In My Opinion

[Rono]

For those of you who may not get the Cary News, and for those of you who may want to weigh in on my opinion, below is the In My Opinion article in todays paper


TIME IS OVERDUE TO COME TOGETHER


This Sunday, December 19th marks the one year anniversary of a special Town of Cary Council Meeting that rescinded an aggressive involuntary annexation attempt. This attempt, according to the special meeting minutes that started it, was due to:

1. Failure of Holly Springs to accept a proposed Utility Service and Annexation Boundary Agreement with Cary
2. Continued action by Holly Springs to annex into (Cary’s) designated Service area
3. Protection of town investments

This whole mess got started right before Thanksgiving last year at a Monday November 24th special council meeting called two days prior by former Mayor Glen Lang. With Holly Springs as a back drop of a threat, the Town Council was convinced to vote to begin the involuntary annexation of some 4,800 unincorporated area residents.

Having been caught in the middle of this “border war,” I can assure you that the above reasoning caused many anxious feelings between the Town of Cary, Holly Springs and the affected residents. These feelings resulted in residents protesting, Holly Springs denying wrongdoing and Cary publicly trying to justify its aggression.

Communication issues

It was a circus for several weeks, with attention being paid to property owners rebelling for being used as political pawns. Tea party protests and political position speeches were mixed in with a mess of unanswered questions and accusations. Lots of people were speaking but no one was really working to communicate with one another. While currently some of the emotion has died down, a lot of the communication issues have not changed.

As last years battle heated up, it became clear that this was not just about a border war. What was clear was that the subject of annexation contained different views of growth and investment, reason and intent, and property /citizens rights verses state law and intent.

The border war was resolved when Holly Springs and Cary came to an agreement. Cary, at it’s December 19th special council meeting , rescinded it’s resolution of intent to annex. During this meeting, what showed everyone that the annexation issue was more than just a border war, was a statement by Mayor McAlister. He stated that in the future, people should expect a more orderly process. This statement said it all. It said that Cary still intends to annex, he just wanted people to know that he would like it done it in a more orderly way.

Set in motion

At the beginning of the year, the Town Council set in motion a plan to create a new annexation policy. They also set back in motion plans to request Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) over most of this same area that residents thought was just resolved.

When it became clear that the Town of Cary would continue seeking ETJ from the Wake County Commissioners, many affected residents questioned why such action should move forward without the new annexation plan in place first. Since the new annexation plan now was being developed and no complete plan was in place, how could the Town commit to the Wake County criteria of stating the area would be annexed in ten years without a plan in place?

Our question was unanswered by Cary and the ETJ request went forward. This caused residents to once again get upset and feel like they were once again being used. Wake County began its ETJ review process in June and several meetings occurred

In July, residents questioned Cary’s 2002 annexation of roadways Ten- Ten and West Lake Road. This 2002 annexation was being used as a town border. Questions have been raised about proper notification of adjoining property owners along these roadways. If this 2002 annexation was illegal, this ETJ request by Cary then was too large by state statutes. In other words, we were asking if Cary was making an illegal request. So, the Wake Counties land use committee, understanding our question, requested information from Cary about this.

In September, Cary requested that the ETJ request be tabled until the new annexation plan was place. The residents, who felt this was proper in the first place, were happy about this. But because of the developing history over the past year of Cary’s non- cooperative manor of communicating, the affected resident’s happiness was tempered with caution. Furthermore, to get to the bottom of the 2002 annexation question, the President of the Swift Creek Alliance group filed an affidavit with North Carolinas Attorney Generals office questioning the 2002 annexation, in an effort to get an answer. He is still waiting the outcome of that inquiry.

Begging the question

As of today, the Cary staff has completed a draft annexation plan. (For a copy of this draft plan go to www.StopNCAnnexation.com) The staff has begun to review it with individual Town Councilors. They also plan to take input from several focus groups of property owners with recent annexation experience. Unfortunately there still is no open public commitment by the town to include us potentially affected residents. It begs the following question. Why is Cary still not working to include input from the residents that may ultimately be most affected by this new annexation policy?

Those of us in the affected areas want to work with the Town of Cary to find the mutual gains to both of us. We can not get there if we are not included. In order to have the more orderly process that Mayor McAlister spoke of last year, both sides need to take part.

In my opinion, the time is overdue for us to come together to try to find the mutual gains necessary to move forward and leave the messy, distrustful past behind us.

I wait, on behalf of all the potential affected residents, for the Cary Town leader’s invitation. It is my /our hope that such invitation will be for us to come and be a participating part of the planning and the process.

Ron Thoreson is President,of the Dutchman Downs Homeowners Association, Chairman, StopCary.com,and StopNCAnnexation.com

[/b]

[washere]

Ron-
That is an outstanding piece on the history of the situation with the UA, and what led to the attempted involuntary annexation of last year. It's always nice to read a simple, to the point, and overwhelmingly factual summary of events.

I do want to comment on your closing, however:

Those of us in the affected areas want to work with the Town of Cary to find the mutual gains to both of us. We can not get there if we are not included. In order to have the more orderly process that Mayor McAlister spoke of last year, both sides need to take part.

In my opinion, the time is overdue for us to come together to try to find the mutual gains necessary to move forward and leave the messy, distrustful past behind us.

I wait, on behalf of all the potential affected residents, for the Cary Town leader’s invitation. It is my /our hope that such invitation will be for us to come and be a participating part of the planning and the process.


I think that because of the way your group has handled itself in the past, you are unlikely to get many further audiences with the council. Think about what you're saying here: you say that you want to give your input so that there can be mutual gains and everyone can walk away generally pleased. Here's where I take issue.

How can you possibly maintain that you want to work this out amicably, when everytime you get the opportunity, you insult the TOC staff, the CTC, and shout at everyone who will listen that you DO NOT WANT TO BE PART OF CARY!!!!

Believe me Ron, everyone knows that you don't want to be part of Cary.

IMO, here's what you're going to have to say to get a dialogue open with the CTC and TOC Staff:

"We understand that we are going to be annexed. We would like to give our input in the process so that we can both walk away as pleased as possible."

-or-

"We understand that we're going to be annexed. Why don't we work together toward a better understood, more orderly process?"

The key here, Ron, being that you admit that you understand that you will be annexed, and are going to stop fighting against it. You will however, keep fighting for fair, transparent procedures and a voice in how it happens.

I understand why you guys behaved the way you did. You were backed into a corner, and if you didn't make as much noise as possible, you were going to lose. That made sense then. The problem now, is that last years plan to stop involuntary annexation, while good for accomplishing that purpose, was a really bad strategic move.

Unfortuantely, now everyone involved believs that you're a bunch of rabid monkeys and is looking to hurt you just as badly as you hurt them. Your group has given itself a reputation for being difficult to work with, so I don't blame those involved in 'negotiating' with you for not wanting to work with you now.

Ron, I think you have some great ideas on how to accomplish annexing the UAs and Cary's ETJ in a fair and equitable way (ie, via home sales over the next 20 yrs). The problem I see for you now, is getting the "troops" behind a common annexation plan, and to agree to quit antagonizing the CTC and the TOC staff.

I will say, that a well thought out, factual, and unemotional piece such as this is a fantastic step towards smoothing things out, mending bridges, and re-opening a dialogue with the TOC.

Again Ron, excellent, excellent, excellent piece. It's always a pleasure. :wink:

[Wuptdo]

Ron wrote:


With Holly Springs as a back drop of a threat -- Holly Springs denies any wrongdoing...

Ron - this was the only area of your letter I really objected to. This is a case where you don't know the history. Holly Springs has been doing this type of crap for years. My former boss was both Mayor of Apex and Fuquay-Varina, so I am aware of the additional history prior to my arrival in 1989. Holly Springs was the problem that started the whole mess in the first place (doing the land grap during Cary leadership shift). And this goes back to Cary helping out the schools by providing water and sewer to the Middle Creeks Schools.

From my standpoint, you blame Cary for everything, but would you have "fought" so hard if it was Holly Springs going after you?

Your letter for the most part can be considered an olive branch reaching out. But given the past history of your group, there could be a "viper" hiding in those branches; to the CTC council, I would recommend extreme caution. Annexation is not a trip to Disney World, it's a trip to the Denist for a root canal -- it is meant to be painful (for all).

From a letter standpoint, 3 out 4 stars. With CharChar as your editor (recommended) add .5 stars. :D

Wuptdo B-)

[Brent]

For those of you who may not get the Cary News, and for those of you who may want to weigh in on my opinion, below is the In My Opinion article in todays paper

Yeah, but if you don't get the Cary News, then you're missing out on that fine photo that accompanied the column! :wink:

[Rono]

CharChar and Wuptdo

Thank your very much for your real candid opinions. I appreciate outside input and yours are well taken.

Annexation is a contentious issue. From our perspective, people’s property rights and tax dollars are at stake. From others perspective, it is a law that is meant to be used. I feel there is a place in the middle for both groups to find.

I also need to again remind you and everyone else that our group of affected property owners, through research, meetings and discussions, decide the course of action that we all participated in over the past year. I became a spokesperson for the many, not the director of a few.

Most all in our group believes that in a democracy that has been set up to be by the people and for the people. Most of us out here agree that the word "involuntary" does not fit into that belief.

Char, your logic, to succumb to what you conclude is inevitable, is your honest opinion. I respect that. In an effort to understand what you have put out as to what you believe have been our difficulties I need you to specifically show examples of what you think we did wrong. I understand your opinion….please explain (and support) each specific instance that are included in your below use of the words “every time” Look at it this way, in order to explain your (this) reasoning to our group, I will need specific instances that support your (the) opinion / belief.


How can you possibly maintain that you want to work this out amicably, when every time you get the opportunity, you insult the TOC staff, the CTC….

This will then support your following statement.


The problem now, is that last years plan to stop involuntary annexation, while good for accomplishing that purpose, was a really bad strategic move.

And finally, I will not, I promise you, let the rest of our group know what you have called them. I do think that what you believe we have done (supposedly to the TOC staff and CTC ) is exactly what you yourself have done to us here.


Unfortunately, now everyone involved believes that you're a bunch of rabid monkeys

Now Char, I know you meant no insult by your description here….But when put in perspective, I need to ask you the following question. Why would our group, (given your line of thought) want to listen to your reasoning, when you say our current lack of success in forwarding our opinion (no involuntary annexation) is the very same method that you have used here in negative descriptive terms of us in a letter (post) that you have typed to promote your own? (I will truely bring forward your supported arguements to the group regardless of being called a rabid monkey!) Don't forget, I have stated here before that I was also once was called a misogynist in a letter to the editor. Hopefully you don't beleive that!

And Wuptdo, you are, in my opinion, correct that Holly Springs was/is not innocent. I can tell you this much though, they were much more politically savvy last year than the TOC was.

Also


But given the past history of your group, there could be a "viper" hiding in those branches; to the CTC council, I would recommend extreme caution.

Extreme caution is need on both sides. This means that a joint process, in order to be successful will have to be slow, deliberate and one step at a time. My opinion is that government (which is both the people and the established government) should never do it any other wayt han slow, deliberate and one step at a time. .

This rule, in my opinion, is what was violated last year. It is what caused the preverbal first shot to ring out. And then, as Char describes it, us, the rabid monkeys were born <grin>

The million dollar question is, and the reason for my "in my opinion" letter is /was, where can we go from here? I/we think it is time to move forward and learn from the past, and also leave it behind us.

Rono

[dhyatt]

Rono,
This issue has been beat to death already but I can always think of a new twist :-) What are your thoughts on the idea of what I'll call a "Municipal Use Tax"? The idea being that there are tangible benefits associated with bordering on a municipality AND that many residents in the UA don't want nor need municipal services. It would (this being NC) require legislative authorization and it might provide some transition between where you are now and the future, more difficult, case of being a "doughnut hole".

How would you feel about a $.10-$.15 property tax increase if it staved off "full" annexation until if/when you were totaly surrounded (scary though, I know ;-). This is bit of a variation on the mostly poorly received "commuter tax" some cities have but it's one way where there may be some common ground.

[washere]

Well, as long as we agree that we're all a bunch of rabid monkeys, I guess we're okay :wink: .

I didn't intend to suggest that DD, the UA, etc. should succumb to involuntary annexation b/c it's inevitable. I inferred from your article (where you stated that you'd like a voice in what happens) that that's what you meant. I am very sorry for misunderstanding.

I don't think that involuntary annexation is a given in your case. I don't know that you'll ever be part of Cary. Maybe you'll become (gasp!) part of HS, or maybe some beach town will annex the rest of the way up 1010, and you'll become "ocean front", lol.

My point was, and perhaps it was poorly made, that you guys have (rightfully or wrongfully, for better or for worse) pissed off a lot of people on the CTC and TOC staff. A lot of the CTC and TOC staff have pissed you off. And I don't think it's fair to say that they were simply angered b/c you protested the involuntary annexations. I think the manner in which both sides behaved caused this problem.

Probably the best way for your side to procede at this point is with a sincere apology. Instead of responding to people's concerns that Stop Cary got "too personal" with the CTC and staff, apologize and explain that that was never your intention. You get the idea.

Your homes are probably your largest investments. That's enough to make anyone emotional. It's completely understandable that some things were said and done that were regrettable.

To your request/challenge that I provide specific actions that Stop Cary commited that lead to my statement that "everytime you [Stop Cary] gets the opportunity you insult the TOC staff, the CTC...", I'll counter with the fact that that's public perception. Perhaps it's an overstatement of the facts, or unfairly negatively biased towards your group, Ron, but good or bad, a fair number of citizens in Cary share my perception.

As proof of my point, how can signs that "loudly" proclaim, "STOP CARY!" possibly be anything other than antagonistic?

Here's an exercise for you to propose to the CTC:
Both sides can make 2 lists: What I want, what I'd be willing to give.

For example (highly abbreviated versions follow),

The CTC's/staff list might look like this:
-We want to annex DD today!
-We'd be willing to put together a plan that allows annexation of DD in (let's just pretend) 10 years.

Stop Cary's list might look like this:
-We never want to be annexed into Cary.
-We'd be willing to be annexed today if a popular vote of the affected residents supported the action.

You get the idea. After you guys do lists like that, you'll have a much better idea of where each side stands, and what each side wants (instead of just putting words in each others' mouths).

[Laurie]

"Can't we all just get along?"

[johnb]

No.

A lot of the CTC and TOC staff have pissed you off.

Whether the city staff or politicians have the feelings hurt is immaterial. They are paid by tax money, this is not a personal fiefdom for any of them. They are required to act on the basis of the public good in accordance with the law, not their personal feelings. If they don't like that they can resign, staff and politicians, and stomp off. Ron and the folks in Dutchman Downs are gonna get screwed because city staff is mad and that's a damned shame.

What this should illustrate to everyone, but most will deny it, is that yes, city employees and politicians will in fact use their position to the deteriment of those that anger them. And that is just plain wrong.

Whether an individual makes the slacker gov't employee mad or not is immaterial, if the individual is right, right is right whether or not the government lackey likes it or not.

But then, I'm one those fools who think gov't power should be used sparingly and impartially. What the h@ll do I know?

[Wuptdo]

Laurie wrote:


"Can't we all just get along?"


No. It's politics and it is personnal. :-D Revenge is a dish best served cold; and folks on CTC and Staff have very long memories. 8O

JohnB wrote:


What the h@ll do I know?

You know the truth, and the "truth" will set you free. And as you are flying away someone will shoot you out of the air cause you know the "truth."

AHyatt wrote:


How would you feel about a $.10-$.15 property tax increase if it staved off "full" annexation until if/when you were totaly surrounded (scary though, I know . This is bit of a variation on the mostly poorly received "commuter tax" some cities have but it's one way where there may be some common ground.

Interesting idea Don. Need to run with it. :)

Wuptdo B-)

[Cathy]

Charlotte,

I'm glad that you clarified your previous post.
I was trying to figure out why you would say some of the things that you did. (.......monkeys???)
I was going to ask you if it was just the Stop Cary/Dutchman Downs folks who in your opinion behaved badly, or was all of us that have opposed involuntary annexation??
Still.... I think that there is something uncomfortably wrong with making excuses for elected officials poor behavior or the questionable judgement of hired city employees.
Drawing from the experience of Medfield Estates with the Town when we opposed annexation, it seems to me that it matters very little how one goes about opposing the Town's decision to do it. What seems to matter to Town officials is that they were opposed and they don't like it.

We remained civil and tried to work with Council members one on one within the process, by the rules, and we are still viewed by some Council members as being "difficult" and "troublemakers". This attitude on the part of some of the Town Staff and Council has carried over to nearly every decision that they make that effects our neighborhood in any way.
We can pretty much count on having our wishes and desires ignored, even though TOC has planning and regulatory control over our land.

These people who have been put in positions that affect our governance have a higher standard to live up to. They should not be petty and capricious in regard to how they make decisions. If they don't like the standard, then they should find another occupation.

And Don...your idea may have some merit. IF the benefit can be proven and rated fairly. It would certainly be a compromise that the "fair share" folks should support. Unless, of course, they really have a different agenda for the annexation.

Cathy

[washere]

Ron, I'd also like to point out that I never called anyone a rabid monkey with the intent of being offensive. I was being faceitious :lol: .

For the record, here's what I actually said:

"Unfortuantely, now everyone involved believes that you're a bunch of rabid monkeys and is looking to hurt you just as badly as you hurt them. Your group has given itself a reputation for being difficult to work with, so I don't blame those involved in 'negotiating' with you for not wanting to work with you now. "

I'd imagine that this behavior of taking things out of context and twisting them around probably went a long way towards earning your group the reputation it currently enjoys. :roll:

[Cathy]

AMEN!! And THANK YOU JohnB!!

[Cathy]

Charlotte,

Where did you get the idea that the Town officials view them as "a bunch of rabid monkeys"?? Did they tell you that?

And perhaps you could explain why you "don't blame those involved in 'negotiating' with you for not wanting to work with you now. "???

This implies that you agree with their assessment of these people as you have characterized it.

Your words weren't twisted out of context. You may not realize how they came across.

Cathy

[washere]

Where did you get the idea that the Town officials view them as "a bunch of rabid monkeys"?? Did they tell you that?

I've said before, and I'll say it again, I was being faceitious. How about this...in my opinion, many CTC members and staff don't view you...amicably and favorably...how's that? If you want me to go finding specific statements, etc., I'll be happy to, but I'm sure you can concede that point.



And perhaps you could explain why you "don't blame those involved in 'negotiating' with you for not wanting to work with you now. "???

This implies that you agree with their assessment of these people as you have characterized it.

Just to make sure that we're all on the same page, let me say again that I don't think you guys are rabid monkeys. Remind me later that my jokes tend to go over like lead balloons :lol: .

You guys worked aggressively to get your message out, and achieve your goal of stopping/delaying the involuntary annexation. While you achieved your short-term goal, I think you made a critical error in your long-term strategy.

Like it or not, you guys burned a lot of bridges, and really irked the people with the potential to aide your cause. But again, you accomplished your immediate need, which may have ultimately been the most important consideration.

Should anger, etc. determine the TOC's willingness to hear you? Nope. But you guys have given yourselves the reputation of being impossible to work with. Somehow, somewhere, the TC and staff got the idea that nothing would make you happy.

And if they've convinced themselves that nothing will make you happy (again, I'm not saying this is what the TOC staff/TC actually thinks, I'm just contemplating), then what would be the logical purpose in them continuing to "negotiate"?



Your words weren't twisted out of context. You may not realize how they came across.

Again, I do apologize. Cyberspace does have a way of editing my tone out of my post :lol: .

But I will submit, that thinking the worst of every comment made by both sides is what's gotten us here in the first place.

I'm with Laurie:
"Can't we all get along?"

Or at least lighten up?

Another suggestion to the STOP CARY! group:
I think one reason that you guys have a reputation for being difficult to work with, is that you (in my experience) only state what you're against and what you won't accept. Even, "I'd accept this, if (insert string of conditions here)..." has a tendency to come off poorly.

I'd suggest (in all sincerity!) that at your next meeting, you encourage residents/citizens to come up with a list of what they want (and then publicize that) instead of what they don't want. Perhaps you could come up with one or two suggestions to end the issue and then get behind those as a group.

A long list of "don'ts" tends to shut people down, myself included.

And I'm thinking legitimate compromises, like JohnB's suggestion that the TOC adopt a policy, and give you guys plenty of time to move if you don't like it, or tax increase until you become doughnut holes, or annexation through home sales, etc.

[Rono]

Cathy, good point


Your words weren't twisted out of context. You may not realize how they came across.

But CharChar I know meant no harm. My point is the same. I/we have really not meant "harm" But perception, as CharChar is finding out, can override the reality of what is going on.

As to DonH suggestion, I, along wth others out here are certainly interested in outside the box ideas. This is the kind of thing we want to be involved with

As to beating this to death, I am truely sorry but it really never will die until changes are made. If it is not us/me, it has been and will be other property owners. Since annexation is not of the norm nationally, we get to figure out how to make it work for all (What a privilage HA!)

While this board can and may forever debate school, development, sign and whatever issues, it is safe to say that the emotion over involuntary annexation will never really die either until good changes are made. Those changes will only happen by a spirit of cooperation and outside the box thinking

Rono

[washere]

John (et al)-

I'd also like to point out that the CTC and TOC staff don't work for those in the UA and ETJ.

They work for those of us in the TOC.

Their job is to negotiate to get ME the best deal possible, not you.

I think that that's a basis for frustration with the STOP CARY! people.

But there's where you made a tactical miscalculation. Considering that the people you need to help you have no accountability to you, you'll have to tread very lightly. They don't have any reason to help you in the first place, so I'd probably quit giving them reasons to not help you.

Another sincere suggestion: why not request that (and work towards) an additional TC member be elected to represent the UA/ETJ???

[Cathy]

Charlotte,

You have just made a very good argument for the elimination of the practice of Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction. The citizens in the area are put in a VERY BAD position. VERY un-American.

And this quote came to mind as I read the rest of your post:


"Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, 'What should be the reward of such sacrifices?' ... If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom,...crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!"--Samuel Adams
This too:


"Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it." --John Adams

[washere]

What alternative do you suggest that's better than the ETJ system in place now?

The TOC staff/CTC don't work for you b/c you don't pay them. You're choice is to be annexed and be represented, or take what you've got now.

For better or worse, you chose to live in the UA. NC law intends that every UA that is urban in nature be annexed into municipal limits.

Maybe it's un-American. Maybe it needs to be changed. In any eventuality, you chose to live there without adequate representation.

If you don't like it, why not do as has been suggested, and make sure people sympathetic to your cause are elected? I understand that you have set this process in motion already. Other than doing everything you can to ensure those you agree with are in power, what exactly is it that you want?

Additionally, you could work towards trying to get an additional member from the UA/ETJ elected to the CTC, as I previously suggested.

I understand your frustration, but your post is reminicent of my feelings on STOP CARY! in general. You do a lot of finger-pointing, and shouting about how what happens isn't fair, but very little suggesting on better alternatives.

I'll ask again, given the law/situation as it is now, what would be a fair and equitable alternative (for all involved) to the current ETJ system?

[Rono]

I'll ask again, given the law/situation as it is now, what would be a fair and equitable alternative (for all involved) to the current ETJ system?

Hey Char, I like your feisty attitude. You are, while standing on an opinion, asking some questions. That is great.

One problem though is that I don't seem to see or feel from you is an “out side the box” approach or a solid I believe in this because approach. The above quote where you state "given the law/situation as it is now" corners those of us who work and believe in change into a spot that has been/ is predetermined by others. I am not sure that you think this is the way it should be or not.

We of course are all free thinkers, so questioning what others may have predetermined to be correct is not being rabid monkeys, it is only running the checks and balances necessary to support (or work to change) such pre determination.

If you are, such as you seem to be, acceptant of what exists, then challenging us non conformists with the virtues would seem to be one proper way of selling your belief. There may be others that I can not think of at this moment, but surely when / if you believe in something, there is usually are a reason(s) behind that conviction

If, on the other hand, you believe that the CTC is there just to serve your interest, and not mine, then you are in essence drawing the proverbial line in the sand, which suggest my (the existing) way or the highway. That of course is you right as well.

All of this only follows the old suggested rule of lead, follow, or get the h*ll out of the way.

Again CharChar I say that you have great spirit. I’m just suggesting you focus it on a belief, goal or objective. Sell what you are shoveling and convince me it does not smell bad!

Rono

[Rono]

CharChar wrote


what exactly is it that you want?

Perhaps it is better if I tell you what I don’t want CharChar

I do not want to pay for the duplication of services that I do not need.

Police
Fire
Garbage service
Road service (on my street…) don’t go there StanN!
Different Street Lighting
Building permits and inspections
Sewer service
Water Service

All of the above I already have and am perfectly satisfied with not to mention that duplicating govermental services is growing government, not reducing it. Why make more government and not reduce government???

I do not want to abide by:

Stricter land use ordinances
Stricter, (not to mention in my opinion unconstitutional) sign ordinances
Town requirements that do not exist by our current standards (the ones I bought into when I moved here) I want a say in any necessary changes to these sorts of things.

I do not want to pay for the amenities that some may believe bring “quality of life” to a community. They are fine for you people who vote for the representative who think up these ways to spend your tax dollars. Aquatic Centers, Dog Parks, Amphitheaters etc. that can’t support themselves, in my opinion, are not something government should be involved with. I should not be brought in to help reduce your cost of things that I had no vote or say in. (This is where Donh idea of phasing in payments makes some sense…why should I pay for these past mistakes?)

I have probably missed a bunch of other reasons, but this is a healthy start to tell you what I/we DON’T WANT

Rono

[washere]

Ron darling, you absolutely crack me up (in a good way, mostly :wink: )!

Honey, I'm a real estate broker. According to our pal Wup, I con people for a living. So apparently I'm really good at my ability to sell whatever it is that I'm shoveling :lol: .

I don't know what I think about the annexation issue. I think both sides have been difficult to work with at times, and that neither is completely without fault in this situation. What's important to me, is knowing what the STOP CARY! people are hoping to achieve, and what their better solution is in this situation. The fact that I'm having a very difficult time getting to the bottom of what the STOP CARY! solution is is very troubling to me. I mean, atleast I know what the TOC is after, lol.

I will say, amusingly enough, that I've NEVER in my entire life (brief though it may be) been accused of thinking in a linear, logical fashion. In fact, I think your "outside the box" ideas are outstanding, and could be convinced to get behind them with you.

The problem with creative thinking and solutions in this situation, is that your plan right now needs to be based on the law as it is currently written. If you don't like the current law, then by all means, please do everything you can to change it. However, you can't *assume* that you'll be able to change the law. It seems to me that your primary plan should be based on the law as it is now, with alternate plans should you succeed in changing the law.

Your list of "what I don't want" is exactly what I'm trying to get you to re-think. I'm telling ya Ron, a list like that does nothing but insult the CTC and just makes people shut down. I think you're going to have a much easier time "selling" your plan to the people of Cary (and those that represent them) if you try to communicate your message in a positive fashion.

When I read a list like that, it just makes me feel even more like STOP CARY! is impossible to work with and that nothing could possibly make you happy.

If your end goal is never to be a part of Cary, then just say so. Why not move towards incorporating yourselves? Why not voluntarily annex into Apex, or HS? Or get some ocean-front town that you've always wanted to live in to annex the rest of the way up 1010 :-D ?

The point is (and my job is to sell it, baby!), you want to communicate what you want in a positive way. When I'm selling a house, I don't say, "A real trash dump!", I say, "A great opportunity for 'sweat equity'!". You get the idea.

Why not try a campaign something like this:
-Do you believe you should have a right to your property? (edited to add, okay, maybe you shouldn't add that, and then at the bottom say, "Neither do we." eek! :oops: ) :lol:
-Do you like higher taxes?
-Do you like it when the government wastes your money?
-Do you think you should be forced to fund special interest projects?
*Neither do we, but apparently the TOC doesn't agree with us. Visit us at www.stopncannexation.com to learn more.*

I can't imagine anyone would side with the TOC after something like that, lol!

I'll tell you what else would really intrigue me: signs going out past 1010 on Kildaire Farm Rd. that say:
"All we want is a fair deal."

It's REALLY hard to argue with that :wink: .

[Cathy]

I'll ask again, given the law/situation as it is now, what would be a fair and equitable alternative (for all involved) to the current ETJ system?

There is nothing UNFAIR about people being able to CHOOSE to live in the County jurisdiction and be satisfied with LESS government.

It is UNFAIR for someone to be able to come along and decide that these same people can NO LONGER live under less government against their will.

It is UNFAIR that municipal officials are given power to make decisions that impact people who did not CHOOSE to live in their particular municipality.

What we WANT is LESS!
Less interference,
LESS regulation,
LESS government provided services,
LESS taxes.

At least, that is what I want.

If you like all that Cary is offering and are willing to pay for it and obey the rules, then you did the right thing in moving into Cary.

The only thing that Cary has that is of any interest to me is what the free market provides. If the Town stuck to using tax revenue to support infrastructure for attracting business and industry, then I might feel more inclined to buy into it.
I don't want Town sidewalks or garbage pickup, or Parks and Rec projects, (I help support State and Federal Parks and that's enough for me) or any other government subsidized sports and entertainment_or leaf pick up, or public art, or big fancy Town Halls with more public art. I know there is more, but I just don't care about what Cary offers, so I don't keep track of all that your tax revenue subsidizes.

I WANT LESS! And I don't want my right to choose to have less taken away from me against my will.

Medfield Estates was built in the 60's and 70's, miles away from Cary when Cary was a small town. The only thing Medfield was convenient to was the State Fair Grounds and RTP by way of Rt 54. Interstate 40 wasn't even built until the 80's. Raleigh was the place to go for anything one needed, not Cary. So why should Cary now think that they are all that and deserve to take my money to support their lavish "Quality of Life".

If I agreed with what Cary calls "Quailty of Life" I would have moved into Cary and bought a huge pretentious house on a dinky lot so I could have all of those government supplied amenities and a Town Government that I could pester for more and more stuff all the time.

Quality of life to me is a more modest house with a little more land (also known as "sprawl") and lower taxes and as little government in my day to day life as possible. Anything else around here that the free market provides because there are willing buyers concentrated in one area is just gravy.

Cathy

[washere]

Sounds reasonable to me. So why don't you start making signs that say, 'I WANT LESS!'?

You're right, there's nothing unfair with choosing to live with less representation. I disagree, that TOC, HS, et al trying to annex you in accordance with state law is unfair. That's the law on the books.

If you don't like it, change it.

But, you knew (or should have known!) that every area in NC that is urban in nature is intended to be incorporated. That includes your area. So quit blaming the TOC for your ignorance.

[StanN]

Rono said:


I do not want to pay for the duplication of services that I do not need.

Police
Fire
Garbage service
Road service (on my street…) don’t go there StanN!
Different Street Lighting
Building permits and inspections
Sewer service
Water Service

Lets start with Police Service. I unnderstand you don't want to pay for duplication of services. But the facts are that everyone in CarY (and every other muni) is paying double for their police service. First to their own muni and second to the county for the sheriff's patrol. Not counting the sheriff's statutory duties as officers of the court and attendants of the jail, this costs roughly $20 M/yr.

Would you support a separate tax district in the UA for the sheriff's patrol service? Based on 60K households in the UA this would cost you ~$300+/yr. in new taxes.

In a similar vein, would you support a separate tax for the environmental services involving wells and septic systems + the costs of building permits and inspections - all of which are duplicated in the muni's and for which muni residents are also billed by the county? As a very rough guess I would est. this would cost you $100/yr. - but this remains to be better defined.

Assuming you would be responsible for the maintenance of the streets in your subdivision, would you be willing to pay for a share of the cost of improving major arterial roads (e.g. Kildaire Farms Road). This added tax would be determined by the sum paid to improve such roads by the muni's (less state supplied Powell Bill funds) divided among the residences in the UA. The amount would have to be researched but as a roundhouse guess I'd estimate $75 M/yr. If bonded the burden would be about $7.5 M/yr or about $120/household.

Of course you would continue to pick up the bill for fire, emergency and garbage services - as you do now.

In addition you could only request muni water and sewer services during a one month window every five years. If your own services failed during that time you would have to bear the full costs of any rescue operation. This would relieve the muni of the cost and obligation to maintain spare capacity.

So you would wind up paying $550/yr. in additional taxes - in return for which you would be exempt from annexation until you were 90% surrounded by the muni.

After comparing that additional tax burden (and added risk) to your actual costs of annexation, I would guess that many in the UA would vounteer for annexation.

What do you think??

stan

stan

[Cathy]

Sounds reasonable to me. So why don't you start making signs that say, 'I WANT LESS!'?

You're right, there's nothing unfair with choosing to live with less representation. I disagree, that TOC, HS, et al trying to annex you in accordance with state law is unfair. That's the law on the books.

If you don't like it, change it.

But, you knew (or should have known!) that every area in NC that is urban in nature is intended to be incorporated. That includes your area. So quit blaming the TOC for your ignorance.

I AM trying to change the law. AND protect what I think I have a right to in the meantime.

And I suppose you read the entire General Statutes when you were shopping for a house, eh? And you read the entire LDO too I suppose?

I knew I was buying a house that WAS NOT in the Town of Cary, and the policy of aggressive annexation was not used much until fairly recently, with the advent of the Comprehensive Land Use Planning fad.

Annexation of existing development is going to cost every taxpayer in Cary. You would think that you would want your elected officials to spend your tax revenue on providing services to you.
When I need what the Town provides in order to protect my investment, I would be much more willing to foot the bill in order to get it.

Involuntary annexation is not about fairness, it's about power and money.

[Cathy]

Stan,

Cary should really look into being a completely separate entity. An island unto itself of tax revenue.
I would be real interested to see how much more everyone in Cary would have to pay to maintain that "Quality of Life" if they suddenly had to do it all on their own, without any subsidy from the State or Federal government.

Cathy

[Wuptdo]

Cathy wrote:


I would be real interested to see how much more everyone in Cary would have to pay to maintain that "Quality of Life" if they suddenly had to do it all on their own, without any subsidy from the State or Federal government.


Cathy - I would it apply it to the UA's as well. Imagine, the Feds only taking care of defense, commerce, and Federal Offices. Make the states and counties responsibility for all our service and such. It would like be a dream come true. Local representation and local taxation. Talking about holding you neighbors accountable for their actions.

I can't find what speech, but they really nailed President Reagan when he said something like what you pay to the Federal Government in Taxes, you should be paying to your state, and what you pay your state is what the Federal Government should get. Completely shift the tax burden back to state and local control -- now that would be a dream come true!

Wuptdo B-)

[washere]

But, you knew (or should have known!) that every area in NC that is urban in nature is intended to be incorporated. That includes your area. So quit blaming the TOC for your ignorance.

I AM trying to change the law. AND protect what I think I have a right to in the meantime.

And I suppose you read the entire General Statutes when you were shopping for a house, eh? And you read the entire LDO too I suppose?

I knew I was buying a house that WAS NOT in the Town of Cary, and the policy of aggressive annexation was not used much until fairly recently, with the advent of the Comprehensive Land Use Planning fad.

You bet your bottom dollar I've read every SS that pertains to real property in NC.

I am very well-read in real property laws in NC b/c it involves my work, however, it has very little to do with the fact that I'm a homeowner, so it wouldn't be fair for me to say that you should have read all of the pertinent law before choosing your own home.

My point was, simply that it's not fair for you to be upset that the TOC is trying to annex you when you *should have* known all along that this was a possibility and prepared for it appropriately.

Since you failed to do so, I hardly think the TOC should bare the cost of your ignorance.

So I do have a question that I ask in all sincerity:
Is it that you don't want to be annexed at all (which I know you now realize is in conflict with state law), or do you just not want to be part of the TOC???

And if the issue is just the TOC, then why haven't you been beating down the doors of other neighboring municipalities to be voluntarily annexed???

[Rono]

Char Char Wrote


If your end goal is never to be a part of Cary, then just say so. Why not move towards incorporating yourselves? Why not voluntarily annex into Apex, or HS? Or get some ocean-front town that you've always wanted to live in to annex the rest of the way up 1010 ?


And if the issue is just the TOC, then why haven't you been beating down the doors of other neighboring municipalities to be voluntarily annexed???


Ok Char, forgive me for getting a little snippy here but since you are a realtor I need to remind you of the term “service boundary agreements” You know…the ones that Cary and Holly Springs fought over last year? Point here and I will just be blunt. The annexation laws have protection from so many different other laws and agreements that it is a wonder North Carolina has not been called a police state when it comes to property. There is a vast history of why things are as they are today. Undoing, what I believe was a corrupt and crooked past will take time and years to do. Our goal is to change the state laws, and with that will be a ripple effect on other laws…ETJ.. Service Boundary agreements, statutes of limitations for challenge…and the list goes on and on.

I have to admit, the subject of annexation is a seven headed beast that is quite complicated and frustrating to common J Q Public. I just happen to have some experience in government, so I try to understand more than others about the subject. That does not in any way mean that I think I am an expert on the subject, but I can tell you that for every argument you have made Char, someone over the last 45 years has tried it against annexation. (except for the latest Fayetteville challenge using the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief act…and you have to understand that Fayetteville DID NOT HAVE ANNEXATION POWER UNTIL 1984!! …which was during peace time….The legislators, I believe in 1959, when the law was enacted as it most is today, understood that federal protection would trump any Fayetteville annexation attempts, it being a military community)

My point here is this….DonH will say this subject has been beat to death, but I will tell you that most everyone, including myself does not know the whole story or even come close to understanding the big picture! (Cathy Heath does a lot of research nationally on what filters down to town policies and can give you a great perspective on how your civil rights as a property owner are being trampled on every day)

Let me give you an example that is right close to my home that I just recently learned.

To cut to the chase, the Cary Alliance Church just recently asked for voluntary annexation from Cary (property right across from Dutchman Downs) Why did they do this you might ask? Because the NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) has changed standards that require sprinkler systems in building larger than X square feet. Bottom line is Cary Alliance could not supply enough water probably by a well system to comply with NFPA rules. So are they volunteering to be annexed? I don’t think so…they are being forced, by rules that are being made by agendas that most everyone here does not understand when it comes to the big picture (except for Cathy)

I am a member of the NFPA. They oversee not only fire codes, but yes sprinkler codes, electrical codes, building codes…etc etc. So, the question you need to ask is this….has the American Planning Association APA and the Environmental Protection Association EPA, along with other “special interest groups” had any influence on how these codes are changing to force urbanization of rural areas?

CharChar, while the staff of Cary is probably intelligent people, they don’t think this crap up….it is driven nationally. But here in North Carolina, they have it much easier due to annexation.

As you can see, the issue of annexation is very very complex and difficult. It is not a matter of one solution that will solve the problem.

Perhaps you now can understand my frustration in answering to simple questions my neighbors need answers for, when I know a little more …but just enough to be dangerous!




StanN Wrote



So you would wind up paying $550/yr. in additional taxes - in return for which you would be exempt from annexation until you were 90% surrounded by the muni.

Stan, I am not afraid to look at paying a reasonable cost to divide up service burden. The problem here is defining how it should be divided. This is exactly why Swift Creek want to be incorporated….and meets with resistance. No one really wants to let them be on there own and pay there own way.

Rono

[washere]

Ron-
First of all, please let me reiterate that I'm not on anybody's "side" in this situation. I am however, trying to decide who I agree with (ie, TOC or STOP CARY!). The fact that you can't or won't answer my questions is very discouraging indeed.

Further, it is also disheartening that apparently anyone who has the nerve to question what STOP CARY! is really after and what they really want and what the group's better plan is, is considered to be a threat to your cause.

I'm telling ya Ron, you guys are really going to have to rethink your delivery if you want to win any more "converts" from the TOC.

You need to clarify your message into something cohesive and easy to understand by the members of the community. For example:

"We believe that involuntary annexation is an abuse of power and is unConstitutional."

If that's what you think, then by all means SAY IT and back it up with hard core, relevant facts.

If this isn't about the TOC, then quit making it about the TOC and focus your frustrations on those who made the law in the first place.

If you really think that what's going on is unConstitutional, then why not litigate? At the very least you could probably get injuctive relief in the meantime. Besides, I'd make the road trip to DC to see
Ron v TOC :wink: !

I will say that I think you're going to have an exceedingly difficult time winning this through the legislature. The people of NC apparently want involuntary annexation. Further, and this is what's most unfortunate for the STOP CARY! group, "property rights" as a platform doesn't typically go very far in getting someone elected. As a general rule, the populus simply doesn't care.

Cary is a prime example of this. In general, most people don't care if they can build a fence, or a shed, or have a green house with neon orange polka dots. Those that do might be a little annoyed, but probably won't go so far as to take the issue to court, or bother to ascertain whether their candidate thinks they should be able to paint their home in a manner many would consider to be obnoxious.

Look at HOAs. People live there with incredibly strict ordinances on what they can do with their property because it inflates their property values. NOBODY wants to live on the street with the green house with purple polka dots.

I really think this is a heckuva lot simpler than you guys are making it Ron. Seems to me, you have a few choices:
1) Be annexed and get over it.
2) Annex into somewhere else.
3) Accept annexation, but work to negotiate the best possible deal for the affected residents
4) Litigate
5) Change the law
6) Mount an aggressive PR campaign and get the citizens (of Cary) on your side, so that any further efforts at annexation would be a nightmare for the elected officials come voting time.

Honestly, I think option 6 is your best bet short-term. You can lobby to change the law, but I'd be really worried that you'd just get screwed in the meantime.

I'd also like to point out, that successful PR campaigns promote a positive message, in a positive manner, and are simple and easy to understand. I'm telling ya, signs that say "ALL WE WANT IS A FAIR DEAL!" are the way to go. It's simple, it's easy to understand, and everybody would agree with you.

[StanN]

Rono said:


Stan, I am not afraid to look at paying a reasonable cost to divide up service burden. The problem here is defining how it should be divided.

That shouldn't be that difficult a problem. Let the WCC's, who take your side in this debate, nominate an arbitrator to determine the fairest way to divvy up the service burden. Have the muni's do likewise. If the two sides can't agree on a neutral arbitrator, have their two nominees nominate a third party. The arbitrator, who should be someone familar with government accounting systems would receive info as to how the service burden is currently divided and make a binding recommendation regarding a revised tax structure.

If that revised tax structure could not be implimented without NCGA approval, the county would agree to annually publish information on the then current sources of tax receipts versus the "fair apportionment of tax receipts". This would include the names of legislators who opposed the revised tax system. I believe if this was done it would only be a matter of time before legislators who upheld the old system would be voted out of office.

What do you think?

stan

[Wuptdo]

Stan & Rono - Works for me!

Wuptdo B-)

[Cathy]

Cathy - I would it apply it to the UA's as well. Imagine, the Feds only taking care of defense, commerce, and Federal Offices. Make the states and counties responsibility for all our service and such. It would like be a dream come true. Local representation and local taxation. Talking about holding you neighbors accountable for their actions.

I can't find what speech, but they really nailed President Reagan when he said something like what you pay to the Federal Government in Taxes, you should be paying to your state, and what you pay your state is what the Federal Government should get. Completely shift the tax burden back to state and local control -- now that would be a dream come true!

Wuptdo B-)

Yes it would be, Wuptdo.
If only more people would come to realize that all of those "freebies" come at a very high cost, and not just monetary.

Cathy

[StanN]

The underlying point of my proposal to use an arbitrator to divvy up service costs is that the current system employed by the county is unfair and politically driven. The current system encourages resistance to annexation by establishing an unfair and unrealistic lower level of property and other taxes in the UA as compared to the tax structure in the municipalities.

IMHO the "charms" of living in the UA vs Cary or some other muni would quickly evaporate if those living in the UA picked up their fair share of the costs of government.

Yes, it is true you can point to excesses in the way past CTC's spent our tax dollars. Me too. But you are fooling yourself if you don't believe the County does more of the same - let me name a few: the RBC center - a lead weight if there ever was one; dittor for the new convention center or Exploris. How about the new county regional offices when they refuse to properly fund school construction. Whatever Cary's indiscretions may have been they pall in amount versus the boondoggles I have mentioned above.

If excessive government spending is your reason for not wanting to be part of Cary - how can you justify being part of Wake Cty.? If excessive spending is not the rationale - then what is it? Could it possibly be that you pay 40% less in property taxes?

You want the right to choose where you want to live. I'm all for that as long as you are willing to pay your fair share of costs. But your position sounds hypocritical and self-serving as long as you resist a fair reallocation of costs. Your statement above is the first time I have heard a willingness to consider sharing the burden - congratulations! It now remains to be seen how others in your group feel about doing likewise.

stan

[Rono]

Char Wrote


1) Be annexed and get over it.
2) Annex into somewhere else.
3) Accept annexation, but work to negotiate the best possible deal for the affected residents
4) Litigate
5) Change the law
6) Mount an aggressive PR campaign and get the citizens (of Cary) on your side, so that any further efforts at annexation would be a nightmare for the elected officials come voting time.

1 is not an option….. over 80% of the people out here want no part of Cary...Proof? I have the petition signatures, (by street) should you care to see them.

2 With service boundary agreements, annexation to other communities can't by law happen...but incorporation can...but Swift Creek is proof that it won't

3 Is a real alternative, but negotiation happens before acceptance, not the other way around

4 Litigation has failed for 45 year…no sense in wasting money on attorney’s fees when 45 years of history shows that it has not been beat! (except of course the newest litigation out of Fayetteville)

5 Change the law is what StopNCAnnexation.com is all about…it is different than StopCary…StopCary is the local battle, StopNCAnnexation.com is the statewide battle

6 Aggressive PR…That is what StopCary is about. I have spoken with literally hundreds of Cary residents and I have only found a very small fraction that think our arguments are out of line. Now Jack Smith has told me that there is a “silent majority” that thinks the annexation laws are right. Because there has never been any proof of that, my challenge is a non binding referendum question that will prove his or my/our belief. Let both the residents of Cary and all areas in Cary’s Service Boundary agreement areas vote on it!

I ask this question to you Char…don’t you think that if Jacks assessment is correct, some other town somewhere would have already done this type of “proof” thing to support the “silent majority” theory over the 45 years that this law has existed. Don’t you also think that annexation would be growing across the country instead of declining? (15 years ago 12 states had laws like North Carolina, the number in now down to 6)

I welcome a referendum….Does the TOC? Does the State of North Carolina?...this is not being combative Char…It is just the business statement of “put your money where your mouth is” Show us the proof. If we are wrong, then a vote will prove that. If this is the case then I will stand up and say, because the majority have spoken…I accept annexation! Fair enough???

Char, annexation is not, in my opinion, for the greater good of the populous. When you get to the core reasons annexation exists, you should begin to see that in the end there is one clear fact…MONEY…FOLLOW THE MONEY AND YOU WILL SEE THAT GOVERNMENT CAN NOT LIVE WITHIN IT’S MEANS!

Even as a democrat, I believe that government should and MUST be kept to a minimum. Annexation runs against the very core of this, my belief. I have never been a “politician” who thinks bringing home the “pork” is as good as leaving your “pork” in your wallet or purse! (and while the republicans seem to think they can claim this title, this attitude should extend across both sides of the isle!)

Rono

[washere]

You know what Ron, I think I'm just going to have to quit trying to understand.

Where did I say annexation was for the "greater good"?

Where did I say I think you should be annexed?

Where did I *explicitly* say that I think the current laws are fair and equitable and that you guys should submit to it? I say explicitly, because I realize you could certainly contort some of my questions on the subject into my having said that I think what's happening is fair and equitable. :roll:

I'm just trying to understand. All you've done, Ron, is make a piss-poor argument, full of holes, and that consists of just about every logical fallacy that exists.

Better yet, every time I ask a question, I get insulted, or told why I'm wrong and stupid, or some backwards expose on fire sprinklers.

This is just ridiculous Ron. I still haven't figured out what I think of the whole situation, but I suppose my mistake was in thinking you could present a fair and reasonable basis for your position without insulting others.

Perhaps the most disturbing thing, is that I've spent a good deal of time trying to give some sincere feedback on how STOP CARY! could communicate its agenda in a more palatable way- a way more likely to get people on your side.

Obviously, you couldn't care less about communicating effectively. You can extend all the "olive branches" you want, but if you can't make people understand what you're after, you're just going to be stuck.

Oh, and telling people who are trying everything they know how to understand your arguments and what you want about fire sprinklers, isn't communicating anything worthwhile.

You might as well tell us all to go pound sand. Would have saved everybody a lot of time.

I'm sorry my asking some simple, straightforward, and sincere questions puts you on such a defensive, Ron. In the future, you should really consider the fact that not everyone who asks questions is against you.

[washere]

I would like to say, that I think voting on the issue is a superb idea.

Finally, we're getting somewhere. :wink:

[StanN]

Rono said:


1 is not an option….. over 80% of the people out here want no part of Cary...Proof? I have the petition signatures, (by street) should you care to see them

I believe you....but....Reallocate the county/muni taxes as suggested above - then lets see the results of your poll or a referendum.

stan

[Rono]

You know what Ron, I think I'm just going to have to quit trying to understand.

Where did I say annexation was for the "greater good"?

Where did I say I think you should be annexed?

Where did I *explicitly* say that I think the current laws are fair and equitable and that you guys should submit to it? I say explicitly, because I realize you could certainly contort some of my questions on the subject into my having said that I think what's happening is fair and equitable.

I'm just trying to understand. All you've done, Ron, is make a piss-poor argument, full of holes, and that consists of just about every logical fallacy that exists.

Better yet, every time I ask a question, I get insulted, or told why I'm wrong and stupid, or some backwards expose on fire sprinklers.

This is just ridiculous Ron. I still haven't figured out what I think of the whole situation, but I suppose my mistake was in thinking you could present a fair and reasonable basis for your position without insulting others.

Perhaps the most disturbing thing, is that I've spent a good deal of time trying to give some sincere feedback on how STOP CARY! could communicate its agenda in a more palatable way- a way more likely to get people on your side.

Obviously, you couldn't care less about communicating effectively. You can extend all the "olive branches" you want, but if you can't make people understand what you're after, you're just going to be stuck.

Oh, and telling people who are trying everything they know how to understand your arguments and what you want about fire sprinklers, isn't communicating anything worthwhile.

You might as well tell us all to go pound sand. Would have saved everybody a lot of time.

I'm sorry my asking some simple, straightforward, and sincere questions puts you on such a defensive, Ron. In the future, you should really consider the fact that not everyone who asks questions is against you.
_________________
If you don't have anything nice to say, at least have the decency to be vague

....I can see that I certainly misunderstood your posts Char I am truely sorry that things somehow resulted in this. It certainly was not my intention nor was I or have I had any intent in offending you or making you upset. I thought to the contrary that you had points that you raised and were being a part of dialog that helps everyone understand each others views, positions, stands, ideas, and desires. This is just a place to exchange these things. I

I am VERY SORRY THAT THIS HAS TURNED INTO A MISUNDERSTANDING AND I AM SORRY IF I HAVE HURT YOU IN ANY WAY.


Sincerely,
Ron Thoreson

[washere]

Ron-
I'm sorry too. In my quest to understand, I forgot that even if you didn't completely answer my questions, atleast you tried. And that's worth a lot in my book.

Sorry for being a rabid monkey :wink: .

I do have one more question though (and feel free not to answer :lol: ):
Why are you so worried about upseting me? I can take it. :-D

[Rono]

Char wrote


Why are you so worried about upseting me? I can take it.

To be quite honest, by the post that I responded to with my apoligies, I was not sure if you could "take" heated discussion. I am glad you say you can...and never intend anything to be presonal! Please always remember that!

Rono