Pamlico County Ferry Lobbyist

This morning at a brief 9 o'clock meeting, Pamlico County commissioners voted 4-3 to hire an experienced local lobbyist to undo the Republican legislature's measure establishing tolls on our two commuter ferries. Both ferries are shown in DOT transportation system maps as segments of state highway 306. The tolls, possibly as high as $7 per one-way trip across the Neuse, will be a heavy burden on workers who commute to and from Havelock.

The three commissioners who voted against hiring a lobbyist expressed doubt that the measure will succeed, and frustration that it wasn't attempted by our elected legislators. Commissioner Ollison expressed the view that the tolls are "a done deal."

My view: there is a risk of failure, but the consequences of the tolls on the county's economy are substantial.

In a democracy, there are no permanent "done deals."

Ferry Terminal

Here is a scan from this week's County Compass of the ferry terminal planned for Cherry Point. Cost: who knows? But it's pretty certain to exceed a million dollars. Let's say a million and a half.

Cost of collecting the tolls? About a million dollars.

Annual additional revenue ordered to be collected: three million.

Amount gained by ditching the tolls and leaving the terminal as it is? two and a half million.

Shortfall? Half a million, much of which will be recovered from reducing the ferry schedule.

Anyone still think the toll is about the budget?

Are Corporations People?

Two years ago in its decision in the case of Citizens United, the US Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protects the speech of corporations as thoroughly as it does the speech of individuals. Or as one of this year's presidential candidate explained, "corporations are people."

Now the Court is faced with a slightly different issue: can corporations be sued for actions that violate the civil rights of individuals overseas, including taking part in repression, torture, executions and other civil rights abuses. Corporations argue that only individuals can be so charged. The issues are addressed in today's New York Times.

So, do corporations have the rights of individuals in one case, but are not responsible for corporate acts in another? Here is a more detailed look.

The world wonders.

The Real Science Of Heads In The Sand

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.

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.

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.

Legislative Calendar

For those who are interested, here is a link to the legislative calendar of the North Carolina General Assembly.