Stan & taxes mailer

[Laurie]

See the mailer from the NC Homeowners Alliance all about how Stan wants to raise your taxes? One of the sources cited is CaryPolitics.org. And it also gives out his phone number and address.

[chaboard]

See the mailer from the NC Homeowners Alliance all about how Stan wants to raise your taxes? One of the sources cited is CaryPolitics.org. And it also gives out his phone number and address.

They're doing some pretty nasty and distorted robocalls too.

[Brent]

See the mailer from the NC Homeowners Alliance all about how Stan wants to raise your taxes? One of the sources cited is CaryPolitics.org. And it also gives out his phone number and address.

This seems to be the new fad this election season whenever an ad/mailer/whatever is done by an third-party (non-candidate's campaign) group: "Call <insert candidate name here> and tell him/her that you [do | do not] want him/her to [insert theme of the ad here]". e.g., call Stan and tell him you don't want hiim to raise your taxes; call Bev and tell her this; call Pat and tell him that...

What's up with that?

[dhyatt]

See the mailer from the NC Homeowners Alliance all about how Stan wants to raise your taxes? One of the sources cited is CaryPolitics.org. And it also gives out his phone number and address.

Any chance I can get a scan of that for the archives? I think it's the first time CP has been quoted on a campaign ad.

[chaboard]

See the mailer from the NC Homeowners Alliance all about how Stan wants to raise your taxes? One of the sources cited is CaryPolitics.org. And it also gives out his phone number and address.

Any chance I can get a scan of that for the archives? I think it's the first time CP has been quoted on a campaign ad.

You can have the original that came to my house today if you want it...

[dhyatt]

See the mailer from the NC Homeowners Alliance all about how Stan wants to raise your taxes? One of the sources cited is CaryPolitics.org. And it also gives out his phone number and address.

Any chance I can get a scan of that for the archives? I think it's the first time CP has been quoted on a campaign ad.

You can have the original that came to my house today if you want it...

I accept :-) Can I just stop my and pick it up or would you prefer to mail it?

[JoeCiulla]

See the mailer from the NC Homeowners Alliance all about how Stan wants to raise your taxes? One of the sources cited is CaryPolitics.org. And it also gives out his phone number and address.

This seems to be the new fad this election season whenever an ad/mailer/whatever is done by an third-party (non-candidate's campaign) group: "Call <insert candidate name here> and tell him/her that you [do | do not] want him/her to [insert theme of the ad here]". e.g., call Stan and tell him you don't want hiim to raise your taxes; call Bev and tell her this; call Pat and tell him that...

What's up with that?

Stan,
Out of curiousity, have you gotten any calls?

[Laurie]

The anit-homeowners alliance http://stopthenchometicks.blogspot.com/ has reviewed the mailer on Stan and taxes http://stopthenchometicks.blogspot.com/2008/10/nc-realtors-lie-about-norwalk-in-mailer.html

They say that the NC Realtors are wrong on 2 out of 4 of their facts and misleading on one. They say that the one the mailer got right is that Stan supports the transfer tax.

They also point out that the realtors support a one cent salex tax, higher than the 1/2 cent sales tax they claim Stan supports.

[StanN]

See the mailer from the NC Homeowners Alliance all about how Stan wants to raise your taxes? One of the sources cited is CaryPolitics.org. And it also gives out his phone number and address.

This seems to be the new fad this election season whenever an ad/mailer/whatever is done by an third-party (non-candidate's campaign) group: "Call <insert candidate name here> and tell him/her that you [do | do not] want him/her to [insert theme of the ad here]". e.g., call Stan and tell him you don't want hiim to raise your taxes; call Bev and tell her this; call Pat and tell him that...

What's up with that?

Stan,
Out of curiousity, have you gotten any calls?

About 15-20. Mostly thanking me for running and enduring these attacks. Many are suspicious. Some think it is an insurance scam. After I tell them what is really going on, the feed back from 95% is positive. Its a great opportunity to talk to voters.

[chaboard]

See the mailer from the NC Homeowners Alliance all about how Stan wants to raise your taxes? One of the sources cited is CaryPolitics.org. And it also gives out his phone number and address.

Any chance I can get a scan of that for the archives? I think it's the first time CP has been quoted on a campaign ad.

You can have the original that came to my house today if you want it...

I accept :-) Can I just stop my and pick it up or would you prefer to mail it?

If you want to stop by, you're welcome to...otherwise I can mail it. Give me a call at home tonight.

[Brent]

About 15-20. Mostly thanking me for running and enduring these attacks. Many are suspicious. Some think it is an insurance scam. After I tell them what is really going on, the feed back from 95% is positive. Its a great opportunity to talk to voters.

Pre-CISE-ly.

Which is why the "call <candidate that this ad is attacking> and tell him/her <whatever we're saying>" makes no sense at all. In all the scenarios I can imagine, it can be only helpful, or at the very worse, neutral, to the candidate being attacked.

But certain paid political consultants have certain formulas that they stick to, whether or not they've been proven to work.

[johnshaw]

Which is why the "call <candidate that this ad is attacking> and tell him/her <whatever we're saying>" makes no sense at all. In all the scenarios I can imagine, it can be only helpful, or at the very worse, neutral, to the candidate being attacked.

It is just a way to claim that the ad is about an issue, not about a candidate. As if an ad saying "call Joe Doe at xxx-xxx-xxxx and ask him why he kicks small dogs and yells at kids", run just before an election is not an ad against the candidate.

Likewise there could be an ad saying "Call Jane Doe at xxx-xxx-xxxx and tell her how much we appreciate all the wonderful things she has done for our community ... paid for by the committee for wonderful things" is not an ad supporting that candidate.

[Brent]

Actually, that, by itself, no longer works with revised NC Campaign Finance Law. Express advocacy can now be discerned even in the absence of "the magic words" -- but currently, this is restricted to certain offices.

[Brent]

Today's N&O top story is about the Realtors' candidate-trashing ads, particularly of Stan & Ty.

Stan had a good quote in the article; Ty's quote was Teflon-coated evasive.

What was really interesting was the description of the Realtors' 527. They say almost nothing about themselves publicly; they are financed with the MANDATORY fee that ALL Realtors must pay or lose access to MLS (discussed elsewhere on CP); their members not only cannot influence what is done with their money, but can't even FIND OUT what is done with their money (which ads in which campaigns). And finally, this group is an "issues" group, and we're supposed to believe that these mailers are "issues education" (apparently they bank on that "Call Stan" / "Call Ty" line to "prove" that it's about issues, not about candidates. Yeah, right.

This isn't about whether or not you're for or against Stan or Ty. I think groups such as this one are poisoning campaigns.

The people running this group are some of the ones about whom I wonder how they can sleep at night.

[d4vendel]

I am hearing "mean." I am hearing "nasty."

I am hearing a lot of things, but what I am not hearing is a refuting of the facts presented in these mailers.

When Stan runs / uses special interest groups (WakeUp, Citizens for Truth in Elections, etc.) it is good or OK, but when someone else does it is bad. Um - Ok. No hypocrisy there.

I especially loved the "Funny Money" mailer.

Everyone has to make their own decisions. For me, I never thought I would see a candidate less likely to get my vote than Obama - but then there's Stan. Whle I acknowledge faults and mistakes Ken has made, he still gets my vote over Norwalk.

[StanN]

Here is the link to the N&O story. http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1268216.html

Some side-lights.

I have been saying, including to the realtors and developers at my "non-endorsement" meetings, that the transfer tax is politically dead and that I am currently running on impact fees and APFO's. I've been told by a trusted source that Wake Home Builders had nothing to do with the swift-boat attack of the realtors. But the two groups have always worked together statewide . I have little doubt that the NC HBA is involved now.

The second mailer is from the NCAR's PAC rather than from NCHOA. This is money usually expressly reserved for campaign contributions. I don't believe they really wanted to do that. My hats off to the realtors who are fighting against their own lobby and are likely responsible for dropping the masquerade.

The attack on Ty Harrel for not voting for at large school board elections is totally off the wall and off topic for the real estate industry. But consider that NCAR and NCHBA lined up with Art Pope's
John Locke Foundation and Americans for Prosperity to defeat the transfer tax in twenty counties...and that Locke etc support at large voting for the school board.

The right wing groups are all connected - including JoeC's new coalition. E.g. Kent Misegades, a member of that coalition, works for Bob Luddy, one of the most persistant anti-public school forces around. Luddy sits on the Board of the John Locke Foundation. Rep. Paul Stam, minority leader of the NC House is a member of the network. Note in the N&O article that he was involved with the failed attack against me nine years ago. I'm told that Commissioner Paul Coble is doing radio ads against me and supporting Kenn. (Has any one heard them?)

NCHOA has distorted a CP blog which simply stated the fact that a 1/2 cent sales tax increase has been proposed (by Sen. Richard Stevens) for an expanded transit system. The facts are that, while I strongly support transit, I have been promoting alternatives to the regressive 1/2 cent sales tax. In any case it the NCGA that will decide and very likely there will be a referendum required.

The facts are that the Realtors and Developers lobby support a one cent sales tax increase. http://www.tricc.org/Resolution2007.htm As you could expect, so does Kenn.

Their claim is that I support a 20 cent increase in the property tax...again a total fabrication as I have supported for years local option revenue sources that would moderate the property tax. The facts are that Kenn has supported a six year plan that calls for continuing increases in property tax - 150% more than he falsely accuses me of.

Kenn campaigned as a fiscal conservative in 2004 and 2008. He said he wouldn't raise your taxes...guess what he did? He raised your taxes both times. He voted for the $250 million convention center and the $30 million+ new administrative headquarters slipped in with the courthouse. And after the funds for the convention center were locked-in, he and Paul Coble said they should have been spent on schools.

As in the case of the Triangle Aquatic Center, Kenn has a long record of saying one thing and doing another.

Politics is a contact sport and this misleading attack is not surprising...especially coming from NCAR, and likely the NC HBA, and there faithful sock-puppet, Kenn Gardner.

The Realtors and Developers have lost in Cary and Raleigh; they have lost in sixteen other fast growing counties; they recently lost a major court case against APFO's in Union County; they lost in the last session of the NCGA regarding rolling back the Transfer Tax (led by Skip Stam) and weakening APFO's. They will lose again. They are desperate that the fastest growing county in the state remain under their control.

The only way to counter Kenn's and the real estate industry's mud-slinging campaign, is to win on Election Day..which I will do.

[d4vendel]

He said he wouldn't raise your taxes...guess what he did?


But nowhere near the level you are willing to raise taxes. That's the difference for me.

[JoeCiulla]

The right wing groups are all connected - including JoeC's new coalition. E.g. Kent Misegades, a member of that coalition, works for Bob Luddy, one of the most persistant anti-public school forces around. Luddy sits on the Board of the John Locke Foundation. Rep. Paul Stam, minority leader of the NC House is a member of the network. Note in the N&O article that he was involved with the failed attack against me nine years ago. I'm told that Commissioner Paul Coble is doing radio ads against me and supporting Kenn. (Has any one heard them?)


Stan,

With all due respect, you are wrong on this one. While I completely agree with the content of the merry-go-round flyer (and found a lot of it to be familiar), the first I heard of it was when it landed in my mailbox. I don't think there's an organized 'axis of evil' here.

I know you're well-informed on the BoE at-large election issue, and have to believe you were embarassed when Mr. Harrell said he was 'confused' about it.

[johnshaw]

I just don’t understand the NCAR flyer in Ty Harrell’s house district. It starts off talking about the “merry-go-round” of school transfers. Then it support the Nelson Dollar bill (HB 432) that would allow the people in Raleigh to decide who represents Cary on the school board, and would move the school board elections to even numbered years. That would cause serious education issues to be buried under national issues such as one candidate’s wardrobe expenses and another one’s middle name. It would add nine more races to our already long even year ballot.

The “merry-go-round” of school assignments is indeed a problem. But letting the rest of the county vote for our board members won’t solve the problem. It could even make it worse.

And why is NCAR getting involved in a matter that has nothing to do with real estate?

[MattD]

He said he wouldn't raise your taxes...guess what he did?


But nowhere near the level you are willing to raise taxes. That's the difference for me.

Kenn stated he would not raise your taxes. He lied and then did so. Kenn said he was donating his time to TAC, but lied and billed them for almost $1/2 million. Kenn lied and said there was no conflict of interest when he voted against competition to TAC.

At least with Stan, you know where he stands (whether you agree or disagree). It's interesting to see that Kenn's lying is the difference to you.

[JoeCiulla]

And why is NCAR getting involved in a matter that has nothing to do with real estate?

I don't know, but I'm glad they did.

[StanN]

All of the above makes for an interesting discussion, but the hard facts are that the early voting results in Wake are 65D to 36R. NCAR, NCHBA, Kenn, etc. are going to have a hard time bucking the trend.

NCAR and NC HBA continue to shoot themselves in the foot. They help create and motivate the opposition. The public is fed up with these lobbies and their nasty tactics. There are only 4,000 Realtors in Wake. A good pct. disagree with their own lobby...there are over 400,000 voters.

[StanN]

Have you heard my robo call?

[d4vendel]

The one against you? Yes.

One in favor of you? No.

[Brent]

When Stan runs / uses special interest groups (WakeUp, Citizens for Truth in Elections, etc.) it is good or OK, but when someone else does it is bad. Um - Ok. No hypocrisy there.

I didn't say that, and that's not the point I'm trying to make.

I'm not by any means starting a Stan & Ty cheerleading club.

I am decrying all the misleading, truth-stretching, envelope-pushing, highly negative campaign ads, from both sides, that come from special-interest groups about whom little is known and who seem to have no accountability.

[d4vendel]

All of the above makes for an interesting discussion, but the hard facts are that the early voting results in Wake are 65D to 36R. NCAR, NCHBA, Kenn, etc. are going to have a hard time bucking the trend.

As I said, "As for me...."

[d4vendel]

When Stan runs / uses special interest groups (WakeUp, Citizens for Truth in Elections, etc.) it is good or OK, but when someone else does it is bad. Um - Ok. No hypocrisy there.

I didn't say that, and that's not the point I'm trying to make.

I'm not by any means starting a Stan & Ty cheerleading club.

I am decrying all the misleading, truth-stretching, envelope-pushing, highly negative campaign ads, from both sides, that come from special-interest groups about whom little is known and who seem to have no accountability.

Now that I can agree with.

[Brent]

I especially loved the "Funny Money" mailer.

I didn't.

I thought it was misleading, and out of line to imply that Stan is currently "under investigation" and is some sort of shady criminal, over things that occurred 8 years ago and were sufficiently resolved.

And therein lies the problem with mailers and TV ads such as these -- everyone enjoys the ones against "the other side" even if they don't like the ones that "the other side" puts out. That means that the groups that run them will continue to get a free pass, and such ads will continue, and are likely to get even worse, if that's possible.

[d4vendel]

He said he wouldn't raise your taxes...guess what he did?


But nowhere near the level you are willing to raise taxes. That's the difference for me.

Kenn stated he would not raise your taxes. He lied and then did so. Kenn said he was donating his time to TAC, but lied and billed them for almost $1/2 million. Kenn lied and said there was no conflict of interest when he voted against competition to TAC.

At least with Stan, you know where he stands (whether you agree or disagree). It's interesting to see that Kenn's lying is the difference to you.

My two choices in that race are Ken and Stan. As I have said, I can find fault with Ken. (Show me a politician you can't!) Since I don't agree with practically anything Stan stands for or supports, I either don't vote or go with the candidate that I do agree with on a majority of the issues. It is as simple as that.

[Brent]

And why is NCAR getting involved in a matter that has nothing to do with real estate?

Because there are certain people they want to be elected, and certain people they do not want to be elected. But I'm sure they insist that they're just doing "issues education".

[JoeCiulla]

Have you heard my robo call?

Stan,
I just got your robo-call, well done.

[johnshaw]

And why is NCAR getting involved in a matter that has nothing to do with real estate?

I don't know, but I'm glad they did.
You, Rosa Gill, and all the people in Raleigh that think that they should decide who represents us in Cary on the board, are glad they did.

(Nothing against Raleigh; I was born there. I just don't think that they should vote on our board member.)

[JoeCiulla]

And why is NCAR getting involved in a matter that has nothing to do with real estate?

I don't know, but I'm glad they did.
You, Rosa Gill, and all the people in Raleigh that think that they should decide who represents us in Cary on the board, are glad they did.

(Nothing against Raleigh; I was born there. I just don't think that they should vote on our board member.)

Wrong. If we had a 4/5 board, five of the districts would retain exclusive voting rights for their member.

[Jackie]

I just don’t understand the NCAR flyer in Ty Harrell’s house district. It starts off talking about the “merry-go-round” of school transfers.

We missed the school transfer mailing. Instead, ours from the NC Realtors PAC references, among other things, House Bill 885/SL 2007-108 (http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2007/Bills/House/HTML/H885v4.html) and refers to it as a "Car Tax." It was introduced at the request of Apex and Morrisville elected officials and applies only to those 2 minicipalities. The bill gives legislative authority to the 2 towns to raise the tax from $5 per vehicle to $15 per vehicle.

In Morrisville, Lyons, Martin and Murry voted against asking the GA for the additional $10 in taxing authority. Faulkner, Johnson, Snyder and Carrow voted for it.

At budget time, neither Apex nor Morrisville increased the car tax. Both kept the tax at $5.

The realtors also gave Ty credit for HB 2690 (http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2007/Bills/House/HTML/H2690v3.html) saying he voted to "tax food in Durham." Actually.... this one gives Durham the authority to levy a 1% tax on restaurant meals if approved by voters (http://www.co.durham.nc.us/departments/bocc/2008_Prepared_Food_Tax_Referendum/index.html) next month.

The Realtors PAC 3rd quarter report is online. (http://www.app.sboe.state.nc.us/webapps/cf%5Frpt%5Fsearch/cf_report_sections.aspx?RID=94982&SID=STA-C3219N-C-001&CN=NC%20REALTORS%20PAC&RN=2008%20Third%20Quarter) They spent $209k on mailings. So likely there is more to come.

Jackie

[Laurie]

I am hearing "mean." I am hearing "nasty."

I am hearing a lot of things, but what I am not hearing is a refuting of the facts presented in these mailers.

Did you miss this on the first page?

The anit-homeowners alliance http://stopthenchometicks.blogspot.com/ has reviewed the mailer on Stan and taxes http://stopthenchometicks.blogspot.c...in-mailer.html

They say that the NC Realtors are wrong on 2 out of 4 of their facts and misleading on one. They say that the one the mailer got right is that Stan supports the transfer tax.

They also point out that the realtors support a one cent salex tax, higher than the 1/2 cent sales tax they claim Stan supports.

[johnshaw]

And why is NCAR getting involved in a matter that has nothing to do with real estate?

I don't know, but I'm glad they did.
You, Rosa Gill, and all the people in Raleigh that think that they should decide who represents us in Cary on the board, are glad they did.

(Nothing against Raleigh; I was born there. I just don't think that they should vote on our board member.)

Wrong. If we had a 4/5 board, five of the districts would retain exclusive voting rights for their member.
But a 4/5 board was not what the bill, now backed by NCAR, would have enacted. They support election of all members county wide, eliminating any board member elected solely by the voters of our part of the county.

We missed the school transfer mailing. Instead, ours from the NC Realtors PAC references, among other things, House Bill 885/SL 2007-108 (http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2007/Bills/House/HTML/H885v4.html) and refers to it as a "Car Tax." It was introduced at the request of Apex and Morrisville elected officials and applies only to those 2 municipalities. The bill gives legislative authority to the 2 towns to raise the tax from $5 per vehicle to $15 per vehicle.
...
The realtors also gave Ty credit for HB 2690 (http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2007/Bills/House/HTML/H2690v3.html) saying he voted to "tax food in Durham." Actually.... this one gives Durham the authority to levy a 1% tax on restaurant meals if approved by voters (http://www.co.durham.nc.us/departments/bocc/2008_Prepared_Food_Tax_Referendum/index.html) next month.
By being against giving authority to municipalities, in the case of the car tax, or to the voters of counties, in the case of the Durham food tax and the transfer tax, NCAR is taking a stand against democracy.

[Brent]

(Nothing against Raleigh; I was born there. I just don't think that they should vote on our board member.)

John, you've said this several times in this thread. People in Raleigh wouldn't be voting on "our" board member. "Our" board member would be our district representative.

At-large members would represent the entire county and be elected county-wide. Why do you feel that one district in Raleigh (or wherever) would decide who the at-large members would be? MacGregor doesn't decide the Cary at-large represetatives.

Sorry, I don't buy the "Raleigh would select our representative" argument. Cary/Apex voters represent a significant "bloc" in Wake County.

Regardless, I believe we would be better off with a portion of the school board elected county-wide, representing the entire county, not just "their" own district.

[chaboard]

John, you've said this several times in this thread. People in Raleigh wouldn't be voting on "our" board member. "Our" board member would be our district representative.


A factual reminder....the actual bill that Ty and the Democrats are being castigated for not supporting DID NOT HAVE ANY DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVES. "Our" board member could not be "our district representative" because there would not have been any districts to begin with.

Lets not conflate a hypothetical 4/5 plan that no one on either side has bothered to introduce with the actual bill on the table - whose entire purpose is to be a partisan political wedge.

[Brent]

Oh, and John, I am of course talking about Senator Stevens's bill, in case people get confused about the facts. When it comes to schools, we don't need more partisanship and silly partisan accusations.

[johnshaw]

Oh, and John, I am of course talking about Senator Stevens's bill, in case people get confused about the facts. When it comes to schools, we don't need more partisanship and silly partisan accusations.
If you mean SB 383, that bill would have totally eliminated districts. From Section 1(b)The qualified voters of the entire county shall elect all members of the board at-large.
As Chaboard pointed out, the actual bill supported by NCAR, HB432, also did not allow any mix of at large and district members. Members would have to live in districts but would be elected at large. Has there been any bill that would have provided for a mix of at large and district members?

But all this is like rearranging the cup holders on the Titanic. We really need to change how the school assignments are made, not how the board is elected. And do we really need to have the largest school district in the state-18th largest in the country?

But for now, my real question is why is the NC Association of Realtors trying to get involved in how school board members are elected and whether or not towns can raise money with a few dollars extra tax on cars?

[StanN]

I especially loved the "Funny Money" mailer.

I didn't.

I thought it was misleading, and out of line to imply that Stan is currently "under investigation" and is some sort of shady criminal, over things that occurred 8 years ago and were sufficiently resolved.

And therein lies the problem with mailers and TV ads such as these -- everyone enjoys the ones against "the other side" even if they don't like the ones that "the other side" puts out. That means that the groups that run them will continue to get a free pass, and such ads will continue, and are likely to get even worse, if that's possible.

Here is a perfect example of why County Commissioners or the BOE should not all be elected at large. The two mailers sent by NCAR cost roughly $1.40. There are roughly 350,000 households in Wake. Lets say they targeted only Dems and independents. That's 210,000 households. So the two mailers cost over $180,000!!! + robo calls + direct PAC contributions.

There is no way I or most candidates could possibly compete with that expenditure. So if you want NCHBA and NCAR to control elections, have them at-large.

It is true that I have taken contributions from groups like the Teachers Association and Wake Women's Democratic Club.. But those was tiny compared to what NCAR/NCHBA is spending.

Over time money controls most elections...the data says 85% of competitive elections go to the candidate who spends the most money. Wake has been historically controlled by the giant development industry. Their sales are $4 billion + in a typical year. Maintaining control over local government in the fastest growing and largest construction market in the state, is their #1 objective. At large voting is a tremendous advantage to them.

In this particular election, I have other things going in my favor. I have a lot of hard working volunteers. The Republican party, and Kenn Gardner in particular, has broken the public trust, more Democrats will turn out at the polls. Many will vote a straight party ticket. NCAR and NCHBA have screwed up their public relations effort. But that isn't true in every election. I still have a good chance of winning this election.

BTW, contributions to keep my radio ads on the air are welcome. Go to stann@nc.rr.com for the details.

So, whatever theoretical advantages to at-large voting... they are drowned out by major disadvantages.

[Brent]

But all this is like rearranging the cup holders on the Titanic. We really need to change how the school assignments are made, not how the board is elected. And do we really need to have the largest school district in the state-18th largest in the country?

Yes, we need to change how school assignments are made. I am thoroughly convinced that, until we change how the BoE is elected, we will never change how assignments are made.

I also believe our district has become too large and unwieldy. That would take state intervention to fix. I will be a large cookie that the Status Quo Seven would never hear of anything to do with reducing the size of the district.

But for now, my real question is why is the NC Association of Realtors trying to get involved in how school board members are elected and whether or not towns can raise money with a few dollars extra tax on cars?

They don't care about those issues. They do care about who is elected and who isn't.

[Brent]

I especially loved the "Funny Money" mailer.

I didn't.

I thought it was misleading, and out of line to imply that Stan is currently "under investigation" and is some sort of shady criminal, over things that occurred 8 years ago and were sufficiently resolved.

And therein lies the problem with mailers and TV ads such as these -- everyone enjoys the ones against "the other side" even if they don't like the ones that "the other side" puts out. That means that the groups that run them will continue to get a free pass, and such ads will continue, and are likely to get even worse, if that's possible.

Here is a perfect example of why County Commissioners or the BOE should not all be elected at large. The two mailers sent by NCAR cost roughly $1.40. There are roughly 350,000 households in Wake. Lets say they targeted only Dems and independents. That's 210,000 households. So the two mailers cost over $180,000!!! + robo calls + direct PAC contributions.

There is no way I or most candidates could possibly compete with that expenditure. So if you want NCHBA and NCAR to control elections, have them at-large.

It is true that I have taken contributions from groups like the Teachers Association and Wake Women's Democratic Club.. But those was tiny compared to what NCAR/NCHBA is spending.

Over time money controls most elections...the data says 85% of competitive elections go to the candidate who spends the most money. Wake has been historically controlled by the giant development industry. Their sales are $4 billion + in a typical year. Maintaining control over local government in the fastest growing and largest construction market in the state, is their #1 objective. At large voting is a tremendous advantage to them.

In this particular election, I have other things going in my favor. I have a lot of hard working volunteers. The Republican party, and Kenn Gardner in particular, has broken the public trust, more Democrats will turn out at the polls. Many will vote a straight party ticket. NCAR and NCHBA have screwed up their public relations effort. But that isn't true in every election. I still have a good chance of winning this election.

BTW, contributions to keep my radio ads on the air are welcome. Go to stann@nc.rr.com for the details.

So, whatever theoretical advantages to at-large voting... they are drowned out by major disadvantages.

Stan, this is thoroughly bogus.

You are running county-wide.

Yes, it takes more resources to run county-wide than in a district.

You and many others have proven that it is possible to run a viable campaign county-wide.

Having some number of the BoE elected county-wide is the right thing to do.

Yet you continue to stubbornly oppose it, throwing up a smoke screen about the difficulty of running county-wide, which you are currently doing.

Sorry, your obstinance and non-leadership on this issue continues to ring hollow. And I am certain that you have lost votes because of it.

[JoeCiulla]

I especially loved the "Funny Money" mailer.

I didn't.

I thought it was misleading, and out of line to imply that Stan is currently "under investigation" and is some sort of shady criminal, over things that occurred 8 years ago and were sufficiently resolved.

And therein lies the problem with mailers and TV ads such as these -- everyone enjoys the ones against "the other side" even if they don't like the ones that "the other side" puts out. That means that the groups that run them will continue to get a free pass, and such ads will continue, and are likely to get even worse, if that's possible.

Here is a perfect example of why County Commissioners or the BOE should not all be elected at large. The two mailers sent by NCAR cost roughly $1.40. There are roughly 350,000 households in Wake. Lets say they targeted only Dems and independents. That's 210,000 households. So the two mailers cost over $180,000!!! + robo calls + direct PAC contributions.

There is no way I or most candidates could possibly compete with that expenditure. So if you want NCHBA and NCAR to control elections, have them at-large.

It is true that I have taken contributions from groups like the Teachers Association and Wake Women's Democratic Club.. But those was tiny compared to what NCAR/NCHBA is spending.

Over time money controls most elections...the data says 85% of competitive elections go to the candidate who spends the most money. Wake has been historically controlled by the giant development industry. Their sales are $4 billion + in a typical year. Maintaining control over local government in the fastest growing and largest construction market in the state, is their #1 objective. At large voting is a tremendous advantage to them.

In this particular election, I have other things going in my favor. I have a lot of hard working volunteers. The Republican party, and Kenn Gardner in particular, has broken the public trust, more Democrats will turn out at the polls. Many will vote a straight party ticket. NCAR and NCHBA have screwed up their public relations effort. But that isn't true in every election. I still have a good chance of winning this election.

BTW, contributions to keep my radio ads on the air are welcome. Go to stann@nc.rr.com for the details.

So, whatever theoretical advantages to at-large voting... they are drowned out by major disadvantages.

Stan, this is thoroughly bogus.

You are running county-wide.

Yes, it takes more resources to run county-wide than in a district.

You and many others have proven that it is possible to run a viable campaign county-wide.

Having some number of the BoE elected county-wide is the right thing to do.

Yet you continue to stubbornly oppose it, throwing up a smoke screen about the difficulty of running county-wide, which you are currently doing.

Sorry, your obstinance and non-leadership on this issue continues to ring hollow. And I am certain that you have lost votes because of it.

Stan,
If you win, congratulations.

If you don't, it will not be because NCAR threw their money into the campaign. You need to look at the issues.

You are a vocal supporter of a real estate transfer tax. Twenty counties in NC put this to a referendum, and all twenty voted it down. Sure, NCAR spent money there too, but 20 for 20? This position will cost you some votes.

At-large BoE elections. The relevance of this issue was greatly under-estimated by both parties. Your not taking a strong position supporting at-large elections will cost you votes, at least in the Cary/Apex and North Raleigh areas.

Mass-transit and high-density development. You are a supporter of this, a lot of people don't want it.

Harold Weinbrecht got out-spent four to one last year and still won in a landslide. He won because his positions on issues were widely embraced by Cary citizens, and they went out in droves to knock on doors and man the polls. A supporter calling a friend or knocking on someone's door is worth the price of a hundred flyers.

[chaboard]

Stan, this is thoroughly bogus.

You are running county-wide.

Yes, it takes more resources to run county-wide than in a district.

You and many others have proven that it is possible to run a viable campaign county-wide.

Having some number of the BoE elected county-wide is the right thing to do.

Yet you continue to stubbornly oppose it, throwing up a smoke screen about the difficulty of running county-wide, which you are currently doing.


Look away if language makes you faint but this needs to said strongly....

That's pretty [messed] up to try to tell someone currently LIVING the difficulties of trying to beat big money on a big playing field that his personal EXPERIENCE is "bogus" or that describing his difficulties (with a real life example and real life numbers from THIS WEEK, fer crying out loud) is a "smokescreen"? Where the [heck] do you get off with that patronizing ********, Brent? What countywide office have YOU run for?

It is a FACT that bigger playing fields create higher campaign costs. And it a FACT that the party with more money wins the vast majority of elections. Not all, no, but the vast majority. And it is *almost always* true that well-financed special interest groups will be able to out raise and outspend your average interested citizen. Which part do you, in all of your wealth of experience as a candidate, disagree with? And can you back up your belief...or shall we just call them "bogus" and move on?


Sorry, your obstinance and non-leadership on this issue continues to ring hollow. And I am certain that you have lost votes because of it.Surely he has lost votes. But I am equally certain that his principled and outspoken honest leadership on this issue has **gained** him votes, too. Which is bigger? I don't know.

But regardless he is here engaging in discussion with any citizen (I haven't seen Gardner here, have you?) and deserves better than to have his current experience being dragged through the mud by big money described as "bogus". You should be ashamed Brent.

[Laurie]

The anit-homeowners alliance http://stopthenchometicks.blogspot.com/ has reviewed the mailer on Stan and taxes http://stopthenchometicks.blogspot.com/2008/10/nc-realtors-lie-about-norwalk-in-mailer.html

They say that the NC Realtors are wrong on 2 out of 4 of their facts and misleading on one. They say that the one the mailer got right is that Stan supports the transfer tax.

They also point out that the realtors support a one cent salex tax, higher than the 1/2 cent sales tax they claim Stan supports.

Did you know it was against NC law to publish lies about a candidate. The pertinent statute is:

§ 163-274. Certain acts declared misdemeanors.
Any person who shall, in connection with any primary or election in this State, do any
of the acts and things declared in this section to be unlawful, shall be guilty of a Class 2
misdemeanor. It shall be unlawful:
( 8 ) For any person to publish or cause to be circulated derogatory reports
with reference to any candidate in any primary or election, knowing
such report to be false or in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity,
when such report is calculated or intended to affect the chances of such
candidate for nomination or election;

So if the realtors did 'research' to get the quotes from Stan, they had to know they were not representing the quotes accurately.

[Brent]

Stan, this is thoroughly bogus.

Stan, after further reflection, I would like to amend this statement.

I think I was too kind. This is totally bogus.

Clearly, there is something bogus about making two contradictory, diametrically oppoosed statements such as these:

There is no way I or most candidates could possibly compete with that expenditure.

I still have a good chance of winning this election.

The first is quite strident and absolute ("no way ... could possibly"). It says that it's impossible for you to compete.

The second says you are competing quite well.

Surely these can't both be accurate.

Can you tell me which one is correct and which one is incorrect? From what I can tell, the second one seems to be correct. That would mean that the first one is incorrect; i.e., bogus.

[Brent]

Oh, and Stan, I'll reiterate that I think that those mailers were deplorable and sickening. I think I made that very clear.

However, to claim that such special-interest swill is a valid reason not to have county-wide elections is bogus, especially when the reasoning is that special interest money makes it impossible for ordinary citizens to compete...with the next breath describing how an ordinary citizen is competing quite well.

[DarylB]

Stan needs to realize this is not about Stan.... and that's why he won't win. When someone running for office starts complaining about what their difficulties are in running for an office, it's also time to realize they aren't in it for the right reasons.

[StanN]

Oh, and Stan, I'll reiterate that I think that those mailers were deplorable and sickening. I think I made that very clear.

However, to claim that such special-interest swill is a valid reason not to have county-wide elections is bogus, especially when the reasoning is that special interest money makes it impossible for ordinary citizens to compete...with the next breath describing how an ordinary citizen is competing quite well.

Apparently I didn't make myself clear. Its very difficult for most ordinary people to win when Developers and Realtors money is being used to influence the election. Over time, most candidates, not all, will gravitate toward the big PAC's agenda...or risk being defeated.
Note that that NCAR and NCHBA have moved well beyond their members own interest...supporting an anti-government, anti- any tax, anti-public school agenda.

Its possible, at times, to defeat an incumbent whose financial support is far greater than yours. Whats needed is:

* a opponent who has broken the public trust...thank you Kenn.
*Arrogance and over-reaching on the part of your enemies. Thank you NCAR, NCHBA etc.
*Lots of support and help...I didn't work 14 years in public service without making lots of friends. You may not agree with my positions but I tell it as I believe it...not so Kenn. BTW,Kenn says WCPSS is the second best school system in the NATION. I see a school system with much room for improvement - still better than average but moving downhill.
* Great political advice...thank you Perry and several others on my committee and elsewhere whom I rely on.
*A strong party ticket...thanks to many fellow Dems.
*An opposition party that has lost its way. Thank you Republican leaders.
*A magnetic party leader who gets the voters to the polls...thank you Obama .
*NC being a target state, which is rare, resulting in tons of folks getting Dems. out to the polls...thank you Obama.
* In a small district, a non-incumbent can win by loads of canvassing and personal contact. But that's hugely difficult in a district stretching over 860 sq. miles with over 400,000 voters. Mailers are very effective but far too expensive without big-time PAC money.

So, the moon and the stars are in the right alignment for me. But over time most candidates will lose in the face of big money opposition. One or two exceptions don't determine the trend line.

I regret that my standing up for what I believe is best for ALL the citizens of Wake disappoints you. You can't please everyone. But a candidate who is seeking everyone's approval is unlikely to be worth electing...that's Kenn not me.

[StanN]

Have you heard my robo call?

Stan,
I just got your robo-call, well done.

Thanks...StanN

[StanN]

Hello Stan:
You are very welcome. I hope that I will have an opportunity to meet with you one day when you have been elected. I am sick to death of Ken Gardner and OTHERS on the Wake County Commission. I am sick to death of the developers owning and prostituting this town and county. Impact fees, you bet! Budget waste and absurd taxes. My revaluation was a total shock to me. My simple 1,663 square foot little 1952 built house was revaluated from $2,500 in 2007 to over $4,200 in 2008. The State and County food taxes that I pay in the grocery store are frightening. It is DEFINITELY time for a huge change. [snip..personal info deleted}

[Brent]

Apparently I didn't make myself clear. Its very difficult for most ordinary people to win when Developers and Realtors money is being used to influence the election. Over time, most candidates, not all, will gravitate toward the big PAC's agenda...or risk being defeated.
Note that that NCAR and NCHBA have moved well beyond their members own interest...supporting an anti-government, anti- any tax, anti-public school agenda.

Its possible, at times, to defeat an incumbent whose financial support is far greater than yours. Whats needed is:

* a opponent who has broken the public trust...thank you Kenn.
*Arrogance and over-reaching on the part of your enemies. Thank you NCAR, NCHBA etc.
*Lots of support and help...I didn't work 14 years in public service without making lots of friends. You may not agree with my positions but I tell it as I believe it...not so Kenn. BTW,Kenn says WCPSS is the second best school system in the NATION. I see a school system with much room for improvement - still better than average but moving downhill.
* Great political advice...thank you Perry and several others on my committee and elsewhere whom I rely on.
*A strong party ticket...thanks to many fellow Dems.
*An opposition party that has lost its way. Thank you Republican leaders.
*A magnetic party leader who gets the voters to the polls...thank you Obama .
*NC being a target state, which is rare, resulting in tons of folks getting Dems. out to the polls...thank you Obama.
* In a small district, a non-incumbent can win by loads of canvassing and personal contact. But that's hugely difficult in a district stretching over 860 sq. miles with over 400,000 voters. Mailers are very effective but far too expensive without big-time PAC money.

So, the moon and the stars are in the right alignment for me. But over time most candidates will lose in the face of big money opposition. One or two exceptions don't determine the trend line.

I appreciate this thoughtful response. It clarifies that it *IS* possible to win in a large district in spite of special-interest money. That is the issue I was pushing on. You had originally said it was impossible; I don't believe that's the case. I also don't believe that one needs all of the items in your list to be successful. And I continue to believe that "special interest money" is not a valid reason to oppose county-wide elections.

I regret that my standing up for what I believe is best for ALL the citizens of Wake disappoints you. You can't please everyone. But a candidate who is seeking everyone's approval is unlikely to be worth electing...that's Kenn not me.

I appreciate your sticking to your guns. As already noted, your intransigence in this case has cost you votes. C'est la vie.

[chaboard]

I appreciate this thoughtful response. It clarifies that it *IS* possible to win in a large district in spite of special-interest money. That is the issue I was pushing on. You had originally said it was impossible;


That is simply not true. What Stan said in the post your "bogus" response came to was essentially the same thing he just said:


Over time money controls most elections...the data says 85% of competitive elections go to the candidate who spends the most money. Wake has been historically controlled by the giant development industry. Their sales are $4 billion + in a typical year. Maintaining control over local government in the fastest growing and largest construction market in the state, is their #1 objective. At large voting is a tremendous advantage to them.

In this particular election, I have other things going in my favor. I have a lot of hard working volunteers. The Republican party, and Kenn Gardner in particular, has broken the public trust, more Democrats will turn out at the polls. Many will vote a straight party ticket. NCAR and NCHBA have screwed up their public relations effort. But that isn't true in every election. I still have a good chance of winning this election.


He not only did not claim it was impossible, he even pointed out that he himself had a good chance of doing it this year.

Can't you just say "I was wrong" or "I'm sorry" without trying to claim cover with another falsehood? Man up, man.

(And if in fact *I* am wrong and Stan *did* say it was impossible just point me to the post in this thread in which he did so and *I* will apologize to *you*)

[MattD]

Stan - I sure hope you keep posting on CP after you are elected.

[Don]

But a candidate who is seeking everyone's approval is unlikely to be worth electing...that's Kenn not me.

Actually no - that would be Betty Lou.

[Brent]

Although beating a dead horse is an exercise in futility, I will point out one more time:

There is no way I or most candidates could possibly compete with that expenditure.

"no way ... could possibly" --> not possible. Impossible.

The dichotomy of that statement vs. one that notes that in some circumstances, it is possible, has already been duly noted, and the conclusion is that it is not impossible to compete with special-interest expenditures.

And now let's all view the Opie & Richie video once more.

[StanN]

I especially loved the "Funny Money" mailer.

I didn't.

I thought it was misleading, and out of line to imply that Stan is currently "under investigation" and is some sort of shady criminal, over things that occurred 8 years ago and were sufficiently resolved.

And therein lies the problem with mailers and TV ads such as these -- everyone enjoys the ones against "the other side" even if they don't like the ones that "the other side" puts out. That means that the groups that run them will continue to get a free pass, and such ads will continue, and are likely to get even worse, if that's possible.

Here is a perfect example of why County Commissioners or the BOE should not all be elected at large. The two mailers sent by NCAR cost roughly $1.40. There are roughly 350,000 households in Wake. Lets say they targeted only Dems and independents. That's 210,000 households. So the two mailers cost over $180,000!!! + robo calls + direct PAC contributions.

There is no way I or most candidates could possibly compete with that expenditure. So if you want NCHBA and NCAR to control elections, have them at-large.

It is true that I have taken contributions from groups like the Teachers Association and Wake Women's Democratic Club.. But those was tiny compared to what NCAR/NCHBA is spending.

Over time money controls most elections...the data says 85% of competitive elections go to the candidate who spends the most money. Wake has been historically controlled by the giant development industry. Their sales are $4 billion + in a typical year. Maintaining control over local government in the fastest growing and largest construction market in the state, is their #1 objective. At large voting is a tremendous advantage to them.

In this particular election, I have other things going in my favor. I have a lot of hard working volunteers. The Republican party, and Kenn Gardner in particular, has broken the public trust, more Democrats will turn out at the polls. Many will vote a straight party ticket. NCAR and NCHBA have screwed up their public relations effort. But that isn't true in every election. I still have a good chance of winning this election.

BTW, contributions to keep my radio ads on the air are welcome. Go to stann@nc.rr.com for the details.

So, whatever theoretical advantages to at-large voting... they are drowned out by major disadvantages.

Stan, this is thoroughly bogus.

You are running county-wide.

Yes, it takes more resources to run county-wide than in a district.

You and many others have proven that it is possible to run a viable campaign county-wide.

Having some number of the BoE elected county-wide is the right thing to do.

Yet you continue to stubbornly oppose it, throwing up a smoke screen about the difficulty of running county-wide, which you are currently doing.

Sorry, your obstinance and non-leadership on this issue continues to ring hollow. And I am certain that you have lost votes because of it.

Stan,
If you win, congratulations.

If you don't, it will not be because NCAR threw their money into the campaign. You need to look at the issues.

You are a vocal supporter of a real estate transfer tax. Twenty counties in NC put this to a referendum, and all twenty voted it down. Sure, NCAR spent money there too, but 20 for 20? This position will cost you some votes.

At-large BoE elections. The relevance of this issue was greatly under-estimated by both parties. Your not taking a strong position supporting at-large elections will cost you votes, at least in the Cary/Apex and North Raleigh areas.

Mass-transit and high-density development. You are a supporter of this, a lot of people don't want it.

Harold Weinbrecht got out-spent four to one last year and still won in a landslide. He won because his positions on issues were widely embraced by Cary citizens, and they went out in droves to knock on doors and man the polls. A supporter calling a friend or knocking on someone's door is worth the price of a hundred flyers.

A few points:

1. I agree that knocking on doors is the most effective means of campaigning...if you can reach a significant pct. of voters. I don't believe it can be done over 860 sq. miles with >400,000 voters. I do go to the early voting sites and have volunteers at several. To do what Harold did I would need 10X as many volunteers.

2. I have not been promoting the transfer tax as I believe it is dead for the foreseeable future. I am proposing school impact fees which are widely popular.

3. What data do you have that an improved transit system is unpopular...or is it your bias showing. My estimate, countywide, is the opposite. And why do you want our country to keep funding terrorists and our enemies across the globe by continuing to be the world's largest consumer of oil?

4.The Wake BOC has no jurisdiction over land use planning in Cary or any municipality. Who cares what I think?

Greater density in Cary is being driven by market forces in a free market. Do you support greater government regulation and control?
BTW, I fully support citizens organizing and advocating for the nature of development in their local area...e.g. D&H.

Actually, I support less density in some cases, e.g. around the Little River reservoir. It is the Real Estate and Developers Lobby that supports density in many cases. I can understand why you support them as they support your cause of at large voting.

[Don]

A few points:

2. I have not been promoting the transfer tax as I believe it is dead for the foreseeable future. I am proposing school impact fees which are widely popular.

But, as Joe stated, you do support the transfer tax. That speaks to your philosophies.



4.The Wake BOC has no jurisdiction over land use planning in Cary or any municipality. Who cares what I think?

The county is who approves municipality's ETJ requests. You have stated in the past that you believe county government to be a waste - that their is too much duplication of services. How can county residents trust you to not hand over all the county land left to the municipalities to plan for as they please?

[Brent]

There is no way I or most candidates could possibly compete with that expenditure.

"no way ... could possibly" --> not possible. Impossible.

Stan did say it was impossible.

And now let's all view the Opie & Richie video once more.

Co-starring chaboard as The Fonz.

[StanN]

Gee Whiz Don, I didn't realize you represented folks in the County. Or did Skip suggest that question?

Any change such as the one you just brought up would have to be approved by the State. Why not ask your friends in the NCGA how they plan to streamline government and reduce over-lapping functions.

Since you DO represent Cary, please let me have your opinion on how the County treated Cary's annexation request. And do you think Cary and W. Wake have gotten a fair share of the hotel and prepared meals tax?

Or better yet, lets stop playing petty partisan political games and get down to the serious issue how the county and the muni's work together. I'm tired of trick questions...aren't you?

[StanN]

Don,

Do you support impact fees for Cary for better roads and parks?...for Wake County? And what does that say about your philosophy?.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

StanN

[johnshaw]

How can county residents trust you to not hand over all the county land left to the municipalities to plan for as they please?

There is only a little bit left that can't be turned into at ETJ, but there are limits to the land the county can hand over to the municipalities in the form of at ETJ.

Check out NCGS § 160A-360(a). It sets out distance limits based on the size of the muni.

Regardless, as Stan points out, the county and munis should work together.

[StanN]

Don,

Serious questions with no games intended.

1. In Holly Springs the county and the town cooperated on a combined public library and a cultural arts/community center. Its a nice, non-pretentious facility. I'm told it was built on County land and there is an inter-local agreement regarding its's maintenance. Conceptually, would you support similar cooperative efforts?

2. Crowder Park on 1010 is a county park virtually surrounded by Cary. I understand that it is maintained by the County...with maintenance crews dispatched from g-d knows where. How could we save money by consolidation or P&R activities? What would you think of a countywide maintenance operation?

3. Should there be a single county-wide water/sewer system as in other Counties? That would allow the muni's to help each other in case of a drought and likely would be less costly. How about a regional system since we all are tied together economically? Do you think it would be worthwhile to investigate the potential cost savings?

4. Should there be an exchange agreement between the Cary Police and the Sheriff's patrol to cover for one another in the ETJ and along the outskirts of Cary? I understand they do this in FV.

5. Do we really need two 911 systems? One for Cary and one for the rest of the County?

6. Should C-Tran be integrated with Triangle Transit?

Where else could the county and muni work together, save money and not reduce (or improve) service levels?

[Don]

Gee Whiz Don, I didn't realize you represented folks in the County. Or did Skip suggest that question?

Ya got me stan - how did you ever find out I check with Skip before posting on CP? Nothing gets by you does it? I asked a fair question based on statements you have made over the years. Are partisan insults how you will respond to everyone that questions you should you be elected?

Why not ask your friends in the NCGA how they plan to streamline government and reduce over-lapping functions.

I am "assuming" you are refering to the Republicans in the NCGA since you find me to be a partisan hack - "If" so, the republicans are, and have been in the minority for years, and therefore have been unable to change much. You should ask your friends why debt per capita has increased from $350.00 in 2001 to over $800.00 in 2008. Ask your friends in the NCGA why North Carolina's debt is over 2.5 billion and climbing. Ask your friends why we are mortgaging our childrens, and our children's children's future. Ask your friends why it took 2 years to pass Jessica's Law. Ask your friends why bills to strengthen standards for issuing drivers licenses so that illegals would have a harder time aquiring them died in committee.

Since you DO represent Cary, please let me have your opinion on how the County treated Cary's annexation request. And do you think Cary and W. Wake have gotten a fair share of the hotel and prepared meals tax?

1. I am not sure exactly which annexation request you are reffering to.

and 2. Wake Co. has been screwing Cary for years on the hotel/meals tax to pay for their precious convention center. I will give you credit however for publicly opposing that project.


Or better yet, lets stop playing petty partisan political games and get down to the serious issue how the county and the muni's work together. I'm tired of trick questions...aren't you?

YOU are the one making partisan accusations/playing games. I simply asked a question that obviously ruffled your feathers. At least I did learn how you will behave when pressed.

[Don]

Don,

1. In Holly Springs the county and the town cooperated on a combined public library and a cultural arts/community center. Its a nice, non-pretentious facility. I'm told it was built on County land and there is an inter-local agreement regarding its's maintenance. Conceptually, would you support similar cooperative efforts?

Cary already has, and will continue to partner with the county on dual purpose/joint facilities.

2. Crowder Park on 1010 is a county park virtually surrounded by Cary. I understand that it is maintained by the County...with maintenance crews dispatched from g-d knows where. How could we save money by consolidation or P&R activities? What would you think of a countywide maintenance operation?

If the county didn't want to maintain that park they shouldn't have built it. We take care of our parks just fine, thank you.

3. Should there be a single county-wide water/sewer system as in other Counties? That would allow the muni's to help each other in case of a drought and likely would be less costly. How about a regional system since we all are tied together economically? Do you think it would be worthwhile to investigate the potential cost savings?

NO. Cary has planned and partnered quite well with other communities regarding water/sewer in western wake already. I see no reason to bail Raleigh out of their PPPP.


4. Should there be an exchange agreement between the Cary Police and the Sheriff's patrol to cover for one another in the ETJ and along the outskirts of Cary? I understand they do this in FV.

Cary already will respond to unincorporated areas when needed (emergencies). We also have agreements with Morrisville and Apex. If the county wishes to reimburse Cary for covering for them I see no reason not to pursue that.


Should C-Tran be integrated with Triangle Transit? I believe the county and Cary have been discussing this for years already. Devil's in the details. Not saying I opose the idea however.


Where else could the county and muni work together, save money and not reduce (or improve) service levels?

Nope - now you answer my question: You have stated in the past that you believe county government to be a waste - that their is too much duplication of services. How can county residents trust you to not hand over all the county land left to the municipalities to plan for as they please?

Just because I represent Cary doesn't mean I do not care about the rights of those in the county.

[StanN]

10/27/08
Fitzsimon File

Making six percent on the American nightmare

by Chris Fitzsimon

Tough times continue in the housing market in North Carolina. WRAL-TV recently reported that there have been more than 16,000 foreclosures this year in the state's five biggest counties. Families in rural areas are losing their homes too, with 474 foreclosures in Harnett County.

It is hard to imagine the emotional trauma endured by a family losing a home, often teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, wondering if they'll ever be able to dig out of the financial hole that threatens their future.

The WRAL story mentioned the number of foreclosures, but the focus was on a Harnett County realtor who sells foreclosed homes, 91 of them so far. She describes the process as a nightmare and says she faces threats from dogs to homeowners brandishing guns.

It reinforces the sentiment in the headline, "Foreclosures can be hard on real estate agents, too." But there's a payoff of course, the six percent commission that's always part of the deal whether a family is buying a new house or the realtor is selling one that the bank has repossessed.

It's all part of the billion dollar realtors racket, the six percent commission they take while telling us all that a transfer tax of .4 percent unfairly burdens the homeowner and is a tax on the American dream.

Taking a commission 15 times as much as the tax is just part of the process, even when it comes from selling homes that people have lost or are about to lose.

The people of North Carolina are getting a reminder this fall of where some of that billions in annual profit ends up, paying for misleading ads in local tax votes and offensive attacks against candidates for the General Assembly and county commissions.

The political action committee of the North Carolina Realtors Association spent $573,000 in the third quarter of the year, $209,000 of it to a Florida company to produce direct mail campaigns against candidates the realtors don't like, ones who favor asking the industries that profit from the state's growth to pay part of the costs associated with it.

The ads stretch the truth and often break it, accusing candidates of supporting taxes they've never proposed or blasting candidates for opposing legislation that never came up for a vote.

The PAC also made direct contributions too, many of them $4,000 checks to legislative candidates in close races, legislators the realtors will go see next session to enlist their support to protect their billions.

Some of the ads are paid for by a 527 organization created by the realtors called the N.C. Homeowners Alliance. The realtors raise part of their funding for all this political activity from a mandatory $70 assessment on members of the realtors association. Realtors who refuse to pay lose access to the Multiple Listing Service that is essential to their work.

Leaders of the association announced last year a campaign to raise $10 million for political advocacy. That's a lot of misleading mailers, negative television commercials, and political contributions.

But it's just a drop in the bucket for an industry that makes billions every year taking six percent from the homeowners they claim to defend. The realtors don't seem nearly as interested in protecting the American dream as they are in protecting their massive profits.

That's never been as obvious as this year, as realtors continue to complain about what they say is a tax on the American dream, but don't hesitate to charge their commission on houses families have lost to foreclosure, a commission that represents a tax on the American nightmare.

[johnshaw]

10/27/08
Fitzsimon File
Making six percent on the American nightmare


How does the real estate industry get away with a "standard" commission? Don’t the anti-trust laws apply to them?

[JoeCiulla]

10/27/08
Fitzsimon File

Making six percent on the American nightmare

by Chris Fitzsimon

Tough times continue in the housing market in North Carolina. WRAL-TV recently reported that there have been more than 16,000 foreclosures this year in the state's five biggest counties. Families in rural areas are losing their homes too, with 474 foreclosures in Harnett County.

It is hard to imagine the emotional trauma endured by a family losing a home, often teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, wondering if they'll ever be able to dig out of the financial hole that threatens their future.

The WRAL story mentioned the number of foreclosures, but the focus was on a Harnett County realtor who sells foreclosed homes, 91 of them so far. She describes the process as a nightmare and says she faces threats from dogs to homeowners brandishing guns.

It reinforces the sentiment in the headline, "Foreclosures can be hard on real estate agents, too." But there's a payoff of course, the six percent commission that's always part of the deal whether a family is buying a new house or the realtor is selling one that the bank has repossessed.

It's all part of the billion dollar realtors racket, the six percent commission they take while telling us all that a transfer tax of .4 percent unfairly burdens the homeowner and is a tax on the American dream.

Taking a commission 15 times as much as the tax is just part of the process, even when it comes from selling homes that people have lost or are about to lose.

The people of North Carolina are getting a reminder this fall of where some of that billions in annual profit ends up, paying for misleading ads in local tax votes and offensive attacks against candidates for the General Assembly and county commissions.

The political action committee of the North Carolina Realtors Association spent $573,000 in the third quarter of the year, $209,000 of it to a Florida company to produce direct mail campaigns against candidates the realtors don't like, ones who favor asking the industries that profit from the state's growth to pay part of the costs associated with it.

The ads stretch the truth and often break it, accusing candidates of supporting taxes they've never proposed or blasting candidates for opposing legislation that never came up for a vote.

The PAC also made direct contributions too, many of them $4,000 checks to legislative candidates in close races, legislators the realtors will go see next session to enlist their support to protect their billions.

Some of the ads are paid for by a 527 organization created by the realtors called the N.C. Homeowners Alliance. The realtors raise part of their funding for all this political activity from a mandatory $70 assessment on members of the realtors association. Realtors who refuse to pay lose access to the Multiple Listing Service that is essential to their work.

Leaders of the association announced last year a campaign to raise $10 million for political advocacy. That's a lot of misleading mailers, negative television commercials, and political contributions.

But it's just a drop in the bucket for an industry that makes billions every year taking six percent from the homeowners they claim to defend. The realtors don't seem nearly as interested in protecting the American dream as they are in protecting their massive profits.

That's never been as obvious as this year, as realtors continue to complain about what they say is a tax on the American dream, but don't hesitate to charge their commission on houses families have lost to foreclosure, a commission that represents a tax on the American nightmare.

Stan,
For me, the transfer-tax and NCAR campaign funding are two different matters. I took a dislike to the transfer-tax without any help from the NCAR. Impact fees make sense -- when a new home is added then growth is occurring. The transfer-tax is unfair to people who are moving across town (and thus not adding to infrastructure needs), and hurts seniors who are cashing out of their homes.

Whatever the NCAR may choose to call themselves in a given mailing, I don't think the average Joe will believe that their motivations are philanthropic. I think it sucks that the trade is virtually monopolized with a tacit agreement to hold commissions at 6%. I also do not like them forcing members to pay dues which ultimately are used to support candidates they don't support. This goes both ways, as labor unions are never shy about collecting dues and pouring them into mostly Democrats' campaigns, whether their membership approves or not.

I didn't see their flyer, but you should take them to task on anything that was inaccurate.

[JoeCiulla]

10/27/08
Fitzsimon File
Making six percent on the American nightmare


How does the real estate industry get away with a "standard" commission? Don’t the anti-trust laws apply to them?

That is something I have always wondered about. 9 years ago when I sold my first home in Cary, I tried listing it was a 'discount' broker who charged 4% commission. That was enough to get the house listed in MLS and advertised, but I went an entire month with zero showings. There were two homes at the end of my cul-de-sac on the market at the same time, and during that month I watched realtors drive by and show them to a bunch of prospective buyers. My impression is that the discount broker was being "black-balled" for offering a lower rate.

[MattD]

10/27/08
Fitzsimon File
Making six percent on the American nightmare


How does the real estate industry get away with a "standard" commission? Don’t the anti-trust laws apply to them?

The 6% standard is a misconception. Yes, there are brokers that charge that amount in commission. However, if you shop around, you can find better deals. My wife and I paid 2% commission when we sold our house. Of course I could have gone FSBO and saved that amount of money.

Next time you need the services of a broker, and you don't think you are getting the value of their commission, then ask for a better deal.

[johnshaw]

10/27/08
Fitzsimon File
Making six percent on the American nightmare


How does the real estate industry get away with a "standard" commission? Don’t the anti-trust laws apply to them?

The 6% standard is a misconception. Yes, there are brokers that charge that amount in commission. However, if you shop around, you can find better deals. My wife and I paid 2% commission when we sold our house. Of course I could have gone FSBO and saved that amount of money.

Next time you need the services of a broker, and you don't think you are getting the value of their commission, then ask for a better deal.
It has always been my understanding that the rate for services, like the selling price for goods, cannot be standardized. There can be no suggestion, and particularly no coercion,
to charge a “standard” rate. I have had lawyers and others tell me that they cannot discuss rates with each other. Yet, I have had more than one Realtor mention the “standard” 6% commission. That seems to be the most common commission for any real estate sales, regardless of the part of the country, place in the economic cycles, and value of the property.

Is there something that make real estate commissions different? Is there some kind of anti-trust exemption for real-estate?

[Brent]

(And if in fact *I* am wrong and Stan *did* say it was impossible just point me to the post in this thread in which he did so and *I* will apologize to *you*)

Those who don't have chaboard on "ignore" are waiting.

I expect we'll all wait until the 12th.

[chaboard]

There is no way I or most candidates could possibly compete with that expenditure.

"no way ... could possibly" --> not possible. Impossible.

Stan did say it was impossible.


No dice. In the exact same post he said
"I still have a good chance of winning this election.

and in fact spent an entire paragraph detailing the reasons it was still possible for him to come over that hurdle you are claiming he said it was impossible to overcome.

You pulled a line completely out of context and tried to force a meaning on it that clearly read in context wasn't there. You really should apologize for that dirty little trick.

Like I said, if you can demonstrate that Stan said it was impossible I will apologize. You failed to do that.

[chaboard]

(And if in fact *I* am wrong and Stan *did* say it was impossible just point me to the post in this thread in which he did so and *I* will apologize to *you*)

Those who don't have chaboard on "ignore" are waiting.

I expect we'll all wait until the 12th.

The ball is still in your court, Potsie.

[Brent]

(And if in fact *I* am wrong and Stan *did* say it was impossible just point me to the post in this thread in which he did so and *I* will apologize to *you*)

Those who don't have chaboard on "ignore" are waiting.

I expect we'll all wait until the 12th.

The ball is still in your court, Potsie.

No it's not.

This is completely as expected. chaboard "The Fonz" can't say he was wr...he was wr...

Expecting he might was an exercise in futility. Anyone still expecting it will surely be waiting until the 12th (The Twelfth of Never).

I will join those not waiting.

[MattD]

\

It has always been my understanding that the rate for services, like the selling price for goods, cannot be standardized. There can be no suggestion, and particularly no coercion,
to charge a “standard” rate. I have had lawyers and others tell me that they cannot discuss rates with each other. Yet, I have had more than one Realtor mention the “standard” 6% commission. That seems to be the most common commission for any real estate sales, regardless of the part of the country, place in the economic cycles, and value of the property.

Is there something that make real estate commissions different? Is there some kind of anti-trust exemption for real-estate?


We might be splitting hairs in defining the word "standard". The avg commission might be 6%. The standard commission might be 6%. Traditionally the commision is 6%. Usually the commission is 6% etc. It would be similar to say the standard rate for an atty is 1/3 of the courts winnings. Or an agent receiving 10%.

Again - if you don't think you are getting the value of a Broker charing 6% commission, then negotiate with them. If they decline, then shop else where. There are SEVERAL places charing lower commission and/or flat fees.

[ncmitchells]

In Morrisville, Lyons, Martin and Murry voted against asking the GA for the additional $10 in taxing authority. Faulkner, Johnson, Snyder and Carrow voted for it.
Jackie

Jackie,

Do you have the vote record for Apex on the car tax issue?

Thanks for the sleuthing.

[Jackie]

Jackie,

Do you have the vote record for Apex on the car tax issue?


From the Apex Town clerk:
Town of Apex Council Minutes of April 17, 2007: Vote on the motion to approve the Town’s inclusion in the municipal vehicle tax bill was 4 voting in favor (Council Members: Jensen, Jones, Schulze and Sutton) and 1 voting in opposition (Council Member Gossage). Motion carried.

I didn't agree with the town of Morrisville's request for legislative authority to up the vehicle tax. But I applaud Representative Harrell's responsiveness to this and other requests that have come from our elected board.

Jackie