You may also like Crosstown Traffic | WakeWatch | Bull's Eye | Eastern Wake Buzz
News
Web Search powered by YAHOO!
OrangeChat
How are we doing? If you have a question, complaint or suggestion about coverage of Orange and Chatham counties in The News & Observer and The Chapel Hill News, post your comments in this blog or e-mail us. Comments here may be reprinted in The News & Observer or Chapel Hill News.
Today in The Chapel Hill News
Submitted by mschultz on 06/07/2009 - 08:45
A look at today's headlines
CHELSEA TOO: Daniel Cook Johnson has a unique take on the Varsity/Chelsea theaters story. He worked at the Varsity five years until last Thursday, which he thought might be the movie house's last day under owner Bruce Stone. Read what he has to say about the state of independent theaters in today's story.
ROAD BLOCK: I hadn't heard that "we reject your reality" quote Alderman Dan Coleman said at last week's meeting. But our correspondent, John Musci, knew where it came from and put it in his story today on the town's Smith Level Road impasse. Read the update.
KNIVES, VANDALISM: Kids brought three knives to Chapel Hill High and Seawell Elementary schools respectively in the past two weeks. One's in jail; the other's suspended. Summer intern Julian March has the details.
SAVE THE LIBRARY: In today's editorial, Associate Editor Dave Hart says financial savings from closing the Carrboro and Cedar Grove branch libraries are insufficient to justify their closing. We also have another letter on the library, alongside letters/guest columns on Greenbridge and the Millhouse Road solid waste transfer station.
Sports editor Elliott Warnock has more on the Chapel Hill High basketball coach, staff writer Jesse James DeConto says Augustus Cho and Matt Czajkowski are already sparring in the mayor's race (and Matt's said he's not even sure he's running), and lots more.
Saw "Up" yesterday. Man, the first 15 minutes is a movie all by itself.
Oh, and one more thing. We deleted two comments from the OrangeChat blog this week after readers pointed us to language that was offensive. If you see offensive or just plain hurtful words on the blog, please let us know.
Thanks for reading,
Mark
About the blogger
Mark Schultz is the editor of The Chapel Hill News and The Durham News, and one of the Western Triangle editors for The News & Observer.Want to post a comment?
In order to join the conversation, you must be a member of newsobserver.com. To register or to log in using your existing account, click here.Advertisements
Comments
Matt Cz
Sun, 06/07/2009 - 11:19 — marcoplosis definitely from the self-proclaimed "silent majority" (read voting minority) of citizens who support profits first policy. This is the demographic that usually comes in last among electees and has featured Chamber-friendly, but generally inneffective candidates like Lee Pavao and Pat Evans
Speak For Yourself
Sun, 06/07/2009 - 12:44 — Claudius"...generally inneffective candidates like Lee Pavao and Pat Evans."
A large majority of CH voters would disagree.
A large majority?
Sun, 06/07/2009 - 13:10 — marcoplosThey always squeeked in as the 4th candidate with the large majority of citizens supporting progressive candidates with a wider, more holistic view of the issues.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all in favor of proportional representation and believe it is very important that significant minorities have a place at the table. They often present some good ideas and all their ideas receive the benefit of public debate. But let's not get carried away and elevate these minority candidates to some sort of "majority" status by delusional historical revisioning.
1999
Sun, 06/07/2009 - 14:22 — fhblackwhen Evans finished 4th, here are the numbers. They do not support your comment:
NAME
VOTE
TOTAL
Note that there were 7,399 voters but the County reporting system does not allow you to tell how many people voted for 4, 3, 2, 1, or none for Council. A simple test shows that 7,399 times four = 29,596. The total above is 26,647. Only 7,216 votes were cast for mayor.
Reality check
Mon, 06/08/2009 - 07:14 — marcoplosThose numbers absolutely confirm my point.
Pat Evans squeeked into 4th place by 71 votes.
You Wrote:
Mon, 06/08/2009 - 11:03 — fhblack"They always squeeked in as the 4th candidate with the large majority of citizens supporting progressive candidates with a wider, more holistic view of the issues."
Given the label that you used, how do the numbers support that assertion?
Is that a trick question?
Mon, 06/08/2009 - 11:47 — marcoplosWard 1
Bateman 2
Strom 3
Evans 4
So,
Mon, 06/08/2009 - 12:13 — fhblackwho are the "progressive candidates with a wider, more holistic view of the issues" who won and lost?
The problem is your labels, not by how much someone beat someone else.
OK, I see what you're getting at
Mon, 06/08/2009 - 13:06 — marcoplosGenerally speaking, Evans had the narrower, least-progressive views of the four candidates that won. She was the most "conservative" and had the least understanding of the overall linkage and interdependence between the various environmental, social justice, social needs, economic health, and growth issues.
We could have a convoluted discussion about the political stripes of each candidates, how many votes one voter could cast, why less votes were cast than could have been, etc. but that will not change the fact that the (I use this term loosely of course) pro-business, "conservative" council members have generally come in last of the winners.
But ---
Mon, 06/08/2009 - 13:21 — fhblacklook at the four year voting history of that Council and that is a much better measure of positions. If you remember, there were several significant 5-4 votes and Evans, Ward and Bateman voter together more than not?
Signifcant minorities?
Sun, 06/07/2009 - 13:15 — tbucknerWho are you talking about? The vast majority of local citizens don't vote in local elections so any "majority" when it comes to local elections is a significant minority. Then we have the situation of incumbency and the very significant challenge of overcoming that name recognition factor. These two factors make it virtually impossible to draw any conclusions as to what Chapel Hill or Carrboro voters want based on who gets elected.
Clarifying
Mon, 06/08/2009 - 07:21 — marcoplosTerri wrote
"These two factors make it virtually impossible to draw any conclusions as to what Chapel Hill or Carrboro voters want based on who gets elected. "
Actually the polling information tells us EXACTLY what we need to know about what Chapel Hill & Carrboro "voters" want.
Of course, the profits-first activists are always lamenting that the "silent majority" (i.e. those not voting) is not being represented. They claim to have the support of people who don't care enough to vote & about whom we know next to nothing, except they are not paying attention. What a dream constituency!
Voters vs Citizens
Mon, 06/08/2009 - 17:10 — tbucknerMark Wrote:
"Matt C is definitely from the self-proclaimed "silent majority" (read voting minority) of citizens who support profits first policy."
If I understand the argument you are making, the majority of the "voters" in this community are progressive and the minority of voters support the Chamber/business-type candidates. Conversely, since the majority of CITIZENS don't vote, wouldn't that mean the majority of CITIZENS/non-voters share a Chamber/business-type perspective and the minority of CITIZENS support the progressive perspective?
BTW--there was a 90-vote different between Evans (business by your definition) and Strom (progressive by your definition), and a 71-vote difference between Evans (business) and McClintock (progressive). No significant difference--no valid conclusions to be drawn.
Check out other elections
Tue, 06/09/2009 - 08:28 — marcoplosYou're right - her 4th place finish was closer than others. Check out Pavao & Matt Cz's runs as well. I'm just working from memory - are there any other "conservative" candidates in the last 20 years that finished higher than 4th?
I discount your labels,
Tue, 06/09/2009 - 09:12 — fhblackjust like in the exact same conversation on this topic last year. Look at how they vote on the issues - that tells the real story. Your labels mean nothing.
Fred - I agree
Tue, 06/09/2009 - 11:17 — marcoplosThe labels don't mean much - just shorthand because long treatises don't work on blogs.
But yes - I would encourage folks to see how the candidates voted. I guarantee you will find that Pavao, Evans, and now Matt Cz often support policies that the majority of voters do not. That's why those types of candidates rarely win big.
Circles
Tue, 06/09/2009 - 18:16 — tbucknerMark wrote: "I guarantee you will find that Pavao, Evans, and now Matt Cz often support policies that the majority of voters do not."
First of all, we can never know what policies the majority of voters support. Elections are held for candidates, not policies, so if someone got elected, we should assume that a winning % of voters supported those individual platforms.
Second, you're circling back on the same bogus majority/minority argument. If the majority of CITIZENS don't vote, then claims about the majority of voters is focused on the MINORITY of citizens.
The spin goes on...
Tue, 06/09/2009 - 22:58 — marcoplosTerri,
If you know what the large number of citizens who do not vote actually want in terms of policy then please tell us what you know & how you know it.
Voting is the lamest form of community participation. Getting off your ass every two years and showing up at the polls with a modicum of understanding of local issues is nothing to get too proud about.
So please tell us how the 22 year old from Pennsylvania who plays his Wii constantly, the IT worker who works at RTP and will leave in a year, the Obama supporter that doesn't recognize the value of local poltics, the transpant from Maryland that has been focused on her day job & not local politics, views local policy making.
Then inform us how we could possibly justify making decisions based upon how this indeterminate group of non-voters views policy making.
Then tell us how we should interpret voting. Should we discount those that show up in favor of those that don't? That's absurd. If I went by your perspective, I'd have more community influence by NOT voting. What could be more concrete than looking at what the voters did? This "silent majority" bs is nothing but spin.
Funny sense of democracy
Wed, 06/10/2009 - 06:22 — tbucknerMark,
Funny--I thought all votes counted equally, both numerically and qualitatively.
Not to repeat myself, but I don't think voting in local elections has much to do with policy making. It's more about relationships, as you've demonstrated in this discussion. Pat Evans has an affiliation with the business community, so you disparage her 4th place electoral win as "squeaking by" despite the fact that her 4th place finish was bracketed by two by-your-definition progressives.
How did this discussion get started.....because I think Matt C is just as liberal/progressive as anyone else on the town council?
There is truth in
Tue, 06/09/2009 - 11:13 — TBlakewhat you say, but it means that voters can't trust what the candidates say before hand and can only evaluate the effect of their voting choice in retrospect.
No wonder turnout is low and people are cynical.
Mayoral candidates article
Sun, 06/07/2009 - 09:27 — tbucknerIn general, I like the coverage the CH News provides, but the article this morning on the mayoral candidates for Chapel Hill came off to me as biased. What purpose did it serve to compare Augustus Cho with Matt Czajkowski? Was the purpose of the article to announce Cho's candidacy and speculate on Matt's possible candidacy, to link their two names together (which you did quite successfully), or to publicize their individual desires not to be associated with one another?
For the record Czajkowski does not start with CH, and I don't think of him as a moderate. To me he is just as liberal as anyone else on the council--he is just more willing to question the status quo.