About five years ago, the Town of Oriental's Board of Commissioners established a Long Range Planning Committee. I suggest that it is time to abolish the LRPC. Or, perhaps rename it the Long Running Planning Committee. Or perhaps the Interminable Planning Committee.
It may be time for the Town Board to declare the LRPC victorious and return all of its functions to the Town's Planning Board, to which they properly belong, anyhow.
It has been two and a half years since the original Long Range Planning Committee (of which I was a member) created its Long Range Vision Statement. The Town Board approved it October 9, 2009. A summary of the vision statement is posted on the wall at Town Board meetings. It is fine, as far as it goes. In fact, it is a good basis for planning, though I think it leaves out a thing or two.
What was supposed to happen next is that the town would work from the Vision statement and prepare a Comprehensive Plan.
North Carolina General Statutes stipulate that the town must have a comprehensive plan, but does not spell out exactly what that is. For at least one statutory purpose, the town's Growth Management Map meets the requirement for a Comprehensive Plan.
The effort for a more elaborate Comprehensive Plan has evolved into a kind of search for the Holy Grail of planning.
More than two years ago, Planning Board member Jim Barton made an excellent start to the preparation of a Comprehensive Plan. That effort fell apart for reasons that have never been entirely clear.
What is clear is that recent efforts of the LRPC II have detracted from planning efforts that need to be undertaken. For example, the Town needs to replace its decades-old Thoroughfare Plan (which is certainly a component of the elusive Comprehensive Plan) with a Comprehensive Transportation Plan. The reason is, that a CTP is necessary should the town seek Department of Transportation funding for bicycle paths, pedestrian pathways, etc. It would be best to task the Planning Board with development of a CTP (in conjunction with the DOT transportation planning department) and get on with it.
I think a long range plan without any specific mention of annexation does not meet the planning needs of the town.
What the town doesn't need the LRPC to do is to keep bringing up certain solutions in search of a problem as, for example, "Conditional Zoning" and "Smart Growth." Neither makes any sense without a plan for growth through annexation.
I'll have more to say about Conditional Zoning in the future.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Monday, March 26, 2012
ALEC Target: Public Schools
ALEC doesn't like public schools. "The mission of ALEC’s Education Task Force," their web site proclaims, "is to promote excellence in
the nation’s educational system, to advance reforms through parental
choice, to support efficiency, accountability, and transparency in all
educational institutions, and to ensure America’s youth are given the
opportunity to succeed." Of course, their principal target is public school teachers and their unions.
Speaking of transparency, last year I was able to view the titles of ALEC-sponsored legislation drafted to achieve conservative goals in state legislatures. It was pretty easy to see, for example, which of the many bills pushed through North Carolina's legislature by the new Republican majority had originated in ALEC, because they used the same title. "Faithful Presidential Electors," for example, absorbed a lot of legislative attention. When was the last time you heard of a presidential elector not voting for the presidential candidate to whom he was pledged? It's pretty rare.
Anyhow, a lot of Alec's bills deal with public schools and particular the charter movement. After all, "our schools are failing and we have to do something." Today I wasn't able to find ALEC's list of bills.
Fortunately, the Center For Media And Democracy has established a web site to expose ALEC's legislative agenda: http://www.alecexposed.org
The site provides a road map to ALEC's agenda. It verifies, for example that voter ID laws came right out of ALEC's game plan. As did Wisconsin's anti labor provisions, its assault on public workers, and the rest of Governor Walker's radical agenda.
A lot of this session's bills in the North Carolina legislature likewise had nothing to do with the concerns of North Carolinians - and a lot to do with the concerns of ALEC's corporate sponsors.
Speaking of transparency, last year I was able to view the titles of ALEC-sponsored legislation drafted to achieve conservative goals in state legislatures. It was pretty easy to see, for example, which of the many bills pushed through North Carolina's legislature by the new Republican majority had originated in ALEC, because they used the same title. "Faithful Presidential Electors," for example, absorbed a lot of legislative attention. When was the last time you heard of a presidential elector not voting for the presidential candidate to whom he was pledged? It's pretty rare.
Anyhow, a lot of Alec's bills deal with public schools and particular the charter movement. After all, "our schools are failing and we have to do something." Today I wasn't able to find ALEC's list of bills.
Fortunately, the Center For Media And Democracy has established a web site to expose ALEC's legislative agenda: http://www.alecexposed.org
The site provides a road map to ALEC's agenda. It verifies, for example that voter ID laws came right out of ALEC's game plan. As did Wisconsin's anti labor provisions, its assault on public workers, and the rest of Governor Walker's radical agenda.
A lot of this session's bills in the North Carolina legislature likewise had nothing to do with the concerns of North Carolinians - and a lot to do with the concerns of ALEC's corporate sponsors.
National Lobbyists At NC Legislature
I have mentioned the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). This innocuous-sounding organization is working assiduously to transform our form of government through changes to state laws.
It turns out that ALEC actually drafted Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law that has become so notorious in the wake of the Trayvon Martin killing.
NY Time columnist Paul Krugman informs us in today's blog, Lobbyists, Guns and Money, how such things happen.
Has he been reading my blog? Probably not, but regular readers will recall that I called attention nearly a year ago to ALEC's influence on the newly-elected North Carolina state legislature here and here and here.
Apparently this legislature is interested mostly in serving their constituents at ALEC's headquarters instead of in their own districts.
It turns out that ALEC actually drafted Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law that has become so notorious in the wake of the Trayvon Martin killing.
NY Time columnist Paul Krugman informs us in today's blog, Lobbyists, Guns and Money, how such things happen.
Has he been reading my blog? Probably not, but regular readers will recall that I called attention nearly a year ago to ALEC's influence on the newly-elected North Carolina state legislature here and here and here.
Apparently this legislature is interested mostly in serving their constituents at ALEC's headquarters instead of in their own districts.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Doolittle Update - 70 Years Ago
In February, 1942, the US Army Air Corps ferried two dozen B-25 medium bombers to a factory in Minneapolis to be modified for a very secret and hazardous mission. Everyone from the squadrons wanted to go, but only 24 crews were picked. The 24 crews selected picked up the modified bombers in Minneapolis and flew them to Eglin Field, Florida,
beginning 1 March 1942.
They went through three weeks of intensive training in simulated carrier deck takeoffs, low-level and night flying, low-altitude bombing and over-water navigation. Lieutenant Henry Miller, USN, from nearby Naval Air Station Pensacola supervised their takeoff training. and accompanied the crews to the launch. One aircraft was heavily damaged in a takeoff accident and another scratched from the mission because of a nose wheel shimmy.
On 25 March 1942, 70 years ago today, the remaining 22 mission-ready B-25s took off from Eglin for McClellan Field, California. Two days later, they touched down at Sacramento Air Depot for final modifications.
The North American B-25 Mitchell (named in honor of Air Power pioneer, Army General Billy Mitchell) was an untried aircraft. None had ever flown in combat. A total of 16 B-25s flew to Naval Air Station Alameda, California, on March 31.
The aircraft would push their design capabilities to the limit:
First Flight August 19, 1940
Number Built: 119 (actually it was supposed to be 120, but one crashed before delivery to the US Army Air Forces)
Powerplant(s): Wright cyclone R-2600-9 14 cylinders each
Weight (empty) 20,000 pounds
Maximum Horsepower (per engine) 1,700
1,350 HP at 13,000 feet
Maximum Speed 322 mph
300 Miles per Hour at 15,000 feet
Initial Rate of Climb 1,704 feet per minute
Ceiling 23,500 feet
Maximum Range 1,300 miles (with 694 gallons of fuel and a 3,000-pound bomb load)
[These planes had been modified, increasing fuel to 1,141 gallons and a 2,000-pound bomb load]
Gross Take-off Weight 26,208 pounds
Maximum Take-off Weight 28,460 pounds
Span 67 feet 7 inches
Wing Area 610 square feet
Length 52 feet 11 inches (without broomsticks :-) )
Height 15 feet 9 inches
Normal Bomb load 2,400 pounds
Various combinations of bombs could be carried. Total weight depended on amount of fuel carried and other variables
Normal range 2,000 miles
Crew: 5
They went through three weeks of intensive training in simulated carrier deck takeoffs, low-level and night flying, low-altitude bombing and over-water navigation. Lieutenant Henry Miller, USN, from nearby Naval Air Station Pensacola supervised their takeoff training. and accompanied the crews to the launch. One aircraft was heavily damaged in a takeoff accident and another scratched from the mission because of a nose wheel shimmy.
On 25 March 1942, 70 years ago today, the remaining 22 mission-ready B-25s took off from Eglin for McClellan Field, California. Two days later, they touched down at Sacramento Air Depot for final modifications.
The North American B-25 Mitchell (named in honor of Air Power pioneer, Army General Billy Mitchell) was an untried aircraft. None had ever flown in combat. A total of 16 B-25s flew to Naval Air Station Alameda, California, on March 31.
The aircraft would push their design capabilities to the limit:
B-25B Specifications and Data:
Manufacturer: North American AviationFirst Flight August 19, 1940
Number Built: 119 (actually it was supposed to be 120, but one crashed before delivery to the US Army Air Forces)
Powerplant(s): Wright cyclone R-2600-9 14 cylinders each
Weight (empty) 20,000 pounds
Maximum Horsepower (per engine) 1,700
1,350 HP at 13,000 feet
Maximum Speed 322 mph
300 Miles per Hour at 15,000 feet
Initial Rate of Climb 1,704 feet per minute
Ceiling 23,500 feet
Maximum Range 1,300 miles (with 694 gallons of fuel and a 3,000-pound bomb load)
[These planes had been modified, increasing fuel to 1,141 gallons and a 2,000-pound bomb load]
Gross Take-off Weight 26,208 pounds
Maximum Take-off Weight 28,460 pounds
Span 67 feet 7 inches
Wing Area 610 square feet
Length 52 feet 11 inches (without broomsticks :-) )
Height 15 feet 9 inches
Normal Bomb load 2,400 pounds
Various combinations of bombs could be carried. Total weight depended on amount of fuel carried and other variables
Normal range 2,000 miles
Crew: 5
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Foreseeable Consequences Of Bad Law
A couple of days ago, I called Florida's "stand your ground" law a "lynch law" and took issue with the idea that Florida's legislators couldn't have foreseen such events as the killing of Trayvon Martin.
Now we have explicit confirmation from the then Chief of Police in Miami that he and other police chiefs in Florida opposed the law and explained the reasons to the legislature. "Trying to control shootings by members of a well-trained and disciplined police department," former Chief John Timoney explains, "is a daunting enough task. Laws like “stand your ground” give citizens unfettered power and discretion with no accountability. It is a recipe for disaster"
I don't believe my characterization of the law as "lynch law" is inaccurate. You don't have to have a mob to have a lynching. What you do need is one or more citizens who decide to take the law into their own hands. It seems I wasn't the only person to make the connection between "stand your ground" and lynching. Here are some cartoons that make the point better than I did.
This law gives victims no protection, either through criminal or civil law. It needs to be revoked. In the meantime, why would any tourist visit Florida and risk an encounter with an armed person?
I wonder if the State of Florida even has the power under its own constitution or the US Constitution to deprive injured citizens from the ability to seek redress in the courts.
Now we have explicit confirmation from the then Chief of Police in Miami that he and other police chiefs in Florida opposed the law and explained the reasons to the legislature. "Trying to control shootings by members of a well-trained and disciplined police department," former Chief John Timoney explains, "is a daunting enough task. Laws like “stand your ground” give citizens unfettered power and discretion with no accountability. It is a recipe for disaster"
I don't believe my characterization of the law as "lynch law" is inaccurate. You don't have to have a mob to have a lynching. What you do need is one or more citizens who decide to take the law into their own hands. It seems I wasn't the only person to make the connection between "stand your ground" and lynching. Here are some cartoons that make the point better than I did.
This law gives victims no protection, either through criminal or civil law. It needs to be revoked. In the meantime, why would any tourist visit Florida and risk an encounter with an armed person?
I wonder if the State of Florida even has the power under its own constitution or the US Constitution to deprive injured citizens from the ability to seek redress in the courts.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Are Liberals And Conservatives Different Species?
In 1960, F.A. Hayek, one of present-day conservatives' favorite economists, published an essay entitled "Why I Am Not A Conservative." Bottom line: conservatives fear change and welcome authority; liberals are open to change and oppose coercion.
Hayek seems to be on to something deeply embedded in the character of conservatives and liberals. Recent research seems to show that young children who are easily startled usually grow up to be conservative. In fact, both fear and revulsion seem to feed into what I think it is fair to call the conservative syndrome. Two years ago, Nicholas Kristoff called attention to research tending to show that the roots of political judgment may lie in the way our brains are wired.
"Researchers have found, for example," Kristoff reports, "that some humans are particularly alert to threats, particularly primed to feel vulnerable and perceive danger. Those people are more likely to be conservatives." Here is a link to research by professors Smith, Oxley, Hibbing and Alford. More recent research seems to indicate that attitudes toward moral issues are likewise built in to our personalities. A recent book by Professor Haidt of the University of Virginia lends further weight to such research.
I admit I have always thought that when Republicans and other conservatives tell us we should be afraid of something, they are cynically preying on people's irrational fears. Maybe I've been wrong. Maybe they are genuinely afraid and think everyone else must be, too. Domination by fraidy-cats.
Hayek seems to be on to something deeply embedded in the character of conservatives and liberals. Recent research seems to show that young children who are easily startled usually grow up to be conservative. In fact, both fear and revulsion seem to feed into what I think it is fair to call the conservative syndrome. Two years ago, Nicholas Kristoff called attention to research tending to show that the roots of political judgment may lie in the way our brains are wired.
"Researchers have found, for example," Kristoff reports, "that some humans are particularly alert to threats, particularly primed to feel vulnerable and perceive danger. Those people are more likely to be conservatives." Here is a link to research by professors Smith, Oxley, Hibbing and Alford. More recent research seems to indicate that attitudes toward moral issues are likewise built in to our personalities. A recent book by Professor Haidt of the University of Virginia lends further weight to such research.
I admit I have always thought that when Republicans and other conservatives tell us we should be afraid of something, they are cynically preying on people's irrational fears. Maybe I've been wrong. Maybe they are genuinely afraid and think everyone else must be, too. Domination by fraidy-cats.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Elections Matter
Elections are a necessary condition for a thriving democracy. But elections aren't enough. Democracy needs citizen involvement.
Our ongoing controversy over ferry tolls illustrates that elections matter.
We are beginning this year's election season. Nationally, the focus is on the election of a president. That is clearly important. But let's not let the election of a president suck all of the political oxygen out of the air. Local and state elections are where the rubber meets the road. Or tolls the ferry, as the case may be.
This is also an Olympic year.
Just keep in mind that if politics were an Olympic event, it would be a team sport, not an individual event.
Our ongoing controversy over ferry tolls illustrates that elections matter.
We are beginning this year's election season. Nationally, the focus is on the election of a president. That is clearly important. But let's not let the election of a president suck all of the political oxygen out of the air. Local and state elections are where the rubber meets the road. Or tolls the ferry, as the case may be.
This is also an Olympic year.
Just keep in mind that if politics were an Olympic event, it would be a team sport, not an individual event.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Modern Republican Economics
Bruce Bartlett, senior policy advisor in the Reagan and Bush I administrations and staffer for Jack Kemp and Ron Paul, describes the origin of modern Republican fiscal policy in the Economix section of today's New York Times.
Bartlett makes it pretty clear what former Vice President Dick Cheney meant when he said "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." That comment didn't refer to the economic effect of deficits, but the political effect. Bartlett's article provides detailed background to the "two Santa's" theory of Republican politics.
Irving Kristol, who was well-connected in Republican circles, immediately embraced the "two Santas" idea - that the GOP needed to be the "tax-cut" Santa. "I was not certain of its economic merits," he later confessed, "but quickly saw its political possibilities."
Bartlett's article doesn't address the related "starve the beast" policy. I look forward to future revelations on that score.
Bartlett makes it pretty clear what former Vice President Dick Cheney meant when he said "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." That comment didn't refer to the economic effect of deficits, but the political effect. Bartlett's article provides detailed background to the "two Santa's" theory of Republican politics.
Irving Kristol, who was well-connected in Republican circles, immediately embraced the "two Santas" idea - that the GOP needed to be the "tax-cut" Santa. "I was not certain of its economic merits," he later confessed, "but quickly saw its political possibilities."
Bartlett's article doesn't address the related "starve the beast" policy. I look forward to future revelations on that score.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
