Your local politics update
Posted October 29th, 2009 at 12:11 PM by John Hood• The Beacon has coverage and video of last week’s candidate forum in Shallotte. Here’s a significant passage:
Candidates agreed the town should continue to clarify its unified development ordinance (UDO) to better meet the needs of applicants. None of the candidates were in favor of forced annexation.
Asked how specifically the town would encourage businesses to come to Shallotte,
Kelly said the town board should make sure applicants are treated fairly and adhere to the UDO. Changes are necessary, he said, but the board should not “cut deals” with developers to bring businesses into town.
Kinlaw advocated making the process more “user-friendly” to create a better relationship with the development community.
“One of these issues is the impact fees on restaurants,” he said. “The cost for a restaurant with 150-250 seats is so high, the upfront costs are in the tens of thousands.”
• The newspaper also offers coverage of the recent candidate forum in Holden Beach.
• Lots of political signs are being torn down in Whiteville, says the News Reporter:
“It happens every election,” said Elections Supervisor Carla Strickland. “There is nothing that the Board of Elections can do about it. It’s a misdemeanor to go on private property and destroy legally placed political signs.”
Whiteville Police Chief Jerry Britt said most of the sign vandalism has been along Madison Street. Some of the signs have even been damaged in broad daylight, he said.
“I have told all our officers to be on the lookout for the culprits,” Britt said Friday. “They have instructions to arrest and charge anyone they see damaging or destroying a campaign sign.”
Well, it sure beats the way some other law enforcement agencies in Columbus County spend their time.
• The Burgaw mayoral debate last week drew a full house and featured spirited debate on taxes, annexation, and other issues, the Pender Post reports.
• Thanks to the Lumina News, interested citizens can watch the recent candidate debate in Wrightsville Beach here. The paper also asked the two mayor candidates, incumbent Stephen Whalen and challenger David Cignotti, a series of questions. The discussion of very different uses of cameras intrigued me:
Mayor Whalen was invited to clarify his position on the televising of town meetings.
LN: You have publicly stated that you are not in favor of televising town meetings. If money was no object, would you change your opinion?
SW: I don’t accept your premise. I don’t oppose the concept. To televise our meetings would reduce the seating capacity by about 20-25 percent in our council chambers due to the space needed for the camera equipment. More importantly I don’t think it is realistic to suggest “If money were no object.” During these difficult economic times money and cost ($30-35,000 a year) are always an object and need study and consideration. I think in general the town does an excellent job in all aspects of communicating.
Alderman David Cignotti has publicly stated that he might be in favor of expanding the town’s use of surveillance cameras.
LN: Please clarify your position on the use of surveillance cameras in public places. Why might you favor the expansion of that program; and, if money was no object, where would you suggest those cameras be placed and why?
DC: I supported the placement of cameras in the downtown /Trolley Stop area. I also support cameras in the Johnnie Mercer’s area. Most studies show that surveillance cameras result in small reductions in criminal activity, though the video is often used to assist police in solving crimes. If money is no object, I support more police officers over more cameras. As for license-recognition systems, there are legitimate privacy concerns and there have been high error rates with some systems. While I realize our mayor favors placing a license recognition system on the Heide Trask Bridge, I believe it is crucial that we hear from citizens first.