In his non-City Council endorsements, Hoggard says the “obscenely well-funded Zack Matheny is just too young to be so slick.” I see his point. Matheny’s kinda like a City Council version of Jonathan Wagstaff.
It’s debatable whether or not Matheny indeed has been more supportive of City Manager Mitchell Johnson, as the N&R notes, because he hasn’t said much on the issue. He’s taking the safe, general approach to the campaign, which doesn’t give voters a reason to like him or dislike him.
Fair enough, Joe Wilson (as have at-large candidates whom I’ll be supporting) has been more critical of Johnson, and that’s a good thing. Guarino’s impressed with Wilson’s statements on the matter, which certainly says something. Yet I find his proposal for a public forum involving the City Council and David Wray to be wishful thinking. As I said before, Wray owes the City Council nothing. He’s a private citizen now and it’s his choice as to how he wants to viewed in the mind of the public for the rest of his life.
As you can imagine, I’m not sure what to make of Wilson’s tree-hugging:
OK, I have had it, I am sick and tired of our tree canopy disappearing while no one does anything about it. Today we talk about trees and my affinity for them. I understand that you can’t build buildings where trees are, so a certain number of them have to be cut to make room for the footprint of the buildings.
I don’t understand why some have to die for no reason or even worse to construct an elitist masonry statement in an otherwise middle class section of Greensboro. I will attempt to better illustrate my point with pictures and diagrams, as logic and reason seem to have already lost the day in this particular case.
As I’ve said before, I see concern over Greensboro’s supposed loss of the tree canopy as environmental alarmism. Go to the top of the Linc Fin building and look out over the city; you have to strain to see even the city’s tallest landmarks through the tops of the trees. Greensboro’s economy would be going through the roof if a dent were put in the tree canopy. I also read and re-read Wilson’s proposal to help preserve the tree canopy and I found it short on specifics. I’m just not sure what Wilson means when he writes:
Builders and developers have no inborn hatred of natural beauty and especially trees. What has happened is bureaucratic snafus and overzealous staffers have caused them so much heartache over misguided ideals and ridiculous fines that they see trees as a liability. We must change this.
Right, but aren’t those “misguided ideals” put forth by “overzealous staffers” born out of (perhaps undue) alarm over the loss of trees? the way I read it, Wilson seems to be saying that the city’s development guidelines a too strict and not strict enough at the same time.
I also seem to be the only one bothered by the fact that a broker for one of the city’s largest developers of single-family homes has spoken out against development of condos and apartments. And if Wilson and at-large candidate Kevin Green are both elected, can you not make the argument that Yost & Little will have considerable influence on the City Council?
I realize I’m giving more reasons to not for vote for Wilson than I am to vote for Matheny. That said, it’s a tough call. For District 3 voters, that is.
........As you post your comment, please conform to Piedmont Publius's simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. If you wouldn't say it to a co-worker in front of your boss, it probably is not civil and respectful. We will delete any comment that fails this test and issue a warning to the poster. A second offense will result in a ban on commenting on this site. In sum, disagreements, arguments even, are welcome; abusive behavior is not. Thanks.