Useful Graphs

[dhyatt]

For candidates in this Fall's elections, the following four graphs, pulled directly from the Town's budget documents, should be useful...

http://carypolitics.org/images/graph1.jpg

http://carypolitics.org/images/graph2.jpg

http://carypolitics.org/images/graph3.jpg

http://carypolitics.org/images/graph4.jpg

[Cathy]

LOOK at what The Reign of Mayor Lang DID !!
When I started researching what is going on in Cary, I read through years of TOC meeting minutes starting in the late 90's.
Glenn Lang said more than once that he felt the Town wasn't "leveraging enough debt"!!
He certainly changed that!

http://carypolitics.org/images/graph3.jpg

And if it where not for the dogged upstream efforts of Mike Joyce pounding home some fiscal logic and constraint, (with the help of the Citizens Budget Review), that black stripe on the graph would have disappeared years ago. The graph would have needed another color for the deficit spending catagory.

I would bet that the budgetary battles against illogical fiscal incontinence had as much to do with his departure as the nonprofit funding decisions.
Expansion of the tax base to cover the borrowing/spending spree WILL continue for years to come!! Either that or the existing citizens will be forced to pay the real price for all those "nice to have" so-called "amenities".
The current push for new taxes on growth is just a tactic to delay the day of reckoning for spending decisions made by the community years ago.
Taxing "the man behind the tree" (http://www.svb.com/media/iso/iso041204.html) is the order of the day.

Cathy

[JoeCiulla]

4 more years of Ernie and there won't be a tree left to hide behind.

[d4vendel]

While not blameless when looking at the factors show in these graphs, Ernie's is but ONE vote out of seven.

How many development projects have you seen come down to Ernie being the tie-breaker? I think there are six other people at the table you need to be looking at.

[johnb]

Stop it Dave.

Ernie McAlister hates trees. He's a Rabid, Reactionary, Rightwing, Rethuglican, NeoCon who hates babies, women, sunshine and puppies. It's his life's mission to make the world tree free. Since he has amazing mind control abilities he is able to get the 6 nitwits on the council to vote to clear cut large swaths of land regularly. He also manages to convince large numbers of land owners that their property would be worth more if were denuded of all vegatation and flooded by the morning dew. We are controlled by Ernie because, well, I didn't want to have break the Code, but, he's the Prince of Darkness. That's right Beelzebub. Everything is his fault.

Frankly, I'm mad as hell that Marla Dorrel has done such a lousy job of representing her/my District that we've got a massive Mosque being built over the remains of the headwaters for Swift Creek. The Mosque owners will clear cut almost ten acres of land, pave over the headwaters for the creek, and Marla will say and do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to protect the property owners around that site from the flooding that is coming their way.

Thanks Marla! Now go away.

Funny, how she made sure District A had tens of millions for open space preservation and stream protection but her own district got NOT A DAMNED THING.

I expect my district councilor to know what is going on in her district. Not Marla! District D has no advocate on the Council now while District A has at least two. It's gotta be Ernie's fault again.

[Brent]

Cathy, apparently you need to look more closely at the years on the graph and who the mayor was during those years.

David, did those other 6 people get elected on scare tactics about Cary's debt and operating margin? Ernie used those graphs to tell people how horrible our financial situation was. Well, if it was horrible then, it's dire now, because debt has continued to rise and the town's savings account has been bled dry.

Yes, it takes at least 4 votes for that to happen.

But Ernie promised he'd "fix" this, and he's made it worse. And Ernie's been at the helm the last 4 years, not Glen Lang.

[Brent]

I expect my district councilor to know what is going on in her district. Not Marla! District D has no advocate on the Council now while District A has at least two. It's gotta be Ernie's fault again.

The mayor should represent all people in all districts.

Let us know when and how Ernie steps up and solves your problem.

[Wuptdo]

And don't forget what happened when after GWB took office. Tax cuts for working Americans and major drop in interest rates. So during Lang's time in office, when interest rates were low, it made sense to borrow for capital projects. We also had a APF in place, and if I recall, even a little "water" problem.

The past is the past, and hopefully, we will learn from our mistakes, and move on. However, what I might consider a "mistake" is actually the current policy of Mayor Ernie & Company. All we can hope for is that a majority of Cary voters will realize this and vote for a complete regime change.

The "pillage & plunder" of our city only benefits a few, while the rest of us suffer.

"Ernie lied,
Good Trees died!"

Wuptdo B-)

[johnb]

The mayor should represent all people in all districts.

True, but at this point I'd be happy if District D had a Councilor that actually represented the voters of District D. We don't have that. District A has at least two District Councilors if not three.

[Brent]

Frankly, I'm mad as hell that Marla Dorrel has done such a lousy job of representing her/my District that we've got a massive Mosque being built over the remains of the headwaters for Swift Creek. The Mosque owners will clear cut almost ten acres of land, pave over the headwaters for the creek, and Marla will say and do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to protect the property owners around that site from the flooding that is coming their way.

John, I read this and saw your "Public Speaks Out" at last night's council meeting on the same topic.

I agree with you -- this is deplorable and surrounding property owners deserve protection.

But what about the advice you've given to so many others, so many other times, to wit:

If you don't like what they're doing, buy the property!

[johnb]

Brent,

This falls into another heading and here is why: The city is about to destroy 8 homes. You and I will be buying those homes once that low lying land is timbered, paved, and built. Currently, they don't flood. The city is about to change that equation by issuing a building permit for land that contains the headwaters to Swift Creek.

If this was a matter of aesthetics, you are correct, I would have to buy it. It is not a matter of aesthetics, it is a situation where the city is about to create another Urban Park: ie, the resident's better buy kayaks and fast.

This lot makes Cary's stream buffer ordinance a damned sick joke. How can anyone suggest that the city enforce a stream buffer requirement on developers when this property owner is going to have to obliterate and pave over Swift Creek in order to build?

I've spoken to a storm water engineer about this piece of land, one that does not work for the city of Cary. He's walked the perimeter and gone over the GIS maps. He's stunned, even I, with only minor course work in college geology, can see that this is a horrible idea.

A property owner has every right to do with his property as he may, except that he doesn't have a right to destroy his neighbors property in the process.

As I said at the council meeting, if I backed a water truck up to these homes and pumped a few thousand gallons of water into their living rooms I'd be arrested. The city is about to enable one land owner to flood up to 8 homes out. Yet no one is accountable.

[Brent]

John,

I agree that this proposal is a horrible idea.

However, I don't think that you can draw the line at aesthetics. The folks at Davis and High House, and many, many, many other places in Cary, although perhaps not having their homes physically destroyes, have had pieces of their lives impacted in numerous ways (stormwater, air quality, traffic, noise, the list goes on and on).

Developing something such that neighbors will be flooded out is terrible.

Developing something such that neighbors will be significantly adversely impacted in other ways can also be terrible.

Hence the fallacy of absolutes such as "the propertye owner can do whatever he/she wants with his/her property" and "If you don't like it, buy the property". Such things are simplistic and inaccurate.

Balance is always required. Not only in this one case (not by any stretch of the imagination).

[johnb]

I don't know if I agree with that sentiment Brent. My stand is predicated on real damages. If the owner of South Hill wants an ugly freaking pole sign in front of his mall I am not bothered by that and really don't see that I have some magical right to compel him to pull it down.

If my neighbor wants awnings with that silhouette of a pole dancer seen on truckers mud flaps: hate to say it but sobeit, it's not my place to tell him no if he's paying the mortgage.

I draw a pretty hard line between offending ones aesthetic senses and flooding ones living room.

[Brent]

I don't know if I agree with that sentiment Brent. My stand is predicated on real damages. If the owner of South Hill wants an ugly freaking pole sign in front of his mall I am not bothered by that and really don't see that I have some magical right to compel him to pull it down.

I agree.


If my neighbor wants awnings with that silhouette of a pole dancer seen on truckers mud flaps: hate to say it but sobeit, it's not my place to tell him no if he's paying the mortgage.

I agree.


I draw a pretty hard line between offending ones aesthetic senses and flooding ones living room.

I agree. But my point is that actual damages aren't limited just to flooding. What if your neighbor wants to put in an iron smelter? That could damage your health.

What if traffic prevents effective emergency response?

What if air quality causes health problems?

What if noise pervades your life and you can't make full use of your home?

I guess the point is, where do you draw the line for "damages" or when one person's rights invade another person's rights?

That's why I object to absolutes such as "the owner can do anything she likes with her property" and "If you don't like it, buy the property".

[DarylB]

I don't know if I agree with that sentiment Brent. My stand is predicated on real damages. If the owner of South Hill wants an ugly freaking pole sign in front of his mall I am not bothered by that and really don't see that I have some magical right to compel him to pull it down.

I agree.


If my neighbor wants awnings with that silhouette of a pole dancer seen on truckers mud flaps: hate to say it but sobeit, it's not my place to tell him no if he's paying the mortgage.

I agree.


I draw a pretty hard line between offending ones aesthetic senses and flooding ones living room.

I agree. But my point is that actual damages aren't limited just to flooding. What if your neighbor wants to put in an iron smelter? That could damage your health.

What if traffic prevents effective emergency response?

What if air quality causes health problems?

What if noise pervades your life and you can't make full use of your home?

I guess the point is, where do you draw the line for "damages" or when one person's rights invade another person's rights?

That's why I object to absolutes such as "the owner can do anything she likes with her property" and "If you don't like it, buy the property".


What if your neighbor wants to install an EQ plant? I'll be the first one to say, loudly, that the best government is the smallest government, but that smallest government's most basic function is to, among other things, protect the public, be that from fires or floods, or to zone that EQ plant in something not resembling a neighborhood.

Government must also be a non-intrusive force, allowing people to live lives free of government coercion.

In short, what we need are a very few people in government, equipped with exceptional skills in judgement, and embued with humility. And it's quite obvious, nobody in 2007 with those qualities would be caught dead within a mile of a government position. Such is the state of government, and the union. Which leads us directly back to the very reason government must be kept to its smallest, least harmful self.