TIRED OF TAX INCREASES?

Your property tax will increase by 2%.
If this bond is passed.
VOTE NO
ON THE RALEIGH ROAD BOND ISSUE
ON Tuesday, October 11TH
see tax rate and fees

The Wake County Taxpayers Association reminds you that it is your money when liberals raise taxes and spend more instead of setting priorities. Bond issues for road improvements should be among funding priorities in the budget..not tacked onto unnecessary spending and causing another tax increase. We say taxes are high enough. Send the message vote NO on the bond issue on Tuesday. Priority spending is the better way. (See ROAD BOND ISSUE for details)

TRAFFIC CALMING
- THE END OF THE AUTOMOBILE?

There was a time when traffic calming was designed to promote safe driving on streets and roads. Now, traffic calming is used to encourage walking, cycling, and public transportation. It is also the primary method to discourage automobile use. Although some people consider radar, stop signs, and educational efforts to be traffic calming, the term usually applies to physical measures that either slow traffic speed and/or reduce traffic volumes. One of the most popular themes of traffic calming is the narrowing of streets (skinny streets). Another objective is to limit the field of view for the driver because when a driver can not see far ahead, driver speed must be reduced.

Although traffic calming does have some safety benefit, it creates a greater harm to life by delaying emergency vehicles such as fire trucks and ambulances. One study "concluded that each bump or circle would delay fire trucks by up to 10 seconds - seconds that can be critical when people's lives are involved". Another study "found that traffic calming loses 37 lives to heart attacks caused by a delay in emergency service vehicles for every life saved due to auto-pedestrian collisions". (1)

TRAFFIC CALMING METHODS

• CONVERSION OF ONE-WAY STREETS TO TWO-WAY STREETS (Increases traffic congestion and driver stress)
• CONSTRUCTION OF YIELD STREETS (Produces traffic congestion and blockage)
• ON-STREET PARALLEL PARKING (Narrows the street to increase congestion)
• RED-LIGHT CAMERAS (Increases safety but intimidates all drivers)
• INTENTIONALLY BADLY-TIMED TRAFFIC LIGHTS (Increases traffic congestion and driver aggravation)
• INTENTIONALLY BADLY-REPAIRED STREETS (Promotes automobile damage and driver frustration)
• PLANTING TREES ALONG THE SIDES OF THE STREET (Street appears narrow)
• REQUIRING THAT BUILDINGS BE CONSTRUCTED AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE TO THE STREET (Street appears narrow and prevents street widening)
• ERECTING SHARE THE ROAD WITH BICYCLES SIGNS (Planned to encourage driving slower and preparing drivers to accept the coming bicycle age)
• CREATING BICYCLE ONLY LANES (Increases traffic congestion)
• CREATING BUS ONLY LANES (Increases traffic congestion and frustration)
• PAINTING LINES ON STREET EDGES (Narrows the street)
• REQUIRING 90 DEGREE ANGLE TURNS AT INTERSECTIONS (Increases driving difficulty over softly curved yield turn lanes)
• SPEED BUMPS (Produces driver aggravation and automobile damage)
• SPEED HUMPS (Produces driver aggravation)
• SPEED TABLES (Produces driver aggravation)
• RAISED PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS (Slows traffic and increases congestion)
• TEXTURED SURFACES AND RAISED INTERSECTIONS (Slows traffic speed)
• TRAFFIC CIRCLES OR ROUNDABOUTS (Increases traffic congestion by limiting a driver's view)
• CURB EXTENSIONS (Street narrowing)
• CHICANES (Creates street curving, narrowing, and driver stress)
• BULB OUTS (Street narrowing and traffic congestion)
• NECK DOWNS, NUBS, OR KNUCKLES (Double bulb outs - extreme street narrowing and increased congestion)
• CHOKERS OR CHOKE POINTS (Causes extreme street narrowing and congestion)
• MEDIAN ISLANDS (Street narrowing)
• MEDIAN BARRIERS (Needed for safety in some areas, when not needed it blocks traffic, creating congestion)
• DIVERTERS (Blocks a lane of traffic creating congestion)
• FORCED TURN LANES (Increases aggravation for those caught in this lane by mistake)
• REMOVING RIGHT-TURN ONLY LANES (Creates traffic back-ups)
• REMOVING LEFT-TURN ONLY LANES (Backs up those behind you who are not turning and creates a traffic mess)
• PARTIAL STREET CLOSURES (Gives you a hint: stop driving your car)
• COMPLETE STREET CLOSURES (Clear message: sell or junk your car)

ANALYSIS

Of course, traffic calming has some valid uses. However, it should be kept in mind that anything can be used constructively or destructively. Traffic calming advocates intend only to use these measures in a manner destructive to automobiles. This is because of the "Living Streets" philosophy which believes that automobiles violate the streets, owned exclusively by pedestrians. A similar philosophy is based on the book "Livable Streets" written by Donald Appleyard (1928-1982), a professor of urban planning at the University of California-Berkeley. Appleyard's plan called for recruiting activists named stakeholders to sell traffic calming to unsuspecting neighbors on "streets where residents requested help to reduce speeding and accidents" (2). After the neighborhood streets are calmed, the techniques are applied to busy corridor streets, leading to traffic congestion madness and eventually the ultimate goal of calmers: create cities completely free of automobiles, leaving walking, cycling, and government-controlled mass transit as the only means of transportation.

In addition to the intimidation, frustration, and increased possibility of an accident, the techniques can be very harmful to your car. It is possible to damage the front-end alignment, parts of your car under the body (such as exhaust system), and even the frame of the vehicle itself. Also, remember that this is not a complete list of traffic calming techniques. The number of possible methods is limited only by the imagination of your local traffic engineering department.

Advocates claim that they want to reduce traffic congestion and air pollution; but, traffic calming increases both traffic congestion and air pollution.

Advocates believe that increased congestion will torment drivers enough to encourage them to reduce their driving and switch to walking, cycling, or public transportation. Increased congestion also gives justification to the Federal Transit Administration to provide federal funding for government-controlled light-rail public transportation projects.

Advocates also know that increased air pollution will allow the Environmental Protection Agency, using the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, to take over transportation planning for a region. This law gives the EPA the authority, if air pollution exceeds a certain level, to stop funding for road construction and require that funding be spent on government-controlled mass transit.

USEFUL RESOURCES

NOTES

1. Randal O'Toole, The Vanishing Automobile and other Urban Myths, How Smart Growth Will Harm American Cities, (The Thoreau Institute, Bandon, Oregon, 2001), page 352.
2. Ibid page 113

TRAFFIC CALMING CAN COST LIVES

37 lives lost. A quote from the book, The Vanishing Automobile and other Urban Myths by Randal O'Toole. "Fire districts and other emergency service providers often have serious objections to traffic calming devices that slow traffic. The Portland Fire Bureau studied speed bumps and traffic circles with video cameras and concluded that each bump or circle would delay fire trucks by up to 10 seconds - seconds that can be critical when people's lives are involved. Political considerations muted the fire bureau's objections. But some analysts believe that traffic calming could end up costing far more lives than it could possibly save. Traffic calming devices are a tradeoff of the perception of increased safety from speeding vehicles for the real risk to citizen survivability from delays to emergency response, says Boulder resident Kathleen Calongne. According to calculations by physicist Ronald Bowman, the deaths from impediments to emergency services are likely to far exceed the lives saved by traffic calming. An analysis by an assistant fire chief in Austin, TX, found that traffic calming loses 37 lives to heart attacks caused by a delay in emergency service vehicles for every life saved due to fewer auto-pedestrian collisions."

TRAFFIC CALMING CONSUMES MORE GAS

Since we are experiencing a fuel shortage, We need to do some thinking about the effect of traffic calming on our fuel supply. There are over 600,000 vehicles in Wake County. It is estimated that 400,000 of those are in Raleigh. Of these 400,000, at least 100,000 will be affected by traffic calming. Each of these vehicles will probably use an extra .1 gallon of gas per day (1/10 gallon) due to traffic calming. This means that an extra 10,000 gallons (100,000 x 1/10) will be wasted each day, an extra 300,000 gallons will be wasted each month, and a whopping 3.6 million gallons of gas will be wasted each year in Raleigh due to driving slower. In light of the current shortage, we can not afford to waste that much gas. It could mean the difference between running out of gas or having an adequate supply. This does not consider the vehicles that come to Raleigh from the other cities in Wake county, the other counties in the state, and out of state vehicles. Thus, the 3.6 million gallons of gas wasted is a very conservative estimate.

Lightner Public Safety Center Misinformation
Feb 3 2010 email to Matthew Eisley and Ruth Sheehan N&O columnist
From: Anthony Pecoraro
I read your columns today with great interest. It appears you have been intentionally misinformed regarding the Lightner Building.

Attached is some information & comments you may find useful

The first attachment is the presentation given to the council in February 2008. As far as I could tell there has been no update or change to it. The building plan shown on sheet 5 indicates the city data processing center, including traffic management, and IT staff will be located above police and fire. In my opinion this is a dangerous strategy. The data center should be in a stand-alone, hardened site with sufficient duplicated facilities to ensure continuity of operations in any event – natural or “man caused” disaster.

The staffing chart on sheet 33 indicates they will run out of space in the building in 2017.

It also seems imprudent to centrally and singularly locate police, fire and emergency communications in this one location. The plan also does not seem to account for the 24/7 nature of the functions with only one shift in the building at a time. A single problem could likely put the building out of commission either permanently or temporarily. These could include terrorism, vandalism, natural disaster or construction accident. We often hear about accidental cuts of communications cables which can put entire neighborhoods out of service.

The presentation also seems to include some inconsistencies regarding the “green building” concept.

The second attachment( shown here) is a summary of the costs I put together to illustrate the per square foot costs.

This is the same information provided in the City Council presentation modified to combine all true building costs before adding fixtures, relocation, etc.

The presentation included $42 million for “escalation and owners contingency”. It is likely this has been omitted from the totals presented by Meeker. However, contingencies are normally provided because it is thought they are probably needed. This should be included in any discussion of costs.

There are four major issue areas that should be considered.

Issue Area 1 – Constitutionality and legal issues

Does the NC Constitution allow local government to increase debt without a vote of the people? It appears proceeding without a public vote is on very shaky legal grounds.

Article 5 Sec. 4. Limitations upon the increase of local government debt.

1.Regulation of borrowing and debt. The General Assembly shall enact general laws relating to the borrowing of money secured by a pledge of the faith and credit and the contracting of other debts by counties, cities and towns, special districts, and other units, authorities, and agencies of local government.

2.Authorized purposes; two-thirds limitation. The General Assembly shall have no power to authorize any county, city or town, special district, or other unit of local government to contract debts secured by a pledge of its faith and credit unless approved by a majority of the qualified voters of the unit who vote thereon, except for the following purposes

a.to fund or refund a valid existing debt;

b.to supply an unforeseen deficiency in the revenue;

c.to borrow in anticipation of the collection of taxes due and payable within the current fiscal year to an amount not exceeding 50 per cent of such taxes;

d.to suppress riots or insurrections, or to repel invasions;

e.to meet emergencies immediately threatening the public health or safety, as conclusively determined in writing by the Governor;

f.for any other lawful purpose, to the extent of two-thirds of the amount by which the State's outstanding indebtedness shall have been reduced during the next preceding biennium.

Issue Area 2 – Financing alternatives.

What is the comparative cost of financing the project thru COPs or Bonds. Even if COPS were legal, does it make financial sense. Of course it’s easier for the politician to do COPs and avoid public debate and scrutiny on the project.

Issue Area 3 – Construction cost.

Project construction costs is in excess of $600 per sq ft. Comparable commercial projects are usually in the range of $2-300. Our schools construction cost is normally in the range of $150-200. What is the justification for the $600 plus? Further the staffing projection indicate the building capacity will be exhausted in 2017. So this is really a short term issue.

Issue area 4 – Centralization of Emergency services.

Should field officers such as detectives be centralized or spread to the six police district. The sensibility of putting all emergency services Control- police, fire admin and planning, EMC and Data processing center with traffic management control in one building.

Centralizing all services makes them ALL susceptible to disruption fro terrorism, vandalism, natural disaster (hurricane, tornado, lightning), communication disruption etc. etc.

Temporary disruption of police admin due to relocation. Mulitshift 24/7 nature of EMC police and fire activities suggest only ablut one third of staff will be in building at a time.

What is the back up plan for the data center (traffic management and admin functions)?

Hope this helps. As you can see the project provokes more questions that have not yet been publically addressed by Meeker and crowd.

Jan 9 2010 Letter to N&O
From: Anthony Pecoraro

It’s not surprising that someone has finally asked for a referendum on the new public safety center.

According to Mayor Meeker, one of the reasons for pushing the construction now is to take advantage of low construction costs. But past issues of the N&O have shown the costs of the Clarence E. Lightner Public Safety Center as $205 million with approximately 300,000 square feet of space.

The N&O could do readers a tremendous service by doing the simple math on these numbers. My simple math shows the cost to be $683.00 per square foot. Is this what the mayor calls low cost? Sounds rather expensive to me!

Let the taxpayers decide if this is a justified project!

May 1 2010


"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

Both the Both Carolina general Statutes (§ 160A‑104) and the Raleigh City Charter (article II Sec. 2.16) provide for citizens to initiate a referendum to city ordinances by submitting a petition to city council.

We believe our city, county and state governments are in violation of the spirit of the North Carolina Constitution, which requires voter approval for virtually all government borrowings, with only a few exceptions. To address this misuse of their borrowing authority we have initiated a petition to require -

All borrowings of the City of Raleigh (Wake County) shall be approved by the voters except for the following purposes.

• To fund or refund a valid existing debt originally approved by the voters.

Peoples Forum January 1, 2010
Jan 1 2010
Much publicity has been given to those opposed to the new Wake County School Board majority and “their agenda”. The new Board members, when campaigning, openly and repeatedly made known their election platform and proposals. An overwhelming majority of voters elected them to office based on their platform ideas. Immediately the small and very loud opposition group began complaining and whining. I was saddened by the rude, boisterous behavior of those protestors, mostly, Enloe High students, teachers, and parents, who attended the recent School Board meeting. Self-appointed persons among them arrived early and reserved almost every seat in the Board room and filled them so that those who were there to show support for the new Board members had access to only a half dozen or so seats. Nearly all of the protestors signed up to speak and one after another repeated the same theme … “the new Board majority was out to destroy” their interests alone … to heck with what anyone else thought. They whooped, and clapped and yelled after each of the many speakers. When I finally had a chance to make a few comments, these students, teachers, and parents very rudely hissed and verbally denied the facts which I was sharing from a Poll released earlier that day which showed strong support for the new Board members. If this kind of behavior is what students at Enloe are being taught by their teachers, and parents, the school curriculum is far worse than we might imagine. An N&O Reporter who called to interview me admitted he observed the rudeness of the opposition group but refused to report it even though I asked that he do so. We can only hope for better behavior by the small group of poor losers.

J. Russell Capps
Former member, NC House

The Diversity Debate
Letter to N&O
From: Anthony Pecoraro

Dec 29 2009

Much had been said regarding the Wake County Schools “Diversity Plan” . The debate has degenerated into a discussion about possible re-segregation. Many so-called community leaders chose to show off their “leadership” by making this an argument about politics or race. The real question should be “how successful has the plan been and are the kids really benefiting?”.

According to the N.C. Schools report Cards web site the 2008-09 four year high school graduation rate in Wake County for white kids is 89.4% and for black kids 63.4%. State wide the graduation rates are 77.7% for white children and 63.2% for black. So Wake betters the state average by almost 12% for whites, but only 0.2% for blacks.

The “old” school board chose to make this a debate on “Economic Diversity “ rather than race. Here the results are worse. In Wake the four year grad rates for Economically Disadvantaged (ED) kids is 54.2 % versus the state average of 61.8%. So, for the ED kids Wake is 7.6 points behind the state average.

Clearly, under either the race or economic diversity argument, what had been done for years is not working. Black and Economically Disadvantaged children are still being left behind.

Surely we can do better. The “new” school board deserves a chance to look for a better way to educate all the kids.

Get the argument back where it belongs. What’s best for the kids?