A couple of years ago a graduate student telephoned, wanting to interview me. It turns out she was doing research on planning approaches in North Carolina coastal communities concerning anticipated sea level rise.
I had to tell her that in Oriental we had done no planning at all, save for the decisions by individual homeowners to raise their houses to the standards required by Pamlico County.
I wasn't personally worried, since my house hadn't been flooded during Isabel. Wrong! I should have been. The house was flooded by Irene and suffered significant damage. I will now have to raise it about three feet to meet county standards.
But wait. The Science Panel of North Carolina's Coastal Resources Commission has determined that a rise of 1 meter (39 inches) is the most likely scenario by 2100. I can tell you from experience that three inches in a house (difference between 36 inches and 39 inches) can wreak havoc.
There's more. Other states have concluded a sea level rise between 3 and 4 feet is the minimum expectation by 2100. It depends on how much of the Greenland and Antarctic icecaps melt by then.
But not to worry. Our local lobbying organization for 20 coastal counties, in part supported by tax money from Pamlico County, and aided by our appointed representatives to the Coastal Resources Commission, successfully kept the Emergency Management division from reporting on the effect of a one-meter rise.
Justification: "we insist on REAL science." Presumably "real science" consists of waiting until we get seriously flooded and collecting the data. "We don't need no stinkin' analysis." Read all about it in yesterday's News and Observer in an article by a real scientist with no known connection to real estate developers.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Thursday, February 23, 2012
This Is The Way We Starve The Beast - One Bite At A Time
Today's commuter ferry tax story fits in with a theme I wrote about almost exactly a year ago here. This latest move is just more evidence that the ferry issue isn't about budgets. It's about services to citizens.
Commuter Fairy Hijinks
The commuter fairy made two visits this week - last night, when County Compass printed an artist's rendition of the planned new ferry terminal at Cherry Branch and today's announcement by DOT that five ferry runs each way will be cancelled as of March 1.
Town Dock, who broke the story, asked if this move, which complied with state legislative directives to reduce ferry operating costs, would remove pressure to institute tolls. The answer: "no, these are two separate issues."
More evidence that this isn't about budgets. See my earlier analysis here.
Town Dock, who broke the story, asked if this move, which complied with state legislative directives to reduce ferry operating costs, would remove pressure to institute tolls. The answer: "no, these are two separate issues."
More evidence that this isn't about budgets. See my earlier analysis here.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Original Intent
There is a theory of judicial review holding that judges should determine the meaning of the US Constitution on the basis of "original intent."
I always thought that was a bit flaky, especially since the drafters of the constitution kept no official journal of the proceedings. No minutes. No agreement among the participants as to the purpose and intent of each passage. No record of the debates.
So how can we deduce "original intent?"
On a smaller scale, we have had much speculation about why the NC State Legislature decided to insist on tolls for our commuter ferries.
That particular sausage was made behind closed doors, and the reasons were not debated or communicated to the Department of Transportation.
So we are left to guess at the original intent. But some participants have given a few hints. Here are various theories, conjectures and explanations:
1. The legislature was faced with a large deficit and had to do something to reduce it. This is something. Therefore they had to do it.
Comment: a) The legislature didn't do this. Only the Republican members of the General Assembly did it. b) Governor Perdue's budget would have been equally effective at reducing the deficit;
2. The General Assembly wanted to reduce government. Translation: Republicans in the General Assembly wanted to reduce government services to those who need them;
3. The General Assembly had to look in obscure places to find enough money.
Comment: a) Balderdash! It wasn't about money and it wasn't about deficits. That is plain from the provision that ordered the collection of a certain amount of gross revenue, with no possibility of achieving the same budget figure with DOT economies either with ferries or elsewhere. b) The ordered target of five million dollars in revenue is about two-tenths of one percent of the budget deficit.
4. One astute local observer offers the following explanation: It was an effort by the Republican legislature to slap Governor Perdue and her supporters in Eastern North Carolina without damaging the state's relations with the military hierarchy as a cutback in the highway 70 and highway 17 projects would have.
Comment: a) This is plausible. b) It arguably also avoids arousing the big city residents who want enhanced weekend access to the beaches.
I'm sure there are other explanations. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive. When you get 170 legislators working on an appropriations bill, each may have his or her own reasons.
Clearly, the welfare of Pamlico County and her citizens was not among them.
I always thought that was a bit flaky, especially since the drafters of the constitution kept no official journal of the proceedings. No minutes. No agreement among the participants as to the purpose and intent of each passage. No record of the debates.
So how can we deduce "original intent?"
On a smaller scale, we have had much speculation about why the NC State Legislature decided to insist on tolls for our commuter ferries.
That particular sausage was made behind closed doors, and the reasons were not debated or communicated to the Department of Transportation.
So we are left to guess at the original intent. But some participants have given a few hints. Here are various theories, conjectures and explanations:
1. The legislature was faced with a large deficit and had to do something to reduce it. This is something. Therefore they had to do it.
Comment: a) The legislature didn't do this. Only the Republican members of the General Assembly did it. b) Governor Perdue's budget would have been equally effective at reducing the deficit;
2. The General Assembly wanted to reduce government. Translation: Republicans in the General Assembly wanted to reduce government services to those who need them;
3. The General Assembly had to look in obscure places to find enough money.
Comment: a) Balderdash! It wasn't about money and it wasn't about deficits. That is plain from the provision that ordered the collection of a certain amount of gross revenue, with no possibility of achieving the same budget figure with DOT economies either with ferries or elsewhere. b) The ordered target of five million dollars in revenue is about two-tenths of one percent of the budget deficit.
4. One astute local observer offers the following explanation: It was an effort by the Republican legislature to slap Governor Perdue and her supporters in Eastern North Carolina without damaging the state's relations with the military hierarchy as a cutback in the highway 70 and highway 17 projects would have.
Comment: a) This is plausible. b) It arguably also avoids arousing the big city residents who want enhanced weekend access to the beaches.
I'm sure there are other explanations. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive. When you get 170 legislators working on an appropriations bill, each may have his or her own reasons.
Clearly, the welfare of Pamlico County and her citizens was not among them.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Legislative Calendar
For those who are interested, here is a link to the legislative calendar of the North Carolina General Assembly.
New Web Site In The County
The furor over over the legislature's decision to impose a commuter tax on Pamlico County continues to grow. County citizens determined to make sure this is not yet a "done deal" have started a new web site, tollfreeferry.org, with up to date information on the facts and the controversy.
Make sure to check it out.
Sign a petition.
Sign up for a bus trip to Raleigh.
Stay up to date by following towndock.net as well. Check out the letters. They keep coming in.
Just learned from Town Dock that the County Commissioners will reexamine last night's tie votes at a special meeting Monday, February 27 at 9:00 am.
Make sure to check it out.
Sign a petition.
Sign up for a bus trip to Raleigh.
Stay up to date by following towndock.net as well. Check out the letters. They keep coming in.
Just learned from Town Dock that the County Commissioners will reexamine last night's tie votes at a special meeting Monday, February 27 at 9:00 am.
All Politics Is Local - Pamlico County Version
Last night's meeting (Feb. 20) of the Pamlico County Commissioners failed to adopt a measure to join adjoining counties in hiring a lobbyist to work the state legislature for repeal of the Ferry toll. The vote was a tie - three commissioners for (Mele, Heath and Delamar) and three opposed (Spain, Brinson and Ollison). Commissioner Holton was absent for only the third time in the past ten years.
The commission also failed to adopt a motion to allow the County Attorney to expend up to $5,000 to research legal issues connected with a possible law suit, including the issue of whether the county has standing to file such a suit. That motion failed by the same vote.
How could that happen? One reason may be that residents of the three districts represented by Mr. Spain, Mr. Brinson and Mr. Ollison don't believe that they are affected by the tolls. I believe no one from those three districts spoke out against the tolls at last week's public hearings.
Representation in this country has always been based on geography. That is, representatives were supposed to represent the interests of the constituents in their own districts, not necessarily the population at large. This has been true from as early as 1750, when the phrase "no taxation without representation" was first used. The Parliament contended that they provided "virtual representation" to all subjects of the crown, wherever they lived. Americans rejected that view. We still do.
So don't expect members of any elected body to represent the general welfare of the entire municipality, county, state or nation instead of the welfare of the district from which they were elected. It isn't in our genes.
Political Scholar Richard Neustadt made the point decades ago (during the Kennedy administration) that the challenge of alliance diplomacy was to convince enough people and the right people on the other side that what we want to accomplish is what is also in their interest. It seems to me this principle applies to all politics and diplomacy if anything is ever to be accomplished.
The commission also failed to adopt a motion to allow the County Attorney to expend up to $5,000 to research legal issues connected with a possible law suit, including the issue of whether the county has standing to file such a suit. That motion failed by the same vote.
How could that happen? One reason may be that residents of the three districts represented by Mr. Spain, Mr. Brinson and Mr. Ollison don't believe that they are affected by the tolls. I believe no one from those three districts spoke out against the tolls at last week's public hearings.
Representation in this country has always been based on geography. That is, representatives were supposed to represent the interests of the constituents in their own districts, not necessarily the population at large. This has been true from as early as 1750, when the phrase "no taxation without representation" was first used. The Parliament contended that they provided "virtual representation" to all subjects of the crown, wherever they lived. Americans rejected that view. We still do.
So don't expect members of any elected body to represent the general welfare of the entire municipality, county, state or nation instead of the welfare of the district from which they were elected. It isn't in our genes.
Political Scholar Richard Neustadt made the point decades ago (during the Kennedy administration) that the challenge of alliance diplomacy was to convince enough people and the right people on the other side that what we want to accomplish is what is also in their interest. It seems to me this principle applies to all politics and diplomacy if anything is ever to be accomplished.
Monday, February 20, 2012
On Making Various Kinds Of Sausage
Tonight's meeting of the Pamlico County Board of Commissioners offered a number of examples of the hazards of sausage-making. When combined with the revelations made during last week's public hearing on ferry tolls by NCDOT, it provides the raw material for a text book on American Politics at the state, county and local level. There is also a connection to national politics.
I won't tackle the whole thing in tonight's post, but I recommend reading Town Dock's report on How Pamlico County Got Stuck With Ferry Tolls.
The story illustrates themes such as: American theories of representation; the practice of representation; the "all politics is local" view; the tension between "I vote for the candidate, not the party" and actual policy outcomes; and why party matters, more so the higher you go up the political ladder.
I'll try to develop these themes over the next few days.
I won't tackle the whole thing in tonight's post, but I recommend reading Town Dock's report on How Pamlico County Got Stuck With Ferry Tolls.
The story illustrates themes such as: American theories of representation; the practice of representation; the "all politics is local" view; the tension between "I vote for the candidate, not the party" and actual policy outcomes; and why party matters, more so the higher you go up the political ladder.
I'll try to develop these themes over the next few days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
