ILoveDurham 
Member since Mar 11, 2008


Stats

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Links to Me

Recent Comments

Re: “Southern Durham Development tries to influence commissioners' race

The PA has a long, well respected history in Durham and the participation of hundreds of DURHAM RESIDENTS over the years. Each of these residents had the opportunity to voice their concerns and opinions at the endorsement meeting (which was attended by ~ 100 people), and the choosing of the county commissioners endorsements was discussed at length. The PA also has endorsed a candidate for every other office, while the SuperPAC only endorsed county commissioner candidates.

The Durham Partnership for Progress Super PAC was formed only a few weeks before this election and funded entirely by outside development interests for the sole purpose of endorsing ONLY county commissioner candidates who have pledged to support the 751 development project. But this isn't just about the 751 project. These developers own a lot more land in Durham County for which they would love to have unfettered development plans rubber stamped by the commissioners they have campaigned for.

Badge1's comments regarding PA polling practices actually describes quite accurately the practices of the non-PA pollsters.

I have seen nothing but respectful communication between PA pollsters and the voting public. But I have personally witnessed and experienced non-PA pollsters aggressively approaching cars and passersby, interrupting conversations between PA and independent pollsters and the voters, tearing down signs posted by their opposition, and referring to other pollsters with racist comments and intimidating behavior.

It is a shame, but we really should have a police presence at all the polls, not due to the PA's polling practices but due to the confrontational and intimidating behavior of pollsters from the other PACs and the 751 candidates' supporters.

2 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by ILoveDurham on 05/04/2012 at 1:10 PM

Re: “Republicans want more charter schools; Democrats worry they're segregated

I support the idea of Charters. But if they are to be publicly (and fairly) funded, they should have the same requirements as other public schools (magnets, montessori and traditional). This means providing transportation and free/reduced lunches (AND getting the taxpayer funds to do so, as with other public schools), having to hire licensed teachers (and if a teacher's license is revoked by the state, it is revoked for Charter schools just like the other public schools), etc. Anything otherwise is an unfair use of taxpayer money.

How can we expect 'traditional' schools to be anything but against charter schools, if the playing field is uneven to the advantage of charters.

Give them a truly equal playing field, and I imagine we'll see much more cooperation and collaboration, bettering the situation for ALL our kids.

If Charters oppose these requirements, and many have good reasons to do so, then they should be removed not only for Charters but also for the other public schools. Why would something be bad for Charters but good for the rest of public schools?

2 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by ILoveDurham on 02/18/2011 at 3:01 PM

Re: “Re: K&L Gates

Well said! These guys are making a mockery of the legal process all over the country...and beyond America's boundaries. Scariest thing is that many elected officials seem to be proactively helping them...

Posted by ILoveDurham on 02/01/2011 at 11:00 PM

Re: “In other action: Durham's Howerton, Bowser pay property taxes after jab by Heron

Could it be she was waiting for someone else to pay it?

Posted by ILoveDurham on 12/07/2010 at 9:17 AM

Re: “State attorney's letter spells out DOT power to reject easement; still no opinion from Siler

I've no doubt that if Medlin had ruled the protest petition invalid and the opposition were crying foul and threatening lawsuits. Siler and the BOCC wouldn't have blinked an eye over any legal problems -- even if they actually might be legitimate (which in the developers' case here, they clearly aren't). This thing would be over and the developers would already be considering whether to flip the recently rezoned land or actually develop it as they promised.

Posted by ILoveDurham on 08/06/2010 at 9:41 PM

Re: “Developer threatens legal action against state; N.C. DOT bracing for lawsuit

Sounds like K&L Gates is threatening the state with a SLAPP lawsuit. Hopefully this will cause the state to finally pass some legislation against SLAPP lawsuits, as other states have done. These are clearly intended simply to interfere with a fair, democratic process:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAPP

Note that 'A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat.'

Posted by ILoveDurham on 08/05/2010 at 7:07 PM

Re: “Sludge, a free fertilizer for farmers, can pose health and environmental risks

Thank you SO much for covering the increasingly important (and dangerous) subject of sludge application in agricultural practices. I understand that many brands of fertilizer available via Home Depot and Lowes also have sludge components, thereby making runoff from our yards and decorative plantings a hazard as well. I don't understand the double-speak about sludge -- it's too hazardous to dispose of via our landfills but okay to spray on our vegetation. I hope that your coverage (now and in the future) will make the public more aware of this situation, which has been kept quiet for far too long now.

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by ILoveDurham on 07/29/2010 at 10:20 PM

All Comments »

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.
 

© 2015 Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation