Greene-lash

Laurin Easthom announced last night that she will not run for re-election in the fall. Oddly, she used her announcement as a twisted rationale for voting against a new voice on council. Her logic: A new voice on council would be good, just not now, and not until you’ve gone through the hazing process of an election.

Council caved 7-1 last night to put Sally Greene back on council, a surprising vote count given Donna Bell’s encouragement to applicants the week before and two other council members who believe re-seating Greene and closing the door to diversity would not be in the best interests of the community.

Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt tried to justify his vote for Greene by saying that a vote for her was not a vote against anyone else. But if you only have one vote, that’s exactly what it is. The message from seven of the council members was loud and clear: Don’t get uppity; you’re not one of us.

Greene is known for her withering tone of voice and disdain directed at colleagues on the dais who disagree with her. How many times have we seen a spark of enthusiasm for a new idea catch on among council members, only to have Greene squelch it with a classic put-down, and council members back off with a dejected “Mom won’t let us do that” expression.

Sadly, the light-heartedness and collegiality we saw on council after Penny Rich quit was all too brief. Innovation, new solutions, change, all will fall to “No way no how” Greene’s insistence on her own wealthy retiree vision of how Chapel Hill should be. I expect Easthom won’t be the only incumbent who decides not to run for re-election.

Kudos for the lone council member who had the backbone to vote for a new voice.
– Nancy Oates

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
Previous Post
Leave a comment

5 Comments

  1. DOM

     /  January 24, 2013

    “Kudos for the lone council member who had the backbone to vote for a new voice.”

    Any Ryan, who received the only other vote, is hardly a newcomer. She is a powerful force on the Planning Board along with Del Snow and she has been a consistently effective voice against new, denser development. She also spoke out (loud and clear) against the 2020 plan when it was presented to council last June.

    In my opinon, if you’re for keeping things the way the were, she was good choice for council. But if you’re looking for new and innovative ways to move Chapel Hill forward, there were several other candidates who would have been a better choice.

  2. anonymous

     /  January 24, 2013

    I think the point is there will be at least 1 open seat in the fall and if chapel hillians agree with the candidate they will win. If a candidate loses by the will of the voters this fall it means that they are out of touch with the voters and they can’t blame it on incumbency.

  3. Cam

     /  January 24, 2013

    Yes. Think how different things would be if Tom Sookram had won like you wanted him to……

  4. Nancy

     /  January 24, 2013

    Tim Sookram, who ran on a platform of using new approaches to solving old problems, excising government inefficiencies and considering the consequences of decisions. Yes, think how things might be different.

  5. jason

     /  January 25, 2013

    It’s always good to hear from a disgraced former councilman, friend of Bill Strom and the man who sold his house to the university so they could pave paradise and put up a parking lot.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *