Of course you can't give airtime to fringe conspiracy theorists, flat earthers, etc! People who can take a voluntary blessing like hospice care and turn it into something nefarious are obviously nut jobs.
Before you get your panties in a twist defending Mr. Tillis, lots of national news outlets covered this story, including the Washington Post, USA Today, Time, Newsweek, etc. The article was simply reporting the allegation, not accusing Mr. Tillis of anything. If you want to blame IndyWeek for the reporting you might also want to contact those other publications and register the same complaint.
"adding more stock in the long run is irrelevant to truly affordable housing. Shacks of 900 sq. feet go for a million dollars in San Francisco."
You don't have to have lived in San Francisco to understand the housing market there. Of course the amount of housing stock relative to demand is the only thing that determines price.
In Chapel Hill the situation is we have two bodies of consumers for inexpensive housing, students and low-income adults and families. Both compete for the same price range of rental. When the amount of on and near campus student housing fills up students then go looking for rentals in nearby neighborhoods like Northside. This is the same at every university in the United States and probably the world. The less cheap housing available close to school, the more that students push into the surrounding neighborhoods looking for cheap rentals, which bumps up against non-student low-income renters.
Having the university build more dorms isn't the answer here since many students refuse to life on-campus. Either we let more student housing be built close to campus, housing that students really want, or those students will go apply for the same apartments as low-income families.
"Mark, what facts or evidence would persuade you that what Council is doing is not the best strategy?"
Here's a few arguments I've heard that don't work:
1. The council is all in the pocket of rich developers who donate to their campaigns and are voting what's best for rich land owners and big developers.
2. The Sierra Club is either incompetent, or isn't paying attention, or is also in the pocket of developers and rich landowners.
3. [Every other endorsing group] is either incompetent, or isn't paying attention, or is also in the pocket of developers and rich landowners.
4. Mass transit and other transportation upgrades are simply ploys to make money for rich landowners and developers.
5. The new housing being built is for [insert derogatory term] and Chapel Hill shouldn't attract those kind of people.
6. I don't care to live in the type of housing being built at [location] so the town shouldn't allow it.
7. Since I already live here more people shouldn't be allowed to move in because of a) schools, b) traffic or c) taxes.
8. New more stringent rules should be applied to new development even though if those rules had applied in the past no new construction would have been built since 1950.
9. Zoning for a walkable and sustainable mixed use (retail and residential) will drive out local businesses.
10. Zoning for walkable and sustainable mixed use will result in increased pollution.
11. Adding more retail to my neighborhood will increase traffic so retail should only be allowed other places.
There's more, but you get the idea.
"My statement does not even vaguely suggest either of those options and the fact that you seem to think it does illustrates my point. Being an engineer has nothing to do with "making sure that people have accurate information from which to form an opinion and a vote." You're attempting to use a qualification in one category as a signal for authority in another."
Your statement didn't suggest anything so I was doing my best to guess. My particular specialty in engineering is taking lots of raw data and presenting it to people in meaningful ways. It is relevant here in the sense that the data is accurate and plotted in a useful way. If someone has more accurate data from a more authoritative source, or there was an error in the graph, then that would be valid criticism; simply that the graph was prepared by an engineer isn't particularly relevant.
"As another engineer, this is when I knew I could stop reading."
Er, you'd rather have inaccurate information? Or are you more interested in that people feel the growth rate is out of control rather than find it what the growth rate actually is?
As an engineer my main concern is making sure that people have accurate information from which to form an opinion and a vote. The numbers in this comment (and all of my comments) are designed to be informative, enlightening, and accurate, based on publicly available data from trusted sources that can be independently verified. Giving out accurate information is not defaming simply because it contradicts someone else's opinion.
On the other hand, accusing elected officials of putting the interests of developers and wealthy land owners above those of average citizens is the very definition of defamation. One of the reasons I think CHALT candidates are unfit to hold office is I don't trust people who would run a dirty smear campaign.
All Comments »
Make sure you're signed up so we can inbox you the latest.
Login to choose your subscriptions!
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation