South Avenue: Heart Of The Matter

Last night I received an e-mail from Mayor Bill Sage responding to earlier e-mails from me. What I learned from his e-mail is that he and the commissioners seem bound and determined to be able to sell the parcel the Municipal Corporation will receive from Chris Fulcher in exchange for the public rights of way the town holds in trust for the public.

The mayor's mantra: "Don't tie our hands."

My mantra: "Don't violate your trust."

Here is the heart of my letter in response to the mayor:

"Bill:

"Thank you for your reply. I am pleased the Town is in contact with David Lawrence, and I look forward to reading the written exchange with him. I am interested in his response to your questions and any citations he provided. I would also appreciate copies of any correspondence with other professors contacted at the School of Government, and with the Legal Services Department of the North Carolina Department of Justice....

"Please bear in mind I am neither opposing nor defending the Wisdom of the transaction. I am questioning the Rightness of the contract.

"Each Town Board must make decisions concerning the Public streets based solely on the long-term traffic use interests of the Public.  In this case, the long-term interest that matters most to me is public access to public trust waters. You and the Board clearly intend to close the South Avenue Right of Way which you hold in trust for the public and to replace it with a private asset not held in trust, but free to be sold by the municipal corporation at any time. I conclude from your e-mail that this is not just an unintentional result, but has been central to your deliberations. That violates the responsibility of the trustee. That is wrong.

David Cox"

Here is the heart of Mayor Sage's e-mail to me:

"David,

 

"Thank you for your letter and materials concerning the South Avenue transaction.  I am sorry that you feel compelled to oppose a transaction that I believe will benefit the town and its citizens and visitors immensely.  You are correct that process is important and the town attorney has consulted at great length with several of the professors (and retired Professor David Lawrence) at the UNC School of Government.  All agree that the end result under the contract is legally achievable, but they disagree on the best procedure to follow to get there.....

"You now seem to be taking the position that this board has a duty to “tie the hands” of all future boards, no matter the circumstances.  Will a town board 50 years hence be thanking us for “tying their hands”  if the circumstances then facing them (which we cannot possibly foresee) make it imperative that the property be closed as public access to Raccoon Creek.  Should it then revert to the Fulcher heirs because we didn’t trust future boards to be as sensitive to the public good as we are?....

"We cannot judge from this vantage point the circumstances they may face in making those decisions in the future.  I know there is often a strong urge to “carve things in stone,” but I truly believe that most of the time the urge should be resisted for the good of all.

 

"I have long been impressed by your thoroughness and seriousness of thought.  I simply and respectfully disagree on this matter.  Thanks again for your input.

 

"Bill Sage

  

  My original e-mail:

"From: David Cox
To: bob maxbauer ; Bill Sage ; Warren Johnson ; cechele@yahoo.com; barbara venturi ; larsum@aol.com
Cc: letters@towndock.net; Maureen Donald < editor@pamliconews.com >; Charlie Hall < chall@freedomenc.com >
Sent: Sat, June 30, 2012 11:27:55 AM
Subject: contract between town of oriental and chris fulcher

Some of you know I have been uneasy with certain aspects of the contract between the town of oriental and Chris Fulcher. I have been especially uneasy over what appears to be a sale of town rights of way, contrary to the law of streets. I am also concerned that acquisition of waterfront property under the contract provides no protection to the public interest comparable to the status of a right of way.

"I intend to speak on the subject at Tuesday's public hearing.

"In the meantime I wish to share my thoughts and some relevant information with you in advance of the meeting. I will deliver a hard copy to Town Hall Monday morning.

"Many years ago when Ben Hollowell was town attorney and the issue of South Avenue arose, he consulted with David Lawrence of the school of government and received Professor Lawrence's views in writing. Those views remain a matter of record at Town Hall. Likewise, Mr. Hollowell contacted the attorney general concerning some legal aspects of a right of way leading to the water. The attorney general responded with an advisory opinion, which is also on record at Town Hall.

"I strongly recommend the town board table consideration of the contract and intended street closures pending written consultation both with the School of Government and with the North Carolina Attorney General.

David Cox"

 

Second Primary: One Stop

As of noon today, nineteen voters have voted at our one-stop site in Bayboro for the North Carolina Second Primary (runoff) election.

South Avenue: Don't Sell Our Streets

If you want to understand the legal issues surrounding the proposed closing of South Avenue, here is a thoughtful though detailed discussion of the issues.

South Avenue: New Stuff

Today at 3:15 the Town of Oriental published a set of significant amendments to the contract with Chris Fulcher. The public hearing is tomorrow night at 7:00. Not good.

Show Me Your Papers?

I'm a bit bemused by some of the rhetoric about the Affordable Care Act. A member of my family links to some of it on his Facebook page. "Today marks a sad day in the history of America. With the Supreme Court's decision, Americans have lost the right to be left alone..." one of the links announces. As opposed to when? I wonder. As opposed to 1792 under the Militia Act? As opposed to the Alien and Sedition Acts? As opposed to the Civil War draft, both North and South? As opposed to being required to register for the draft and with the Social Security Administration?

A big question in all this is whether government is to be effective or not. The "Real ID" Act is what computer programmers call a "kludge." That is, a clumsy work around.

There is a way to provide a national ID card, used for all purposes. If effected, it would provide useful tools for keeping track of immigrants, tourists arriving on tourist visa, students on student visas, and all the other ways Foreign citizens arrive here. Every advanced European country has such a system. It can even be used to show eligibility to vote. It would sort out domicile for purposes of state taxes, child custody, eligibility to run for office, license plates, replace draft registration (except for the draft physical) and keep track of where potential draftees live, etc.

Good article on the concept by Bill Keller in today's New York Times. If we were really serious about immigration, voting, driver's licensing, etc. We might institute such a system.

But the present mish-mash serves many purposes. Among others, "libertarians" and other brands of conservatives want the government out of their business but into everyone else's.

It reminds me of Mississippi's former tax on illegally sold beverages. Baptists and others of their ilk could point with pride to statewide prohibition of distilled beverages. Those who sold such beverages paid the state tax and bought federal liquor licenses. Both of those entities were happy. The State Tax Collector collected the tax but was prevented by law from blowing the whistle on those who paid the tax. It was no more illegal to sell to high school and college students than to anyone else. Sheriffs had to get their share of the take under the table, but they were used to that. They might schedule a show raid near election time. Just a cost of doing business.

Something like that is going on with foreigners. If we kept effective track of everyone, what would the "view with alarm" crowd do?

Boat Names

Who would name a boat Yoknapatawpha? And why? A good brief essay on boat naming, history and literature explains.

Poem For The General Assemby

I think that I shall never see,
A billboard lovely as a tree.

South Avenue: Just DO Right

For the past six months I have hoped the Oriental Town Board would just DO right. No luck so far.

It's not right to sell or barter a right of way, which the town doesn't own - it holds it in trust for the public. Once dedicated and accepted, a right of way is forever.

It's not right to obtain waterfront property to improve public access to the water and not protect it with deed restrictions, conservancy or some other method (example: Lou-Mac Park) to remove temptation from future town boards to sell it.

It's not right for a town board, faced with a contract of dubious legality (towns can't sell or barter streets - contract looks like a sale) without seeking written advisory opinion from experts, such as School of Government and Attorney General.

If, for the sake of argument, the Attorney General advises that the contract is legal, it's still not right not to follow scrupulously the provisions of North Carolina General Statutes (Section 160A, Article 12 - Sale and Disposition of Property). Waving arms and repeating "the right of way is worth NOTHING" doesn't hack it.

It's not right to sell or barter a public trust for purely private interests.

It's not right not to tie the town's hands. Hard as it may be to grasp, ownership of property by the Town is a private interest - the Town is a proprietor like any other concerning real estate parcels, but is only a trustee of streets and other dedicated public amenities. Town ownership doesn't make a lot a public interest. That's why citizens sometimes need to insist that town-owned property intended for public use have that use protected by deed restrictions or otherwise.

It's not right to focus on the outcome of a transaction and pay no attention to process. It is right process that makes a transaction legal, transparent and in the long-term public interest.

It's not too late to make it right.