"It's not important to be perfect here," he told reporters after meeting with lawmakers during their weekly policy lunch. "It's important to act, to move, to start the ball rolling."
The former President need not worry about Senate Democrats getting it perfect. There is little risk of that.
But when he says it is important to start the ball rolling, an important question is raised. Where, precisely, does he want the ball to roll? I think I know.
Posted at 12:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
The new Greensboro City Council will face a harsh economic environment for job creation. The recession may be easing somewhat, but there are limited prospects for job creation nationwide. Our federal government seems hellbent on pursuing a course that will make economic growth considerably less likely in the future. Many are concerned we will have a "jobless recovery"-- which means little recovery at all.
Meanwhile, the state of North Carolina has also made some decisions that severely handicap job recruitment and creation in our state.
If Greensboro wants to attract jobs in this environment, it will need to be very competitive, because there are few jobs to go around.
The current gospel offered by the local media, by the "downtown business establishment" and by our city government has emphasized "quality of life" initiatives to attract jobs. The theory, largely unproven, is that employers will create lots of jobs in a city if it spends oodles of money on cultural/recreational projects, and on an expansive public infrastructure.
Action Greensboro (and its allies) are adherents of this particular faith tradition. In fact, it has gone to the extent of giving a large illegal donation to the Simkins PAC; and of funding bond campaigns, ostensibly to pursue these various bells and whistles.
One other strand of exalted belief in local political circles regarding job creation concerns the promotion of private real estate development. Our local politics has been development-centric-- and this means that the prevailing local ideology is that what is good for real estate development is also good for job growth. Sometimes that is true, and sometimes it is not. Ironically, some development-centric politicians have pursued policies locally that likely have hindered job growth.
The new City Council has an opportunity to steer this ship on the right course from the standpoint of job creation. Here is what I think is most important:
1. Crime must be reduced dramatically. New employers will be attracted to a city that is unquestionably safe. In addition, development and job creation will spread to parts of town that previously were regarded as unsafe if these are transformed to become low-crime areas.
2. Economic development bond use and incentives must be strictly related to job creation. The city of Greensboro has previously engaged in gamesmanship with respect to the use of economic development bonds and incentives. These have at times been used to fund projects with questionable job-spurring effects. We cannot have a loosey-goosey approach toward economic development that uses taxpayer money in order to help real estate developers, or that serves to fulfill political agenda items, without creating a lot of jobs.
3. Every effort must be made to reduce property taxes and other fees businesses must pay. Making Greensboro a lower cost environment in which to do business, compared to the competition, will help attract employers, and encourage them to create jobs.
4. A can-do attitude, and a hastened approach to reducing bureaucratic obstacles, need to be in place when projects are proposed that will create significant numbers of jobs. We need to reduce the picayune requirements that make it difficult to do business when job-creating projects are being contemplated. This is a matter of adjusting some attitudes; but it is also a matter of reducing the bureaucratic requirements we currently have in place.
5. Expanding on the aerotropolis concept, with emphases on logistics and package delivery, is a niche that will hopefully yield fruit in the future. Facilitating the development of this concept seems wise in the long run.
Greensboro and the Piedmont Triad can have considerable appeal to employers if we relearn how to simulate conditions that led to this area's preeminence years ago. We need to recreate the type of environment to which employers would want to come. We should resist newfangled theories of questionable merit; and should look with considerable skepticism when self-interested parties locally attempt to manipulate the system under the guise of economic development.
We also need to remember that government money tends not to produce jobs in the long run. So we need to resist the pressure to spend it when projects arise that might tangentially, theoretically, result in jobs some day.
Posted at 11:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute explains in a powerful video why the current "health care reform" proposals will be disastrous from an economic standpoint. Everyone concerned about this issue needs to watch and understand this YouTube:
Posted at 08:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)
Several conservatives elected to the Greensboro City Council this year ran on a platform of fiscal conservatism. They now have the opportunity to influence policy regarding taxes and spending in a manner that has not been possible in the past.
This moment represents a great opportunity. We have the ability to reduce spending. But we also might be able to deliver taxpayers a tax cut.
I think the new conservative majority should try to find a way to cut our property taxes. That would be a remarkable change.
Again, this is an opportunity that must not be squandered.
The new conservative majority will face a number of opponents and obstructions if they attempt to reduce spending. The News and Record will likely be on their case. City staff and their supporters in various interest groups will try to obstruct and obfuscate. There will be attempts to protect programs and stake out territory.
In addition, we do not know how the new city manager, Rashad Young, will behave. It is vitally important for the new City Council to refrain from relying upon him to diagnose what spending reductions need to be made. They cannot allow him to be the filter through which they obtain information and discern reality. If they do, they run the risk of losing out on an historic opportunity to have an impact.
If they primarily rely upon Young for information and recommendations, they will relinquish to him the prerogative of setting policy with regard to spending and taxes. But it is the City Council that should be setting policy, not the city manager.
The city of Greensboro is a reasonably complex organization with numerous employees. Money will be stashed in various accounts, and distributed to numerous programs and departments in various nooks and crannies. It will be an enviable task to try to understand how much each program or department should be funded, especially when city staff likely will not be supportive.
Mayor-elect Bill Knight will be in a unique position to decipher the city's finances with his background as an accountant. That should be a tremendous asset in the process of analyzing where the money is going, and what economies can be achieved.
But there is another dimension we should not ignore. The new City Council will need to have a way of determining in what areas Greensboro is on target with spending, and in what areas we deviate from the norm. We need to be able to compare what we are doing with what other cities do. We need to benchmark our expenses against some type of norm or average.
In order to make that assessment, I think help will be needed. Council members need to have the humility to understand that calling in an expert might be helpful because of the complexity of this task.
I am not advocating that a $500,000 consultant be retained. Instead, I am suggesting that assistance be sought from those who are like-minded, and who have an interest in this area-- perhaps from one of the regional think tanks. It would be useful to have an independent pair of eyes look at our spending so we can make comparisons and benchmark against other southeastern cities.
I am not going to discuss specific budgetary items in this post. Of course, one important guiding principle is that true needs, central to the essential functions of municipal government, must be funded first; and frills or "wants" should be considered more expendable. But I think the point needs to resound once again that we have a nearly unprecedented opportunity. Mayor-elect Knight and the other conservative council members need to work together as a team to identify possible economies.
Let's maximize the opportunity before us. Let's not blow it.
Posted at 11:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)
Posted at 11:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
A couple of weeks ago, we had the occasion to attend a wedding in northern Virginia. The reception was held at Fort Myers in Arlington.
As we entered the military base, we were diverted to an area that was dedicated to searching vehicles. Every wedding guest had to have their vehicles inspected, and it was obvious this was an anti-terrorism move in the shadow of our nation's capital.
It appears, however, the nation's military may need to direct its efforts against terrorism inward, and look within its own ranks.
Much has been said about Army Chief of Staff George Casey's stated concern regarding a backlash against Muslims in the military in the wake of the terrorism incident at Fort Hood. Apparently, in the Obama military, we have fewer military brass who are truly tough, and who have the right priorities.
An AP article appeared in the News and Record Sunday that gave me pause. Check this out:
Bob Jenkins, a spokesman at Fort Campbell in Kentucky, said that the notion of fighting an enemy with commonalities to U.S. servicemembers is not new - and that other soldiers have had to come to terms with that in past conflicts.
"There is really no difference if you get someone who is of Italian heritage in World War II and send them into Italy to fight the people who backed Mussolini," he said. "There are some things you have to come to grips with."
I am not aware that Americans of Italian descent around the time of World War II were engaged in terrorism incidents--as acts of war--designed to undermine politically the United States government. Yes, FDR at that time was engaged in the act of interning in camps a limited number of us, just as he did in the case of Japanese-Americans; but there was no terrorism as far as I know among Americans of Italian descent.
I wonder what Bob Jenkins at Fort Campbell could possibly have been thinking when he conflated my uncles who fought during World War II, and the radical Muslims who might be serving in our military today.
Yes, we are seeing quite a change with the Obama administration.
Posted at 08:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (9)
Posted at 04:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)
Yesterday, I had posted on the topic of what the city council needs to do to deal with crime, and to clean up the police department. These are very important topics.
But there is more that is needed. The new mayor and city council need to deliver some clear signals to the men and women of the police department. They need to communicate with them; and they need to lead.
Here is what all these police officers need to be told-- indeed, what they need to hear.
The message needs to be sent that they are valued, and that they are appreciated for the extraordinarily important role they play in our community. They need to hear that their role is regarded as integral to the city's future; and that what they do for the city is regarded and esteemed very highly. They need to hear that the city council likes police officers, and appreciates them.
The mayor and city council need to build up individual officers' sense of pride in their own role, and their understanding of how important it is for the city's well being. They need to let the officers know that pride in the department's work is necessarily dependent on a desire and a commitment to make it the very best it can be. This will require doing things a bit differently, because continuing the same path will not achieve those ends.
And that means there will be high expectations of officers of every rank. And with these high expectations, the department will begin to regain trust in the community, and also its collective sense of pride that the department's mission is being accomplished.
Communication is very important, and the department's officers need to hear this message directly.
But in order to meet these objectives, the city council and the department will need to do those things I suggested in my post yesterday. This means adopting a better crime-fighting approach, removing corrupt officers from the department, and instituting a new "dual track" procedure for employee discipline-- one that deals with excessive force, use of weapons and complaints from the public; and another that deals with matters of integrity and corruption in the discharge of their duties.
For the first group of offenses, officers need to be assured of due process with full appeal rights.
But there needs to be a faster, more effective, streamlined procedure for dealing with that second group of alleged offenses. Some types of infractions may need to lead to automatic termination. The city manager needs to be taken completely out of the loop if possible; and some steps need to be eliminated.
The officers who handle those processes internally need to be of unquestioned integrity and impartiality. And they need to be precisely schooled in the "more than likely, greater than 50%" standard for making administrative determinations to discipline or terminate.
I think what is needed is leadership. The officers in the department need to feel a greater sense of pride in the role they play, in the department and in its mission. The public needs to have higher esteem for the department. These outcomes are going to be much more likely to occur if the department objectively improves itself-- dramatically.
Posted at 11:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (9)
I am starting a series of posts on the challenges that will be facing the new City Council. Because this body will shade a bit more conservative than in the past, and has a new mayor, this moment represents a rare opportunity to do good things for the city of Greensboro.
These moments do not come often for conservatives, and need to be seized.
Any new governmental administration after being elected has a narrow window of time to get its program enacted. There is a need to act very quickly, because political support can deteriorate over time. I think if Mayor-elect Bill Knight and the conservatives on the City Council want to have an impact, that needs to happen within the first few months after assuming office.
I think Mayor-elect Knight needs to focus on three or four broad issues, and work on those. Dealing with a limited, discrete number of objectives and policy areas will make success more attainable by keeping efforts focused. Think back on Ronald Reagan and how he acted quickly on a limited number of initiatives after he was elected. That was a very successful formula.
It would be a mistake to surrender the initiative to the new city manager, Rashad Young. He is an untested quantity; and we do not know how he will behave. If the new city council entrusts too much to this man, it might lose its golden opportunity to effect change in the city of Greensboro. Remember again that there is a limited window of opportunity for several months, and this opportunity does not come very often. Don't put Young in control of that opportunity.
I am going to speak about crime and the Police Department. My personal opinion is that this is the most important policy area for this new city council.
CRIME
The city of Greensboro has unfortunately missed out on some of the major advancements and innovations that have occurred in cities throughout the country over the last 15-20 years. Our crime levels are way too high, and rank among some of the highest in the country.
The Buracker Report, released about 18 months ago, is a starting point for those that want to make the department a more effective crime-fighting institution. The department certainly needs to use its existing personnel more effectively; achieve better supervision of line officers; enforce higher accountability among officers and command staff; make sure enough officers are working when crime is most likely to occur; and do proactive policing. We can have little confidence that those things are happening at this time.
I am providing a link to an excellent article that provides details on the subject of proactive policing, and on the advances in police work that have been demonstrated to work in other cities. Each conservative council member needs to study this article, and insist that the next police chief selected be committed to adopting this type of approach.
This approach includes, but is not limited to, "broken windows". It needs to be adapted to a city like Greensboro that has considerable "sprawl". I had summarized this article and posted about it a couple of years ago. Again, every council member who cares about crime needs to master the content of this article.
CLEANING UP THE GPD
A tough new police chief needs to be hired in anticipation of Chief Bellamy's expected retirement. This should preferably be someone from outside this area in view of the internal problems the department has had. And it needs to be someone committed to the implementation of proactive policing as described in the above linked article. The City Council should be actively involved in the process of selecting a new police chief, and prescribing what attributes he should have.
The general public distrusts the police department, and will continue to distrust it until the bad actors within the department are removed. I think the City Council needs to pass a directive instructing the City Manager to assure that all officers who have knowingly associated themselves with criminals (aside from first degree family relationships) or engaged in criminal activity in the past must be removed from the department. Officers must also be removed who have had illicit sexual contact while on the job, or who have had sexual contact with subordinate officers.
And the standard of proof for determining whether these things things have happened should be an administrative standard-- i.e., greater than 50% likelihood. The directive should be applied across the board, to police officers from every racial group.
The city of Greensboro has previously adopted a stance that officers are entitled to a presumption of job retention and "due process". It has a procedure that makes it very unlikely officers will be terminated.
The new City Council must act quickly to determine what our prerogatives are under state law to change this procedure. I think it would be best if City Council members concerned about the police department actually read the law on this point, instead of relying upon verbal representations provided by others as to what the law says.
If it can, I think the City Council needs to reduce substantially the number of appeals to which police officers are entitled on matters such as these. And I do not think these officers should be entitled to appeal to the City Manager any disciplinary action, as long as state law permits eliminating that step. As we have seen in the past, allowing the involvement of the City Manager invites inappropriate politicizing of these decisions.
At the same time, the City Council should not undermine the police officer's right to due process when he has been accused of improper actions such as excessive force or firing his weapon inappropriately. We should not abandon police officers when they have had to make tough, split-second decisions under intense pressure. We need to keep faith with these officers, because they are putting their lives on the line for us.
In summary, I think the new City Council needs to act as soon as possible to fix the GPD and make it a more effective crime-fighting institution. It needs to seize the initiative, and avoid the mistake of relying on the city manager. It needs to understand fully, with certainty, what can be done under the law to remove bad officers from the department, and to change the department's disciplinary process.
But there is one other very important element. There will be a reaction to undertaking these actions. The new City Council needs to be prepared to weather that reaction, and to stand firm. They need to be prepared for the criticism, and deal with it.
If the new City Council and Mayor-elect Knight do these things, however, they will be a big success.
Posted at 05:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (21)
Apparently there are some moves afoot being undertaken by east Greensboro political and civic forces. They plan to storm the next Greensboro City Council meeting on Tuesday to demand action on waste disposal and the White Street Landfill.
A flier being circulated, which I am unfortunately unable to post, appears to have been developed by the Concerned Citizens of Northeast Greensboro. It expresses opposition to the reopening of the landfill, but support for the development of "green" alternative technologies. It continues to make demagogic, unsupported claims regarding adverse health impacts due to the landfill. And it calls for a project that would further "local economic development" and "sustainable job creation".
There have been a couple of recent proposals advanced, with some level of apparent support from the east Greensboro political establishment. These proposals are ostensibly intended to turn trash to energy.
The city council needs to be very careful when it decides what to do about trash disposal. This is a fundamental function of municipal government, and they need to get it right.
We don't want to create another situation like Project Homestead-- but this time involving municipal waste. We don't want to inadvertently line the pockets of persons connected to the east Greensboro political establishment, and acquiesce with any scheme that is being plotted. Instead, the Greensboro City Council needs to somehow make amends for the mistake that was made several years ago when the White Street Landfill was closed to residential trash.
Posted at 03:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (12)
I just returned from Greensboro's first Italian Festival which is being held downtown on Elm St.
It was extremely well attended. Quite evident were the many attendees of Italian descent who seemed eager for this type of event. There were also a fair number of booths, although the festival was a bit short on food. One booth served some great gelato, and Alex's had several varieties of Italian pastries. There was also some musical entertainment. The Sons of Italy chapter from Winston Salem had a table, and was attempting to drum up interest for a new chapter here.
It is certainly a beautiful day for a festival, and that undoubtedly influenced the high turnout.
Planners tend to build on this type of event year by year; and to learn from their previous experiences. I look forward to next year if the organizers do it again; and I appreciate their efforts.
Posted at 02:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)
(A)lthough (Mayor-elect Bill) Knight’s position on Wray and the police department reflects the opinions of some members of the community, it also bothers others.
“I don’t know Mr. Knight that well,” said the Rev. Cardes Brown , president of the Greensboro chapter of the NAACP . “I certainly think as a community, that person who is in the position of mayor should be concerned about all of us being one community rather than having a divided community.”
Any objective observer must acknowledge that, among those in the city of Greensboro who are responsible for dividing our community, the Rev. Cardes Brown and his Pulpit Forum are some of the chief instigators.
Posted at 08:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)
It passed by a mere 2 votes-- which suggests that getting a comparable bill through the Senate might be difficult.
Nearly 220 socialists in the United States House of Representatives gave a rousing cheer immediately after passage. These likely included Mel Watt and Brad Miller, both of whom represent part of our area.
Posted at 11:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (14)
The following tale is fictional. Any resemblance to real places, persons and events is mere coincidence.
Once upon a time, there was a large airport serving a sizable metropolitan area. This airport once was very busy, because the region was bustling economically, and a couple of large airlines had major operations there. However, the metropolitan area declined economically, and the airlines scaled back their level of service at the airport. The bustling nature of the airport and the entire region were to become a distant memory.
But then an idea was struck. A major air carrier of packaged goods would establish its hub, or regional headquarters, at the airport. Both the region and the airport would be resuscitated.
One large upper middle class neighborhood near the airport was named The Blue Jay. The residents of the Blue Jay were extremely upset over this new proposed use of the airport. They were concerned that the tranquility of their neighborhood would be disrupted, and that their property values would be severely eroded. And in fact, property values did plummet as the proposal gained approval.
The chairman of the airport authority was a local attorney. He operated primarily in one particular city the airport served. This city had a long history of representing itself as politically virtuous. It had a labyrinth of requirements for builders and developers that would assure a certain appearance of quality locally. But the process became so complicated that these builders and developers would have to hire an attorney to move along their projects through various stages of approval. And thus this particular attorney, who was regarded as being very influential locally, would be in constant demand because he was the go-to guy for zoning matters.
The residents of the Blue Jay made their plea to stop the airport project, but the city's leaders looked at them, and answered with a resolute "No!". They told the residents of the Blue Jay that they were nobody, they had no power, and they were not even residents of the politically virtuous city-- they were mere country bumpkins who lived in the county.
The situation in this city was a bit curious. In many cities, the least desirable projects tended to be located in the least affluent side of town. But in the Politically Virtuous City, the airport was located on the western side of side, which tended to be more affluent and to have fewer racial minorities.
Meanwhile, on the eastern side of town, residents witnessed a phenomenon that was precisely opposite. A well-run landfill had been operating for years. But the nearby residents were less affluent and tended to be members of a minority group.
In this particular city, these residents were extremely organized, and in fact were represented by a powerful political machine composed of African-American elected officials. The white power brokers in the city had to be in the good graces of the machine in order to get what they wanted. It was a corrupt arrangement.
And thus, the landfill was closed, at great expense to the city, even though it was a good operation. Meahwhile, the airport on the western side of town remained open, and even planned to ratchet up operations.
The city was located in a state that had fairly aggressive annexation laws. Municipalities in that state were permitted to grab large expanses of territory outside their boundaries without the consent of area residents. Coercion was the rule. The annexed residents would have to pay much higher taxes; but there would be no guarantee that they would have any kind of voice, or that they would receive their fair share of city services.
In any case, the leaders of the Politically Virtuous City were always eager to annex surrounding territories, and to jack up taxes on the residents of these areas. And sure enough, they decided to annex the Blue Jay and the neighborhoods surrounding it.
Blue Jay residents were accustomed to excellent service from the County Sheriff's Department prior to annexation. After they were annexed, the residents of the Blue Jay would have occasion to call for police service. Unfortunately, when a patrol car would finally arrive, it was many hours later; and for some reason a young woman wearing tight-fitting clothes would be found in the back seat accompanying the police officer. It seemed odd.
The city was declining further, plagued by scandal and ridden with crime. An election was soon to be held.
During prior years, the residents on the western side of town had been extremely comfortable, and had refrained from working in political campaigns or becoming otherwise politically active. This gave the corrupt machine on the eastern side of town disproportionate influence.
But during this particular election, a couple of good candidates surfaced who wanted to clean up the city. Residents who previously had not worked elections became involved, and volunteered. Instead of being passive, the campaigns had become active.
And ironically, these two good candidates concentrated their efforts in The Blue Jay and surrounding neighborhoods. The residents of these areas, having previously been stung with the airport proposal and their coercive annexation, turned out in force at the polls. The two good candidates defied the odds, and each won their respective bids. And the sun rose in the Politically Virtuous City after it had been under a cloud cover for many years.
While this tale at the surface might seem to be about race or even about socioeconomic status, in fact, it was about something else entirely. It was primarily about abuses of power and corrupt government.
And correcting these abuses would not be possible without the revenge of the Blue Jays.
Posted at 11:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
Posted at 10:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)
Jordan Green of Yes!Weekly has an interesting post that highlights elevated rates of certain types of cancer in the vicinity around the White Street Landfill. He cites a study that apparently demonstrated higher rates than expected of multiple myeloma, pancreatic cancer, brain cancer, leukemia and "non-Hodgkins disease" (which I presume to be non-Hodgkins lymphoma).
I find this type of research interesting because my own medical training and specialty deal with these types of issues.
What must be understood is that the findings Jordan Green reports are extremely preliminary from the standpoint of demonstrating causation. If we were to use a baseball analogy, it would be the equivalent of the batter making contact with the ball, but barely breaking out of the batter's box on the way to first base.
Here are the reasons.
First, in order to demonstrate that an environmentally-caused illness has taken place, one needs to also demonstrate that a true exposure has taken place. And I am speaking of not merely the perception of an exposure, but a genuine, quantifiable, measurable exposure.
There are typically several potential routes of exposure-- including inhalation, ingestion, and dermatologic (absorbing the offending material through the skin). It is not being alleged that anyone in the landfill area has ingested anything from the landfill; and the City of Greensboro pipes in the area's drinking water from afar. No one is credibly alleging that they are absorbing offending material from the landfill through their skin. So that leaves perhaps the route of inhalation as the theoretical means by which area residents could be exposed.
But I am not aware of one single measurement of any kind of toxin or offending agent in the neighborhood's ambient air that came from the landfill. That kind of measurement is necessary to demonstrate that some kind of exposure is likely to have taken place.
Second, the amount of specific exposure has to be high enough to cause a cancer.
Third, the type of exposure attributable to the landfill has to be a known cancer-causing agent.
Fourth, the type of exposure has to be known to cause the specific kind of cancer that has been found in the vicinity.
And so, the type of study Green quoted has not even begun to demonstrate causation. Its only value is to generate a hypothesis-- to raise a question.
Now let's talk about cancer.
The causation of "cancer" can be a tricky subject. But each type of cancer is different; and each will have different potential causes.
It has been thought for many years, for instance, that some cancers are caused by viruses, or that heredity plays a role. Health behaviors, including smoking and alcohol, can also play a role. The food and drink we consume, or the contaminants or substances they contain, can theoretically be a source. The radon in our homes is a possible cause of cancer. Exposure to medical radiation can play a role.
But there is little doubt that it is possible that "environmental" exposures can cause certain types of cancers. In fact, it has been demonstrated that some cancers can be occupational in origin, due to exposures at work.
Non-Hodgkins lymphoma is a disease that consists of several subtypes; and these subtypes in reality are all distinct disease entities that act differently. The same is true of leukemia.
Lymphoma can be caused by certain types of pesticides, organic solvents, viruses, and even medication. Industries affected include farming, construction, and manufacturing-- especially rubber manufacturing. Genetic causes have been suspected also. And it has been felt that other disease entities can cause lymphoma.
Pancreatic cancer has been felt to be much more common among smokers and diabetics. The aluminum and coke/coal industries have been implicated.
Brain cancer has been seen in farmers. I am not immediately aware of any exposures known to lead to multiple myeloma, but I suppose there may be some out there in the literature.
Leukemia has been studied extensively. Benzene, medical radiation, ethylene oxide, certain pesticides, carbon disulfide and carbon tetrachloride have been described as culprits. Certain kinds of cancer chemotherapy can also lead to leukemia. Viruses and heredity have been blamed. Industries affected include farming, the rubber industry, the boat industry, the shoe industry, and the health care industry.
Obviously, the cancers experienced by residents in the White Street Landfill region could have been caused by a number of different factors. Sorting out this picture would take enormous amounts of funds for research, and could literally require decades. And it would require reopening the landfill in order to re-create the possible exposures that were alleged to have taken place, so that the exposures could be measured. It takes years for cancer to develop after an exposure takes place, and the community would have to be observed over a prolonged period of time. The numbers would then have to be tested statistically to determine if the measured exposures correlate with cancer incidence. And it would be helpful to determine if the medical literature supports the premise that the specific cancer being studied could be caused by the specific exposure that had taken place near the landfill.
Every cancer case would have to be identified; and researchers would likely have to consider the cancer patient's personal history, and any other potential exposures the person may have had over an entire lifetime.
The reality is that, for many cancer cases that are diagnosed and treated, we do not know the cause. Each of us have family and friends who have contracted some type of cancer, and we do not know why or how.
In summary, Jordan Green generates a hypothesis; and testing to a definitive conclusion is going to be an enormous task that could take many years, and lots of money. It would require that the landfill be reopened and operated under the same conditions it was operated previously.
But the implications of the finding Green relates are serious. Who would want to live or invest in an area that is suspected of being the site of a cancer cluster? If this type of information gets out to a greater extent, it could theoretically diminish development and investment in east Greensboro.
The east Greensboro political community tends to say often that they want more investment and development there. It has oft been true, however, that they take political positions that make such investment considerably less likely. Demagoguing health effects alleged to be due to the White Street Landfill is just one example.
Remain mindful we do not even have a discrete, demonstrable exposure that we can point to; and yet the landfill has been the subject of political crusades and allegations of health impacts.
Posted at 01:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (25)
I am writing this post to continue my discussion from earlier today about the racial dynamics in the 2009 mayoral election. Various writers since Tuesday have gone out of their way to make the suggestion that the results were an illustration of the racial divide in Greensboro. And the local newspaper had a front page spread today that illustrated the east/west dichotomy. The implication has been that white voters would not support a black candidate, and that we should all wring our hands collectively about that ugly reality.
I think we should oppose that nonsense, because it seeks to diminish a worthy accomplishment attained by a fundamentally good man, Bill Knight.
The problem, of course, is that the facts tell a completely different story than what has been implied. East Greensboro precincts went for Yvonne Johnson by enormous landslides, sometimes at ratios of 100:1. The west Greensboro precincts did not have numbers even remotely approaching those ratios. The conclusion is that black folks vote their own race far more than white folks do. That might not fit the narrative that some are tempted to relate, but those are the facts.
Here is more from John Hammer:
When you take a look at the precinct maps of the returns in the mayor's race, east Greensboro went solidly for Johnson and west Greensboro went solidly for Knight, with a couple of exceptions. But what is truly remarkable are the vote totals in east Greensboro. It is astounding that Knight was able to overcome the power of the Simkins PAC to deliver the vote in east Greensboro. In precinct Greensboro 70, which votes at Washington Elementary School on Washington Street, of the 288 votes cast, 286 were for Johnson and 2 for Knight. In precinct Greensboro 68, which votes at NC A&T State University, 125 votes were cast and 125 were for Johnson and 0 were for Knight. At Greensboro 74, which votes at Bluford Elementary School on Tuscaloosa Street and is traditionally one of the heaviest voting precincts in east Greensboro, 558 votes were cast and 555 were for Johnson and 3 for Knight.You simply don't get vote totals like that in the rest of Greensboro. Precinct Greensboro 21, which votes at Mendenhall Middle School on Willoughby Boulevard, usually has a heavy turnout, and it did Tuesday when 867 people voted at that precinct. Johnson received 282 of those votes and Knight 585. That is a pretty good margin but nothing like the margins in east Greensboro.
And here are some comments left on my blog earlier this evening by Keith Brown:
Precinct Yvonne J. Johnson Bill Knight Write-In Total
G62 99 102 0 201
G63 138 169 0 307
G64 101 109 0 210
These are districts on the east side of town. The G numbers are the
voting precincts, the next number is Mayor Johnson's number, the next
number is Mayor Bill Knight's number, the next number is write in and
the last number is the total.
Look at g68,g70, g71 and g74. Very huge margins for voting for Mayor Johnson. Now take a look at some precincts on the western side of map with using the same writing as above in what the numbers mean: Precinct, Yvonne J. Johnson, Bill Knight, Write-In, Total.
G36 196 360 0 556
Note G46 is on eastern side to look at these numbers. There was a wide margin on the eastern side of Greensboro when it comes to voting for Mayor Johnson compared to Mayor Knight.
I do not want to draw any conclusions regarding the precise motivations or racial attitudes of east Greensboro voters when they cast their votes. I do not know whether most of their votes came as a result of prolonged study of the issues, or as a result of an endorsement sheet mailed to them.
But the data simply do not support the premise that the results of this election occurred because white Greensboro residents tend not to support black candidates because of race. Indeed, the results suggest the opposite may be true-- that black voters are less likely to support a white candidate, given a choice.
So let us not be peddling fictions. Bill Knight this week deserves a lot more credit than that. It appears that he won in spite of nearly 30-40% of local voters likely stacked against him, somehow because of race in aggregate, right from the outset.
Posted at 08:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (12)
Posted at 10:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (19)
Yesterday, I had expressed concerns here that Bill Knight's victory is going to be challenged early. Although it is not a legal challenge, it is nonetheless beginning:
1. We have seen representations made that the election illustrates how the city continues to be divided by race. One can presume that the speakers feel this means white people are prejudiced against black people, and Tuesday's election results are a reflection of that.
But read this factoid from the News and Record this morning:
In the previous election, Johnson beat Kern 346-4 in one southeast Greensboro precinct. In that same precinct Tuesday, only 286 voted for Johnson while two voted for Knight.
That is an amazing plurality-- approximately 100 to 1. I do not know whether Knight won any northwest precincts by that kind of margin, but I doubt it. To the extent that the election was racially skewed, and the results may reflect certain racial preferences, I think we need to look especially toward the east side of town.
2. Two years ago, when Yvonne Johnson was elected we saw the News and Record proclaim on its front page that she was an "agent of change", and she was promptly labeled by the paper as "Greensboro's Golden Girl". By contrast, we learned yesterday of a reincarnated attitude of skeptical and adversarial journalism. It's amazing how much difference an election makes.
Remember that, in the past, we were never reminded that the city council was composed of a majority of Democrats (or Democrat wannabe's). In fact, we were to believe that the council was previously non-partisan when it was stacked with Democrats; but now we are led to believe it is partisan, and it must be pointed out overtly that it will have a Republican majority.
Get it?
In reality, there is going to be a wide diversity of opinions held by the Republicans on the City Council, and they are not always going to vote together. These are not all rock-solid conservatives.
But let's remember-- there are certain themes that need to be established.
Posted at 08:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (33)
In 1974, my mom's first cousin, Guy Molinari first ran for public office. I was 14 years old at the time, and helped on his campaign. He ran in a Republican primary against an incumbent state assemblyman, Lucio Russo, who was strongly suspected of corruption and who was tied with New York State's banking interests.
On the night of the primary, we were gathered at a catering facility. As the election returns dribbled in, it became clear that Guy was going to win. He had a longtime friend, Anthony J. Crecca, who was a locally renowned criminal attorney and former judge. Crecca rose to the podium, and shouted to the large assembled crowd, "WE BEAT THE B_____RDS!!" The crowd laughed and cheered in response.
I thought back on that scene after seeing the returns last night. Although that kind of language would not have been used here, the implications were the same. We had overcome a corrupt status quo, and had prevailed. The good guys won.
Robbie Perkins was quoted in the News and Record this morning suggesting that this was merely a matter of the political pendulum swinging back and forth. As usual, Robbie is wrong. Any objective examination of Greensboro's recent political history will reveal that pendulums typically do not swing here. This was a momentous change from the usual state of affairs. This was huge.
For me, this goes back to Carolyn Allen's victory over Tom Phillips back during the mid-1990's. For people who have resided in Greensboro over a very long period of time, it might go back even further than that.
I remember the reports of Michael King dancing on election night after having gotten out the vote on behalf of Carolyn Allen and her cronies. But in fact, he was organizing on behalf of the Simkins slate. And we later learned that he was also the leader of Project Homestead; that he had been granted access to city funds; that he was being protected by city council members-- including Perkins-- and that he had effectively stolen from the poor.
And then we learned of the abject depths of the GPD fiasco.
The Melderec con Simkins status quo in Greensboro has been thoroughly corrupt. And the correction we saw last night was desperately needed.
But we should not be overconfident. I expect that nefarious forces are going to attempt to bring down Bill Knight and Danny Thompson, almost from the outset. My hope is that they will stand for genuine civic virtue-- not the ersatz kind we have seen in Greensboro over the years. And my hope is that they will do the right thing-- for the police department, for crime victims, for taxpayers, and for all the citizens of this city-- not just for the constituents of two power groups. I hope they will refrain from settling the suits brought against the city; and that they will do the right thing for David Wray and his men.
In spite of the results last night, we need to remain wary. Even though we had a good outcome, there is still a majority of council members who have chosen to crawl in bed with the PAC, and/or to kowtow before it, to varying degrees-- Perkins, Vaughan, Kee, Matheny, and Wade. And there is an additional council member, Bellamy-Small, who will tend to vote with the PAC nearly all of the time. I hope these council members will remember their obligations to all the city's residents-- and not just the constituents of two power groups.
Bill Knight and Danny Thompson are going to need to brace themselves. Various interest groups are going to prevail upon them. City staff are going to try to manipulate them to adopt certain perspectives. They are going to become the target of some unsavory forces. (Indeed, arguably they already have been, with the activities of the North Carolina Democratic Party in this election.)
But this is not primarily a partisan issue. It is about serving the public, and advancing the common good. They need to be prepared for the attacks, and steel themselves, because Greensboro can be an ugly place politically.
Various parties have suggested to me over the last day that my work at this blog influenced the result last night. I do not know about that with certainty. Over the last several years, I have been watching events in the city of Greensboro that have appeared disordered, and have been interpreting them according to a certain perspective. I have done this, in part, because I was seeing things a bit differently than what had been reported elsewhere. To the extent this may have been helpful, I am certainly glad.
Keeping all the above in mind, let's continue to celebrate.
Posted at 11:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (27)
Recent Comments