Lessons from Hulu founder

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”.

by 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
Next Post
Leave a comment

131 Comments

1 2 3

  1. David

     /  May 13, 2015

    DOM,

    Don’t be so sensitive. You asserted a belief. I’m simply asking what this belief is based on, other than your intuition. And, if you read the rest of my comment, I offered plenty of reasons to suggest your belief is erroneous. Now it’s your turn to offer some evidence in support of your belief.

    If you can’t offer any, then you should at least entertain the hypothesis that building more housing in Chapel Hill will not in fact make the market more competitive and inclusive to any significant degree. In which case, we need to think of some other ways to achieve the goals of promoting inclusivity, such as doing a better job of preserving the town’s existing stock of moderately priced housing.

  2. DOM

     /  May 13, 2015

    David –

    You are NOT simply asking what my belief is based on; judging from your posts on a variety of topics, you continuously try to bully people who do not immediately agree with you.

    fyi, being a wise-ass know-it-all who always tries to gets the last word in doesn’t necessarily mean you win the arguments; it just means that others don’t want to communicate with someone who sounds as dogmatic and negative as you always seem to.

    Please, run for council if you think you have the right answers; you obviously don’t think anyone on the current council has it right.

  3. Terri

     /  May 13, 2015

    DOM,

    I know you are totally supportive of whatever the town council wants to do. But surely even you have to question what’s going on when their own financial analysis on Obey Creek shows that the gap between revenue and cost of services is about $700,000 annually for the footprint sized the way East West Partners wants it. There’s a gap even at a smaller size, but it’s not as big. This isn’t David’s opinion or anyone from CHALT–it’s the towns own analysis. And yet council continues the negotiations based on the developer’s terms. To add insult to injury the draft development agreement written by town staff is full of giveaways on top of the gap between revenues and cost. Fortunately the Planning Commissioners has heavily marked it up. We can only hope Council accepts those suggested revisions.

  4. DOM

     /  May 13, 2015

    Terri –
    You say, “I know you are totally supportive of whatever the town council wants to do.”

    Really? I have never said any such thing, nor have I ever expressed any opinion on Obey Creek in any of these discussions.

  5. Bonnie Hauser

     /  May 13, 2015

    I must say that I get lost in the supply demand topic. For years Orange Counth was the premier county and it’s schools brought a lot of demand for housing and drove prices up.

    Now Wake and North Chatham schools are competitive with CHCCS and their housing and taxes are a lot lower. Maybe that’s why their housing markets are growing while ours is struggling. Is it a simple market correction or are we losing our “competitive advantage”?

  6. David

     /  May 14, 2015

    DOM,

    If I were to run for Council, what would I need to do to persuade you to vote for me? I know it’s a stretch, but I’m asking seriously.

    What would persuade you that you and I and most everyone we know in town will be better off in the long run if we postpone building more high-density housing until

    1) we considerably increase our commercial tax base to provide revenues to offset the new costs that population growth will incur; and

    2) we put in place the infrastructure (i.e., mass transit, parks, expanded school capacity, etc.) needed to maintain a quality of life not too much worse than we presently enjoy, under conditions of higher population density.

    Is that so unreasonable? To my mind, there is nothing selfish or ideological about this. It’s just good town planning.

    And I think most council members actually would agree that this is what we ought to be doing. The problem is, from what I understand, real estate developers at the moment are only interested in, or are only able to obtain financing for, residential construction. So what do we do? We could say to the developers, “Unfortunately, more residential is the last thing we need right now, so we’ll pass, but come back to us when you are ready and able to build us some commercial property.”

    But instead of doing that, the council has in effect said, “We’d really like new commercial development, but if we can’t get that, I guess we’ll just have to settle for more new residential development.” Why would they do that? I suspect it partly involves a desire to generate revenue from one-time development permit fees as a way of funding increased government costs without having to raise taxes. If that is, in fact, what is motivating the current frenzy of residential development, it’s very short-sighted.

  7. Bruce Springsteen

     /  May 14, 2015

    As far as things like commercial development being or affordable housing being possible I think it’s good to remember that CH/C don’t exist in a vacuum but rather in a world with other towns that do manage to accomplish these things so they must not be impossible.

  8. Nancy

     /  May 14, 2015

    Well said, David. You’ve got my vote.

  9. Fred Black

     /  May 14, 2015

    “You’ve got my vote”

    I sure that’s not an endorsement for single issue voting, but more of an endorsement of a person’s qualifications, integrity, character, and judgment. So when a citizen gives money to a campaign, those same factors may be in play, believing that the person will exercise those qualities when deciding issues that come before the body.Yet when people who give money represent certain interests, we are not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt as to why they are supporting a candidate. Believing that contributors feel the candidate will give all issues fair consideration is a position that is simply scoffed.

    We have enough evidence over the years that shows elected officials don’t always vote the way some of their contributors might like, but when they do, is the vote all about the contribution? I think not and no candidate should recuse themselves from a vote because of a campaign contribution. There are rules on what is a legitimate cause for recusal.

  10. Diogenes

     /  May 14, 2015

    But on the other hand Democrats excoriate candidates for taking money from the likes of the Koch brothers or Art Pope! As usual it’s situational ethics. If someone has the “right” values it’s OK to take bundled money from special interests after the last campaign finance report prior to the elections. How ’bout a Chapel Hill town Council candidate took money from Art Pope. Would they still get the same benefit of the doubt. There are rules and then there’s ethics. Looks like the rules rule with Fred.

  11. David

     /  May 14, 2015

    In light of Diogenes comment above, I wish to amend my earlier statement: I will only vote for individuals who pledge not to accept campaign contributions after the reporting deadline and not to accept contributions from real estate developers doing business with the town or from Art Pope.

    I have a feeling this list of conditions may soon grow unwieldy . . .

  12. Deborah Fulghieri

     /  May 14, 2015

    Terri,
    Planning Commission did mark up the March 20 version of the development agreement (which staff modifies on a weekly basis), but our comments were not sent to Council until George Cianciolo told us that he (and Council) hadn’t received them. We asked staff why, and on May 11, staff notified us that they had sent the comments on the March 20 version to Council. So they have recently received them.

  13. many

     /  May 14, 2015

    So now votes = money? I am not sure that works any better than speech = money. There seems to be lots of “interesting” things (such as switching part affiliation in a town/county where the election is and has been decided in the democratic primary for decades) that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

    The issue is not donations per se, the issue is *late* donations that are reported *after* the electoral decision is made. The issue is not individuals, but “bundling” maximum donations from the same financially interested groups in order to dodge the intent of the election rules. The issue is not party affiliation it is fairness and the embedded establishment not being responsive to the people they are supposed to be serving.

  14. Fred Black

     /  May 15, 2015

    Interesting that former Council member Matt Czajkowski is praised here for his fine service on the council, yet no one has mentioned his many, many doners to his campaigns or their interests.

  15. Nancy

     /  May 15, 2015

    Fred, the difference I see with Matt Czajkowski is that he frequently voted against development if town residents weren’t getting value from it. I have yet to see George Cianciolo vote against a developer’s interest, regardless of how poorly it serves town residents.

  16. Fred Black

     /  May 15, 2015

    Nancy, wasn’t there a statement made about accepting NO MONEY from anyone who had business before the Council? I don’t think it makes much sense to do that but someone thinks it does.

  17. Fred Black

     /  May 15, 2015

    Well, I guess Kevin will now be under attack:
    “The current proposed plan came about because of a thoughtful and inclusive process. The result meets the standard of being a change for the better in our community. That is why I support the Obey Creek proposal, and I encourage the council to support it.

    KEVIN C. FOY

    THE WRITER WAS THE MAYOR OF CHAPEL HILL FROM 2001-09”.

    Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/community/chapel-hill-news/chn-opinion/article21044661.html#storylink=cpy

  18. David

     /  May 15, 2015

    Fred,

    Why do you think it doesn’t make much sense to ask that candidates not accept campaign contributions from individuals with large financial stakes in council decisions? I’m open to changing my mind on this, but I haven’t yet heard a convincing argument.

  19. Terri

     /  May 15, 2015

    Fred,

    Kevin’s rationale for supporting the Obey Creek proposal–includes a few affordable units and is close to UNC–is the same kind of shallow analysis that has put the town in the position of becoming a bedroom community. That’s what so many people are upset about. I’d like to think that in a community of well educated people there would be a more in depth analysis that includes financial impact on the town, the schools and the county; environmental impact; and alignment with a shared vision for the southern area of the county.

  20. DOM

     /  May 15, 2015

    David –
    ANYONE who owns a home and/or business in Chapel Hill has a huge financial stake in council’s decisions. You, for example, don’t want to see your home lose value by adding more density to our town, because you assume it will put our community at risk by losing some of its “unique” character.

    However, there are a number of others in town who feel it’s more important to open our doors to a wider variety of citizens and businesses so that we make our community more inclusive and vibrant – even though property values may not skyrocket in quite the same way they do now in our exclusive and wealthy southern part of heaven.

    No matter which side of this argument you’re on, we ALL have a lot to lose/gain whenever council makes any decision, big or small. Face it, David, there are different folks with far different goals and hopes than you have. To assume you know exactly which citizens or businesses prospective council members should take money from and which ones they should deny – that’s just plain baloney.

  21. Fred Black

     /  May 15, 2015

    David, so now it’s “large” financial stakes? How is that known before the fact? .

    Terrible, let’s agree to just disagree.

  22. Fred Black

     /  May 15, 2015

    Oops, that’s Terri, let’s…

  23. Nancy Oates

     /  May 15, 2015

    DOM, if the proposed high-rent apartments were adding diversity to the town, they might be worth the cost to taxpayers. But they’re all geared to the same demographic and include no or negligible affordable units. It will be interesting to see who actually moves in there.

    As for donations from people who have business before Town Council, why would a developer contribute money to a candidate at the last minute when it does no good as a de facto endorsement? Especially bundled contributions (from individuals at the same company or from an out-of-town investment company wanting to make a profit in our town). That has a whole different feel from a private individual or community advocacy group making a donation as a way of endorsing a candidate. Bundled contributions sneaked in at the last minute outside public notice look like pressure on a candidate to vote in the donor’s interest.

  24. David

     /  May 15, 2015

    Fred,

    I used the qualifier “large” for precisely the reason DOM states: *all* property owners in a given municipality have *some* financial stake in council land use decisions. Were that not the case, land use decision-making wouldn’t be the contentious issue it so often is. But some stakes are larger than others, and that makes a difference. By “large” I mean individuals involved in the business of real estate development as opposed to those whose stake is limited to the value of the home they inhabit.

    As you well know, the costs that any given land use intensification incurs are typically diffuse, while the benefits are relatively concentrated. This asymmetry gives the prospective beneficiaries the incentive to vigorously advocate for rezonings, development agreements, etc. that, in effect, transfer wealth from the public to the private realm. There is typically also an asymmetry of resources that enables the prospective beneficiaries of land-use intensification to more effectively influence the decision-making process in their favor.

    Given your social science expertise, I am interested in hearing your thoughts on what sort of policies and procedures can help to even the playing field between the few who reap the concentrated benefit of land use intensification and the many who pay the diffuse cost.

    If you don’t like the idea of asking candidates not to accept campaign contributions from those involved in real estate development, suggest something else. Or do you think that the asymmetry I described above is unimportant, or perhaps insoluble?

  25. DOM

     /  May 15, 2015

    Nancy –
    “Bundled contributions sneaked in at the last minute outside public notice look like pressure on a candidate to vote in the donor’s interest.”

    Can you provide examples of this activity and what you mean by ‘sneaking in outside public notice’?

  26. Fred Black

     /  May 15, 2015

    I am strongly against layering such requirements on top of our laws, especially if these requirements are so subject to interpretation as with what you propose David.

    This should be a community conversation to write a new law, like was done with the Chapel Hill contribution limit. We didn’t say everyone should limit their contributions to $X, we changed the ordinance.That is also why I was opposed to VOE.

    Finally, I believe that we the citizens should evaluate candidates when they stand for election. If we don’t like who they take money from, don’t vote for them. Note Nancy’s answer about Matt C., that’s the slippery slope.

  27. Bruce Springsteen

     /  May 16, 2015

    People can advocate for whatever they like but if there’s a plan that uses 115 acres of land (the 80 acres that are permanently set aside count as used in terms of housing) and that plan calls for only a handful of affordable units then I don’t see how you can advocate for that plan while simultaneously saying you’re in favor of more affordable housing. Just because a new development includes some affordable housing doesn’t mean it makes housing more affordable in general.

    In fact, it seems that that’s the kind of approach that has been taken around here again and again over the years that has got us to where we are now with respect to affordable housing. Each individual time you do that it doesn’t have a huge effect but if you add them all up over time then it does have a huge effect.

  28. David

     /  May 16, 2015

    Fred,

    I agree that, when possible, we should enshrine our expectations and aspirations in ordinance, if we can reach consensus about how to change the laws governing our local elections, and if state and federal government allow us to institute the laws we want. But I guess I see ordinance as setting a floor, rather than a ceiling, on what we ask candidates to do to protect the public interest. We as a community or I as an individual may wish to hold candidates to a higher, or, rather, a different standard than what can be required in ordinance.

    And candidates may choose to hold themselves to a different and more rigorous standard than what the law requires. During the last municipal election, for example, Ed Harrison chose not to accept donations larger than $35 from any individual.

    A candidate might similarly choose not to accept donations from those who are in a position to reap asymmetrically large benefits from council land use decisions, as a way of demonstrating their sensitivity to citizens’ (perhaps unfounded) concerns about the corrupting influence of money in politics.

    I simply said I will look with favor on candidates who opt in this way to hold themselves to a higher standard than the law requires, just as I looked with favor on Ed’s decision to hold himself to a more rigorous standard than the law requires concerning contribution limits.

    I agree that, if I don’t like who a candidate takes money from, I have the option of not voting for them (assuming the information about campaign contributions has been made in public prior to the election). But what’s wrong with signaling to prospective candidates in advance of the campaign that I prefer they not accept contributions from certain sources? They can choose to heed or ignore my request, and I will cast my vote accordingly.

  29. Terri

     /  May 16, 2015

    Exactly Bruce. It’s basic math.

  30. Fred Black

     /  May 16, 2015

    David, nothing wrong at all with you asking for and holding candidates to a standard you desire. My problem is when “groups” make the standard a campaign issue. Some may not remember how Matt C. was beat up in his campaigns for Council or mayor because of the money he raised and where it came from. Matt was even criticized for his victory party and of course, not doing the VOE. And who remembers how Ed Harrison was beat up because of money from his family.

    So few vote and a small segment of voters seem to care about campaign contributions. Why? Every time we hear that there is a “single” issue citizens are angry about and they will vote people out because of it, it never happens. We don’t vote in large numbers. Candidates may spend more to get votes but all that seems to happen is the final cost per vote goes up.

    Since I’ve been here, three incumbents have lost and I don’t think money played any role. Who voted was the reason.

  31. DOM

     /  May 16, 2015

    Nancy –

    Apartment living, whether high rent or not, is the only opportunity many people will have to move into Chapel Hill. The only other option is buying a single family house here, and that is out of the price range of 99% of the American population. Trying to maintain the tradition of only allowing the building of large houses on large lots is elitist in the extreme.

  32. many

     /  May 16, 2015

    Fred I still do not understand. You are conflating several examples in order to make your point. Are you saying that giving is not an issue? I basically agree with that unless the gifts exceed what the average person can afford to give and I think the ordinance covers that.

    Are you saying that late gifts at the maximum amount (I personally don’t think $50 here or there is a big deal) that do not show up on the record until after the vote is taken are not an issue? If so, I disagree for the reasons I have stated.

    Are you saying “bundled” gifts from the same source (e.g. a corporation plus individual gifts from the officers of that same corporation) are OK? I disagree with that too because it is likely an intentional violation of the spirit of the election ordinance. As you point out this ia a primary driver of the “cost per vote”. However, as long as the gifts are public and before the vote is taken, I say let the voters decide.

    The reason people vote may be different but that does not mean this issue is not an important one.

  33. Nancy

     /  May 16, 2015

    Fred, wasn’t it Lee Storrow who was criticized for receiving a number of donations for family and friends in Asheville, where he grew up and his parents live?

    DOM, what about building small houses on tiny lots with community gardens instead of a swimming pool? That has been very successful in Carrboro. Single family houses don’t have to be large and expensive.

  34. DOM

     /  May 16, 2015

    “Single family houses don’t have to be large and expensive.”

    When you’re dealing with CH prices, they certainly do. You need at least a 1/3 of an acre to build on here in town – lot prices average well over $100,000. Who in their right mind would build a tiny doll house on that high priced a lot if they ever wanted to get their money back?

    Even if the new apartment complexes you mention will be expensive in your mind, they’ll still cost the occupants less than half what it would cost to hold a mortgage on one of the lowest-priced houses in town.

    And let’s face it; most folks – especially younger people – no longer see home ownership as the great benefit older generations once did. I personally would love to see a more youthful and vibrant population that can bring new ways of thinking outside of the traditional box CH finds itself in.

  35. DOM

     /  May 16, 2015

    Nancy –

    btw, in several neighborhoods with NCD’s, the minimum lot size for building is one acre! You have to build a million dollar house on that lot just to come out even.

  36. Nancy

     /  May 16, 2015

    Courtyards at Homestead are putting 64 homes on less than 18 acres, clustering the homes to be surrounded by a greenspace buffer. And another developer, who has built small homes on small lots in Carrboro, preserving some greenspace for a community garden, has proposed a similar project in Chapel Hill on Homestead Road. Concept review came before council about a month ago. I wish that the developer had proposed the project for the parcel on Central West that is now under consideration for senior apartments. A much better spot for it as it would be right next door to two schools.

  37. Terri

     /  May 16, 2015

    The estimated rent for a 2-bedroom apartment in the High-rises next to Whole Foods and off Franklin, supposedly targeted to grad students, is at least $1200/month–$300 more than the mortgage on my 3 bedroom ranch. The grad students I know have laughed heartily at the assumption they could afford that much rent.

  38. DOM

     /  May 16, 2015

    Terri –
    You say you pay $900/month for your mortgage. I’d be curious as to its actual sales value; you most likely have a lot of equity in it. Most younger people can’t afford afford to put even 15-20% down.

    Nancy –
    The project you refer to on Homestead is the Merin Road Development, well out of town limits and beyond existing public transit. It’s being put forth by Kapkov Ventures and will include 75 homes on 24.7 acres. And you can bet the starting price for those dwellings will be typical for Chapel Hill single family homes (at the very least) and well out of reach for folks with genuine middle-class means.

  39. Fred Black

     /  May 16, 2015

    Nancy, Ed was criticized well before Lee.

    The Spirit of Campaign Contribution Limits: a bit of history
    Submitted by Dan Coleman on November 4, 2005 – 10:37pm

    Dan Coleman’s picture
    In today’s Chapel Hill Herald, Ed Harrison defends his acceptance of $1400 in campaign contributions from his parents by saying:

    “Neither my parents nor I are interested in flouting the spirit of the [limit]”
    Both Jason Baker and Laurin Easthom made reference to this “spirit” in explaining why they have not accepted such large contributions and, in Jason’s case, object to Ed doing so.

    Given Harrison’s long association with the Sierra Club, one might expect him to know that, in 1995, the Sierra Club along with the Orange County Greens initiated a program of voluntary contribution limits. They asked Chapel Hill and Carrboro candidates that year to accept no more than $100 from any individual or PAC. Since that was a voluntary limit, there were no exceptions such as those provide for under state law. 10 of 18 candidates took the pledge. Several others expressed agreement with it in part.

    Three years later, the Sierra Club came before the Town Council to petition for contribution limits by ordinance. A $100 proposal was put forward which was rejected in favor of the $200 limit that is in place today. Since this was a legal measure under state statute, North Carolina’s exemption of family members is in force but the Council’s language did not in itself identify any exemptions.

    Nor was any exemption ever part of the spirit of Sierra Club advocacy on this issue. According to council minutes (11/23/1998), Katherine T. Lawson, Vice Chair of the local Sierra Club and State Issue Chair for Campaign Finance Reform, told the Council “that her group wants to make sure that people get into office because they are representing their constituents, rather than because they have the most money.”

    An interesting if tangential point: all elected officials still in office today who ran that first year (1995) are among those who took the pledge (Mike Nelson, Kevin Foy, Diana McDuffee, and both Alex Zaffron and Mark Chilton). Clearly, limited spending did not interfere with the the success of their political careers.

  40. Bruce Springsteen

     /  May 17, 2015

    Someone mentioned so-and-so many houses on so-and-so many acres surrounded by so-and-so many acres of green space and it makes me think, what is the optimal ratio of houses to acres used for said houses? And of course there is no single optimal ratio and instead it’s a matter of opinion but really that’s what things boil down to in terms of how the land should be used.

    Also, someone mentioned community gardens. If this means using public space for gardens then I think this is a bad idea assuming the land is in an area like this one where the cost of housing is already high. People can use private land in whatever way they like and some people use theirs for gardening and that’s fine because private land should be used in whatever manner gives the private owner pleasure (within reason of course).

    But using public land that is high demand for people to live in or otherwise use to instead grow food on? We can grow food almost anywhere. OTOH there are far fewer places close population centers and employment centers where people can live and recreate and all that stuff.

    I was reading recently about an indoor farm in New Jersey sits on one acre of land and grows enough food to match what would on a bunch of acres…I forget the exact number but let’s say 50…of land using conventional farming. So what would you rather have on 50 acres of land in Chapel Hill / Carrboro, 50 acres of conventional farmland or 1 acre of indoor farm and 49 acres land do be used for anything else you like? Sounds like a no brainer to me.

  41. Mark Marcoplos

     /  May 17, 2015

    Many – great quote from you:

    “I would encourage young people to announce less and listen more. Be confident with less dogma. Chose to be resilient rather than relentless.”
    (To whom should I attribute it? Ha!)

  42. Mark Marcoplos

     /  May 17, 2015

    Bonnie – in light of your statement ” a disturbing, consistent pattern of developers donating after the first finance filing is complete,” did you give any consideration to refusing the $500 donation from the NC Realtors PAC that you received after the election?

  43. many

     /  May 17, 2015

    Mr Marcoplos; I had several people in mind for attribution including those obsessed with exposing anonymity rather than engaging in the content of the conversation. I should have added don’t lead with your chin.

  44. Mark Marcoplos

     /  May 17, 2015

    Mr. many – I may be obsessed with a few things, but exposing anonymity is not one of them. I just believe that anonymous communication makes it less powerful. At any rate, I really did like your quote. That was the point of my post. The comment on anonymity was just a humorous aside when I realized that I could not simply and deservedly attribute it to anyone.

  45. many

     /  May 17, 2015

    Mr Marcoplos; I will take you at your word that it was meant as a compliment and that for a moment I transcended your perception of power. Thank you.

  46. David

     /  May 17, 2015

    Fred,

    Who were the three incumbents who lost re-election, and what factors, in your opinion, accounted for each of their losses?

  47. Fred Black

     /  May 17, 2015

    David,

    I don’t have the tally sheets with me ut in 1997 Richard Franck, an appointee to fill the unexpired term of newly elected Mayor Waldorf, was edged out by 30-some votes by incumbent Edith Wiggins. In 1999, Wiggins finished fourth to fifth place incumbent Julie McClintock. In 2007 challenger Matt Czajkowski defeated one-termer Cam Hill by 60-some votes, I believe.

    Some argued money swung the election to the victors, but I would argue that hard campaigning and getting supporters to the polls decided the election.

  48. bonnie hauser

     /  May 17, 2015

    Mark – as you know, the realtors interviewed every candidate (I recall you were leaving as I was arriving). As far as I can tell, the PAC contributed to campaigns based on those interviews. I had no further contact with them and was surprised to receive the check – after the primary was over. I would have been happy to (actually preferred to) receive it earlier and disclosed in in the first filing. I was pleased that the realtors supported my views on development in Orange County. I didn’t solicit the donation or set the timing.

    That’s quite different than a consistent pattern of certain donors contributing as a group, and timed so their contributions would be disclosed after the election. That clearly violates the spirit of the election law.

    Voters have a right to know who’s contributing to any campaign before they vote. My campaign reports were electronically filed. I would have been happy to provide complete transparency into my donation database so that voters can see donations as they are received.

  49. Nancy

     /  May 17, 2015

    Fred —

    In 1999, Pat Evans, Flicka Bateman, Jim Ward and Bill Strom won. Joe Capowski stepped down, I think, and Julie McClintock would have been edged out by either Ward or Strom, the two newbies that year. Wiggins was up for election in 1997 and won, along with Kevin Foy, Joyce Brown and Lee Pavao. In 2009, Jim Merritt, who had been appointed in 2008 to finish Bill Thorpe’s term, was not elected. He faced a strong field of Laurin Easthom, Gene Pease, Penny Rich and Ed Harrison.

  50. Fred Black

     /  May 17, 2015

    Nancy, yes it was Pat Evans who edged out Julie for the fourth seat. And yes Jim Merritt should be included. So that’s two appointees defeated and two prior elected members defeated.

1 2 3