You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Lessons from Hulu founder”.
Lessons from Hulu founder
by Nancy Oates on May 11, 2015
• Permalink
Posted in Council Members, Town staff
Posted by Nancy Oates on May 11, 2015
https://chapelhillwatch.com/2015/05/11/learn-from-kilar/
Previous Post
Smart shoppers
Smart shoppers
Next Post
The other 1 percent
The other 1 percent
Recent Comments
- Nancy Oates on We’re still here
- Deborah Fulghieri on We’re still here
- Pluramus on Greene Tract series continues
- Nancy Oates on Greene Tract series continues
- Nancy Oates on Greene Tract series continues
- Plurimus on Greene Tract series continues
- Plurimus on Greene Tract series continues
- Nancy Oates on Greene Tract series continues
- plurimus on Greene Tract series continues
Blogroll
Categories
- 140 West
- Budget
- Business
- Carolina North
- CH2020
- Committees
- Community life
- Council Members
- County business
- Courts
- Courtyards of Homestead
- COVID-19
- Deer
- Downtown Chapel Hill
- Economic development
- Elections
- Environment
- Ethics
- Food Trucks
- Homeless Shelter
- Housing
- Land Use
- Library
- Lifestyle
- Media
- Museum
- Northside
- Occupy Protests
- Parking
- Police
- Politics
- Public Works
- Roads
- Sanitation workers
- Schools
- Social justice
- Spending
- Taxes
- Technology
- Town staff
- Transportation
- Trees
- UNC
- Uncategorized
- Work and Money
Tag Cloud
123 West Franklin advisory boards affordability American Legion annexation Bicycle Apartments bond referendum BRT Bus ads candidates Carolina Flats cell phones Central West CH2020 Charterwood Community Home Trust comprehensive plan county commissioners county government development Ephesus-Fordham fireworks form-based zoning Franklin Street Friends of Downtown Growth health care Historic District Commission historic districts Holidays Light Rail Obey Creek park-and-ride personalities real estate sales Rogers Road Shortbread Silent Sam students The Edge Timber Hollow towing traffic Trinitas VOEMeta
Terri
/ May 11, 2015I heard other parents as well as faculty members praising Kilar’s speech too, Nancy. But here’s the problem with applying his premise to the local governance situation. I think some of the council members believe they are pursuing the best possible approach and by ignoring citizens, they are following Kilar’s advice. And that’s the problem with the advice–it pits people against each other. When applied to a community, not a business idea, it’s a divisive approach, restricting productive communication. It is not collaborative.
Bonnie Hauser
/ May 11, 2015When it comes to government, it helps if you frame it as insiders vs outsiders?
Nancy
/ May 11, 2015Terri — I don’t think Kilar was advocating for graduates to be intractable, only that they persevere. What I see in local government is Town Council members making decisions to please big donors to political campaigns, instead of considering facts and reason and what’s best for the community. Why should the community roll over for decisions that only benefit individual council members? Maybe persevering “pits people against each other,” but there are times when that has to happen. I’ve watched community members be collaborative in sharing information and wanting to have productive communication in the 2-3 minutes they are allotted. I have yet to see council as a body respond in kind. Thus, I’m pleased to hear Kilar exhort graduates to tenaciously work toward what they believe to be right.
DOM
/ May 11, 2015Nancy –
“What I see in local government is Town Council members making decisions to please big donors to political campaigns, instead of considering facts and reason and what’s best for the community”
This is a huge accusation. Please share ANY evidence you have that this is indeed the case. And who are the “big donors” you speak of?
Terri
/ May 11, 2015Hopefully, Kilar didn’t advocate for making assumptions about the intents of others or generalizing across multiple individuals.
Personally, I don’t think your original analogy works. I don’t accept the perseverance that works in an entrepreneurial or creative endeavor is comparable to the skills needed to negotiate community relations.
many
/ May 11, 2015Hi Nancy,
I was struck by Jason Kilars commencement advice a bit differently than you were and at the same time I was thinking about context in the reference to “Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren” at the end of the David Shreve presentation.
The both together made me recall a ironically funny article in the New Yorker last year by Elizabeth Kolbert entitled “No Time” which said a lot of what I see happening to the previous generation and what the generation just graduated will most certainly wrestle with. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/05/26/no-time
The article questions the value of pursuing things relentlessly as well as pointing out Keynes total miss on his estimate of societies (so called) rational behavior, (despite his respected predictions of the economy).
I know the point you are making is to buck the trend and question conventional wisdom, however being relentless is a double edged sword and often leads to the latest newspeak. I would encourage young people to announce less and listen more. Be confident with less dogma. Chose to be resilient rather than relentless.
Nancy
/ May 11, 2015DOM —
All information is public record. Go to the Orange County Board of Elections website, click on “campaign reporting,” then “campaign disclosure reports.” From there you can search for candidates by name. To get you started, here is Barry Jacobs’: http://www.orangecountync.gov/document_center/Elections/2014Jacobs2ndQtrAmend.pdf. Late contributions from developers Roger Perry, Dave Anna, Adam Abram and Charles Nottingham, totaling $5,000, don’t show up until after the election. Same deal with George Cianciolo: http://www.orangecountync.gov/2013YEGeorgeCiancioloAmend.pdf. Though the amounts are smaller, contributions made late in the campaign that were not available to the public until after the election came from Perry, Nottingham, Anna (and his wife) and Aaron Nelson. Note that Michael Parker, whom Cianciolo is lobbying for to fill the vacant council seat, was Cianciolo’s campaign treasurer.
Geoffrey F. Green
/ May 11, 2015What I see is people choosing to donate to politicians who share their views on development. Or do you think George Cianciolo is so desperate to hold the awesome power of a Chapel Hill Town Council member that he’s willing to compromise his beliefs and support Roger Perry’s development preferences for a donation of $300? Or that Aaron Nelson is the marionette playing George’s strings behind the scenes for the low low cost of $250?
Fred Black
/ May 12, 2015Nancy, do you believe that candidates should not accept contributions that won’t appear on the public report prior to the election?
Bonnie Hauser
/ May 12, 2015Fred
The point is not about who’s donating, Its about a disturbing, consistent pattern of developers donating after the first finance filing is complete, In some cases donating after the election. That way their “participation” doesn’t show up until after the election, and the media is no longer paying attention.
CHC
/ May 12, 2015It is — partly — who is donating and how that influences his or her decisions. George Cianciolo received $2400 (15% of his total funds) from eight people associated with the Obey Creek developers. That he would accept this money — from a party that was actively seeking town rezoning of their property — reflects poor judgement. George should recuse himself from voting on this issue.
It’s possible that the fundraiser’s timing — immediately before the election, with the report deadline after the election — was coincidental. But you have to question George’s judgement, and that of Michael Parker, his treasurer.
Link to news article in Chapel Hill Weekly is above and here: http://www.chapelhillmagazine.com/blogs/chapel-hill-magazine-blog/cianciolo-got-business-backing/
George C
/ May 12, 2015Nancy,
“Note that Michael Parker, whom Cianciolo is lobbying for to fill the vacant council seat, was Cianciolo’s campaign treasurer.”
Please provide one, just one, example of where I have lobbied for Michael. I think Michael would be an excellent Council member and I WILL lobby for him in the upcoming election because he shares my values and ideas about what Chapel Hill needs to grow successfully. But I have sent not a single email nor made a single phone call yet on his behalf.
Nancy, do you never get tired of misrepresenting facts or providing outright falsehoods?
Nancy
/ May 12, 2015Geoffrey — “…so desperate to hold the awesome power of a Chapel Hill Town Council member …” Perhaps that’s the staying power for so many of our current council members: Jim Ward: 16 years, and considering running for another 4; Mark Kleinschmidt: 14 years, and considering another 2; Ed Harrison: 14 years and has 2 more years of his current term; Sally Greene: 11 years and has 2 more to go on her current term; Donna Bell: 6 years, and is running for another 4; Lee Storrow: 4 years, and is running for another 4; Maria Palmer: 2 years, has 2 more left in her current term, and has already announced her plans to run for another 4 in 2017; George Cianciolo: 2, with 2 years left. Whether it’s awesome power or simply the warmth of being part of a small club, people cling to it.
Fred Black
/ May 12, 2015Bonnie, I’m not following your comment, “The point is not about who’s donating.” I am not talking about who is donating but the schedule of the release of financial reports, dates set by the State Board of Elections. If the media and others don’t pay attention to who gives and when they give, what’s your recommended solution?
Nancy
/ May 12, 2015George — I’m not the NSA. I don’t track your phone calls, emails or private conversations. It’s common knowledge that you want Michael Parker to fill the vacant council seat. You’ve stated that here. Where have I misrepresented facts?
Don Evans
/ May 12, 2015George
Misrepresenting the facts? Two words for you: The Edge. Not your finest moment as a council member.
As for council longevity: You’d expect such long-serving council members to be a bit more knowledgeable about development and more savvy when dealing with developers, but that sure hasn’t happened. With The Edge, Bicycle and Ephesus-Fordham, these old timers have given away the store and appeared as babes in the negotiations. And when dealing with The Bully Perry, the council always rolls over.
Let’s hear it for new blood on the council dais!
George C
/ May 12, 2015Nancy,
Yes, I just stated publicly, for the very first time, that I would like to see Michael Parker on the Chapel Hill Town Council. I have never lobbied anyone, either publicly or privately, for Michael’s appointment although when another prominent applicant for the vacant seat met with me for coffee, at her request, I told her that I would support Michael if it came to a vote. Stating one’s position does not constitute lobbying.You stated, falsely, that I’ve been lobbying for Michael. That is, indeed, a misrepresentation of fact no matter how you try to portray it.
DOM
/ May 12, 2015Nancy –
So, you’re saying the number of years one serves on council is an indicator of how addicted they’ve become to the power of the office? Thank goodness we have those four relative newcomers, Donna, Lee, Maria and George.
Nancy
/ May 12, 2015And Maria, Lee and Donna already may have succumbed to the siren song, DOM. Let’s see whether they will be able to move on with their lives after 2 terms.
Diogenes
/ May 12, 2015Along time ago in a land far away a town named Chapel Hill decided to implement something called voter owned elections ostensibly to reduce the influence of “big money” in elections. Several candidates; Mark Kleinschmidt, Penny Rich and Donna Bell received funds from the taxpayers to finance their campaigns. The Town designed a complex structure in which candidates receiving taxpayer funds would receive additional rescue funds if their non “voter owned opponents” raised more than a certain amount. In order to track when non voter owned candidates exceeded the threshold to trigger “rescue funds” the State Board of Elections took over responsibility for tracking candidate spending from the Orange County Board of Elections. Previously the local press had eagerly devoured the campaign finance reports but once the change was made almost nothing has been reported. Also, at least two additional reporting dates were added, one at the behest of the Town Council to avoid last minute contributions which were not reported prior to the election. At the time all this was put in place. Council members argued that the Town needed voter owned elections to avoid this scurrilous attempt by developers to influence the outcome of elections. Since voter owned elections were ruled unconstitutional by a Democratic State Attorney General’s office, bundling and an obscure reporting mechanism have introduced levels of campaign finance shenanigans that were unheard of prior to VOE. Do we hear a single voice of outrage on the council now? Not a peep. In the old days this would have been a major issue in the press. Nowadays nary anything is said. Guess Chapel Hill isn’t holier than thou anymore! This author recalls that Fred Black was a supporter of VOE but now asks in his usual faux rhetorical questioning manner whether Nancy thinks that candidates shouldn’t accept contributions that won’t be reported until after the election. What do you think Fred?
Fred Black
/ May 12, 2015I was never a supporter of VOE and there is a commentary on WCHL and a letter in the CHN that reflects that. Also, if anyone wishes to slug through the archives, you can read the very long discussions on this in OP. Facts do matter.
Diogenes
/ May 12, 2015And your answer is?
Fred Black
/ May 12, 2015Answer to what?
Diogenes
/ May 12, 2015Never mind Fred.
many
/ May 12, 2015Diogenes
Heros mihi es erisque in perpetuum!
Fred Black
/ May 12, 2015If candidates and contributors are following the laws of North Carolina, they should not be criticized if donations are received that are not reported before the election. Solution is simple: have the law changed. Calling them “late contributions” and believing that there is something untoward about them implies that people are trying to beat the system. Are they really?
Diogenes
/ May 12, 2015Gratias tibi sed ego iustus causam ordinarium persona
Diogenes
/ May 12, 2015Fred, thank you for that direct answer. Of course it is true that as long as candidates follow the letter of the law, then they have not violated it. That having been said wouldn’t it be preferable, at least in Chapel Hill, if candidates said “we are committed to the Chapel Hill values of transparency and acute sensitivity to any appearance of conflict of interest — and therefore we will only accept campaign donations prior to the final reporting deadline before the election and we won’t take any contributions from developers or their associates (which is a position some candidates in Chapel Hill have taken in the past as once discussed on this board0? Seems to me that is closer to the “true Chapel Hill values” from which we have loudly criticized the impact of special interest money in campaigns and opaque campaign finance reporting? Perhaps that’s a question that should be posed of candidates in the next election.
many
/ May 12, 2015I finally understand why the town leadership cannot come up with a development vision and plan that reflects the values and leverages the strengths of Chapel Hill………they just don’t know.
David
/ May 12, 2015This seems like such a no-brainer. Candidates can do what they want, but in the upcoming election, I will only vote for individuals who pledge to follow the policy Diogenes suggests, that is, 1) to only accept campaign donations prior to the final reporting deadline before the election and 2) to not accept contributions from real estate developers or others who stand to profit in a big way from council land use decisions.
many
/ May 13, 2015Res ipsa loquitur
Fred Black
/ May 13, 2015Nancy has lobbied for Amy to be appointed. Amy ran in 2013 and filed an amended report after the election. I don’t read anything negative into her doing so. I have no idea if contributors were late in contributing in order to avoid pre-election attention, but I seriously doubt it. Casting blanket doubts or ascribing nefarious motives to contributors Does not serve us well.
Note on her report that Michael Parker made a contribution? Was he trying to get something from Amy?
http://www.orangecountync.gov/2013AmyRyanAmend_35day.pdf
Bonnie Hauser
/ May 13, 2015Personally I believe that all individuals have a right to contribute, Chapel hill has a $300 limit; for the county elections it’s $4000. There are donors who can afford to give generously and some happen to be developers (citizens not businesses).
The disturbing pattern is when then contribute at the same time and at a point when their donations are not disclosed before the election. Another way to do it for all candidates to disclose developer donations before the election through amended first period filings. That’s an option that any candidate can take,
I do believe the timing and bundling is intentional but to be fair when you live in a place that honors candidates who don’t take money from developers, then it’s no wonder they to hide their donations,
DOM
/ May 13, 2015David –
“I will only vote for individuals who pledge…to not accept contributions from real estate developers or others who stand to profit in a big way from council land use decisions.”
Does the same go for the other end of this contributor spectrum? i.e. not accepting contributions from members of special interest groups – like CHALT – whose main goal is to discourage any further residential growth in Chapel Hill in order to keep their own property values high?
many
/ May 13, 2015Fred, tu quoque. It seems as if you were “ascribing nefarious motives” and “casting blanket doubts” through association during the last county commissioner election.
As for me, I am certainly guilty of the same; pointing out decisions, positions and people’s behaviour I disagree with, stating how and why. Analyzing and testing those doubts against other peoples opinions of the same is part of the nature of critical thinking and debate. I am also guilty of contributing, and as a contributor one has to wonder why some would choose to consistently contribute relatively large sums late?
The point here is not that there is necessarily a quid pro quo, but it’s the tension between the stated and practiced. The soft hypocrisy of rationalization and the optics of unfair influence on matters where the essential business of the position is to represent the interests of the electorate fairly is disturbing wherever it occurs.
Unless of course, one believes that money = speech, then all bets are off.
David
/ May 13, 2015DOM,
CHALT is not a membership organization. It has no members, per se. It does have a list of individuals who have signed up to receive the CHALT newsletter, presumably because they find it a valuable source of information about local issues. The list includes town residents representing a wide range of views on development and other local matters. Michael Parker, for example, is a subscriber, as is Kristin Smith of the Chamber.
Please provide evidence for the following two claims in your posting above:
1. The main goal of CHALT is to discourage any further residential development.
2. The reason for #1 is to keep their own property values high.
I can find nothing in the CHALT platform, or in any of the articles that have appeared in its newsletters, to support either claim, and so I reject your premise that CHALT is a “special interest group.”
My guess is that if you asked most people in town—including CHALT subscribers—what most concerns them about the town’s recent and current approach to growth management, they would say the traffic. Not the effect of residential growth on property values, or on flooding, school crowding, increased cost of government services or loss of open space, but the traffic. Do you think that people who dislike traffic congestion constitute a “special interest group?”
David
/ May 13, 2015DOM,
One more thing: Just out of curiosity, do you think it should be the policy of the Chapel Hill Town Council to seek to lower residential property valuations, perhaps as a way of making housing more affordable?
Would you vote for a candidate who declared, “If elected, I will do everything in my power to ensure that your home is worth less four years from now than it is today”?
Fred Black
/ May 13, 2015” It seems as if you were “ascribing nefarious motives” and “casting blanket doubts” through association during the last county commissioner election.”
Please refresh my memory.
many
/ May 13, 2015“Interestingly, some candidates were Republicans before they became Democrats.”
http://chapelhillwatch.com/2014/05/05/vote-tuesday-may-6/#comments
The statement was false, the innuendo was clear. There are other examples.
CHC
/ May 13, 2015Fred and others:
Do you think that George should recuse himself from voting on Obey Creek rezoning, since he received $2400 from the applicants and their associates?
DOM
/ May 13, 2015David –
I believe that more housing opportunities in Chapel Hill would generally make the market more competitive and more inclusive. If that means leveling out our outrageously high single-home values somewhat, I am willing to let that happen. I say, more inclusivity, less exclusivity.
And I don’t think you believe for a second that our houses would be worth less than they were before – you’re simply trying to bolster your own argument with a bit of fear mongering.
Terri
/ May 13, 2015DOM,
The tax value on my (older) home declined over the past few years and homes in my neighborhood stay on the market longer. Your position, along with that of the majority of the Town Council, is part of the problem. You’re working from a traditional supply and demand theory. But when a system reaches a certain point, there are diminishing returns, where the unit cost increases when supply increases. The challenge should be to bring the system back into balance instead of continuing to follow the pack leaders in Raleigh and Durham where they are also seeing the same diminishing returns as illustrated in increasing costs, not lower ones.
DOM
/ May 13, 2015Terri –
The “tax value” of your home and the price you can sell it for are two entirely different sets of numbers. The recession slowed the local market down somewhat, but if you talk to any residential realtor in CH they will tell you prices are higher than ever. Great for us who already live here, but not so great for those who would like to live here but can’t afford to. Frankly, I’d like to see more income diversity moving in; it means fresh thoughts and new ideas. For those who don’t welcome that, CHALT is a good thing to be a part of.
Fred Black
/ May 13, 2015“Interestingly, some candidates were Republicans before they became Democrats.”
“The statement was false, the innuendo was clear. There are other examples.”
Well a candidate for Sheriff did switch, so what’s false?
David
/ May 13, 2015DOM,
You believe that more housing opportunities in Chapel Hill would generally make the market more competitive and more inclusive. And other folks believe that climate change is a hoax and that humans and dinosaurs walked the earth together. Show me the evidence to support your belief. You won’t find any. I know, because I’ve looked. As Terri says, you are working from an overly simplistic model of housing market dynamics. If you haven’t already, view the videorecording of Dave Shreve’s April 29 lecture (https://vimeo.com/album/3375157/sort:preset/format:detail). He explained the various factors that influence housing affordability in a given jurisdiction. There are many of them, and independent supply and demand are the least important.
I share your desire for Chapel Hill to be more socioeconomically diverse, if that’s what you mean by inclusive. Thing is, I’ve lived here long enough to remember when it *was* much more socioeconomically diverse, and I know that the reasons it has become less so in recent decades, i.e., since around 1990, have little to do with anything the Town Council can control.
One factor, for example, is the increasing concentration of wealth nationally, and the related stagnant wages for middle- and lower-income workers. If the salaries of local teachers and policemen and food service workers had the same purchasing power today as they had in 1960 or 1970, many more of these workers would be able to purchase homes in Chapel Hill.
A second, perhaps related factor, is that, starting around 1990, Chapel Hill home builders increasingly built only for high end buyers, presumably because such houses are more profitable. I don’t know whether the local government could have required the builders to supply housing for a wider range of incomes, but, in any case, they didn’t do so, and so now our newer housing stock is skewed toward the high end.
Most of our affordable inventory, about a third of the total number of single family units, were built between 1950 and 1990, and many of them are not available for families to purchase because they have been bought up by investors and rented to students.
If you have some ideas for how to creatively and effectively address these challenges, I’m all ears. But simply building more high-rise luxury condos in places that lack the infrastructure to support the increased residential density isn’t going to solve anything.
Nancy
/ May 13, 2015DOM, a Realtor may tell you the market’s never been better, because it is a Realtor’s job to sell property. But if you look at county records of real estate sales, homes in Chapel Hill frequently sell below tax value. Partly that’s due to Chapel Hill homes carrying the value assessed before the economic meltdown, but I would take with a grain of salt a claim that houses are selling at an all-time high.
Terri
/ May 13, 2015DOM, recent neighbors who have moved out would tell you that we are NOT getting the same prices that we were getting a few years ago. However, I too would like to see more “income diversity moving in; it means fresh thoughts and new ideas.”
David
/ May 13, 2015For what it’s worth, the Triangle MLS local market update for Orange County does show that several indicators of housing market strength have improved from a year ago.
http://www.trianglemls.com/market-trends.cfm/trend/7
As to whether this is good or bad, that depends on whether you are a buyer or a seller . . .
Terri
/ May 13, 2015The numbers do seem to be better but what strikes me is how uneven the Orange County market is compared to “all MLS.”
DOM
/ May 13, 2015David –
“You believe that more housing opportunities in Chapel Hill would generally make the market more competitive and more inclusive. And other folks believe that climate change is a hoax and that humans and dinosaurs walked the earth together.”
It’s quite clear that, after such a negative opening comment, there is no point in following this discussion any further. Good luck with your closed loop belief system.