In response to my open letter to the city council, Neil Anderson broke the rules and actually responded to me. Here it is:
_________________________________________________________________________________
Mr. McCoy,
Good to hear from you...very uplifting stuff.
Your position on the issues mentioned below is noted and appreciated.
Baseball - I believe we have a fiduciary duty once elected to explore the potential of any and all economic development opportunities exhausting every possible angle before arriving at a conclusion as to whether we move forward to a vote on any project...may or may not be any need, may never reach that point, but we owe it to the city to listen, question, reaearch, and explore. Being completely close-minded to businesses/major international employers that approach the city is not prudent. During the campaign, I did say (without being aware of any pending proposal, not that it would have mattered) I would not support funding the ball park with a tax increase...if and when I do vote for such a tax increase, then you can notch a win for yourself in your gotcha game. While I was saying this, I also said I would love to see minor league baseball in downtown ILM...felt we need afordable, night time, family entertainment (go to a game with a good owner...baseball is just part of the deal) for locals as well as our tourism based economy. I even stated on the radio that I could see helping the stadium owner with some infrastructure improvements around the facility. So hold off on the flip-flopper label until it's truly applicable...if it ever is, then I'll admit to it.
Political Party - Perhaps it is you that should change party...follow your good friend Justin over to the Libertarians...sounds like your priciples and ideals are most closely aligned with that party. I have great respect for the Libertarian Party and find myself on the same page with them from time-to-time. I imagine you remain a Republican like so may other true Libertarians, so you can remain truly relevent in our dated two party system.
Volunatary Annexation - I have never spoken to any representative of Flournoy or their attorney...further there has been very little, if any discussion among council members to my knowledge as to how anyone feels about the issue or how they might vote...the fix is not in, nor was any deal made. The developer came to us not the other way around. If the annexation passes and the zoning does not, then the developer's/land owner's only means for appeal would be through the state legislature..can't withdraw it. Lastly, I voted (only one) to table the annexation vote on the second reading in hopes of taking up Commissioner Davis on the offers he made regarding working together in a timely manner on other potentially bigger issues. I reached out to him and a few other Commissioners...we hope to get together and see if there is any progress we could make that might sway the city from moving forward on the Market St matter. Judging from how quick they pulled out of the baseball discussion...took their ball and went home so to speak...I am skeptical anything can get accomplished in time, still I will effort to do so.
I appreciate your passion, but name calling and degrading earnest people without any real knowledge of the internal situation does not serve you well. You would be much more effective and respected if you were a bit more collegial and professional...people would take your position more seriously and you'd be more effective. Why not run for County Commission this year or Council next year, so you can impact the county/city directly...curious why you would not do so?
Regards,
Neil Anderson
_________________________________________________________________________________
Here is my reply:
_________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for your response Mr. Anderson.
I would like to respond to some of your points (in red):
"Baseball - I believe we have a fiduciary duty once elected to explore the potential of any and all economic development opportunities exhausting every possible angle before arriving at a conclusion as to whether we move forward to a vote on any project...may or may not be any need, may never reach that point, but we owe it to the city to listen, question, reaearch, and explore. Being completely close-minded to businesses/major international employers that approach the city is not prudent."
Response: I find your choice of words ironic. "Fiduciary duty". I would say that you have a fiduciary duty to respect and be conservative stewards of the taxpayer dime first and foremost. No one is asking you to be close-minded to business; in fact, it's quite the other way around. What you big spenders don't understand is that you can be both prudent and open-minded. Government does not have to rush in every time some flashy developer rolls into town and pour a path to City Hall with taxpayer cash. We have a beautiful city to be proud of - any investor would find it to his/her advantage to invest in our area with their own money. We welcome private investment, and would love to see a flurry of economic development take place organically. But Wilmington City Council has a reputation for spending first and asking questions later - that is why we only seem to attract those who want to only "invest" if their losses are mitigated with public money - they are looking for a handout. You and your counterparts are all too eager to help them with their goals by being the first ones to jump in the water so to speak with OUR money. I would wager your eagerness would cease if it was your own.
"During the campaign, I did say (without being aware of any pending proposal, not that it would have mattered) I would not support funding the ball park with a tax increase...if and when I do vote for such a tax increase, then you can notch a win for yourself in your gotcha game."
You do realize that any project such as this would result either directly or indirectly in a tax increases, no? Council basically has a set amount of money to work with, and cutting another $40M+ hole in the budget with additional debt would certainly impact taxation either immediately and directly or indirectly. Your anxious support of this venture warrants the "gotcha game" or whatever cutesy term you want to employ. Why is their never any discussion regarding private money for private interests? Why do we have to fund whatever hobby item you seven people decide is what you want? You do realize that a baseball stadium offers countless advertising opportunities along the outfield wall, stands, and many other places, where businesses would pay a premium to brand and advertise their company, right? That is just one simple idea - there are many others in which something like this could be done 100% with private money. Quit using the term "economic development" for every big ticket item that you people spend our money on - local government has abused and soured this term, and has only accomplished misusing it as a blanket to cover whatever big spending plan that they want to engage in.
"While I was saying this, I also said I would love to see minor league baseball in downtown ILM...felt we need afordable, night time, family entertainment (go to a game with a good owner...baseball is just part of the deal) for locals as well as our tourism based economy. I even stated on the radio that I could see helping the stadium owner with some infrastructure improvements around the facility."
That's great that you would love to see baseball downtown. Again about your "fiduciary duty" - why don't you invest your own money if it is something you want so bad? I'm sure you could get all of the other baseball fanatics in local government to kick in with you. I hope you make a zillion dollars on your investment. This is how economic development works. Government can only absorb and obliterate money. The private sector is where money multiplies and seeds other lucrative projects. We have spent millions upon millions over the last 3 years on projects all dubbed "economic development" - and yet our unemployment was 10% +/- then and it is the same now. What about all those jobs? All that economic activity? Where the hell is it? Government spending taxpayer money on hobbies and shiny things that jut into the skyline DO NOT produce economic opportunity. They only create a huge sinking hole that more and more money has to be poured into indefinitely.
"Political Party - Perhaps it is you that should change party...follow your good friend Justin over to the Libertarians...sounds like your priciples and ideals are most closely aligned with that party."
This is a really pathetic comment. It's a shame that so many such as yourself have hijacked the Republican Party into something it isn't. I stand for fiscal responsibility and limited government. Two obviously now former banner positions of the Republican Party. Has the abandonment of these principles already been solidified? Now these are strictly Libertarian ideologies? What do the Republicans stand for? How are they different than the Democrats if I may ask? I know many Republicans who would be quite insulted by your comments, and still hold their traditional values at heart, and haven't sold out to the big government mentality that you embrace so vigorously. I hold dear many Libertarian principles - but none that have come up in our conversations - these are strictly matters of conservatism - values once held dear by the Republican Party.
"Volunatary Annexation - I have never spoken to any representative of Flournoy or their attorney...further there has been very little, if any discussion among council members to my knowledge as to how anyone feels about the issue or how they might vote...the fix is not in, nor was any deal made."
As I said on the floor of the meeting, there may not have been a "deal" per se; but there was definitely an understanding. In its eagerness for more tax revenue to hurry up and waste, the city council jumped all over the opportunity to annex, knowing what the developer was looking for and what he needed to make his project economically feasible. Unlike some, I have no problem with voluntary annexation or satellite annexations done lawfully. However, what lies between the lines is what concerns me here. The courts have made it clear that these sorts of arrangements constitute as illegal contract zoning. We'll see how the zoning goes and address that then.
"...name calling and degrading earnest people without any real knowledge of the internal situation does not serve you well. You would be much more effective and respected if you were a bit more collegial and professional...people would take your position more seriously and you'd be more effective."
You're right - neither myself or any other citizen has any real knowledge of any internal situation that goes down at City Hall. Nice for a councilman to finally admit it. As for the rest of your comment, the only time I hear similar comments is from those with whom I disagree and take to task for their decisions - other citizens appreciate my candidness and honesty, and usually agree and state that they feel what I express.
"Why not run for County Commission this year or Council next year, so you can impact the county/city directly...curious why you would not do so?"
I ran for council in 2009. Since then I have come to terms with a couple of sad realities in this city. About 15% of registered voters even bother to vote locally. Out of that. about 10% are people loyally tied to one or more candidates form the outset, and would walk through the fires in hell to elect, or re-elect them. Living in a place like Forest Hills certainly helps, as this is a neighborhood known to show up at the ballot box, and supporting its own. Outsiders with alien messages of fiscal responsibility and limited government get left in the dark no matter how well their campaigns are ran. Josh Fulton ran a campaign 100 times more effective than mine; and look where he got. In order to get elected in this town, you have to belong to one or more of the "clubs" that exist, and satisfy the terms they set forth. I could go on, but I digress.
Getting elected out of a total of 15% voter turnout is not a mandate - I wish more of you understood that. It's not because of the 15% that you sit in rule over this city; it's because of the apathy and irresponsibility of the 85%.
_________________________________________________________________________________
and finally, his reply back to me (his comments in blue):
_________________________________________________________________________________
Response: I find your choice of words ironic. "Fiduciary duty". I would say that you have a fiduciary duty to respect and be conservative stewards of the taxpayer dime first and foremost. No one is asking you to be close-minded to business; in fact, it's quite the other way around. What you big spenders don't understand is that you can be both prudent and open-minded. Government does not have to rush in every time some flashy developer rolls into town and pour a path to City Hall with taxpayer cash. We have a beautiful city to be proud of - any investor would find it to his/her advantage to invest in our area with their own money. We welcome private investment, and would love to see a flurry of economic development take place organically. But Wilmington City Council has a reputation for spending first and asking questions later - that is why we only seem to attract those who want to only "invest" if their losses are mitigated with public money - they are looking for a handout. You and your counterparts are all too eager to help them with their goals by being the first ones to jump in the water so to speak with OUR money. I would wager your eagerness would cease if it was your own.
"big-spender" - I have yet to work on my first budget...only been in office a month, two council meetings. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but reserving judgement until you see how I approach our next budget would be more reasonable. I think you and I agree on more than you know.
You do realize that any project such as this would result either directly or indirectly in a tax increases, no? Council basically has a set amount of money to work with, and cutting another $40M+ hole in the budget with additional debt would certainly impact taxation either immediately and directly or indirectly. Your anxious support of this venture warrants the "gotcha game" or whatever cutesy term you want to employ. Why is their never any discussion regarding private money for private interests? Why do we have to fund whatever hobby item you seven people decide is what you want? You do realize that a baseball stadium offers countless advertising opportunities along the outfield wall, stands, and many other places, where businesses would pay a premium to brand and advertise their company, right? That is just one simple idea - there are many others in which something like this could be done 100% with private money. Quit using the term "economic development" for every big ticket item that you people spend our money on - local government has abused and soured this term, and has only accomplished misusing it as a blanket to cover whatever big spending plan that they want to engage in.
There are some ways to consider that would pay for it in terms of it's impact on the area, etc. Just saying it's worth exploring...no one has agreed it's something we can do or even suggest it be brought to a vote. What would you consider economic development...how do u define it?
That's great that you would love to see baseball downtown. Again about your "fiduciary duty" - why don't you invest your own money if it is something you want so bad? I'm sure you could get all of the other baseball fanatics in local government to kick in with you. I hope you make a zillion dollars on your investment. This is how economic development works. Government can only absorb and obliterate money. The private sector is where money multiplies and seeds other lucrative projects. We have spent millions upon millions over the last 3 years on projects all dubbed "economic development" - and yet our unemployment was 10% +/- then and it is the same now. What about all those jobs? All that economic activity? Where the hell is it? Government spending taxpayer money on hobbies and shiny things that jut into the skyline DO NOT produce economic opportunity. They only create a huge sinking hole that more and more money has to be poured into indefinitely.
Please name these projects for me? Convention center I imagine...what else?
This is a really pathetic comment. It's a shame that so many such as yourself have hijacked the Republican Party into something it isn't. I stand for fiscal responsibility and limited government. Two obviously now former banner positions of the Republican Party. Has the abandonment of these principles already been solidified? Now these are strictly Libertarian ideologies? What do the Republicans stand for? How are they different than the Democrats if I may ask? I know many Republicans who would be quite insulted by your comments, and still hold their traditional values at heart, and haven't sold out to the big government mentality that you embrace so vigorously. I hold dear many Libertarian principles - but none that have come up in our conversations - these are strictly matters of conservatism - values once held dear by the Republican Party.
I think if you actually knew me, you would say I was a conservative, probably not as right wing as you are, but I certainly stand for more fiscal responsibility and a more limited government than any Democrat I know. Where you and I probably disagree most is on how we view taxes and the govenrment's role in municipal governement versus the federal government...different animals in my opinion...not saying similar principles do not apply, just in terms of distance alone your tax local tax dollars get spent locally and you interact with local govenrment the minute you wake up and brush your teeth. I am curious where and how you draw the line as to who you deem is actaully a Republican and who you find a rhino...I can understand having a personal perspective on anything, but such a narrow single digit percentage viewpoint as you espouse on everything I have ever heard you say (shock jock style) is unlikely to garner enough support to ever actually have a chance to impact government at any level, still I wish you luck.
As I said on the floor of the meeting, there may not have been a "deal" per se; but there was definitely an understanding. In its eagerness for more tax revenue to hurry up and waste, the city council jumped all over the opportunity to annex, knowing what the developer was looking for and what he needed to make his project economically feasible. Unlike some, I have no problem with voluntary annexation or satellite annexations done lawfully. However, what lies between the lines is what concerns me here. The courts have made it clear that these sorts of arrangements constitute as illegal contract zoning. We'll see how the zoning goes and address that then.
Then the county should file a friend of the court suit against the city rather than being petty and playing tit-for-tat...that's a real solution to their objection (assuming annexation and rezoning pass). No understanding I am privey to...yes, with no further forced-annexation (fine with it), that has changed the playing field and does make voluntary annexations more appealing.
You're right - neither myself or any other citizen has any real knowledge of any internal situation that goes down at City Hall. Nice for a councilman to finally admit it. As for the rest of your comment, the only time I hear similar comments is from those with whom I disagree and take to task for their decisions - other citizens appreciate my candidness and honesty, and usually agree and state that they feel what I express.
Attend a few of the monday morning agenda briefings...not much more goes on (at least yet in my experience) than there...as well as open committe meetings and council meetings. I do not correspond with other members on a regular basis in any shape or form...pretty sparse communication really.
I ran for council in 2009. Since then I have come to terms with a couple of sad realities in this city. About 15% of registered voters even bother to vote locally. Out of that. about 10% are people loyally tied to one or more candidates form the outset, and would walk through the fires in hell to elect, or re-elect them. Living in a place like Forest Hills certainly helps, as this is a neighborhood known to show up at the ballot box, and supporting its own. Outsiders with alien messages of fiscal responsibility and limited government get left in the dark no matter how well their campaigns are ran. Josh Fulton ran a campaign 100 times more effective than mine; and look where he got. In order to get elected in this town, you have to belong to one or more of the "clubs" that exist, and satisfy the terms they set forth. I could go on, but I digress.
I hope you'll stay in the fray (know you will)...still think you shouid run...if not, just think you'd be more effective (probably not have as many blog and radio followers, or receive as much applause in public - begs the question if you have some alternative motives liek developing a media following) in accomplishing your goals if you presented your case/opinion in a more professional manner.
Again it's a free country...thank God you can say whatever you please and act however you wish, but will you get results of any tangible kind?
Getting elected out of a total of 15% voter turnout is not a mandate - I wish more of you understood that. It's not because of the 15% that you sit in rule over this city; it's because of the apathy and irresponsibility of the 85%.
Well if there is a large % of folks that mirror your personal position, then spend more time and effort getting them to vote. I do not feel I have a mandate, but I was elected by the citizens that care enought to vote to a four year term and will do the best I can. I am certain I will not make you happy all the time (maybe never)...wonder if anyone could but yourself, which is why you should run.
Take care,
NEIL
.
