NHC Chairman and Vice-Chairman Pledge Full Funding For Airlie/Parks

There are times that party labels or political leanings truly have little meaning.  The story covering New Hanover County Commission Chairman Woody White’s and Vice-Chairman Beth Dawson’s position on funding for taxpayer subsidized Airlie Gardens and parks in general was telling.

(StarNews) “Our citizens pay for and enjoy our parks and museums and I expect these services to be fully funded next year,” said Woody White, chairman of the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners

“I feel that our cultural and natural resources need to be protected,” said Dawson, who also serves on the Airlie Gardens Foundation Board of Directors and the Cape Fear Museum Advisory Board.

“They help attract business investment to New Han­over County. They help to support our quality of life. Without our museums, our parks, our libraries, it would be a sad place to live.”

WIth such attitudes one wonders how they will be capable of cutting spending on anything, saving any taxpayer dollars or even remotely resembling the “conservative” candidates they told the public they were during the election.

At the very least one would hope they would look to see if the parks were budgeting properly.  The have a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that there isn’t waste.  But to just give the parks a blank check isn’t responsible governance.  Does that mean the leadership thinks the parks are absolutely efficient? Does it mean they think the rest of government isn’t?  We don’t really know.  But from words will come actions.  If you’re looking at what to budget for parks, you might as well ask for the sky.  Of note, according to callers this morning on my show, Airlie had 47 visitors on Saturday raking in around $250.

Rep. Hamilton Isn’t Fond of $14k/year

The StarNews story about Rep. Susi Hamilton is worth more than a cursory glance.  The story twice states that Hamilton was on “the back row” during her first two years in the legislature.  Then tells of her having moved to the second row, much closer to the seat of power.  Let’s not forget she was one of the deciding votes to overturn Gov. Perdue’s fracking veto.  Becky Carney, whose famed vote to do the same, was in tears over her vote wishing she could have changed it.  Now she sits two seats away from Hamilton (that’s just funny!)

The story then talks about Hamilton’s fundraising prowess “. . . Hamilton – who raised $164,000 by that point – [was] the top Democratic fundraiser in the House . . .  Hamilton didn’t take any money from the Democratic caucus – she didn’t need any to win her race – and she didn’t put any of her own money into her campaign.”

Now, to be fair, she was going to win in a heavily gerrymandered district.  Many other democrat candidates raised a lot of money, but didn’t win, thus they weren’t part of the article.  Folks tend to bet on winners and Susi was going to win.

BUT, the funniest quote of the story is illustrative of legislative disdain for their salaries while not showing their appreciation for being in office:

“It truly is those small donations that make it worthwhile for me to go up there for $14,000 a year,” she said.

Really?

Public Access TV, All Want and No Need, Faux Support

According to a story over at PortCityDaily.com, “Nearly 80 percent of respondents in a recent City of Wilmington survey said the city should secure a public access television channel that residents and organizations may use to express themselves.”

Hmm. . that’s just plain interesting. . . . and there’s more, “Almost 72 percent said they would support the use of local tax dollars for the channel, and about 65 percent said they would tune in daily or weekly.”

Really?  So, 70 of city voters outright rejected a plan to build a baseball stadium but support using taxpayer dollars to support a TV station?  If you look at how the survey was done, a lot more makes sense.  It was an online survey that the city posted in November that received virtually no press and was unknown by almost everyone except supporters.

Once again, the city failed to take a scientific survey and will be making a decision based upon a select group of folks who desire taxpayer dollars be used to support a TV station that we don’t need.  And primary supporter Stave Lee’s attempt to make this a constitutional issue is rather odd as well.

Steve Lee, head of the Wilmington-based Southeastern Alliance for Community Change (SEACC), said he’s aware of the upcoming city council discussion and is hoping locals before then will “stand up for the First Amendment” and expand known support for the proposal.

This isn’t about the 1st Amendment at all, it’s about people who don’t want to pay for time on radio or tv to have access for their personal whims at the expense of taxpayers.  One would have thought the city would have learned a lesson from the drubbing it took in November after trusting that public sentiment was on their side with their previous surveys.  Here’s hoping that city manager Sterline Cheatham doesn’t want another embarrassment.

The Mysterious McIntyre Speaks

Con. Mike McIntyre’s (D-Robeson) vote against the multi-trillion dollar spending spree was a good one, but his inability to let his constituents know clearly where he stands at any given point in time is still mysterious.

(WWAY) “I am looking forward to a more comprehensive solution being brought forth and together in a bipartisan fashion to stop all this excess government spending and to get our national debt under control,” McIntyre said. “I’m hoping that will occur in the next 60 to 90 days.” But in the meantime, McIntyre said he does not support the Senate’s plan his House colleagues adopted. ”It will add almost $4 trillion to the nation’s debt,” McIntyre said. “It delays spending cuts and does not provide for the comprehensive tax reform that can help our small businesses create job.”

Once again, lots of rhetoric, but nothing of detail.  McIntyre won this year by just over 600 votes, he is officially a democrat, but his votes are often inconsistent with his party.  He usually portrays that as being independent, but there isn’t a cohesive way to assert that either.  Here’s hoping that we’ll eventually understand where McIntyre stands on how spending should be cut when he champions earmarks, how taxes should be reformed when he hasn’t put a single idea on the table and how we solve the problem when we, as citizens, have no idea where he stands until after he takes a vote.