Recent Comments
Re: “Chapel Hill policing advisory committee mum on raid”
Now it's a "raid"? Why do you insist on referring to the Occupy actions as "taking over", "using", etc. rather than what it was - BREAKING AND ENTERING. It's a freaking crime, regardless of political affiliation.
The police responded to A CRIME and entered a building not knowing what kind of resistance or danger they might encounter from an unknown group of people who had ILLEGALLY broken into someone else's private property.
Stop dancing around this fact. If the police had received a call of overnight breaking and entering into City Hall, should they enter the building with guns drawn or with a carrier of Starbucks for the perpetrators? How would the politicians who call the Hall home want the police to react? If you don't back the police on this, you're no better than the criminals who "took over" something that wasn't theirs to take.
Re: “Chapel Hill: cops vs. anarchists and no one wins”
@michael and @charlie
Who in their right mind believes that this is ok simply because the building was "a giant empty building, not being used and not going to be used"? It's still private property and breaking and entering (this was NOT simply trespassing) is explicitly illegal, whether it's a home, commercial building or a tool shed.
If you believe everything should be community property, tell us where we can pick up the keys to your house....
Re: “Chapel Hill: cops vs. anarchists and no one wins”
Why is there even a debate about this? The triggering moment in the entire issue (without which this article would never have been written) is that a group of people committed a CRIME and broke into someone else's property. They made a choice to commit an act that, it almost all circumstances, is responded to in this manner by law enforcement.
For every person crying about the unfair treatment of this group, ask yourself how you would want law enforcement to react to a breaking and entering call at your home or business with a large group of people involved?
The cops did what cops are supposed to do when faced with a group of people who did what they WEREN'T supposed to do.
Re: “Durham: we won't use conservation money to cut down trees”
@Hayden - as I understand it from life long friends who sold land to TLC, they were promised that the land (and they believed) the forests on them, would be preserved. Many of those who sold did so at or below market prices given that it was for conservation, not development. Imagine your dismay if you sold your property below market value to a conservation group only to learn that they harvested the timber and made thousands of dollars in addition to the savings they made on the purchase. For lands located along waterways, the loss of tree cover tremendously increases groundwater runoff, thus taking adding more runoff to the streams and lakes.
Add to that the fact that the land is taken off the tax rolls once it is owned by the conservation group and no longer contributes to the property tax base and it's a double-whammy. If the County then takes taxpayer money to help fund the conservation groups, it's a true triple threat.
Using taxpayer funds to buy tax-generating properties at below market rates and then make money off the timber without any clawbacks for the proceeds to reimburse the County doesn't seem like a fair shake at all for anyone but the conservation group.
Re: “N.C. House budget would eliminate Tobacco Trust Fund farm grants”
Were there no stipulations in the tobacco settlement from 1998 to require states to maintain funds, at the very least to anti-smoking education efforts for kids? This is government at its very worst; the same government that for years made millions (probably billions) off of sales tax on cigarettes, then sued the tobacco companies, only then to take away money intended to help restore some of the revenue stream to the decimated tobacco communities.
When will we ever learn? Let's throw millions in incentives to companies that will leave the state the next time someone else offers more incentives yet turn a blind eye to the communities, families and farms that have been here making our state what it is for centuries.
I hope every small former tobacco community freezes out every blood sucking politician who wants to come pay a visit during campaign season.
Re: “Castle Doctrine would relax state's gun law”
An armed society is one that cannot be bullied, squashed or "subdued" by the regime in control.
Do you think the unarmed Libyans feel polite right now or do they feel threatened by the warplanes overhead? Do you think we would have ever gained our independence from Britain with shovels and wagon wheels?
I have had firearms for over 30 years and never once felt the need to brandish a weapon, fortunately. Each and every one was purchased legally yet I read of crimes committed by convicted felons who, by law cannot buy guns legally, yet amazingly, found a way to get their hands on weapons.
The difference - I am a law abiding citizen and they were not. The ones committing the VAST majority of crimes are people who were going to find a way to get black market guns regardless of whether the government allows law-abiding citizens to have the firearms allowed them under the second amendment.
If the day comes that repeals our right to bear arms, guess whose houses they are going to show up at to confiscate guns - mine and every other legally registered gun owner. Care to guess who will still have guns to commit crimes and wreak havoc on an unprotected society? The criminals who never purchased the guns in their possession legally and therefore left no trace for our government to track down...
Sure, you have the occasional nut who commits a senseless crime like the woman who shot her kids with a weapon purchased legally but do you really think that she wouldn't have found another way to follow the evil voices in her head and hurt those children anyway? For every one of her, there's another that drowned their kids, set fire to their house or left them in a running car in the garage.
I'm going to keep my guns and yes, they are loaded. If I welcome you into my home, you'll most likely never know they exist.
For those who have no respect for property, life or liberty, go ahead and roll the dice.
And for those who insist on feeling "endangered" by a law that upholds your neighbor's right to legally keep and bear arms, ask yourself whether you would prefer to have that neighbor come to your defense, or come to your funeral.
Re: “This week in disappointment: guns, housing and energy”
The article on the PRIP program is disingenious at best. The reason you don't see Durham politicos signing on at the state level is because the income the licenses will generate is too enticing. The fact is, across the country, cities and counties have long had the ability to "keep tabs on slumlords, protect renters and allow responsible landlords to maintain their property values"'; they failed to do so. This, like other rental programs around the country, just creates another "license" fee (i.e. - another tax) for ALL landlords to pay whether they've had complaints or not (read the program FAQ's more closely, it's not just for those with violations - http://durhamnc.gov/ich/cb/nis/Pages/NIS_P…). It's a fairly typical government approach to finally getting around to dealing with problematic issues; don't use the tools available to them for years to deal with troublemakers and then create a new ordinance or law that applies to all, even those who have never had issues. If they're doing this to "protect the renters", what's to keep them from extending this to annual "proactive" inspections of owner-occupied housing? They already have the right to perform inspections of poorly maintained owner-occupied housing. I would imagine that those that have worked so hard to renovate or build new homes in the "designated" area would be up in arms if they were asked to pay an annual license fee and be subjected to annual inspections all because the City didn't do its job enforcing an existing code on the house down the street.