In most of North Carolina, “urban” is a land descriptor that is defined, in part, as the absence of farms and farm animals. The lessons learned from a hundred years ago, as urban areas first developed in the USA, incorporated and codified the fact that farm animals should be separated from dense human populations. The removal of horses from streets vastly improved public health in urban areas with the introduction of the dreaded automobile.

However, Orange County isn’t like most of North Carolina. Here, ground zero for ”small town urbanism”, “urban” means whatever you want it to mean. “Urban” is “good”. “Suburban” is “bad”. Lessons of history? What are they? Zoonoses? What are they?

So at the same time that the BOA is crucifying a local widow with a real farm that lies outside Carrboro but within its “torture limits” (aka extraterritorial jurisdiction) over a barn apartment, it gleefully and quickly changes the land use ordinances to allow goats to be kept on as little as a one half acre residence in a residential subdivision.

On 7 April 2009, Ms. Marieanne Prince, not the owner of record for 104 Cathy Road, ”urban farmer”, ”artist of reuse”, and a ”proponent of play”, asked the BOA to allow her to keep two goats on her half acre, along with her 50 (yes, that's right 5…0…) chickens, one illegal rooster, and some ducks. Ms. Price exhibited no knowledge of real farming. She did not come from a farming background. She has no demonstrated knowledge in animal diseases or animal disease control. She has provided no documentation of the use of animal disease control regimens on her “farm”.

The Prince ”Farm”


That was enough of a showing for the BOA to agree to change the law to allow goats onto Carrboro residential properties. You just need to apply for a town permit. A vague, ill-defined neighbor appeal process will be available, sure to please pals of the BOA, who can give their neighbor’s goats the boot, and sure to confound everyone else. (See Chapel Hill Herald Goat Story.)

Goat Zoonoses
As a public service to Pulpsters, here are just some of the goat diseases that can be spread to humans. Please do not bother to forward this Pulp expose' to the BOA, as facts merely confuse the members.

Sharing with goats, how Carrboro.

In most towns in North Carolina, having the state department of transportation (NCDOT) pay to expand a heavily used road and add bike lanes and sidewalks to boot would be considered a great deal. In most towns, government exists to serve the people, not to have people serve the government.

However, Orange County is different. Creating traffic bottlenecks to get people out of their cars is considered “enlightened government”. Your pain is town gain.

For the past six months the Carrboro governance board (BOA) has been in a micturation contest with NCDOT. The BOA wants what it wants and doesn’t see why NCDOT doesn’t change its statewide programs to suit Carrboro.

What does the BOA want? They want a major road leading from the rapidly growing Chatham County (Smith Level Road) to remain choked at two lanes. Just add bike lanes and sidewalks so that pedestrians and cyclists can watch the traffic jams safely.

What does NCDOT want? It wants to widen the road in anticipation of the road traffic projected over the next 25 years. The road is already crowded and slated to become more so. As an incentive, NCDOT would throw in sidewalks and bike lanes at the same time.

NCDOT has a program that can provide just sidewalks and bike lanes. Unfortunately, that Bicycles and Pedestrian Division can’t fund anything in Carrboro before 2011, and Carrboro may have to wait until 2017.

Immediate funds to improve Smith Level Road are available through another program called the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The catch is that the remaining available TIP money from the last approved cycle is for enhancing roadways for the dreaded car, and not solely for installing sidewalks and bike lanes. Unfortunately, NCDOT doesn't appreciate that the BOA values respect for its opinions and wants, no matter how zany, above all else.

In the petulant words of Carrboro Mayor Mark Chilton, “[sidewalks and bike lanes] are not given the kind of weight or priority that roadway projects in other communities are given. I haven’t actually heard a reason why this can’t be part of the state TIP.” In other words, Mr. Chilton sees no reason why he shouldn't be accomodated, because, well, he's the mayor of Carrboro.

Unfortunately, Mr. Chilton knows that sidewalks and bike lanes can be funded by TIP. However it's up to the BOA to give NCDOT a priority listing for such a project. (Which begs the question, why didn't Mr. Chilton think enough of the sidewalks and bike lanes to include them in the currently funded TIP cycle?) Perhaps he has also forgotten that on 16 September 2008, he had the chance at a BOA meeting to add the Smith Level Road bike lanes and sidewalks to the town’s recommendations for the next funded TIP cycle (also 2011 to 2017). Too bad he didn't amend the list then to fund the sidewalk and bike lanes in the next TIP cycle, but then that would be showing subservience to routine, planning, and good governance.

As a public service, the Pulp offers to Mayor Chilton the following TIP link. Pulpsters can submit their own questions alongside those of the mayor.

Alderman Jackie Gist again most clearly reveals the creativity used by the BOA in addressing local transportation issues. If she can walk to her part-time job, why can’t you? “People will do what’s easiest for them to do. I would love to see it become a pain to drive a single occupancy vehicle because when it’s a pain in the neck people are going to change their behavior.” (See Chapel Hill News Road Story.)

Smugly pronouncing the BOA’s rejection of NCDOT aid, Alderman Dan Coleman states, “So the motion is, then, as “Mythbusters” put it, ‘We reject your reality and substitute our own'.” (Say, that doubles for a criminal defense too.)

That about sums up progressive governance in zany Orange County. Philosophy is based on an entertainment television show.

No word on when a resolution will be introduced to change the town name to “Cycleboro”.

Sometimes the velvet glove slips off the iron fist of local government. That happened at the Carrboro Planning Board on 4 June 2009.

The Carrboro Planning Board is a group of citizen volunteers that advises the Carrboro governance board (BOA) on town land development issues. Supposedly, the input from the planning board guides the BOA on how citizens feel about changes in the town’s land use.

As an example of “open and direct“ democracy, the planning board model is flawed. The weakness of the model is that it requires the BOA appoint a cross-section of views representing all diverse views held by residents in the town, and not just its pals. The planning board is loaded with citizens of a land use ideology that matches the BOA and not the citizenry of the town. In Carrboro the minority view is not legitimate, and thus, needn’t be considered, much less discussed.

However, even partisan planning board members were surprised by the fascismo move of the BOA. Over one week before the June 4th meeting, the agenda for the planning board meeting was circulated. A discussion of “farm issues” including a discussion of a text amendment proposal for accessory farm apartments was on the agenda.

At the opening of the June 4th meeting, a call was made as to any changes to the agenda. All were silent. Then much later, towards the end of the meeting, with citizens in attendance who came specifically to discuss the text amendment with the planning board, Ms. Patricia J. McGuire (town planner, member of the town's PZI “police squad”, and “open government expert”) announced that the planning board couldn’t talk about the text amendment.

Couldn’t talk about a scheduled agenda item? In an open government town? In a meeting of citizen volunteers? Yes, smiled Ms. McGuire. The BOA forbade it by legislative fiat.

How did a gag rule come into being with no one watching? Turns out, the deed was done at the very end of the 19 May 2009 meeting, After 10:30PM, in the last five minutes, after a long (over three hours) public hearing on Colleton Crossing, Alderman Dan Coleman brought up the text amendment issue, conveniently waiting for the audience to have cleared the room. Even the media had cleared the room to meet deadlines. Alderman Coleman didn't explain why he didn't raise the issue earlier in front of a town hall filled with citizens.

Mr. Coleman announced that he just happened to talk to the planning board head, Mr. Matthew Barton, prior to the May 19th BOA meeting. Peevishly, Mr. Coleman reported that Mr. Barton had the audacity to attend a meeting of farmers who had concerns of Carrboro town regulations without a BOA member in attendance.

To shut down further democracy in action, Mr. Coleman made a motion for the BOA to direct the planning board not to address farmer’s concerns until the BOA did. His reasons? First, BOA members should hear citizen comments and decide whether or not if the planning board should listen to citizens. The second reason is that Ms. Kille is “involved” with town planning board discussions. In other words, the planning board isn’t supposed to do any real work.

Alderman Joel Hall Broun was “uneasy” about Mr. Coleman's motion, but voted for it in her hurry to exit the meeting. Alderman Randee Haven O’Donnell thought that farmers going to the planning board before the BOA is “a circuitous route”. All normal land use matters go through the planning board before going to the BOA, so no explanation was given as to why this issue should not follow normal procedure. Alderman Lydia Lavelle displayed her trademark “level-headedness”, by ignoring the citizen volunteers.

In a cumbayah move, Alderman Coleman disparaged Ms. Kille as “an unreliable source”, despite the town having lost documents, conducted a kangaroo court trial at a BOA meeting, and generally revealing their penchant for iron-fisted control. Strange words coming from someone who wrote a book extolling the virtues of direct citizen democracy. But then the gag rule is more than just suppressing contrary views.

Politics is rearing its ugly head. With the Carrboro town election in November, it wouldn't do to have planning board members appear to be more responsive to town issues than incumbent aldermen. Questions would be raised. Why did the town spend so much money on attorneys? Why did Mayor Chilton kill even the consideration of a text amendment? Why did it take an “outsider” to propose a text amendment to the planning board?

Citizens are perplexed.

As quoted in the Chapel Hill Herald, Ms. Sharon Cook, planning board member and activist volunteer who introduced the text amendment that needed gagging, says, “It’s just very unusual in a government where we talk about openness and transparency to tell a board that you can’t talk about something.”

Those feelings are matched by town native Ms. Jennifer Ellis saying, “It sounds like they’re trying to hide something by not allowing the [planning] board to discuss something that’s one of the unique cultures of Carrboro.”

Town resident Ms. Meredith Carter adds, “It’s not even that uncomfortable of an issue. I can see it getting out of control easily by the aldermen becoming even more despotic in shutting down discussion on political issues with which they disagree.”

No word on when Alderman Coleman will introduce his latest book on direct democracy, ”GagPolitics”, as a companion to his bestseller, ”EcoPolitics”.

The inability of Morehead Scholar Haley Koch to understand that free speech means hearing and allowing unliked speech has been revealed in an orgy of self-congratulation. The old saying is that “the fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree”. In this case, it’s the parental tree of selective intolerance.

As commented on earlier in the Pulp, Ms. Koch displays the boorish manners of the self-congratulatory elite. One must never impinge on her ability to speak whatever flits into her consciousness. However, she can impinge on your right to free speech anytime she likes. It’s the privilege of one who has suffered the societal onslaught of “gender binary oppression”.

As recognized by the Pulp, Ms. Koch participated in the extraordinary life of progressive performance theater by depriving former Representative Tom Tancredo of his right to speak at a scheduled university event.

Days later, Ms. Koch suffered the indignity of being arrested on the UNC campus for disturbing the peace, a “performance award”, of sorts, from UNC Campus Police for her participation in disrupting Mr. Tancredo’s scheduled speech. Apparently, when you have Ms. Koch's privileged background, any arrest should be telephoned to your representative in advance and should not require your actual presence in dealing with your inferiors.

Ms. Koch went to court on 1 June 2009 to seek postponement of her criminal hearing. The court awarded her 14 September 2009.

UNC wanted the nightmare display of the dark heart of the beast, progressive intolerance, to go away. So Orange County Assistant Attorney Jeff Nieman offered Ms. Koch “deferred prosecution”. (See NCGS § 143B 262.4.) If she kept her nose clean for six months, paid a $200 fine, and performed some community service, then she would have been done. Even Chancellor Holden Thorp allegedly called Ms. Koch, trying to persuade her to “take one for the team”.

Ms. Koch isn’t interested. “I feel really strongly that the charges should be dismissed,” See a video of her outlandish charge of UNC being ”a culture of white supremacy”. That should have been reason enough for Chancellor Thorp to cave, call Ms. Koch, and apologize to her for not being smart enough to see the light. The victim here is Ms. Koch, not Mr. Tancredo. It's all about her extraordinary life, made possible by the Morehead-Cain Foundation.

Her parents are equally impressed with their daughter's right to stifle any free speech of which they don't also approve. In an apparent conflation of his daughters's narcissism with 1960s civil rights freedom riders, Father Chris Koch, opines, ”There is an honored tradition of [peaceful protest] in America. That's the only way progress has been made. … I guess I'm partly responsible for Haley being here.” Mother Susan Koch further enables by saying, “”[Haley] was raised in a home where hate dialogue wasn't allowable. When someone else speaks it in your presence, then you have to speak up.”

Apparently, the concept of free speech involving undesired speech wasn’t taught in the Koch household. If one only utters righteous speech, then free speech is irrelevant. Any speech of which you don't approve is hate, and thus, needn't be addressed.

Showing utter disdain for anyone having the right to hold a contrary view. Ms. Koch wishes to force Chancellor Thorp to disband the group that invited Mr. Tancredo, Youth For Western Civilization (YFWC). According to Ms. Koch, allowing speech that anyone entering this country illegally might not like would fuel violence. The non-violent record of YFWC is irrelevant to her Morehead Scholar “geniousity”. The possibility that someone, somewhere, sometime may do something “bad”, just the possibility is reason enough to stifle free speech.

Displaying her vast fondness for totalitarian speech control concepts, Ms. Koch informs the misguided that, ”[a] culture of hate breeds a culture of violence. This isn't about people just saying things. This is about people who hope to perpetrate violence.” For Ms. Koch, even discussing the right of a nation to control its borders and to control immigration is seeking to do violence. (See N&O Koch Righteousness Story.)

City and county school systems in Orange County receive not only county funds, but state funds as well. With Governor Perdue kiting state finances by holding back on paying tax refunds, one can see how bad the current state economic conditions is. (Across the country, 2008 federal income tax revenues are down 34% from 2007.)

The ripple effect continues. With state tax revenues reduced, state funding of school systems must be reduced. According to Dr. Neil Pedersen, city school superintendent, state budget cutbacks could cost the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools about 100 positions.

So how many teachers in classrooms may be cut?

Interesting question, perhaps the Pulp should review some of the current city school numbers. For this school year, the student population is 11,389. Teaching those students in the classroom are 616 teachers, or about 18 students per teacher. Supporting those classroom teachers are an additional 317 teachers, or about 1 other teacher per 2 classroom teachers. That total of 933 teachers spreads out over the 11,389 population at about 12 teachers per student.

How much “certified support staff backs up the teachers? According to the proposed 2009-2010 budget, the 933 teachers are backed up with 216 “certified support staff”. In turn, teachers and certified support staff are backed up with 630 “other staff”. That means that for each classroom teacher there are about 2 other school employees. It also means that for each teacher, there is another school employee.

Pulpsters may also want to know that of the about $89,000,000 spent on teaching support and teachers in school, about $51,600,000 comes from the state and about $37,000,000 comes from the county tax revenues. How much does the city school system pay on administration? This year it’s about $37,000,000 or about 40% of the cost of teaching students and operating the schools.

Back to the question, of the 100 jobs due to be cut from state funding reductions, how many are teachers? According to Dr. Petersen, 48 will be teachers, 40 will be certified support staff (teaching assistants). That leaves a total of 12 administrative positions eliminated. Yes, the mighty administrators have only visited 12% of the proposed cuts on the vital school administration.

So what’s the hue and outcry from the city school administration? One of the city high schools (Chapel Hill High) may be left without a basketball coach!

In the inspiring words of the great administrator, Dr. Pedersen, ”Everyone recognizes that the General Assembly has difficult choices to make. The universities have the advantage of being able to raise tuition rates to help with their budget woes, while many local school districts like ours are faced with reductions in their local appropriations.”

Invoking images of hope and change, Dr. Pedersen continues, “In effect, [the state House cutting school funding] is going to benefit other sectors of the state government as well by reducing their cutbacks. President Obama and the Congress made it clear that these stabilization funds were to go to schools and universities to prevent the kind of layoffs that the House's budget would require.”

The answer? Why more taxes, of course! Dr. Pedersen “[knows] that increasing taxes is unpopular, but these cuts in education are too big of a step backward for a state that sees its future dependent upon quality educational systems.” (See the Chapel Hill Herald City School Cuts Story.)

The “suspension” of competitive economic forces, a state that allegedly existed in Orange County, continues to crumble as reality sets in during tough economic times.

First there was the realization by local politicians in 2008 that “retail snobbery” deprived Orange County of a balanced blend of tax revenue sources by driving retailers to the borders of the county, draining precious sales tax revenues into adjoining counties. Then in late May 2009 Weaver Street Market announced that an increase in local food retailing competitors has forced the suspension of an owner’s cooperative discount at the time of sale in favor of an annual dividend.

Which raises the question, when does a cooperative become a corporation?

Cooperation Is The Key
To answer that question, let’s look at cooperatives, in general, and the progression of cooperative behavior by the Weave, in particular.

One of the bulwarks of progressive economics is the promotion of cooperatives over corporations. Buying from a cooperative, that’s good. Buying from a corporation, that’s bad.

The favorite cooperative business of Orange County is the “Weave”. Originally created over twenty years ago, using a Carrboro revolving loan, the “Weave” promoted itself simply as a “community market”. There was no use of the term “food cooperative” or “co-op”. Weave users were encouraged to purchase voting stock in the “Weave” in order to get some reduced food prices.

Starting in the late 1990s, the Weave shifted into political gear, abandoning its promotion as a local, community-driven business, and turning, instead, towards the promotion of a politicized cooperative business, one even equipped with an affordable housing arm, the Weaver Cooperative Housing Association. The Weave could justify not paying a living wage to “employee/owners” because subsidized housing became part of its political agenda.

As a full blown, politically-connected, and politically driven food cooperative, every member had the same participation and voting power as another member, regardless of how much one consumed. The difference was that the more you shopped at the Weave, the more you saved money in the form of a member rebate or discount.

According to the International Cooperative Alliance, there are seven basic principles to a cooperative.

First Principle: Voluntary and Open Membership
Cooperatives are voluntary organizations, open to all persons able to use their services and willing to accept the responsibility of membership, without gender, social, racial, political, or religious discrimination.

Second Principle: Democratic Member Control
Cooperatives are democratic organizations controlled by their members, who actively participate in setting their policies and making decisions. Men and women serving as elected representatives are accountable to the membership. In primary cooperatives members have equal voting rights (one member, one vote) and cooperatives at other levels are organized in a democratic manner.

Third Principle: Member Economic Participation
Members contribute equitable to, and democratically control, the capital of the cooperative. At least part of that capital is usually the common property of the cooperative. They usually receive limited compensation, if any, on capital subscribed as a condition of membership. Members allocate surpluses for any or all of the following purposes: developing the cooperative, possible by setting up reserves, part of which at least would be indivisible, benefiting members in proportion to their transactions with the cooperative, and supporting other activities approved by the membership.

Fourth Principle: Autonomy and Independence
Cooperatives are autonomous, self-help organizations controlled by their members. If they enter into agreements with other organizations, including governments, or raise capital from external sources, they do so on terms that ensure democratic control by their members and maintain their cooperative autonomy.

Fifth Principle: Education, Training, and Information
Cooperatives provide education and training for their members, elected representatives, managers, and employees so they can contribute effectively to the development of their cooperatives. They inform the general public - particularly young people and opinion leaders - about the nature and benefits of cooperation.

Sixth Principle: Cooperation Among Cooperatives
Cooperatives serve their members most effectively and strengthen the cooperative movement by working together through local, national, regional and international structures.

Seventh Principle: Concern For The Community
While focusing on member needs, cooperatives work for the sustainable development of their communities through polices accepted by their members.

To quote Alderman Dan Coleman in his CY 2000 Green Party Iowan days, “The ‘co-op’ in today’s food co-ops no longer refers to a way in which people come together to work cooperatively to meet their needs outside of the dominant corporate system. Today, ‘co-op’ describes a form of investment little different from that of any other corporation. You purchase your share, which entitles you to vote for directors. The only difference is that co-op shareholders get slightly lower prices at the store and a dividend based on patronage rather than profits.”

Ownership With Reservations
A Weave owner gives equity money to the Weave and receive a single share in the cooperative in return. That share only gives the owner the right to vote for Board representatives, nothing more. Unlike in a corporation, you can't buy more voting power by providing more equity.

Also unlike in a corporation, the Weave Board can exclude you from becoming an owner. (So much for the First ICA Principle of “Voluntary and Open Membership”.) According to Weave by-laws, an owner must “[support] the purposes of the cooperative as expressed in the Articles of Incorporation, these By-laws, and the policies of the cooperative.” The Weave Board has the absolute discretion to reject any application for ownership.

Giving equity money to the Weave to become an “owner” does NOT give you any rights in the general property owned by the Weave. You have the right to receive your equity back should you wish to give up your ownership. You have no right to any appreciation of Weave equity during the time you were an owner.

You have the right to elect an owner-representative to the Weave board of directors (Board). You don’t have a right to question that board at open owner meetings.

Unlike in most publicly-traded corporations, the general manager of the Weave (Mr. Ruffin Slater since its inception) is guaranteed a position on the Board.

According to the Weave, it has adopted the Carver Policy Governance model for conducting business. Under this model, board dissent is eliminated. Once a vote is taken, “the board speaks with one voice”. Moreover, a Carver board is goal oriented without details. The board sets a goal. If the management reaches that goal, there is no need to discuss the means used. The touted result is little paperwork for the board to review, much like with a Bernie Madoff investment company.

Weave Finances
The annual report of the Weave is a bare bones affair that provides little, if any, guidance to an owner/member as to the operating efficiency of the Weave.

For 2008, the Weave “achieved strong sales growth in our existing stores in the first half of the year, but sales growth declined in the second half of the year due to increased competition. Our new Hillsborough store opened at the end of the fiscal year and posted sales above budget for its first few weeks. Besides declining sales in our existing stores, our financial performance was negatively affected by dramatically higher food prices which squeezed our margins. For the year, we achieve an operating profit of $76,000 [on revenues of $21,875,554 and “community loans” equity of $1,324,750], only about a quarter of the operating profit of the previous year. Combined with one-time start-up expenses of $485,000 for the Food House and Hillsborough store, this produced a net loss of $330,000 for the fiscal year ending in June.” (See the Weave 2008 Annual Report.)

Mr. Slater’s message doesn’t state that the Weave lost $330,651 in “Net Income” for 2008. Neither does it highlight that on those total sales of $21,875,554, members received only $582,798 (2.7%) in discounts, indicating that a substantial portion of Weave sales are to non-owners.

The annual report also doesn’t go into the practice of the Weave borrowing money form other food cooperatives. In February 2009, the Weave borrowed $25,000 in an unsecured loan from the Middlebury, Vermont based Middlebury Natural Foods Cooperative (MNFC). The MNFC placed the $25,000 in a certificate of deposit at the Self Help Credit Union of Durham. (Alderman John Hererra is senior vice president of Latino/Hispanic affairs for $292 million asset organization.) Why isn’t the MNFC isn’t returning that money to its owner members? Good question, the Pulp doesn’t have that answer.

Of course, the next question is, why are ten other food cooperatives loaning money to the Weave as well? Are the community loans of $1,324,750 owner/member food cooperative money that could be returned to respective food cooperative owners throughout the country?

Hillsborough Who?
The above-mentioned expansion to Hillsborough occurred in 2007. It was significant in that although the town of Carrboro provided money to start the Weave, the administrative offices and food preparation facilities would leave Carrboro, another example of Carrboro ED in action. According to Mr. Slater, Carrboro has little flexible commercial space available with loading docks. “There was very little commercial property. The retail spaces are just not set up for unloading trucks.” Another example of progressive land use planning for businesses. (See Carrboro Citizen Hillsborough Weave Story.)

What wasn’t highlighted by the local media were the underlying finances regarding that Hillsborough move.

The Weave moved into new Gateway Center facilities built by Mr. George A. Horton III under his Telesis Construction Management LLC business entity. Part of that complex, pre-construction was the old Southern States Cooperative property. That property didn’t pass from Southern States to Telesis. Back in 2002, it was sold to Hillsborough Community LLC. A gain of $225,000 on a purchase price of $625,000 was made in the 2007 sale by Hillsborough Community LLC to Telesis.

Who’s Hillsborough Community LLC? There’s little public record as exactly who owns this business at what time. However, the record does show that it’s located now at 439 Dimmocks Hill Road. That’s the administrative office address for the Weave. It should come as no surprise then that the registered agent for Hillsborough Community is none other than Mr. Slater, the Weave General Manager.

There’s also no public record as to the relationship between the Weave and Hillsborough Community LLC. Thus, the Pulp can’t tell you who pocketed the $225,000 gain.

Dividends, Not Discounts?
The move to Hillsborough may have been the “bridge too far” move for the Weave. Costs have increased. Hillsborough has a competitive food retailing market, including the mega-retailer, Wal-Mart.

Starting 26 June 2009, the Weave will cease giving its owners a 5% discount on cash register purchases. Instead, they will get a “patronage dividend” at the end of the fiscal year that accounts for all owner purchases. One hitch, that dividend will be finances permitting. The reason given for the change is that the Weave has been losing about $65,000 per month recently due to increased competition and increased costs. Sales are down about 12% compared to last year in the Carrboro and Southern Village locations.

Cooperative Or Corporation?
Which begs the question, if owners are receiving a dividend annually, if that dividend is subject to profit margins and not just dependent on owner usage, then isn’t that the hallmark of a for-profit corporation?

With municipal elections coming, Pulpsters know that the affordable housing whipping boy will be drug out yet again. It doesn’t matter that housing prices have moved down for almost two years. The expansion of local tax exempt bureaucracies is vital to the local economy.

In a spirit of cumbayah cooperation, the Pulp imports a suitably progressive answer to the affordable housing crisis. The Pulp looks to the Orient for the newest affordable housing mantra. More specifically, it looks towards India, land of mystery, land of excitement.

Tata, the same Indian conglomerate that brought India the pleasure of the 100,000 rupee ($2500) Nano car, is now bringing Indians the thrill of owning a ~300,000 rupee ($7800) Shub Griha house.

Here is the floor plan of the studio/efficiency condominium, all 283 square feet of it.

For those wishing to splurge, for about 550,000 rupees ($13,400), one can get a capacious 465 square feet.

In true Chapelboro progressive land use planning, Tata is densely developing these units in a master-planned, open spaced community with a homeowner’s association assuming much of the municipal maintenance role.

Here’s a look at the Shub Griha master plan. Notice the open space, 70%! Notice the density, 1182 units on a spacious 44 acres. Tatas everywhere!

Yes, the answer to the affordable housing problem in Chapelboro is as close as looking at a bodacious set of Tatas!

In most of North Carolina, the relentless upward spiral of local municipal taxation is recognized as being a looming problem for an aging home-owning population. However, Orange County is not like the rest of North Carolina. Here, taxes are the price to support what Commish Mike Nelson calls “the high level of services expected”.

How crippling are local property taxes really? The local media has no local government press releases to regurgitate, so the general itinerant population of southern Orange has no idea. Once again, the Pulp will take on this taxing situation.

Let’s look at what the median household in Orange County faces in an average priced single family house. The household income (2007, U.S. Census) is about $55,028. The average price house sold (at least in the southern half of the county) is about $300,000.

What you pay in ad valorem property taxes depends upon where you live in southern Orange. Here’s a table showing the tax rates for houses within the city school district and the South Orange Fire District if outside a town. The table also shows the annual tax bill.

(To calculate taxes, simply multiply the home value by the tax rate number in the above table.)

Let’s assume that the household is unusual. They plan for the future. They save for retirement costs. How much money does this median Orange household have to save in order to have investment income pay for the property taxes?

To answer that question requires assuming an average rate of return on a nest egg saved just to pay taxes. If one assumes an average rate of about 3% per year, then one can use a simple multiple of 33x. In other words, if you need to pay $1.00 in taxes, then you must save $33.00.

The following table shows how much be saved.

How long will it take for that median Orange household to save this nest egg? That depends. Let’s assume that they save 10% of their pre-tax income every year and hold the dollars at constant CY 2009 dollars. The table below shows how many tithing years it takes to collect the nest egg without compounding interest. So the a few years can be shaved off if compounding is considered.

(Note that tax rates/burdens are halved for low income retirees.)

In essence, our hard working, and gullible median income family must save about 10% of its pre-tax income for most of its entire working career just in order to feed the municipal tax beast.

Orange County redefines the term “sustainable” yet again.

As the Orange County government budget crunch times nears (June 30th), the December 2008 property value reassessment pronouncement by the Orange County Tax Assessor looks more and more surreal. Pulpsters remember the numbers. As of December 2008, taxable property in Orange County is worth over 22% more than in 2004.

That’s what you are supposed to believe. About $11.5 billion of taxable real property has increased in value to about $14.0 billion, despite a housing market meltdown. After all, a progressive government has pronounced. You must not denounce. Just accept what you are told.

With the local media simply lapping up government press releases, it falls again upon the Pulp to look deeper into the story.

Let’s look at the Case Schiller (CS) Index (Standard & Poors). It’s an industry accepted standard for determining national and regional housing values. (The closest relevant regional values model the Charlotte regional area.)

According to the CS Index, housing values rose nationally about 17.6% between June 2004 to June 2008 . That’s less than the Tax Assessor’s 22%, but sounds in the ballpark. However, let's look closer. Charlotte regional housing values rose only 5.8% during the same time frame. (Please note that the housing market peaked nationally and regionally (Charlotte) according to the CS Index in June 2006 and August 2007, respectively.)

Maybe the Tax Assessor thinks your real property booty is bigger than it really is.

How about if we move from December 2004 to December 2008? The numbers shift, and not in the Tax Assessor’s favor. According to the CS Index, housing values rose nationally between December 2004 to December 2008 by only about 7.2%. That’s way less than the Tax Assessor’s alleged 22% value increase. Moreover, the Charlotte regional housing values didn't rise at all. They fell 9.6% during that time frame.

The Tax Assessor is not just in left field, but is out of the ballpark.

Here are the raw numbers:

Do you wonder what has happened since the first quarter of 2009? Oh, it just gets better.

If we move look at from December 2004 to March 2009, then the Tax Assessor is in J-Lo heaven. According to the CS Index, housing values rose nationally between December 2004 to March 2009 by only about 5.1 %. Moreover, the Charlotte regional housing values fell not just about 9.6%, but by about 16.0% during the same time frame.

No word on when the local media will challenge the Commishes blind acceptance of an alleged “22% increase”.

Orange County is a prisoner of the charms of one party government. In this case, it’s the Democratic Party. Although the 2008 voter registration statistics show a split countywide of only 54% Democratic versus 19% Republican, and 28% Unaffiliated, that's enough of a cushion almost to guarantee that only registered Democratic candidates are elected. (That split varies little even in southern Orange, namely, 54%, 15%, an 31%, respectively,)

In a one-party banana republic, the ruling party gets what it wants. There is no opposition. There is no political dialogue. Thus, Orange Democrats ought to be happier than “those whose party affiliation will be kept in the trunk”.

Then again, maybe not.

A Partisan Happiness Gap
What does it mean when the reputable Pew Research Center comes along with a finding that being a self-described “Republican” means you’re likelier to be happier than if you’re a “Democrat”. (The fiercely unaffiliated Pulp notes that the Pew study ignores how being “independent” or “unaffiliated” compares to these other two monikers.)

Even if you factor in religious attendance (weekly) and personal health (good to excellent) and factor out income or net worth, there’s a pesky 7% differential between these two party labels. Although the gap has existed since polling started in 1972, it’s now the biggest ever.

What’s Going On Here?
As a group, Republicans not only have more money, they have more friends, are healthier are more likely to be married, like their communities better, like their jobs more, and are more satisfied with their family life. Heck, they even like the weather better.

Perhaps the answer lies in the polled fact that Republicans are more likely to feel that individuals – rather than outside forces – control their own success or failure. Or perhaps it’s that they feel they have more of what they most value in life. (Sorry Democrats, it’s not money).

The Pew study used two regression models. It wanted to filter out vague correlations. For example, is it that happy people get married, or that married people get happy? Does money lead to happiness, or happiness to money? Or might some unrelated factor be creating correlations which don’t actually have any causal connection?

Scoff at the 7% gap at your own risk. Statistically, it means that your party identification has a greater direct bearing on your odds of being very happy than does your race, your ethnicity, or even your gender.

Life Satisfaction
Scoff at the happiness gap as simply being a measure of material things, of one’s rung on the socio-economic ladder. Sorry, that’s not right either. “Life satisfaction” is an evaluation of one’s circumstances. “Happiness” is a measure of one’s feelings. So what happens when you compare Republicans to Democrats on the same ladder rung?



It makes no difference. Even on the same rung, the gap goes to the elephants.

Are You In Charge?
Republicans are more likely to think they can control their course down life’s turbulent river. Over 40% of all Democrats are a cork in the chaos, compared to 28% of Republicans. The gap widens as the socio-economic ladder is climbed.



A feeling of having some control over your path is a strong predictor of well being.

Hard Work Ethic
Perhaps one of the most fascinating gaps is the perception of how to succeed economically. Some 59% of Republicans say hard work and ambition are the keys to material success. Amazingly, only 35% of Democrats agree. Moreover, that gap doesn’t go away as one climbs the ladder. Democrats on the highest rung are significantly less likely to believe in hard work and ambition.



So Pulpsters, look around. Do you see a tendency to minimize the rewards of hard work and ambition? Do you see a tendency to believe in needing help from others to steer a path to happiness? Do you see a tendency to value a stable marriage and children less? According to Pew, these are all factors that lessen happiness and satisfaction for people in this country.

Do they sound familiar in this county?

In most parts of North Carolina, if a local media company borrowed money from politicians covered by that media, the citizens would be very concerned. Shades of socialism aside, how can the media function as a watchdog over politician dysfunction if they owe money to narcissistic egomaniacs? However, as Pulpsters are overly aware, southern Orange is NOT like most of North Carolina.

In a low key, palocracy fashion, the Carrboro BOA approved a $50,000 Carrboro town revolving loan to the Carrboro Citizen, a 2-year-old hometown newspaper located in downtown Carrboro. (Pulpsters are aware of the famously unsuccessful town honeypot for subsidizing marginal businesses, the Carrboro revolving loan.)

More importantly, the publisher of the Carrboro Citizen, Mr. Robert Dickson, saw no conflict in making the loan application and accepting the approved loan. The purpose of the loan is to buy distribution boxes and increase the printing by 50%. The $50,000 loan has an interest rate of 2 percent and a seven-year payback period.

So egregiously abandoning the principles of “freedom of the press” from government intrusion, even other local media eyebrows have been raised. In the words of the Chapel Hill Herald, “But should a newspaper, whose duty it is to objectively report on the town's decisions and activities, become involved in a financial relationship with the town? ” (See the Chapel Hill Herald Free Press Story.) Apparently, that’s not true in Carrboro.

According to Mr. Dickson, ”It really didn't occur to me because it seemed like a Small Business Administration loan that had been set up by the town. This is a straight up loan.” Mr. Dickson failed to state why his receiving money from town officials would not influence the ability of his reporters to criticize those same town officials. Apparently, Mr. Dickson views government media interaction in the vein of Mr. Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of General Electric. What's good for government is good for the media business.

Carrboro’s ED guru, Mr. James Harris is equally clueless. ”I spoke to our attorney before and he said there is nothing wrong with it from our standpoint. We're not buying any favor from anybody.” No, Mr. Harris is not joking when he makes this statement. The fact that the town buys advertising space in the Carrboro Citizen also doesn't create a conflict, according to Mr. Harris.

Alderman Dan Coleman is not going to let Mr. Harris lead the parade. In approving the loan, he said that ”[i]t's a great thing” for a town governance board to loan money to those who hand out the paychecks to the reporters covering him. Progressive anarchism at its finest.

In a feat of logical legerdemain exemplifying local progressive thinking, Mr. Dickson proclaims, ”We're a community newspaper. We're going to try to reflect our town. If we see a problem we're going to say something about it. If we see something good, we're going to say something about that.”

Displaying the demise of journalistic ethics, Mr. Fred Brown, vice chairman of the Ethics Committee for the Society of Professional Journalists, said, ”I can see their justification for it. Newspapers are having a tough time finding ways to survive.” Survival justifies anything.

For Pulpsters, here's an excerpt of relevance from the Code of Ethics from the Society of Professional Journalists:

Act Independently
Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.

Journalists should:
— Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
— Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
— Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
— Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
— Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
— Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
— Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.

No word on whether or not the loan application affected the decision of the Carrboro Citizen NOT to report on the controversy of the town suing a widow over a barn apartment.

No word on why retained earnings can’t be used to justify a $50,000 loan from a conventional bank.

No word on why $250,000 of business equity collateral used as security in the revolving loan couldn't have been used to secure a loan from a conventional bank.

No word when the Carrboro Citizen will start implementing a policy of “If we see a problem we're going to say something about it”.