Mar 092016

In my previous posting earlier today, concerning the Connect NC Bond, I asked where is the money coming from to promote the bond. Here is the ANSWER.

Posted yesterday to the Daily Hay Maker blog is this story:

Who’s funding the ConnectNC propaganda blitz? Oh, the folks who stand to get PAID.


Paid to Play


If you are interested in all the Connect NC investors, here is their campaign report:

2016 CONNECT NC Report

Check out this article:

Charlotte Observer: University groups and businesses give to NC bond campaign

 Posted by at 3:00 pm
Mar 092016

What’s not to love, folks? The availability of low cost money is burning a hole in our legislators pockets. It is after all an election year, spending your tax dollars is how many of them get re-elected.

Just listen to how many times they promise not to raise taxes.

Legislators love bonds, they get to spend taxpayers money without any downside! Though this bond appears to some people as just a money pit to drop everyone’s wish-list projects into.

But money is so cheap to borrow! (Que the Net Present Value of Money marching band.) “It’s cheaper to build now than 5 years from now!” It matters not whether there is need or justification for the expenditures. The bond skips all the politics. Do note the lack of Democrat opposition.

In fact, for those projects not specifically listed in the bond bill, legislators have left the dirty little details to faceless and nameless bureaucrats to decide and authorize. (Bond Rule 1: Escape the blame for spending.)

It’s all feel good stuff and we don’t have to raise your taxes.

Some folks are annoyed  about bait’n switch on road bond portion of the original proposal, legislators saying the state doesn’t need it. Not when TOLL Roads are the rage. Texas toll road bankruptcy provides warning on Monroe Bypass Besides our more responsible legislators won’t be stealing from the road trust fund anymore. Remember the one about lowering the Gas Tax?

Just look at the chart below that breaks out the bond spending. Almost a billion goes to goes to the UNC system in addition to the approximately $2.5 billion of the annual state budget.

Ask yourself how much will the annual service cost of a $1 billion in UNC new construction add to the operating costs; power, heat and maintenance? Where is the revenue coming from? Hikes in tuition?

If you scroll though the authorization bill, below, you will note funding amounts are not uniform especially for the Community Colleges. So who decides the validity of the project? The fourth arm of government – the bureaucracy.

I posted this link on the VSO Facebook page: What is the university system hiding on Connect N.C. bond? This letter to the editor is by NC House Rep. Mark Brody (R-55). Rep. Brody writes about the UNC system expenditures with a number of concise bullet points concerning the waning student enrollment.

1. Eight of the campuses receiving $679 million total have increased student population over the last six years, but at a paltry rate, most less than 2 percent total for the six-year period, two campuses growing less than 1 percent total over the last six years (2010-15).

2. The other five campuses receiving $246 million total have lost student population over the last six years, the least by 1.05 percent and the highest by 24 percent.

3. The classroom vacancy rate for the eight campuses increasing student population ranges from 26.8 percent to 53.8 percent and the lab vacancy rate ranges from 24.1 percent to 41.9 percent.

4. The classroom vacancy rate for the five campuses decreasing in student population ranges from 31.8 percent to 51.6 percent and the lab vacancy rate ranges from 23.9 percent to 47.3 percent.

“Build it and they will may come.”

NC Choice Bond spending

I have recommended that voters vote against the bond, because the legislators cannot justify or show need in many cases for the expenditures. Nor can the $100 million annual debt service be justified, in addition the outstanding bonds repayments already being paid every year.

Don’t forget, politicians have very short memories when it comes to the money they spend.  The easier the passage the sooner they will be back to the taxpayers trough. And to make matters even worse, once again Union County is a donor county as there is very little likelihood that any money is being spent here.

Finally, have you noted all the advertising, mailers and TV spots supporting the bond passage? WHO IS PAYING FOR THAT?

Do yourself a favor and Vote against the bond, make our legislators responsible.

NCGA Bond Bill

 Posted by at 11:20 am
Oct 252015

A Developer Gift01

Municipal elections are typically the closest thing to the kind of government envisioned by the founders, where citizens offer service to their communities. Unfortunately as we all know, such idealism is often betrayed by greed and cronyism of the kind we’ve seen so often in Union County and everywhere else. This is why we voters must be vigilante.


As you can tell by the cartoon above, this article concerns the David Hoffman and his campaign for the Mayor of Marvin. I have not met Mr. Hoffman, nor has he held any public office or service position to use as a measure of the kind of service he will offer. I have no doubt, given what I do know, he is a bright, ambitious, energetic real estate professional. Thus my primary concern. First a little historical context.



Click to enlarge

The unique circumstances of Union County’s bordering Charlotte, the boom of newcomers moving to Union from all points, low taxes and for about 13 years; excellent schools, attracted thousands of new residents. It also brought hundreds of Real Estate agents and brokers,  as well has dozens of builders, both local and national. Coupled with the various contractors serving the builders, it formed a food chain. So many people drew their livelihoods for building and selling homes, including the strangle-hold the real estate and home-builders lobbies have on the North Carolina’s General Assembly, it created a gold-rush of sorts that lead to 10 of thousands of homes being built and sold in western Union County. Add 23 new schools and almost $700 million in debt — you get the picture, right?

Since 2000, there has been a battle to prevent “if you build it they will come” mentality from overwhelming the infrastructure of the county and basically turning Marvin, Weddington and Waxhaw into Charlotte like suburbs of extreme density and high taxes.

Beginning in the  late 1990s, the developers and builders were electing themselves to positions on the County Commission, John Feezor for example, was the Chairman of the County Commissions, while being a Vice President of John Weiland Homes, the builder of the Weddington Chase subdivision. There is a lot of history involved, other Commissioners before and during who were brokers, and sub contractors. The Union County planning board, whose members are appointed by the Commissioners at one point had seven of nine members who were active developer/builders and on at least one occasion, a Marvin developer as I remember, voted to approve his own subdivision.

How did this happen? In order to keep the Commissioners from being overwhelmed with having to approve hundreds of subdivisions, and to prevent having their political fingerprints on them when things turned ugly, they turned the complete responsibility subdivision approval over to the county Planning Board and the “Food Chain” members they had appointed.

Not only did they approve subdivisions, they also recommended (later to be approved) changes to the county subdivision zoning, like giving 30% bonus density for “amenities” like two trees planted in the front yard, or a walking trail ( usually in flood plain). So a developer with a hundred acre clustered subdivision, that typically would yield 100 homes would be allowed 130 homes,  I once called this the “The Law of Crony and Effect“.

THE WALMART BATTLE: Tom Short and Rea Road

Developing the former Wal-Mart property in the Somerset subdivision at Tom Creek and Rea Road was the site of the biggest political battle yet to besiege Union County. Like the Fukushima meltdown, the political fallout has lingered for years. Eight years ago I wrote about in this post: Taxpayers & Home Owners pay the freight for the Wal-Mart fight

On October 10th, candidate David Hoffman made the following post on his candidate Facebook page, the content was like waving a red flag.


Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

I want strict ordinances, like most residents in Marvin. I want to preserve as much as possible of our remaining green space, like most residents in Marvin. AND, I want, and Marvin deserves, to have a say on what is inevitably built-in Marvin, and in the Marvin area on the few remaining parcels of bare land. Without a clear long-term vision, we continually steer landowners towards much less desirable building options, by not providing viable, lower-density options for their land; land that won’t stay bare forever; such as on the major intersections of Rea and Tom Short; and Providence and Newtown. Our current plan and long-term vision, or lack thereof, doesn’t give landowners any other solution than to work with Unincorporated Union County, which has much looser standards for building, and doesn’t help us create our own identity that we can be proud of. Sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face to me. Also, as a part of this long-term vision that the residents should have a say in creating, we not only need to have control over what is built on major roads entering Marvin, we alternatively need to stop allowing high-density development in the heart of the Village, where road safety, public safety, traffic, and infrastructure should be of top priority and concern.


When reading Mr. Hoffman’s post you will note that of the issues facing Marvin, he chooses to highlight a property that is NOT IN Marvin. Additionally, in a typical “Real Estate broker” viewpoint, he states in effect that Marvin’s current zoning standards are short-sighted and are forcing the “developer” into “less desirable” and “lower density” options for their land. Hello! It is not the Village of Marvin’s responsibility to maximize the  investment of any developer by tailoring ordinances to their industries specifications.

If you read closely, Mr. Hoffman speaks from both sides of his mouth, condemning both low density and high density development in the same paragraph.


Since Mr. Hoffman’s post in essence, only concerns Raley Miller’s Tom Short road property, lets talk about its recent history. Readers should realize the a major reason Raley Miller wants to ANNEX into Marvin is to get a higher density multi-use commercial development, that permits Mixed drink, Beer and Wine sales. Without alcohol sales, which is not available in unincorporated Union County, the up-scale restaurants won’t be interested in leasing in the development. Note, every developer strings this carrot; have you seen an upscale restaurant in Wesley Chapel or Weddington yet?

The Raley-Miller Development has experience developing the Kohls shopping center under county zoning and dealing with the “Pitch Fork” activists in the Hunter Oaks subdivision, but to my knowledge they got everything they wanted.

With Marvin Council member Christina Frazzini’s assistance (explaining her involvement will take a multi-page post), they were able to submit a development application that for all intents, ignored Marvin zoning requirements. Folks, think about the audacity and impudence here. The following is the Zoning Compliance review of Raley Miller’s  submitted plan. Note that in a number of areas, their plan was completely out of compliance – designated by 0%.

Click image to enlarge view

Click image to enlarge view

In another comment,  Mr. Hoffman claims that Marvin doesn’t have an identity it can be proud of, perhaps if he had lived in Marvin more than 10 months, he’d have a better feel for the community and rich history.

I don’t want to belabor the point, but I am astounded at this one sentence Mr. Hoffman wrote “Without a clear long-term vision, we continually steer landowners towards much less desirable building options, by not providing viable, lower-density options for their land; land that won’t stay bare forever; such as on the major intersections of Rea and Tom Short; and Providence and Newtown.” Seriously? The commercial property at Newtown and Providence has had two different plans approved by Marvin already. Hundreds of work hours and untold thousands in tax-dollars as already been poured in the prior plan approvals. The only way to be more accommodating as Mr. Hoffman advocates is to give developers Cart-Blanche.

It seems to me that when you elect a mayor or council member, you expect them to be playing on the town’s team, not the developer. I think it is fair to ask, given what Mr. Hoffman has written on his own Facebook that there will always be doubt about where Mr. Hoffman’s loyalties are placed.

Do take a moment and review his Campaign Finance Report and do note that he is running for the Mayor of Marvin, not Charlotte.

David Hoffman

 Posted by at 7:42 pm
Oct 242015

Weddington corruption

Last week the man behind curtain of Weddington’s Bill Deter re-election campaign bought a full-page advertisement in the local weekly paper. The title of his “editorial” was  “The darkest day in Weddington History!” How ironic, considering backroom workings of the author.

If you’ve been observing politics in Union County as long as I have, you would know the darkest day in Weddington, was the day the current Town Council broke faith with the citizens of Weddington and terminated without cause, the 10 year fire service contract with the Providence Volunteer Fire Department, who had served Weddington for more 60 years. (There is more intrigue to this story.)

The campaign advertisement’s reference to the “Darkest Day” concerned the baseless accusation that Council member Pam Hadley had shared billing invoices for legal services with the Providence VFD. A great kerfuffle was raised at the October meeting, which was just an orchestrated attack weeks before the election.  They even tried to interpret a nod of Hadley’s head as an admission of quilt. (Seriously folks, Weddington’s  kangaroo court is in session)


The simple fact is that “Billing” invoices are Public Record and withholding them is breaking the North Carolina’s SunShine laws. The following article in the EJ covers parts of the issue.


Click Image to Read Article


Amanda Martin, an attorney who specializes in media law in North Carolina, said legal bills sent from a law firm to a town or the republic agency ordinarily are public.

However, some of the information that contains legal advice can be redacted but the remainder of the bill should be provided, she said.

The following publications concerning “Public Records” from the Attorney General’s office and the UNC School of Government is a great reference.




In reading the “Campaign Advertisement” it is VERY clear that a cover-up  was in fact, what was behind the effort of Town Council-members who attacked Pam Hadley over the billing invoices and worked with “other parties” to break PVFD Fire Service Contract. It is apparent that Bill Deter in his quest for re-election was determined to keep the No. 1 issue of the breaking the PVFD service contract ($750.000) and the Weddington taxpayers gift to Wesley Chapel VFD by selling the Hemby Road fire station on the cheap ($750,000, a $173,000 discount), and hundreds of thousands in legal fees from influencing voters. The diversionary attacks on the opposition candidates (Hadley, Propst and Weaver), accusing them of supporting commercial development just about every is just a flim-flam, knowing that most voters are not educated in the permitting process, so they are ripe for panic voting.

We will have to wait for the lawsuit to reveal the truth in court, but know that as long has the current board remains the majority rule in Weddington, the backroom government will remain in power.

Voters, educate yourselves, call the candidates and ask them questions.

Don’t nod off, someone might accuse you of being honest.

 Posted by at 6:14 pm