On Problems With Opponents

Lord, enlighten thou our enemies. Sharpen their wits, give acuteness to their perceptions, and consecutiveness and clearness to their reasoning powers: we are in danger from their folly, not from their wisdom; their weakness is what fills us with apprehension, not their strength...

John Stuart Mill

Sea Level

It turns out that North Carolina's legislature isn't the only one trying to prevent the sea level from rising by fiat. Virginia's right up there. Saves a lot of money on scientific and engineering studies, designs and construction. Just pass a law. Or better yet, just redact "global warming," "sea level rise," "climate change" and "subsidence" wherever they appear in state documents.

Might be a bit harder to edit the Navy's studies as they grapple with the problem of Norfolk.

Hey, we've got plenty of time to deal with it. Maybe another thirty years.

Pamlico County Budget

The County Commissioners passed a good budget tonight. It was a hard slog under very difficult conditions to work it out, but there was no posturing by any of the commissioners. The vote was unanimous. Well done!

Now to some planning for the future.

Euro Zone Update

Sigh of relief in some quarters. Greek voters support New Democracy Party that supports staying in the Euro Zone.

But ND didn't win a majority of seats and will have to form a coalition. How will they do that? Germany remains unbending, insisting on austerity rather than economic expansion.

My headline: "Germany remains bent on destroying Euro."

Party Matters

Liz and I spent last Saturday representing the Pamlico County Democratic Party at the 2012 State Convention of the North Carolina Democratic Party.

My fellow Oklahoman, Will Rogers, once observed, "I am not a member of an organized political party - I'm a Democrat." Nothing I heard or saw on Saturday contradicted Will's observation. Thank goodness. No marching in lock step.

But we always enjoy going to state party conventions. It is such a pleasure to meet other democrats from elsewhere in the state, share observations and concerns, and to learn once again that we are not alone in our concerns.

Then, of course, there are the speeches. The best speech we heard was by Ohio State Senator Nina Turner. Nina Turner, in case you missed it, is the Ohio legislator who introduced a bill to protect men's sexual health, modeled on legislation purporting to protect the sexual health of women. The bill, before men could receive a prescription for Viagra, would require that physicians take specific actions before prescribing such drugs, including giving a cardiac stress test and making a referral to a sex therapist for confirmation that “the patient’s symptoms are not solely attributable to one or more psychological conditions.”

In her speech Saturday, Senator Turner observed that some elected officials "have lost their ever-lovin' minds." Had she grown up in our part of the country, she might have added: "bless their hearts."

Were there partisan activities going on?

Is the Pope Catholic?

Good time had by all.

Ferry Tax

Once again, republicans in the state legislature have thrown Eastern North Carolina under the bus.

I find it interesting that real estate interests, who banded together to rule against sea level rise, have remained silent about the serious economic damage to the region from the senate's proposed tolls. Who, for example, will want to live in Ocracoke when he learns that it will cost at least $54 to take a ferry round trip every time he needs to go to the court house?

The tolls will reduce the real estate value of every property in Eastern North Carolina.

This wouldn't be happening if Marc Basnight were still in the legislature to defend our interests. Does it appear that the present leadership in the state legislature cares nothing for Eastern North Carolina and those who live and work here? Seems clear to me.

South Avenue: What Do I Really Think?

I have offered suggestions from time to time both on my blog and in private. My goal was to be helpful. I see little evidence that my suggestions have had any influence. So I spent some time this evening reviewing my past posts.

As early as last January 28, I addressed the puzzle of the announcement that the town was "exploring the possibilities of sale or exchange of property in the vicinity of the west end terminus of South Avenue and Avenue A..."

I pointed out that the town owns no property in that vicinity. And that the town can't sell public rights of way. That hasn't changed.

Since January 28th, I have encountered on the internet many legal references reinforcing the principle that a town may not sell or barter a public right of way:

"A City has no power to sell or barter the streets and alleys which it holds in trust for the benefit of the public and cannot vacate a street for the benefit of a purely private interest." - Roney Inv. Co. v. City of Miami Beach (a Florida case).

See also AT&T v. Village of Arlington Heights, 620 N.E.2d 1040, 1044 (Ill. 1993)(“Municipalities do not possess proprietary powers over the public streets [which are] ... held in trust for the use of the public.”). 

The same principle is spelled out by Eugene McQuillin in Law of Municipal Corporations, (3d rev. ed. 1990) at § 30.40 (“[T]he estate of the city in its streets … is essentially public and not private property, and the city in holding it is considered the agent and trustee of the public and not a private owner for profit or emolument. The power to maintain and regulate the use of  the streets is a trust for the benefit of the general public, of which the city cannot divest itself…”);

The contract which the town board approved on May 17 by a 4-1 vote sets forth a barter transaction, in violation of fundamental principles of the law of public streets.

This is not an obscure principle or an arcane technicality. It is fundamental. "...Whatever rights the city may have over its streets, its powers are those of a trustee for the benefit of the cestui que trust (the public), liberally construed for its benefit, strictly construed to its detriment." McQuillen.

One of the most powerful protections of the public interest in rights of way is precisely the prohibition against selling or bartering them. That removes the temptation for the governing body to exchange rights of way held in the public trust for short term fiscal benefit.

To barter our town's most irreplaceable  long-term asset, namely public access to the public trust waters of our harbor, for waterfront real estate held in fee simple, will inevitably tempt future town boards to sell the property to meet short term fiscal needs.

Indeed, one of the present commissioners has expressed the view at a public meeting that the town SHOULD sell some of its rights of way. In response to the concern I have expressed about the current transaction, that there should be some restrictions, preferably a dedication to the public with restrictions that would preclude such a conversion to revenue by a future governing body, this same commissioner asked, "why would we want to tie our hands that way?"

Why? Because our rights of way are held in trust.

Future town boards may not always keep the town's future in mind. We need to help them do so.

There may have been a way to structure an acceptance of Mr. Fulcher's donation of property so that it was not a sale or barter and so that the public's interests were protected by conditions of the gift. There may still be a way.

The contract approved by the town board on May 17 isn't it.

NC Senate Holds Back The Sea

See article here.