Washington, on advice of his Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, began his administration with an enormous deficit.

This came about when the Federal Government under the new constitution purchased at face value revolutionary war bonds issued by the states. This represented an enormous windfall for speculators who had purchased the bonds from original investors at pennies on the dollar.

The rule: millions to subsidize financial speculators, but not one cent for ordinary people.

This continues to be the policy of the GOP.

What offended Republicans about the New Deal was not the deficit financing, but to whose benefit the money was spent.

Democrats, on the other hand, have from the time of the Anti-Federalists and especially from the Andrew Jackson administration, opposed deficit financing. The reasons:
1. Government borrowing drives up the cost of credit for ordinary people;
2. Paying off government debt takes money from the pockets of the poor and transfers it to the rich;
3. Driving up the cost of money increases the cost of American products and reduces exports;
4. Government borrowing from foreign lenders makes us vulnerable to foreign interests;
5. Etc.

Only in truly extraordinary circumstances do Democrats support extensive deficit financing: the Great Depression and World War II are the clearest examples.

Six years ago, Paul Krugman exposed the whole Starve the Beast bait and switch scam.

Now they have extended the scam from the Federal level to the State level by making it impossible for Washington to provide enough stimulus money to counteract the reduction in state expenditures resulting from state constitution requirements to balance the budget. Earlier, Krugman described the dilemma facing the states and the implications for the national economy in his article Fifty Herbert Hoovers. The article is worth reading again.