JLF Piedmont Triad Blog

Another non-endorsement

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.

8 Responses to “Another non-endorsement”

  • Oct
    24
    2007

    “supposed loss of the tree canopy”

    I don’t understand. Are you denying that there has been a loss of tree canopy in the past several years, that you don’t think it’s as much as reported or that there hasn’t been any. Will you please explain what you mean by “supposed?”

  • Oct
    24
    2007

    Welcome, Roch.

    Of course there has been some tree loss with recent development. All I know is what I see —- trees everywhere. It’s truly amazing. It’s reasonable to allow what one sees with one’s own eyes to help counterbalance numbers presented, right?

    What did you make of Joe’s statement on preserving the tree canopy?

  • Oct
    24
    2007

    Thanks for the welcome, Sam.

    “It’s reasonable to allow what one sees with one’s own eyes to help counterbalance numbers presented, right?”

    Is it? You’d have no problem then with people assured of global warming because of how hot it’s been latley?

    Some things can be emprically measured. Your use of “supposed” to describe tree canopy loss made it sound like you doubted it. Your capitulation that there has been “some” loss still makes it sound like you don’t beleive the reported 20% loss in the past 16 years.

    Where things can be measured, let’s measure them. What we observe in our individual lives does not always reflect what we don’t see.

    Like you, I thought Joe’s thoughts on preserving the tree canopy seemed a little self-contradtictory.

  • Oct
    24
    2007

    In what respect did I self-contradict myself?

  • Oct
    24
    2007

    Sam , I appreciate your hard work and effort, I mean the links alone must have taken a lot of time. I know Zack appreciates it since he won’t post for himself. I only regret that after obviously reading a considerable portion of my postings you got it all wrong. Have a nice day

  • Oct
    24
    2007

    I’m not sure there is a right or a wrong here; I’m just expressing my point of view and asking questions. If you care to clarify anything, feel free.

  • Oct
    24
    2007

    Chill, Joe. I only read tha post once — quickly. I just remember being confused about whether you were advocating for more or less regulation.

    Keep talking to us about Joe and Joe’s ideas for Greensboro, they are more interesting and inspiring than Joe’s thoughts about Zack Matheny.

  • Nov
    07
    2007

    […] I’ll admit I was shocked by Zack Matheny’s margin of victory over Wilson, considering the fact that Wilson made a true effort to discuss the issues via his activity in the blogosphere. Either voters weren’t listening or they didn’t necessarily like what Wilson was saying. Count me along the latter group. […]

Leave a Reply

........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.




JLF Network Websites & Blogs