South Avenue Procedure

I understand from Town Dock.net that the Town of Oriental may hold a meeting Thursday, May 17 to hear public comments on the proposed contract with Chris Fulcher.

There are some chicken and egg issues involved here.

Before the town can complete the contract by closing streets, it must hold public hearings. Those hearings require public notice at least four weeks in advance. Here are the relevant provisions from North Carolina General Statutes:

§ 160A‑299.  Procedure for permanently closing streets and alleys.

(a)        When a city proposes to permanently close any street or public alley, the council shall first adopt a resolution declaring its intent to close the street or alley and calling a public hearing on the question.  The resolution shall be published once a week for four successive weeks prior to the hearing, a copy thereof shall be sent by registered or certified mail to all owners of property adjoining the street or alley as shown on the county tax records, and a notice of the closing and public hearing shall be prominently posted in at least two places along the street or alley.  If the street or alley is under the authority and control of the Department of Transportation, a copy of the resolution shall be mailed to the Department of Transportation. At the hearing, any person may be heard on the question of whether or not the closing would be detrimental to the public interest, or the property rights of any individual.  If it appears to the satisfaction of the council after the hearing that closing the street or alley is not contrary to the public interest, and that no individual owning property in the vicinity of the street or alley or in the subdivision in which it is located would thereby be deprived of reasonable means of ingress and egress to his property, the council may adopt an order closing the street or alley.  A certified copy of the order (or judgment of the court) shall be filed in the office of the register of deeds of the county in which the street, or any portion thereof, is located.

(b)        Any person aggrieved by the closing of any street or alley including the Department of Transportation if the street or alley is under its authority and control, may appeal the council's order to the General Court of Justice within 30 days after its adoption.  In appeals of streets closed under this section, all facts and issues shall be heard and decided by a judge sitting without a jury.  In addition to determining whether procedural requirements were complied with, the court shall determine whether, on the record as presented to the city council, the council's decision to close the street was in accordance with the statutory standards of subsection (a) of this section and any other applicable requirements of local law or ordinance.

     No cause of action or defense founded upon the invalidity of any proceedings taken in closing any street or alley may be asserted, nor shall the validity of the order be open to question in any court upon any ground whatever, except in an action or proceeding begun within 30 days after the order is adopted. The failure to send notice by registered or certified mail shall not invalidate any ordinance adopted prior to January 1, 1989.

(c)        Upon the closing of a street or alley in accordance with this section, subject to the provisions of subsection (f) of this section, all right, title, and interest in the right‑of‑way shall be conclusively presumed to be vested in those persons owning lots or parcels of land adjacent to the street or alley, and the title of such adjoining landowners, for the width of the abutting land owned by them, shall extend to the centerline of the street or alley.

The provisions of this subsection regarding division of right‑of‑way in street or alley closings may be altered as to a particular street or alley closing by the assent of all property owners taking title to a closed street or alley by the filing of a plat which shows the street or alley closing and the portion of the closed street or alley to be taken by each such owner.  The plat shall be signed by each property owner who, under this section, has an ownership right in the closed street or alley.

(d)       This section shall apply to any street or public alley within a city or its extraterritorial jurisdiction that has been irrevocably dedicated to the public, without regard to whether it has actually been opened.  This section also applies to unopened streets or public alleys that are shown on plats but that have not been accepted or maintained by the city, provided that this section shall not abrogate the rights of a dedicator, or those claiming under a dedicator, pursuant to G.S. 136‑96.

(e)        No street or alley under the control of the Department of Transportation may be closed unless the Department of Transportation consents thereto.

(f)        A city may reserve its right, title, and interest in any utility improvement or easement within a street closed pursuant to this section. Such reservation shall be stated in the order of closing.  Such reservation also extends to utility improvements or easements owned by private utilities which at the time of the street closing have a utility agreement or franchise with the city.

(g)        The city may retain utility easements, both public and private, in cases of streets withdrawn under G.S. 136‑96.  To retain such easements, the city council shall, after public hearing, approve a "declaration of retention of utility easements" specifically describing such easements.  Notice by certified or registered mail shall be provided to the party withdrawing the street from dedication under G.S. 136‑96 at least five days prior to the hearing.  The declaration must be passed prior to filing of any plat or map or declaration of withdrawal with the register of deeds.  Any property owner filing such plats, maps, or declarations shall include the city declaration with the declaration of withdrawal and shall show the utilities retained on any map or plat showing the withdrawal. (1971, c. 698, s. 1; 1973, c. 426, s. 47; c. 507, s. 5; 1977, c. 464, s. 34; 1981, c. 401; c. 402, ss. 1, 2; 1989, c. 254; 1993, c. 149, s. 1.)

Germany Update

Even Germany isn't immune to political upheavals.

This last weekend's parliamentary elections in Germany's largest state, North Rhine-Westphalia, led to a substantial victory for the Social Democrats and defeat of Chancellor Angela Merkel's party, the Christian Democrats. Although many observers emphasize that this election was only local, The Christian Democratic party leader in North-Rhine/Westphalia had claimed during the campaign, that the election is a "referendum" on Angela Merkel's policies.

If so, Merkel lost the referendum.

The Christian Democrats also lost the previous weekend's election in Schleswig-Holstein.

The next scheduled German election is September 2013, but there is speculation Merkel may have to call early elections.

The Truth About Economists

If all the economists were laid end to end, they'd never reach a conclusion.

George Bernard Shaw

Who To Vote For?

Rev. Robert Jeffress, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, remarked a couple of days ago that "I think there's a realization among Christians that Jesus isn't on the ballot this year."  He went on to observe, "many times, voting is voting for the lesser of two evils."

I take exception to the "lesser of two evils" remark - it trivializes and misrepresents the issues and choices facing voters. Democracy isn't easy.

If the Rev. Jeffress means simply that there is no perfect candidate, that is true. But I was intrigued by the "Jesus isn't on the ballot" formula. What if He were? I wondered.  Would so-called fundamentalists or evangelicals vote for Him?

I suspect the answer is "no!" Instead, many of them would probably support the pro-death penalty, public-praying, ostentatious giving, pro-wealth, law and order candidates of the Pharisee party.

More On The Eurozone

In case you haven't been following events in Europe, things aren't looking so good. The UK is in a double dip recession. The government of Holland has fallen over proposed new austerity measures. The Greek government has been voted out of office. Spain has 23% unemployment, with unemployment among young workers at 50%. The cost of borrowing by the government of Italy has risen. President Sarkozy of France was defeated by a socialist who does not support further austerity.

At the end of this month, Ireland will have a referendum on whether to accept a new EU treaty imposing greater control of fiscal policy from Brussels. By the way, Ireland has declining GDP and high unemployment.

So where does Europe go from here? Some knowledgeable observers expect Greece to fall out of the Eurozone as early as next month. Here's Paul Krugman's take:

"Some of us have been talking it over, and here’s what we think the end game looks like:
1. Greek euro exit, very possibly next month.
2. Huge withdrawals from Spanish and Italian banks, as depositors try to move their money to Germany.
3a. Maybe, just possibly, de facto controls, with banks forbidden to transfer deposits out of country and limits on cash withdrawals.
3b. Alternatively, or maybe in tandem, huge draws on ECB credit to keep the banks from collapsing.
4a. Germany has a choice. Accept huge indirect public claims on Italy and Spain, plus a drastic revision of strategy — basically, to give Spain in particular any hope you need both guarantees on its debt to hold borrowing costs down and a higher eurozone inflation target to make relative price adjustment possible; or:
4b. End of the euro.
And we’re talking about months, not years, for this to play out."

In any event, it looks like the future of the Eurozone is mostly up to Germany, but may be up to European voters.

Moral Man And Immoral Businessmen?

Interesting opinion piece in today's New York Times by William Deresiewicz: Capitalists and Other Psychopaths. To some extent, the article reprises themes in theologian Reinhold Neibuhr's moral Man and Immoral Society. But if anything, Deresiewicz takes a darker view, especially of businessmen.

"A recent study" Deresiewicz reports, "found that 10 percent of people who work on Wall Street are “clinical psychopaths,” exhibiting a lack of interest in and empathy for others and an “unparalleled capacity for lying, fabrication, and manipulation.” (The proportion at large is 1 percent.) Another study concluded that the rich are more likely to lie, cheat and break the law."

One can only wonder whether the corporate persons who have now been given the same First Amendment rights as natural persons (Citizens United) are the kind of persons Deresiewicz describes. The author addresses that very question: "There was a documentary several years ago called “The Corporation” that accepted the premise that corporations are persons and then asked what kind of people they are. The answer was, precisely, psychopaths: indifferent to others, incapable of guilt, exclusively devoted to their own interests."

To be sure, he points out that there are ethical corporations ethically managed. But the damage done by the others is considerable.  Even so,"ethics in capitalism is purely optional....Capitalist values are antithetical to Christian ones. (How the loudest Christians in our public life can also be the most bellicose proponents of an unbridled free market is a matter for their own consciences.) Capitalist values are also antithetical to democratic ones. Like Christian ethics, the principles of republican government require us to consider the interests of others. Capitalism, which entails the single-minded pursuit of profit, would have us believe that it’s every man for himself."

Which is why, in the nineteenth century, capitalists in the Age of Gold were so enamoured of Social Darwinism. They were, they contended, the fittest and therefore it was meet and right that they should monopolize the spoils.

Today they worship at the altar of Ayn Rand.

J.P. Morgan: Mistakes Were Made

"Mistakes were made;

I didn't do it;

And if I did;

There's nothin' to it"

Jim Ragan - "For The People"

Mother and Politics

My mother was not vocal on partisan political matters. Even in family circles, she pretty much kept her views to herself.

The only time I remember her speaking out was a week before my eighth birthday in 1945. "You may not yet understand," she said, showing me the newspaper headline, "but I want you to remember that a great man died today." It was the day we learned that Franklin Delano Roosevelt had died.

I never forgot.