Oriental's Town Board has scheduled public hearings on Tuesday, June 7 for proposed amendments to five articles of the town's Growth Management Ordinance (GMO). The GMO is our zoning ordinance, and any amendment thereto must be adopted in accordance with procedures spelled out in North Carolina General Statutes. The procedures require a public hearing that is adequately noticed in a newspaper of general circulation.
According to the planning board report explaining the amendments, "in recent years, there have been suggestions that changes have been initiated too often, costing the town too much money in advertisement. The Planning Board decided last summer that it would review parts of the GMO and submit a group of recommendations only once or twice a year in an effort to defray [sic] advertisement costs."
My first comment: beware of the passive voice. "There have been suggestions." By whom? Under what circumstances? Has the Town Board adopted such a policy?
Perhaps there was a groundswell of support for this idea, but I never heard it. I only know of one person who suggested such a procedure. I opposed the idea when she first raised it, and I still think it is a bad policy. In my view, it is better to act when the need for action becomes apparent.
The town should be careful to make sure that lumping a number of amendments together doesn't become a means of discouraging full examination and discussion of the proposals or even worse a means of railroading them through the process.
There is a problem with this particular grouping:
Article IV: Permissible uses by District;
Article VI: Development Standards for Specific Uses;
Article VIII: Signs;
Article XV: Amendments;
Article XVI: Word Interpretations and Basic Definitions.
The problem is, that the only reason to amend what we have is to correct deficiencies and problems with the existing text. Indeed, the Planning Board Report, in its discussion of Article XV says: "Several defects in the current ordinance need to be corrected. The language is inconsistent. The process is confusing and, in some instances, unworkable. Differing perspectives of the appropriate end result of this process need to be balanced and melded into something that will satisfy town authority, petitioner and public.
So we are going to use the existing, admittedly defective, procedure, to amend all five sections of the GMO?
This makes no sense.
Let's first amend Article XV and then, at some future time amend the rest.
Doesn't that seem logical?
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Monday, May 23, 2011
Rapture II
I checked at The Bean this morning. No reports of anyone missing in Oriental. Certainly no empty suits have been found.
It just occurred to me: maybe no one here met the eligibility criteria.
It just occurred to me: maybe no one here met the eligibility criteria.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Rapture
I checked my usual news sources this morning. So far as I can tell, the rapture didn't happen yesterday.
So are we back to business as usual?
So are we back to business as usual?
Saturday, May 21, 2011
NC Legislature on Elections Week of May 16
Three bills on elections have cleared State House of Representatives committees and are calendared for a vote:
H366, Special Election Dates (provides for municipal special elections to be held at same time as statewide primary or general election);
H638, Uniform Faithful Presidential Electors Act;
H658, Change Early Voting Period.
H366 seems reasonable.
H638 is a mystery. I don't recall any concern expressed by North Carolina voters that electors might vote for someone other than the candidate they are pledged to. Such a vote has been very rare in US history, though it appears not to be prohibited by the US Constitution. In any event, even if adopted into NC law, it may well be unenforceable under the US Constitution. The mystery is why this particular model legislation appears on the list of acts advocated by the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), over eighty percent of whose funding comes from corporate sources. What is the problem to which this is the solution?
H658 isn't much of a mystery. It shortens the period of "one-stop" or early voting in North Carolina, reducing the calendar period for one stop by a third. It also abolishes any one stop voting before 10:00 in the morning. Its supporters claim the act will shorten election campaigns and save counties money. How this would shorten campaigns is a mystery. Campaigns start when potential candidates first announce their intentions, and continue until election night. Nothing in this bill reduces that period.
As for saving money by reducing the one-stop period, I can't speak for other counties, but don't believe it will save money in Pamlico County. I am concerned that the bill, if it becomes law, may have an adverse effect on Pamlico County voters and also add to the County's cost of administering elections. I am particularly concerned about the effect on planning for 2012.
While it might seem that shortening the period of one-stop voting inevitably reduces expenses, in the case of Pamlico County this is unlikely. We have already begun preliminary planning and budgeting for the 2012 election cycle. The budget our Director of Elections has submitted to the County Manager includes funding for the 2012 primary and possible runoff primary elections. Our board has determined, based on experience in 2008, that we can manage with a single one-stop location so long as the one-stop period remains as before. If H-658 becomes law, we will have to reexamine that decision and may find we need to add another one-stop site. If that becomes necessary, it could increase our one-stop expenditures by at least 50%.
In our county, the interest of voters in one-stop has grown by leaps and bounds in each election from 2006 on. In 2008, roughly two-thirds of Pamlico County voters cast ballots during one-stop (4,527 out of 6,834 voters). Of the one-stop voters, a little over five percent made use of same-day registration, often to update their information already in the system. Reduction of one-stop voting period will inevitably increase the number of voters on election day, making for longer lines and a less relaxed voting experience. We may also have to increase staffing at some of our larger precincts for election day. This would add expense.
A further concern I have is the bill's stipulation that one-stop voting be conducted either from 10:00 to 6:00 or from 11:00 to 7:00. This will reduce, by law, our daily hours of operation. In Pamlico County, we typically conduct one-stop voting from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. In our experience, this schedule fits well with the needs of Pamlico County voters. Our heaviest hours are usually the first two hours after opening, the period either side of noon, and the last two hours. It would be helpful for county boards of elections to be authorized to tailor their hours to the needs of their voters.
Over the past two decades, I have taken part in "get-out-the-vote" efforts in several states. Of all the systems I have seen in action, North Carolina's is the most helpful to candidates and political parties. In Pamlico County, we make one-stop voter information available to the parties daily after the polls close. This allows the political parties to update their voter lists each day and reduces the challenge to them of getting voters to the polls on election day. Increased one-stop voting thus benefits everyone involved in the election process.
H366, Special Election Dates (provides for municipal special elections to be held at same time as statewide primary or general election);
H638, Uniform Faithful Presidential Electors Act;
H658, Change Early Voting Period.
H366 seems reasonable.
H638 is a mystery. I don't recall any concern expressed by North Carolina voters that electors might vote for someone other than the candidate they are pledged to. Such a vote has been very rare in US history, though it appears not to be prohibited by the US Constitution. In any event, even if adopted into NC law, it may well be unenforceable under the US Constitution. The mystery is why this particular model legislation appears on the list of acts advocated by the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), over eighty percent of whose funding comes from corporate sources. What is the problem to which this is the solution?
H658 isn't much of a mystery. It shortens the period of "one-stop" or early voting in North Carolina, reducing the calendar period for one stop by a third. It also abolishes any one stop voting before 10:00 in the morning. Its supporters claim the act will shorten election campaigns and save counties money. How this would shorten campaigns is a mystery. Campaigns start when potential candidates first announce their intentions, and continue until election night. Nothing in this bill reduces that period.
As for saving money by reducing the one-stop period, I can't speak for other counties, but don't believe it will save money in Pamlico County. I am concerned that the bill, if it becomes law, may have an adverse effect on Pamlico County voters and also add to the County's cost of administering elections. I am particularly concerned about the effect on planning for 2012.
While it might seem that shortening the period of one-stop voting inevitably reduces expenses, in the case of Pamlico County this is unlikely. We have already begun preliminary planning and budgeting for the 2012 election cycle. The budget our Director of Elections has submitted to the County Manager includes funding for the 2012 primary and possible runoff primary elections. Our board has determined, based on experience in 2008, that we can manage with a single one-stop location so long as the one-stop period remains as before. If H-658 becomes law, we will have to reexamine that decision and may find we need to add another one-stop site. If that becomes necessary, it could increase our one-stop expenditures by at least 50%.
In our county, the interest of voters in one-stop has grown by leaps and bounds in each election from 2006 on. In 2008, roughly two-thirds of Pamlico County voters cast ballots during one-stop (4,527 out of 6,834 voters). Of the one-stop voters, a little over five percent made use of same-day registration, often to update their information already in the system. Reduction of one-stop voting period will inevitably increase the number of voters on election day, making for longer lines and a less relaxed voting experience. We may also have to increase staffing at some of our larger precincts for election day. This would add expense.
A further concern I have is the bill's stipulation that one-stop voting be conducted either from 10:00 to 6:00 or from 11:00 to 7:00. This will reduce, by law, our daily hours of operation. In Pamlico County, we typically conduct one-stop voting from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. In our experience, this schedule fits well with the needs of Pamlico County voters. Our heaviest hours are usually the first two hours after opening, the period either side of noon, and the last two hours. It would be helpful for county boards of elections to be authorized to tailor their hours to the needs of their voters.
Over the past two decades, I have taken part in "get-out-the-vote" efforts in several states. Of all the systems I have seen in action, North Carolina's is the most helpful to candidates and political parties. In Pamlico County, we make one-stop voter information available to the parties daily after the polls close. This allows the political parties to update their voter lists each day and reduces the challenge to them of getting voters to the polls on election day. Increased one-stop voting thus benefits everyone involved in the election process.
Egotism and Music
About a month ago, the New York Times reported on a new academic study examining whether in recent years popular music has become more self-centered and egotistic. The study, by psychology professor DeWall at the University of Kentucky, examined lyrics from 1980 through 2007. The abstract described the object of the study:
"Tuning in to psychological change: Linguistic markers of psychological traits and emotions over time in popular U.S. song lyrics.
By DeWall, C. Nathan; Pond, Richard S., Jr.; Campbell, W. Keith; Twenge, Jean M.
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, Mar 21, 2011, No Pagination Specified.
Abstract
American culture is filled with cultural products. Yet few studies have investigated how changes in cultural products correspond to changes in psychological traits and emotions. The current research fills this gap by testing the hypothesis that one cultural product—word use in popular song lyrics—changes over time in harmony with cultural changes in individualistic traits. Linguistic analyses of the most popular songs from 1980–2007 demonstrated changes in word use that mirror psychological change. Over time, use of words related to self-focus and antisocial behavior increased, whereas words related to other-focus, social interactions, and positive emotion decreased. These findings offer novel evidence regarding the need to investigate how changes in the tangible artifacts of the sociocultural environment can provide a window into understanding cultural changes in psychological processes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)"
I have noticed the same phenomenon in church hymns. Recent hymns seem more self-centered and far less centered on the deity.
I have noticed the same phenomenon in church hymns. Recent hymns seem more self-centered and far less centered on the deity.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Horoscope
I just discovered the web page for the Onion's horoscope.
My favorite is the horoscope for Aries. Too bad I missed being Aries by a day.
My favorite is the horoscope for Aries. Too bad I missed being Aries by a day.
Left Behind
I gather from reading Doonesbury [should that be renamed "Doomsbury?"] that sometime tomorrow the rapture is supposed to happen. If I have the right idea, the faithful are supposed to be whisked away to paradise while the rest of us stay here.
I gather that two novelists, Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, have written sixteen best-selling novels on this theme.
I have just one question.
Where did they put their money?
I gather that two novelists, Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, have written sixteen best-selling novels on this theme.
I have just one question.
Where did they put their money?
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Election Rigging, Texas Style
In case you had any doubt that the nationwide Republican effort to pass restrictive voter ID laws is intended to obstruct voting by Democrats, take a look at this article in the Dallas Observer web site. And watch the You Tube video.
Debbie Georgatos, running for Chair of the Dallas County, TX Republican Party, makes it clear that the purpose of voter ID is to "prevent Dallas County from becoming a super-blue-hole," drawing an analogy to the black holes in space and implying that the only reason Democrats win is voter fraud.
By the way, I voted in Dallas County in 1992. The system in use then was vastly better than the one in use in Florida in 2000. Fraud is not a problem. Not in Dallas County nor anywhere else in Texas; not in North Carolina either or anywhere else in the United States.
Which doesn't mean there is no rigging of elections. One means of election rigging is selective voter suppression, which is what voter ID is all about. Another way is to redraw election districts in favor of the party with the pen. That is going on in North Carolina as we speak. Both parties do it. It is perfectly legal, so long as the new districts comply with US and North Carolina Supreme Court decisions and Department of Justice requirements. Another technique is to harass and intimidate voters and election officials.
If you want to steal an election, though, the least likely approach is to have individual voters impersonate some legally registered voter. Not only is it a felony if you get caught, it can't possibly be done on a scale great enough to affect an election. Voter suppression has a much greater chance of success. Republican movers and shakers know this. Voter ID is an expensive, disruptive effort to suppress votes.
Debbie Georgatos, running for Chair of the Dallas County, TX Republican Party, makes it clear that the purpose of voter ID is to "prevent Dallas County from becoming a super-blue-hole," drawing an analogy to the black holes in space and implying that the only reason Democrats win is voter fraud.
By the way, I voted in Dallas County in 1992. The system in use then was vastly better than the one in use in Florida in 2000. Fraud is not a problem. Not in Dallas County nor anywhere else in Texas; not in North Carolina either or anywhere else in the United States.
Which doesn't mean there is no rigging of elections. One means of election rigging is selective voter suppression, which is what voter ID is all about. Another way is to redraw election districts in favor of the party with the pen. That is going on in North Carolina as we speak. Both parties do it. It is perfectly legal, so long as the new districts comply with US and North Carolina Supreme Court decisions and Department of Justice requirements. Another technique is to harass and intimidate voters and election officials.
If you want to steal an election, though, the least likely approach is to have individual voters impersonate some legally registered voter. Not only is it a felony if you get caught, it can't possibly be done on a scale great enough to affect an election. Voter suppression has a much greater chance of success. Republican movers and shakers know this. Voter ID is an expensive, disruptive effort to suppress votes.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
