Is Brewer Siting on the Fence On Fencing?

City Law and Finance Committee Article Raises Questions

When preparing our last post, Brewer Has Sights Set On Chain Link Fences, the Sanford Herald's report on the city's Law and Finance Committee was not available. It turned out to offer much in the way of coincidental information.

For example, our post suggested in jest that this latest Brewer project was really an employment program. It turns out that the committee had been told that under-staffing was a problem. Research had shown that

"code enforcement depart­ments throughout the state were able to effectively handle about 700 complaints per officer per year. Sanford’s three-man code enforcement office got 4,000 complaints last year."

That would seem to suggest that the department needs to double and hire three more inspectors. And that is before the fence ordinance!! There goes some of the Brewer Privilege Tax money.

Guess which council member said this:

“We need to figure out how we can real­istically enforce what we’ve got on the books, and if we can’t enforce it, we should get rid of it.”

1. Linwood Mann
2. Steve Brewer
3. Charles Taylor
4. Mike Stone

If you said Steve Brewer, you either attended the meeting, read the paper, or should become one of those people at the carnival that guess what month you are born or how much you weigh. That comment might just be the hallmark of Brewer's term if he means it. It is not clear if Brewer was suggesting this to clear the way for his new "Save Sanford with a Fence Ordinance"or if perhaps he changed his mind about the intrusion of government into the private property rights of citizens.

After all, according to the Herald's report, the city attorney warned the council,

government intervention in private property aesthetics is­sues, when too intrusive, has gotten other cities sued. She reminded the council that the function of laws was to govern public health, safety and welfare.

“We’re talking about bigger government, more laws and more restric­tions here,” Patterson said, saying that hom­eowner’s associations might be the best avenue for neighborhoods with aesthetic concerns.

Perhaps this comment by Thomas Goodman on Brewer's blog made an impression that lead to some reconsideration:

By my recollection, there have been nearly a dozen people shot, another 3 or 4 murders (most unsolved), and numerous robberies in the last 3-5 months alone. Rumors are running around town about the serious rise in gang violence yet Mr. Brewer wants to focus on fences? I just don’t get it. It is the job of government to address problems, not create them. I was born and raised in this town and I talk “politics” every single day with my friends and neighbors. Not once have I every heard anyone talking about the “fence problems” in Sanford. NOT ONCE!

So, as you can see, it is hard to tell. Is Steve Brewer now "sitting on the fence?"

Maybe he will leave us a comment and clear this up. Or if he is now having trouble making up his mind, he could consult with Commissioner Jerry Lemmond. (See this post by clicking here.)

If you don't already subscribe to the Sanford Herald, you can still get the e-edition by clicking here and read the article in Thursday's edition.

Brewer Has Sights Set On Chain Link Fences

New "Crisis" Demanding Attention

Sanford Councilman Steve Brewer, leading proponent of the business privilege tax, has found something else to import here to Sanford--the regulation of chain link fences. In a post on his blog with 18 different pictures of houses with one form or another of chain link fence, he begins with spectra of:

Would you like a 6 foot, chain link, barbed wire fence in the front yard beside your house?

He has discovered that the city of Sanford has no ordinance for chain link fencing and is hot to see one. One can just imagine the day could come that the little dog in the picture can no longer sit beside his owner's protected garden and enjoy the sun in his private haven.

Most subdivisions in Sanford have covenants regarding fencing to address the impact of fencing on the appearance of a neighborhood. For those who have nightmares about fencing, that is a good choice of residence.

For other residents who have a legitimate need for fencing, the city council ought to stay out of their business. If an a newly widowed 82 year old woman finds that chain link fence gives her a sense of security that allows her to stay in her own home, why rob her of that with an invasive ordinance. Brewer notes that most fences are in East Sanford but are now "spreading." Here is a clue--they are not malignant and self-reproducing. If fencing is spreading, it is because the property owners want them and are willing to pay for them.

Having such an ordinance would create hundreds of "Local Joes." Hold on, I have got it now. This is a job creation program since the city has to hire a corp of fence inspectors to make sure whatever ordinance is passed is observed to the .25 inch.

The poet Robert Frost's "Mending Walls" is best known for the line "Good fences, make good neighbors." The poem's narrator displays a disdain for the expression and the walls erected between people, and yet he also shows a grudging acceptance (albeit sadly) of the line's truth in its application to human relationships. The line is listed by the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations as a mid 17th century proverb, which was given a boost in the American consciousness due to its prominence in the poem.

Heaven help the residents of Sanford if Mr. Brewer ever gets hold of the appearance ordinances in Pinehurst.

Capitlizing on BRAC Will Take Local Leadership

BRAC Briefing Just A Guess

The problem with massive planning efforts is that as the estimates get more precise, they also get more likely to be wrong. It works like this. If a produce manager is holding a sack of oranges and tells you it ways "about 3lbs", you know you are getting an informed estimate. Somehow if he says, 3.043 lbs, it suggests that it has been weighed on an accurate scale. If we fall into the trap of believing they can estimate the age groups of the children moving into Lee County, all their estimates must really be reliable.

Almost every number you hear coming from BRAC is an "about." (click here for the BRAC Site) It isn't presented that way, but the truth is that other than some "hard data" from the military, it is an informed guess. For example, just one factor--how the traffic flows evolve in Spring Lake could push development in another direction.

It is expected that Fort Bragg will increase its numbers by about 20,000: 6,772 soldiers, 1,669 civilians and 12,000 family members, when two of the Army's largest command structures. Depending on the assumptions that number is quickly multiplied to 40,000 people in the area, 6100 estimated new residents in Lee County, 2200 potential new homes in Lee County, and 1,000 potential new jobs. Local demand for products and services could increase by $143 million with $77 million in sales to local businesses. The numbers drill down to the estimate that we will have 400 more students in our schools.

Problems with regional planning techniques should not lessen our interest in BRAC. Quite the contrary, it should tell us that the more concrete action we take now to get ready for the future, the more likely the future can be what we want it to be. We're back to the principle of citizen participation which is not a strong point in Lee County. This is the kind of issue the tired good ol' boy network can't handle. It is a mobilization of effort beyond what has ever been done before, and doing things the same old way will not make it happen.

For example, The North Carolina Military Business Center (NCMBC) (click here to link to site) is a collaborative effort between North Carolina business and industry and the North Carolina Community College System. Funded in 2004 by a grant from the North Carolina General Assembly, the NCMBC operates under the supervision of Fayetteville Technical Community College. It coordinates a program with other community colleges that Assisted firms who won 436 contracts - worth between $830 million and $1.645 billion - from the NCMBC’s opening in 2005 through mid-May 2008. It is likely that this "grant" from the legislature would be called an earmark.

The point is we have an excellent community college--top rated--what are we doing to help it become a major hub for other areas connected with the expected BRAC acitivity? We need to pay less attention to estimates and find our own "vision" for what we want BRAC to be and get visionary leaders and experienced implementers working for Lee County's good.

Chamber Urges Government To Buy Locally

Good, But Much Bigger Steps Are Needed

The message of the Chamber Chat written by Chamber Chairman Chet Mann was a plea to government entities in the county to to spend tax money locally to help the local economy. There is no complaint here, and this is happening now. With the sky rocketing cost of fuel being added to almost every product, it is certainly possible that some local vendors may now be able to compete with usually lower price, higher volume sellers else where. The concept clearly needs to be total cost not just lowest bid.

A larger challenge, however, for local business is not being addressed in a comprehensive way. Perhaps too much is expected of BRAC as our answer to the future; it will not be. What we need, however, is more focus on how Lee County competes in a global economy, especially the impact of the Internet. The economy is in the process of a dramatic restructuring, and our governmental policies, business processes and educational system are lagging far behind. It calls for a level of innovation and leadership that we are not likely to get from our current commissioners, but can be a job requirement in our search for a superintendent of schools.

Included in the column was a letter written to city and county managers, as well as our interim school superintendent, encouraging them to spend tax money locally. Of course, as the letter noted, in most cases these agencies are required to buy on the low bid model.

Mann should be fairly pleased with several purchases approved by the commissioners at their last meeting. A contract of up to $50,000 for scrap tire recycling and disposal was approved with a Cameron company. Now that is not quite in Lee County, but it is just over the border and some of the three dollars that Mann says recycles locally ought to reach our county.

The purchasing of new cars usually presents a challenge because local dealers simply cannot meet the volume prices offered by state contracts for those local agencies, like the sheriff's office, that can purchase through the state purchasing. But this time the sheriff's department purchased a new vehicle that was not on state contract for undercover drug enforcement. A local car dealer beat out dealers in Raleigh and Fayetteville, and the $22,270 purchase went to a local dealer. Also, the county fire marshal purchased a used 2005 Ford F-250 from a local dealer.

Not every commissioners meeting will have such good news for the local economy and, of course, not all purchases go through the commissioners. So the challenge is to look at the decisions we make with an eye to getting ready for a future that is really already here.

School Board To Use Search Firm

Why City and County Did It Wrong
Yesterday, the Sanford Herald' s editorial, strongly endorsed the use of the search firm and search process selected by the Board of Education for the hiring of the new school superintendent.

"The Lee County Board of Edu­cation is insisting on the same for this search — to make sure the community has input and buy­ing in before a decision is reached and an offer made to a potential superintendent."

In an earlier post (click here to read it) before a change in school superintendents was anticipated, the e-Lee Dispatch endorsed the kind of search process used by CCCC in selecting its new president. Both endorsements spoke strongly about the value of community involvement.

When the post was written the secretive, behind closed door searches conducted by the city council for a city manager and the commissioners for the county manager were top of mind. Why did two boards, acting independently, choose a good process for CCCC and the Lee County Schools, and the city council and commissioners take a directly opposite approach?

It is worthy of note that in both cases the two boards brought back individuals who had worked here, taking the less risk course of the known rather the unknown. It is too early to draw conclusions about the individuals selected; that is not the point.

The point is that the city council (before the election) and the commissioners took a "closed room" approach to major decisions with an attitude that they, and not the public, always know best. With the city, it was the business privilege tax in which public input was ignored. With the commissioners, the most notable were the manner in which those who supported Lee County High School were handled, and then the advice ignored about the sales tax referendum which they were sure would pass. The arrogance of the commissioners in refusing such things as broadcasting finance committee meetings (which was also an issue in the city), are yet another example that the participation of citizens in government is just not understood by these commissioners. Seeking meaningful citizen participation in the development of the new county public access would have made a better document. (More on that later.) Instead, it was drafted, taken to the board, and adopted without public participation.

The municipal election began the process of changing the city council as voters lacked only a few votes of turning it over. They will most likely finish the task next year. At first chance, county voters sent a message to the commissioners by failing to renominate their chairman. They are tired of "Just trust us."

This secretive, "closed group" attitude is the way they think and look at problems. They won't change. It is an ingrained part of the good ol' boy network mindset that is in the early stages of death in the path our community's progress. The only way to fix it is to change the people who sit in the chairs. That is where the fall election comes in to play.

Update: No Annexation Moratorium This Year

Senate Uses Technicality To Stall Bill To Death

The bill that proposed a nine-month moratorium on involuntary annexation in North Carolina has died before making it to the Senate floor for a vote. Senate Majority Leader Tony Rand, chairman of the Senate Committee of Rules and Operations, elected not to put the House Bill 2367 on the Senate calendar for a decision despite having nearly three weeks to debate it within the committee. The N.C. General Assembly adjourned Friday until Jan. 28, 2009, effectively killing the legislation before any action could be taken.

Senator Tony Rand, who chairs that committee, said the bill will die because of a technicality. To be heard in the short session, a bill must be the result of a joint study by the House and the Senate, and this bill isn't. When asked why the House would have bothered putting the bill together, debating it, and passing if it didn't meet the criteria, Rand suggested it may have been an attempt to bring attention to the issue.

Senator Rand said now they will launch a joint study on the annexation issue, but it will be next year at the earliest before any action is taken.

Lee County's Representative Jimmy Love played a key role when the bill was in the Judiciary Committee. Some moratorium advocates claim the amendment "gutted the bill" because it shortened the moratorium. Others agree with Representative Love that without the amendment the bill would not have cleared the committee. To see a short video of the Judiciary Committee pass the amendment by Representative Love click here. (47 seconds)

Editors Note: This is a follow-up to other posts on annexation. The legislature adjourned last week so this is not news, but it may be to the readers. It may be especially of interest to those who do not wish to get gobbled up by Sanford and pay all those taxes to support a golf club. And for those who have video, I thought the little video excerpt of Jimmy Love at work might be interesting.

Steve Brewer Starts Re-Election Campaign

The "Brewer City Privilege Tax" Left Out of Blog Post

Councilman Steve Brewer has started a blog. He wrote his first post on July 16, but reportedly decided to officially “launch” it now. This is probably also his start to an election campaign.

In his last post (click here to read it) he shows a comparison of cities and their tax rate and gives a text-bookish explanation of why the rate varies. One factor he fails to mention is the business privilege tax. Based on his hard fought efforts to see that Sanford has the widely opposed tax, it could be expected that it would be at the center of his post. I suspect he hopes everyone else forgets it too.

It is good to see more bloggers in Lee County. He lists links to local blogs on his site but apparently doesn't know the e-Lee Dispatch is here. By the time the municipal election roles around, he will probably have noticed that it is.