Et in Arcadia ego

A Better Tea Party Slapdown

2012-01-23T18:50:00.001-05:00

I do not dispute Michael Patrick Leahy's claim ("Tea Party Slaps Down Mitt Romney in South Carolina"), January 21, 2012) that a fair measure of Newt Gingrich's wide victory margin in SC can be attributed to Tea Party influence. I would agree with that claim. The Tea Party is angry. Newt Gingrich is angry.

Gingrich, the winner of our third presidential contest, gives voice on a national stage to the Tea Party's outrage and frustration over enlarging socialist public policy, liberal media bias and entertainment industry antagonism. He goes after them directly and does not tend to mince words or shrink from a fight. The tea partiers are hearing from Newt what they want to say themselves -- and how they want it said. And voting for him over Romney in this Southern primary sends a message to all concerned that this is their attitude toward a whole host of adversaries; some included the Republican establishment.

The question for me is this: Is a primary election the proper place to vent a frustration that could give improper cover to a candidate that does not deserve their attention and which could give the false impression that this candidate, above all others, understands and respects their values and will carry them forward into national policy once in office?

I think not. The stakes in this election are high and missteps along the way are amplified. When the Tea Party calms down and takes a careful, steady look at the candidates still standing, they would be wise to seriously consider the candidate who has been with them all along and even heralded their very emergence: Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is the quintessential Tea Party politician and has been for decades preceding the rise of this populist movement. Physician, veteran and congressman Ron Paul consistently articulates the Tea Party position on a range of public policy issues. He opposes unconstitutional and immoral entitlement programs, corporate bailouts, stimulus packages and capricious military adventures that materially harm our national security. He would happily dismantle federal agencies that do nothing but prop up union power and favored special interest groups at taxpayer expense. He is the primary spokesman for ending the central banking cartel that controls monetary policy, debases our currency, prints endless supplies of debt-based money and manipulates interest rates that trigger devastating economic booms and busts. In Congress, he has steadfastly voted for lower taxes, for a balanced budget, for gun rights, for an unregulated internet and for stricter limitations on the power of the executive branch.

“A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” --Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, 1801

Both the Tea Party and Ron Paul have long agreed that the country is moving in the wrong direction. If you are driving your car toward the edge of a cliff, you need radical change. Ron Paul is precisely that type of change. And we need it now, not later, when it's too late. And I think it is also important that we lend our considerable support to a candidate who not only has the right message but who delivers it consistently as a seasoned statesman with an even temper.

So, consider wisely and vote accordingly. We all have a lot to loose. A national victory for Ron Paul would be the hardest slapdown the Tea Party could possibly deliver.

RELATED

Coulter Not Happy With Gingrich's South Carolina Win

Difference Between Streamlining the Military and Isolationism

Ben Bankson's Interview

2011-11-20T13:20:00.001-05:00

LTE: New Tribune Editor

2011-11-14T22:46:00.001-05:00

As a long-time local libertarian activist, I was happy to hear about the changes in the editorial staff at the Asheville Tribune (“Who is Clint Parker,” November 10, 2011). I remember, not so long ago, when the paper's editor was Bill Fishburne, a religious conservative who took every opportunity to deride libertarians and their political principles of individual rights, limited government and free markets. Then the Tribune installed John North, an outspoken Austrian-school economist, with his articles on the Federal Reserve central banking cartel, fiat currency debasement and Constitutional politician Ron Paul. Now, the new editor is a self-described “Constitutional libertarian," who promises us a series on individual rights. My, how times have changed.

Peter Schiff at Occupy Wall Street

2011-10-27T23:57:00.001-04:00

LTE: Occupy Wall Street

2011-10-25T20:41:00.000-04:00

Occupy Wall Street protests are misguided
Asheville Mountain Xpress
October 26, 2011

Dear Editor,

Capitalism is morally good. It also happens to work remarkably well, raising millions around the world out of poverty and providing the marketplace with a myriad of life-enhancing material goods. This social system of economic and political freedom is the only one that fully recognizes, respect and protects individual rights. It is a system that we do not have in this country and have never had. We have had only greater or lesser degrees of economic freedom. We were the closest to capitalism during the inventive period of the late 19th Century, when most of the great innovations and conveniences we live with today were invented (phones, cameras, lighting, cars, appliances, etc.). Today, entreprenuers, like tech visionary Steve Jobs struggle, to provide society with innovations that give individuals more power over their lives.

Our current crisis is the result of government intervention in the marketplace through regulation, taxation, welfare, economic incentives, bailouts, central banking, fiat currency and rank cronyism. We live in a mixed economy. It is a mix of some capitalism and some socialism; some freedom and some political control. Half good and half bad equates to bad. And what we have today is bad. Businessmen, lobbyists and special interest groups are buying politicians because politicians are for sale. When you first hang up a shingle, buyers soon appear and compete for favors, handouts and bailouts, all at the expense of the rest of society.

The “Occupy Wall Street” protests are misguided by focusing on only one half of the equation. You cannot cure a disease with a misdiagnosis. Those angry protestors in New York and Asheville have misdiagnosed the problems they accurately perceive and would be better served by properly identifying the true source of their grievances: Government.

For an entertaining video on these points, visit econstories.com.

Election Results

2011-10-11T21:31:00.001-04:00

Makes Me Want To Holler

2011-09-25T12:00:00.003-04:00

Money. We make it
'Fore we see it, you take it
Oh, make you wanna holler
The way they do my life.

LTE: Food Trucks

2011-09-02T15:14:00.001-04:00

Asheville Tribune Executive Editor David Morgan argues ("Downtown Asheville without restaurants?," 9/1/2011) against the operation of food trucks downtown because they might provide some competition to restaurants and this, in turn, he speculates, would lead to a ghost town.

He first states that it is the government's role to "make the rules for free market competition reasonably equal and fair." He is right. To wit: government should not interfere in economic activity and should allow the greatest possible economic freedom between entrepreneurs and consumers, trading value for value to mutual benefit. But then Mr. Morgan puzzles us when he states that in allowing food trucks to operate downtown, local government is, by doing so, "picking one kind of business that they like or favor;” namely, food trucks.

Yet, Mr. Morgan would have government actively shield restauranteurs from food truck competition. As if Mr. Morgan is advocating that government ought to pick one kind of business that they like or favor; namely, restaurants. This is a contradiction. Mr. Morgan establishes a sound principle and then proceeds to violate it.

It would appear that Mr. Morgan is confused about the proper role of government as well as the rights of business people and their customers. One, food truck operators have a right to conduct a business that does not violate the rights of others. Two, consumers have a right to select from an array of food offerings without the interference of government or newspaper editors. Also, it is not the government's proper role to protect businesses from competition. On the contrary, it is the government's proper role to allow for maximum competition in a free market.

In using the force of government to protect one business over another – restaurants -- it is Mr. Morgan who would use government to violate individual rights and, therefore, turn Asheville into a ghost town by dictating economic activity to free adults.

RELATED

David Morgan's lame-ass response:
Asheville Tribune LTE

Candidate Questionnaire: Step Right Up

2011-09-01T21:56:00.002-04:00

1. Are you planning to attend “The Step Right Up” on Sept. 22nd?

Yes.

2. Tell us something about your transportation habits. How do you get around Asheville?

I always drive an automobile wherever I go.

3. What recent advancement in Asheville’s transportation infrastructure do you think has had the greatest impact on our community? Why?

All of the parking decks going up downtown are a great improvement. They help automobile drivers. I'm also happy to hear that city council voted unamimously to approve the lease of 62 new parking spaces from AT&T near Grove Arcade.

4. Even if you haven’t held elected office, you’ve likely been an active member of Asheville’s community. Please describe one thing you’ve done to make our city friendlier to pedestrians, cyclists and/or bus riders.

I've done nothing to make our city friendlier to pedestrians, cyclists and/or bus riders.

5a) As a council member, would you advocate for the implementation of the city’s Bicycle Master Plan? If so, in what specific ways? If not, why not?

I would not advocate the implementation of the city's Bicycle Master Plan. It's not a priority and we can't afford it. People prefer cars. The city’s current resurfacing schedule is 81 years. The priority is paving streets.

5b) If you are a current council member, have you advocated for the implementation of the city’s Bicycle Master Plan? In what specific ways?

n/a

6a) As a council member, would you advocate for the implementation of theTransit Master Plan? If you’d advocate for the plan, how would you encourage increasing ridership? If you wouldn’t advocate for the plan, why not?

I do not support implementation of the Transit Master Plan. Transit services should support actual transportation needs and not the development schemes of central planners. The government should get out of the transit business and eliminate regulatory controls that hamper the development of private sector transportation services. The city should immediately develop and publish a Request for Proposals to private contractors to provide transit functions.

6b) If you are a current council member, in what specific ways have you advocated for the passage and/or implementation of the Transit Master Plan? What are some of the challenges with the implementation of the transit plan?

n/a

7. What role do you think greenways play in Asheville’s future?

Greenways play a valuable role in Asheville's future but we can't afford them.

8. Past City Councils invested in planning efforts. Our city has a Sustainability Management Plan, a Greenway Master Plan, a Bicycle Master Plan, a Transit Master Plan, and a Pedestrian Thoroughfare Plan. The next step is to fund the implementation of these plans. In these hard economic times, how would you propose to fund these plans? Or, do these plans need to be cut? If you think the plans need to be trimmed, what plans or pieces of plans should be cut?

The cost for implementing all current community plans is $200M. Revenue options are either maxed out, declining or no longer available. The only way to fund any of these programs is to cut spending. The only way to cut spending is to convert the City of Asheville to a contract city that outsources all basic services, other than police and fire, to private industry.

9. What is the most compelling reason to improve transportation options in Asheville?

Actual demonstrated need.

Food Truck Public Comment

2011-08-25T16:30:00.000-04:00

These are my comments at the city council public hearing on mobile food vending regulations:

"There has been some concern about enforcement expressed and I'd like to review the status of this issue. Enforcement was cited as the ONLY concern coming out of the Planning and Zoning Commission. It was the reason the commission gave these regulations a negative recommendation as a consequence of a three to three tie on the vote. The regulations then went to the Public Safety Committee for a review specifically of enforcement issues and received a unanimous vote in support of the regulations and the enforcement capabilities on the part of city staff and police. This should, in effect, nullify the three negative votes from P&Z, resulting essentially in a unaminous positive recommendation from Planning and Zoning.

Also, we should not look only to city staff and police to address the issue of enforcement. Vendors have an interest in not only following the rules themselves but in pointing out violations of those rules by others. There is a local mobile food vending coalition that can perform a watchdog function in cooperation with proper authorities. Also, the general public is integral in making these regulations work for everyone. Many instances of code violation in Asheville are complaint-driven and I don't doubt that there are plenty of local citizens who would be happy to help keep an eye out for violations and document and report them. With the public sector and the private sector partnering in a comprehensive enforcement solution, it would seem to me that this is more than adequate to address enforcement concerns."

Candidate Questionnaire: Asheville Tribune

2011-08-25T15:54:00.000-04:00

1. Describe your leadership style.

I prefer the project management style of leadership that distributes leadership across a measurable sequence of specific activities aimed at achieving a concrete goal on a defined schedule.

2. Name three famous people with governance philosophies similar to yours.

1) Margaret Thatcher. 2) Gary Johnson. 3) Ron Paul. In that order.

3. What do you want to change in city government?

I want to change the very structure of local government. I would like to see Asheville move toward becoming a contract city in the way that dozens of other cities in the country have, such as the very successful Sandy Springs, Georgia. A contract city outsources all city services except police and fire.

4. What does the oath of office mean to you?

It means making a public and explicit personal committment to exercise policy-making power in the protection of individual rights, including property rights.

5. Where do you draw the line between property rights and community rights?

There are no community rights. Only individuals have rights. Property rights are paramount and should be protected under the rule of objective law. Communities have a strong interest in the protection of property rights. The strong protection of property rights resolves conflicts and preserves peace in a community.

6. How would you use your office to create jobs? Increase affordable housing stock? Reduce our carbon footprint?

1) It is not the proper role of government to create jobs. That is the role of the private sector. Government interference in the economy can only violate rights, destroy wealth and force capital from where it belongs to where it does not belong. The only positive influence government can have in the economy is to circumscribe its action to protecting the right of individuals to engage in productive economic activity without interference so long as that activity does not violate the rights of others. 2) Housing is unaffordable because of zoning, taxation and the high cost of construction and business-creation. We can increase affordable housing stock by reducing government-created barriers. 3) There is no need to reduce our carbon footprint.

7. What are the pros and cons of public/private partnerships?

The pros of public/private partnerships are better services, increased responsiveness and reduced costs. There are no cons.

8. What additional revenue streams would you pursue for the city?

None. The city needs to reduce costs by adopting the public/private partnership model of governance.

9. Should the economic downturn continue, what municipal expenditures would you be willing to cut?

I would be willing to cut all of them except police and fire and contract with private industry to provide basic city services in return for reduced costs and greater efficiency. Absent that, we could start with money-losers like the golf course, the civic center and street festivals.

10. If the federal government offered another round of stimulus, what would you want to procure for the city?

A stamped return envelope. Stimulus money is borrowed, stolen and counterfeited at the expense of every American, young, old and yet to come.

City Council: Food Truck Regulation

2011-08-24T00:28:00.004-04:00

My comments on food truck regulations at city council: http://t.co/BvbasDE #avlgov

Candidate Questionnaire: WNC For Change

2011-08-18T21:13:00.001-04:00

1. What do you think the Asheville Police Department should do to improve community policing that would enhance the safety of communities vulnerable to hate crimes (including race, gender and sexual orientation)?

I do not support entertaining a special category of rights for groups of similar individuals. I only support the protection of individual rights. It is the proper role of government to protect individual rights, including property rights, and the safety of all citizens of Asheville without regard to their membership in any special elevated group. However, local law enforcement must be trained to fully understand what this means in the daily discharge of their duty. It means a dispassionate and vigilant pursuit of peacekeeping and equal treatment and protection against harm regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation or any other differentiated segment of society.

2. Would you support eliminating automobile traffic from one of Asheville’s major downtown streets and converting this street into a pedestrian mall (similar to the Pearl Street Mall in Boulder, CO)?

This is something I would support but we don’t have the money. We would need to accommodate parking in surrounding areas and pay for construction, signage, traffic studies and staff time. The schedule just for repaving streets extends 81 years. New sidewalk construction is being entirely financed by debt.People prefer driving automobiles over other modes of transportation and paving streets would be my priority in the near term. If Asheville could outsource a majority of basic city services through a public/private partnership form of government, the efficiencies and savings gained would then allow us to move to second tier priorities. And I would favor the use of any surplus funds for a pedestrian mall only upon consensus from the whole community through a referendum process.

3. If elected, what are the three most important things you want to accomplish during your four year term on City Council?

1) To maintain consistent and vigorous control of over-regulation; 2) to reduce the size and scope of local government to its essentials; and 3) to encourage city government to move toward the use of private industry in providing services, leading to better services, greater responsiveness and lower costs.

4. Who are the five largest contributors to your campaign thus far, and how much did each contribute?

I have filed with the Board of Election as a campaign that will not spend over $1,000 and the contributions I receive are not subject to campaign finance disclosure or public review.

5. Do you support President Obama’s initiative to build the foundation for a green energy economy, tackle the issue of climate change and protect our environment? Explain why or why not.

The theory of global warming has been proven false and, either way, I would not support any initiative by the any government to interfere in the economy. So-called “green energy” has not been proven viable, cannot drive the energy marketplace and is not demanded by consumers. We live in a modern global industrial society and our current energy needs demand the use of oil, which is plentiful and cheap for the long term. Until an alternative can be developed by the private sector without forcible taxpayer subsidies, we must and should rely on oil. Environmental protections under prevailing conditions will require maximum economic freedom and continued technological advancement and this will only be achieved by free minds and free markets, not by government mandates, redistribution of wealth and special interest lobbying.

RELATED
Green Jobs, Red Faces
The fact that President Obama's "green jobs" campaign has been an enormously expensive failure is now so glaringly obvious even the New York Times can't ignore it any longer.

Food Truck Latest

2011-08-17T13:47:00.003-04:00

Mobile Food Vending Ordinance (Proposed) -Ed Glines, Planner II

Enforcement of Mobile Food Vending -Shannon Tuch, Assistant Planning Director

Enforcement of Mobile Food Vending -Shannon Tuch, Assistant Planning Director

Mountain Xpress: City Council Candidates

2011-08-16T18:34:00.012-04:00

The Unedited Interview

WHY ARE YOU RUNNING FOR CITY COUNCIL?

I'm running for city council mainly to give the citizens of Asheville a choice. I would represent balance in city hall. Secondly, it's difficult to keep up with all of the complexities of local government. It's practically a full time job. So I've decided to make it my full time job by running for a seat on council.

WHAT ISSUES ARE YOU RUNNING ON?

I'm running primarily on the issues of over-regulation and the growth of government. Over-regulation hampers economic activity and job-creation and we need to liberalize our rules and regulations. Also, current trends in the growth of government are unsustainable. According to our city manager, the cost of implementing current community plans is $200M. Road resurfacing is on an 81 year schedule. Raising taxes is not an option because it will further drive job creators and residents out of the city. Forced annexation is not an option due to recent legislation in Raleigh. Cutting down government to a bare-bones operation indefinitely is highly undesirable and a reversal of progress. I propose restructuring local government to take advantage of the proven efficiencies of private industry through the Public/Private Partnership model of governance that has been successfully implemented in many less progressive cities around the country.

RELATED

Detail of the phony ban from Scrutiny Hooligan
Tim Peck | September 25, 2010
I am currently banned from the Scrutiny Hooligans community weblog, created by now-council member Gordon Smith, on the pretext that I violated commenting rules.

City Council Campaign

2011-08-15T15:31:00.000-04:00

P&Z: Food Truck Regulation

2011-08-15T11:47:00.006-04:00

** UPDATED **

Mobile Food Vending Proposed Ordinance Changes 7/8/11 Review

New definitions:

Mobile food site means an individual parcel where mobile food vending is permitted to occur on a permanent basis

Mobile food vending means commercial food service sales by a mobile food vendor on a parcel of land outside of right-of-way areas. Sites approved for permanent mobile food vending are classified as a mobile food site.

Mobile food vendor means an individual who owns and operates a vehicle (truck or trailer with a maximum of two axles that includes a mobile kitchen that supports the sale and/or preparation of food and non-alcoholic beverages which is licensed and approved to walk-up customers.

Temporary uses (already exist in the UDO) - minor changes proposed here:

Temporary mobile food sales. Temporary mobile food vendors, pushcarts or stands may be allowed in all non-residential districts outside of the downtown area Central Business District, corresponding to the Downtown Design Review Overlay District, provided that uses/structures for mobile food sales are compliant with the following standards.

Hours of operation. Temporary food vendors and stands shall be allowed from 6:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m. with specific hours of operation indicated on the temporary use permit. Locations within 200’ of a residential use will have reduced hours of 6:00 a.m. until midnight.

Proximity to public right-of-way. All sales shall be conducted at least ten feet from all public rights-of-way.

Health department approval. Any food service operation that sells, prepares or serves food must obtain an approved mobile food service permit from the Buncombe County Health Department and is subject to inspection.

Display of permit. A copy of the valid, approved permit must be attached to the exterior of the truck or mobile kitchen, in clear view of all patrons.

Proposed wording amendment to make mobile vending a permanent use on a site. In order to establish this use the following regulations must be followed:

a. Use Districts: Office, Office II, Office Business, Community Business I, Community Business II, Institutional, Highway Business, Regional Business, Central Business, River, Commercial Industrial, Light Industrial, Industrial, Urban Village, Neighborhood Corridor, Urban Place

b. Permitting: Permitting to establish mobile food vending as a permanent use will incorporate the following permits:

1. Permitting the mobile food site: Mobile food vending will only be allowed on parcels with an approved development permit with the actual number of vendors permitted dependent on site conditions and the ability to comply with spacing requirements outlined in section ‘c.’ below.

2. Permitting the mobile food vendor: A mobile food vendor is required to obtain a permit for each separately approved mobile food site where vending will occur, according to the following regulations and also meeting regulations outlined in ‘d.’ below:

a. A mobile food vendor is permitted to vend at more than a single site but each location must be approved by individual permit.

b. The Mobile Food Vendor permits will be renewed annually along with requirements for the Buncombe County Health Department.

c. The number of permits issued to individual mobile food vendors for the downtown Central Business District will be limited to 10. Vendors may vend from multiple locations subject to the ability to meet other requirements.

d. Mobile food vendor permits will run with the calendar year and existing vendors will have the option to renew.

e. Mobile food vendor permits shall include the addresses and hours of operation for the business. Hours may be changed with 48 hours notice to the Development Services Center.

f. Permits from Buncombe County and the City of Asheville shall be visually displayed on the mobile kitchen.

g. Copies of other required permits will be submitted with the mobile food vendor permit application.

h. Operating without a valid permit will be considered a criminal misdemeanor and enforceable as such. Violations of the approved permit for the mobile food vendor shall be considered a violation of this chapter and subject to the enforcement and penalty provisions of article XVIII of this chapter

c. Site Improvements: The permit to establish a mobile food site will require approval of a site plan illustrating the proposed placement of the mobile food vendor(s) and the following items:

1. Access into the site and parking for vendor patrons at the rate of one parking space per mobile food vendor (applicable only if off-street parking is required in the zoning district).

2. Landscaping- The site will be improved to meet the standard for street trees. In addition the affected area of the site will provide a minimum eight-foot wide property line buffer* when directly adjacent to residentially zoned and used parcels. This buffer should be planted to include a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs to result in a vegetative screen that is 75% opaque year-round. As an alternative, the buffer may be reduced by 50% with the installation of an opaque fence. Existing buildings that screen the impacts of the mobile food vendor(s) will be considered a substitute for the property line buffer or portions thereof.

3. Sidewalks: Sidewalks will be required along the frontage lines of the parcel if the road is designated on the City’s needed linkages sidewalk list.

4. Site maneuvering: Each mobile food vendor will need sufficient space for maneuvering onto the lot, for safe access by pedestrians, and for emergency response.

5. Setbacks: Setbacks for individual mobile food vendors will be ten feet from side and rear property lines and other parked vehicles (if any). There is not a required setback from the frontage line except that no portion of the mobile food vendor will be permitted to encroach into the right-of-way.

6. Other site features: Permitting for the mobile food site will take into consideration the ability for the primary site user to maintain compliance with minimum parking standards (if there is one) referencing the specific zoning district standards as described in the UDO.

7. Permanent electric power infrastructure is the preferred method for supplying power at the mobile food site. If this is pursued, then the proper applicable permits must be obtained.

d. Other requirements for mobile food vendors:

No mobile food vendors will be permitted to vend in a public street, sidewalk or right-of-way.
All mobile food vendors are required to maintain permits issued by the Buncombe County Health Department and the City of Asheville will defer to Buncombe County for health and food safety regulations.
All mobile food vendors shall leave the mobile food site when they are not in operation.
Aside from festivals or special events that are permitted under separate event permits, the mobile food vendor will be required to maintain a list of the location(s) for operating the vending unit.
Mobile food vendors will be limited to the sale of food and non-alcoholic drinks. The sale of other merchandise or services will not be permitted.
Mobile food vendors are encouraged to use recyclable and/ or compostable containers, cups and utensils.
Hours of operation: (a) Mobile food vendors will be limited to the hours of 6:00 a.m. until midnight if they are within 200 feet of a residential use (locations in the downtown Central Business District excluded); (b.) Mobile food vendors who are not located within 200 feet of a residential use or are located in the downtown Central Business District may not operate between the hours of 3:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.
The mobile food vendor(s) will be required to remove trash and litter from the mobile food site each day and to maintain the cleanliness of the site during hours of operation. The vendor must provide a minimum of one receptacle for use by patrons.
The mobile food site will be subject to the outdoor lighting and noise ordinance standards established by the City of Asheville.
Outside power for the mobile food vendors may be provided by electric power pedestals as a preferred method or by a generator(s) operating at 65 decibels*2 or less and which are properly attached per manufacturer’s standards to the mobile food vehicle. Mobile food vendors utilizing a generator may not operate closer than 100 feet to a residential use, unless the generator operates at less than 50 decibels in which case distance will not be restricted except by other setbacks.
Vendors may not bring tables and chairs to the mobile food site except that a single chair may be brought by the vendor for use by staff. In addition stand-alone tents, shade clothes, steps, etc. may not be brought to the site by vendors.
Mobile food vendors shall maintain 20 feet between other mobile food vendors based on fire code separation.
Vendors will be subject to random inspections to ensure compliance with all applicable requirements.
Signage: Mobile food vendors may have signage on their vehicle, not to exceed 32 square feet total per vehicle including letters and/or logo advertising the business. Square footage may be divided between a maximum of two faces. No roof signs will be allowed. A single attached menu board totaling 6 square feet is also allowed for each truck.

Items considered but not included in the proposed ordinance:

Should we (or can we) restrict permits to Buncombe County residents only? If not, should there be a higher fee for non-City or non-Buncombe County residents? Not recommended at this time
Should there be a food truck review board of some type? Wait one year and see if there is a need.
Should the temporary use applicability be extended to the CBD? Not recommended at this time because this other alternative is being proposed
Who will be enforcing this during non-Planning Department hours? Same entity during the day? Staff is working to resolve enforcement questions and will be meeting with the Public Safety Committee
Need/funding/justification for an economic impact study? There are not funds to conduct an economic impact study
Are bathrooms required for employees or patrons? The building code does not require bathrooms for either
For the downtown Central Business District, there may need to be a minimum amount of time vendors must operate to keep the permit ‘active’ since the total number of permits is proposed to be limited

Additional items of concern discussed by the Downtown Commission and included in their motion to approve:

Enforcement of specific regulations in the ordinance and also enforcement for vendors operating without permits (addressed through ordinance amendments proposed by APD)
There are questions about permit fees and whether fees would be enough to cover staff expenses for enforcement (fees for full cost recovery are not typical, particularly with zoning fees. Need for additional fees may not be necessary with assistance from APD)
The ordinance will need to be reviewed after a period of time to see how it is working; this period may be about 12 months or after a full operational season, or at any point in time if a public safety/welfare issue is identified

** UPDATE -- August 16, 2011 **

The regulation was reviewed by the Public Safety Committee. They were satisfied with the enforcement solutions and approved of the regulation with the addition that unpermitted vending will be considered a Class III criminal misdemeanor. Fines could amount to $500. Third violation could result in 3 months jail time.

Candidate Questionnaire: Sierra Club

2011-07-29T16:01:00.011-04:00

** UPDATED **

THE WENOCA GROUP OF THE SIERRA CLUB 2011 ENDORSEMENT QUESTIONNAIRE

1) Would you like your candidacy to be endorsed by the Sierra Club and why?

I’m happy to receive endorsements from any group interested in my candidacy.

2) Are you a member of the Sierra Club or any other environmental group?

No, I am not a member of the Sierra Club or any other environmental group.

3) What environmental issues have you been involved with? Did you achieve any success?

I have not been involved with any environmental issues.

4) What do you anticipate will be the most important environmental issues you will face if elected? What actions do you plan to take to address these issues?

The most important environmental issue I anticipate facing if elected is the pervasive but false notion that the city needs to reduce its carbon footprint. I will use facts, evidence and logic to educated the public and my colleagues regarding this falsehood and vote against any measure that seeks to satisfy a purely faith-based interference in the economy.

5) Do you consider urban sprawl to be an issue in Asheville, and if so, what would you do to minimize it? Would you support the continuation of the current “density bonus” for new development in the city?

Yes, suburban sprawl is an issue in Asheville. It is caused by zoning, property taxes, over-regulation and ideological policy-making. I do not support the concept of the density bonus, which entices developers to build larger housing complexes so long as they agree to lose money on 20% of their property. The best way to curtail suburban sprawl is to roll back its causes.

6) How would you protect open space in Asheville & Buncombe County?

The protection of private property is the best way to protect open space. Biltmore Estates, Grove Park Inn and Beaver Lake Park are good examples.

7) Given the rapid rate of development in the Asheville area, how would you deal with the problems of building on steep slopes? Would you support making the city’s steep slope ordinances at least as strong as the county’s?

I would advocate for the repeal of the steep slope ordinance and instead advocate for a differential tax on developing environmentally sensitive areas. I would advocate for increased penalties for fraud and failed slope development. I would demand that state legislators strengthen enforcement of the protection of private property in claims of harm from bad development practices.

8) Asheville City Council has done a great deal regarding public transportation. What do you think we need to do to make it more effective? What are your ideas on alternative transportation, e.g. bike paths?

To make public transportation more effective, we need sell our fleet of busses, outsource transit services to a private company and eliminate taxicab licenses and fare mandates. Bike paths are desirable but unaffordable under our present form of government. We need to convert to a public-private partnership form of government to achieve the kind of efficiency that would allow for the enormous expense a system of bike paths would require.

9) Do you think Asheville's storm water and erosion regulations function well and are adequately enforced? Are there enough personnel to adequately monitor environmental regulations?

Asheville’s storm water and erosion regulations function well and are adequately enforced and there are enough personnel to adequately monitor environmental regulations.

10) Given that Global Climate Change is with us, Asheville City council has adopted a number of energy policies including: Cities for Climate Protection, reduction of Asheville’s carbon emissions by 80%, and adoption of LEED Gold Standard for green building.

-Are you familiar with these programs and what other measures would you proposed to reduce our carbon footprint?

-Do you support the continuation of these programs? Are you willing to reinvest all or part of the savings from these programs to continue to increase energy efficiency?

-Would you support putting Solar Panels on city buildings?

The theory of global warming has been proven to be false and there is no need to reduce our carbon footprint. The only practical reason for converting to solar power is cost saving and this form of power production is not cost effective. The LEED certification is a valuable private-sector set of standards that can be adopted voluntarily as individual property owners so choose and for their own reasons.

11) City Council recently voted to reduce water rates for residential users and increase them over the next 5 years for businesses and other larger users to reduce the amount that residents subsidize business users. Some would like to repeal or delay this effort. Do you support or oppose efforts to change this recent decision?

I oppose efforts to unfairly treat businesses differently and charge them more for water. Charges for water should be based on actual usage and market rates.

12) The Planning and Zoning Commission has increased authority to approve new building construction in Asheville rather than city council. Would you support the appointment of more neighborhood leaders and other citizens who do not have ties to the development industry to this commission?

I support appointing members to the Planning and Zoning Commission who have knowledge, experience and expertise in matters that come before that advisory body, including those with ties to the development industry.

13) Would you be willing to further restrict Electronic Billboards in the city?

I would not be willing to further restrict electronic billboards in the city. Restricting speech is an improper exercise of police power. Citizens can voluntarily choose to patronize businesses who advertise on electronic billboards if they find them unpleasant.

14) Would you be willing to lobby the Tourism Development Authority to help fund Greenways and Parks in Asheville?

I would not be willing to lobby the Tourism Development Authority to help fund greenways and parks in Asheville. Buncombe County government should not be in the business of developing tourism or interfering in the economy in any way and Asheville should fund its own parks and greenways. Under a public-private form of government, Asheville would achieve a substantial savings that would allow for these types of expenditures through a referendum process and only after fundamental core services, such as police and fire, have been adequately addresses.

After filling out this questionnaire please return it by email to: Ken Brame kenbrame@sbcglobal.net or mail it to 15 Morning Star Dr., Leicester, NC by August 1, 2011. Interviews will follow.

Thank you for your interest in public service.

Ken Brame
Local Sierra Club Political Chair

** UPDATE - THURSDAY AUGUST 4, 2011 **

Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 11:31 PM, Ken Brame wrote:
Since you were the first person to return your questionnaire, we would like to offer you the first interview slot for our interviews. Would you be available for an interview this Friday afternoon, August 5th, at 4 PM? We would expect the interview to last no more than one hour.
Ken

Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 11:30 PM: Ken Brame of the Sierra Club called to cancel the candidate interview. Why? They just read my answers to their questionnaire.

That's So Asheville

2011-07-28T10:49:00.000-04:00

Candidate Questionnaire: Scrutiny Hooligan

2011-07-18T17:01:00.013-04:00

How long have you been a ScruHoo reader? Tell us how much you love this blog.

I started reading Scrutiny Hooligan way back when it was just run by Gordon Smith himself and he was making those over-the-top "Chainsaw Charlie" parody videos (now scrubbed from the internet). That must have been around 2006. Three years ago I was banned from the site because I offered challenging opinions which his administrator found irksome. I was banned under the phony pretext of breaking a rule. Now the site is quite awful and the worst example of ideological echo-chamber nonsense in the Asheville cyber-community.

So why are you running for City Council?

Following all the workings of city government is daunting for the ordinary citizen. And that's what I am: an ordinary citizen of Asheville. It's not enough to attend weekly city council meetings. You have to attend regular committee meetings, commission meetings and community meetings. And you have to research and understand the issues and the backgrounds of a wide range of public policy matters. Then comes analysis and policy recommendations to communicate to lawmakers. It's really a full time job. So, I've decided to do just that: to make it my full time job by running for a seat on city council.

What’s your skill set?

I'm trained as a technology consultant, data analyst and project manager, but I also have a background in economic theory and political philosophy. Also, I am the only candidate that understands the proper role of government; which is to protect individual rights, including property rights and economic liberty.

Any recent Council decisions that you’d like to comment about?

I'm happy that city council finally came around to see that URTV was a disaster and had been for years and pulled funding. Although, the RFP for a new venture is so overloaded with requirements, I don't see how anyone could possibly take it up. Also, I'm still curious as to how the new Ingles Super Market on Smoky Park Highway avoided the two-year-long protests, criticisms and resistance that greeted Walmart when they proposed a Super Center on the same site several years ago. The new Ingles will be almost twice as large when finished. (Of course, the woeful trailer park residents are long gone now, and so is the $7,500/per unit displacement money that Walmart offered them.) However, I'm glad that the project was approved with little fanfare, virtually no public outcry and was able to avoid the politicized harassment, over-regulation and extortion that Walmart was subjected to which caused them to relocate just outside the city limits, taking the sales and property taxes with them.

What do you do when you’re not working?

I do research and drink alcohol.

Who’s your favorite Beatle?

George Martin. He took an extraordinary talent set, added his own to it with little credit and multiplied the overall value. I like that. [Real answer: George Harrison]

Challenge: In twenty-five words or less, sum up your goals for a term on City Council.

To move toward the Public/Private Partnership model that has successfully transformed cities like Sandy Springs, Georgia, into an efficient, effective and proper local government.

RELATED

Asheville

2011-07-10T21:55:00.000-04:00

Radio: Food Truck Regulation

2011-07-09T11:37:00.003-04:00

Tim Peck on 880AM Local Edge Radio on July 9, 2011, to talk about the current state of #avlfoodtruck regulation in #Asheville.

Food Truck Regulation

2011-06-29T19:12:00.007-04:00

[UPDATED]

For the past twenty-five years, mobile food trucks have been prohibited from operating in the downtown Asheville area (although, they are not prohibited from operating in other areas inside the city). The popularity and prudence of the mobile food truck operation nationwide during tough economic times has prompted the city to reconsider the wisdom of this ban. The City of Asheville is presently considering removing the ban and is drafting new regulations for governing the operation of mobile food trucks in the downtown area on private property. This task has been outsourced to the Downtown Commission which, in turn, has delegated the task to a subcommittee dedicated to this specific issue.

In the course of identifying issues and concerns and developing an initial set of regulatory guidelines, the subcommittee has defined some rules that seem to fit within the proper scope of government oversight and some that seem not to fit within that scope.

The new regulations, if adopted in their present form, would allow the operation of food trucks downtown under certain conditions. They must allow ample space for the ingress and egress of pedestrians, automobiles and emergency vehicles. That is right and proper. It ensures that food trucks do not interfere with the free movement of individuals, police cars, fire trucks and ambulances. This helps to protect the rights of others.

Some rules included in the draft regulation are simply redundant; such as compliance with health and safety laws, noise ordinances and permitting processes. These should be more properly included in a manual for vendors and not a new set of regulations. These types of rules apply to all businesses and do not need to be repeated in regulations only governing food trucks.

Other rules, in fact, the bulk of them, seem to be an attempt to control factors that do not serve the purpose of protecting individual rights, which is government's sole legitimate purpose. For example, there is a rule limiting hours of operation. No explanation is given. Some restaurants are open 24 hours a day or at least late into the night and early morning. Why this limitation on food trucks? If there is no street business at 4:30AM, then business-people will have the sense to determine that it is not profitable to operate at this hour. However, if it is indeed profitable, then by what justification does the city shut them down?

Another rule would restrict the distance of a food truck to a restaurant to no less than 200 feet. Again, no explanation is given. Some restaurants are located side-by-side. Why this proximity restriction on food trucks? If this is for the purpose of protecting restaurants from competition, then I would remind the regulators that it is not the government's proper role to protect businesses from competition, but rather to ensure that the rights of all parties are protected from violation. No business owner has the right to be protected from competition through the use of force.

A rule establishing a limit to the total number of food trucks is included in the draft regulation. The reason given is that this would protect downtown from “too many” vendors. How does a government agent determine what constitutes “too many” over against the consuming marketplace? In a free market, if there is greater supply than demand, that is, if the market is saturated, only then are there objectively “too many” food trucks. By what other criteria can someone conclude that there are either too many or too few food trucks other than the arbitrary opinion of the regulator? The same would apply to any desire on the part of the regulators to limit permits to locals or prohibit permits to chains. These are matters best decided by business-people and the consuming public. If consumers have a distaste for Taco Bell or McDonald's selling street food, they can voluntarily make their displeasure known by avoiding these vendors. If a vendor from another county finds it profitable to drive for miles and set up a food truck every day in downtown Asheville for happy customers, then who is the government functionary to tell them they are not welcome? And by what right do regulators limit my food choices? If I want to eat a falafel downtown, who, at present, stands in my way? Local government.

One rule states that the permitting of a vending site on private property should “take into consideration the availability of sufficient parking for the primary site user.” Once again, how is this the business of government? If the property owner has determined that a food truck operation does not substantially hamper the ability of his primary customers from accessing his business, that should be the property owner's decision.

There is another rule that would mandate food truck vendors only offer recyclable containers, cups and utensils to customers. While this may be a laudable gesture, there is no justification for forcing vendors to make it. Besides increasing the cost of doing business for the vendor and the customer, it is morally repugnant for government to impose a set of values as a requirement for operating. Again, propriety of this measure is best left to the consuming public. If customers value recyclable containers, then they can vote with their dollars. They can also use persuasion to convince others to their point of view rather than use the coercive force of government to do so. If they cannot persuade, then perhaps they have a weak case to make.

Another standard being established is called “no roaming.” Again, I find no legitimate reason for this standard. When asked at a recent presentation on this issue, Warren Hansen, the Street Food Czar of Madison, Wisconsin, stated that disallowing roaming makes it easier for inspectors to find the vendors, it establishes a “sense of order” and helps repeat customers find vendors in fixed locations. On the first point, why can't they pick up a phone? Inspectors should have a list of vendors and their contact numbers. Or why not a GPS tracking system? Inspectors could easily locate all vendors on their iPhones and map an inspection route to satisfy their convenience. Why burden the vendor to satisfy the inspector? On the second point, it is not the government's job to create senses of order. And by whose standard? This is never explained. Third, if a vendor finds it important to stay in one place for the benefit of repeat customers, then they will choose this option. If it is more profitable to roam, then they should be free to do so to their own maximum benefit.

The worst provision in the draft regulation is the explicit requirement that vendors purchase a specific type of technology to mitigate the noise that now comes from conventional gas-powered electric generators. The regulation, as of this writing, would only permit either plug-in power or generators that employ inverter technology. It's true that typical generators make lots of noise. And it's true that inverter generators are whisper-quiet. Thank goodness for innovative technology. But demanding that vendors make use of a prescribed technology to achieve the mitigation of a nuisance is wholly unreasonable. We don't know what technologies will be available next year or what creative solutions vendors can imagine. Inverter generators are so expensive that requiring them on mobile food trucks would be effectively prohibitive. Any regulations allowing food trucks downtown would be completely subverted under this provision, which would price poor entrepreneurs out of the market. For some, a mobile food truck operation is the entry point into the food delivery marketplace. Instead, the regulation should establish a reasonable set of noise standards and let the vendors determine the method of compliance. Some may buy the expensive equipment as the best solution. Others may opt, for example, to build a cheap wooden container lined with sound reduction materials in order to come into compliance with the spirit of the law; which is to mitigate noise.

The bottom line for me is this: When I see mobile food vendors, I see poor people making a living and pleasing the community. I see creative entrepreneurs risking their own capital and precious time fulfilling their dreams in a welcoming marketplace. Reasonable regulation geared toward protecting the public health and safety is the proper purview of local government. But regulation that is redundant, controlling, prescriptive and prohibitive does not serve the interest of protecting rights, but instead serves to violate them. I hope that the city can develop a set of regulations governing mobile food trucks downtown that consciously errs, if at all, on the side of economic freedom, job creation and the pursuit of happiness for all citizens.

The Mobile Food Vending Subcommittee will now submit its findings to the Downtown Commission, who will then submit their recommendations to the city for reviews, a public hearing and, finally, a vote by city council to become law. I wish the City of Asheville godspeed in lifting the ban on mobile food trucks in downtown Asheville.

**UPDATE**

The Mobile Food Truck Subcommittee has sent a revised version of their recommended regulatory language to the Downtown Commission and the commission has voted to approve with modification. The vote was 7-2. The modifications include extending hours of operation to 3:00am, striking the restaurant proximity clause, striking the 50-gallon trash can mandate, striking the inverter technology generator mandate and striking the recyclable container mandate.

Radio: Food Trucks

2011-06-25T19:11:00.000-04:00

Tim Peck calls in to Local Edge Radio on 880AM to discuss allowing mobile food vendors in downtown Asheville. 6/21/2011, hour 2.

Coexist?

2011-06-14T14:39:00.005-04:00

Food Trucks = Competition

2011-06-09T10:21:00.010-04:00

Suzy Salwa Phillips, Gypsy Queen Cuisine Lebanese Street Food Truck

Feels food trucks would be harmful to Asheville
Anne Fitzgerald Smith | Asheville Citizen-Times | June 8, 2011

The Asheville Independent Restaurant Association board of directors, in an AC-T article, said: ‎"Food trucks will threaten the livelihood of some of our already existing 200-plus restaurants"

There you have it. A full admission that the ban of food trucks is solely motivated by an interest in eliminating competition in local food delivery services. The writer seems to ignore that fact that restrictions on food trucks threaten the livelihood of the dozens of entrepreneurs who add value to our community. Who the hell is this writer to tell me what food choices I can have in my own city?

1. Food truck entrepreneurs have a right to earn a living in any way that does not harm others.

2. Asheville consumers have a right to make dining choices without the interference of special interests or government restrictions.

3. Ensuring safety is a proper function of government; however, political interference in the marketplace violates individual rights and mostly hurts poor people.

RELATED

On a roll
by Mackensy Lunsford in Vol. 17 / Iss. 14 on 10/26/2010
Food trucks want a piece of the Asheville restaurant pie

Small Bites
by Anonymous in Vol. 17 / Iss. 43 on 05/17/2011
Food trucks abound — and vegetarian food does too

Lebanese Street Food Truck
Suzy Salwa Phillips | Kickstarter.com
My vision is quite simple, I want to serve my Asheville community and folks that come and visit from out of town a true authentic experience of Lebanese street food served from a vintage step up van that would run on spent peanut oil from its fryers and powered by solar panels and biodiesel fuel.

The Cancer of Regulation
John Stossel | 6/8/2011
Politicians care about poor people. I know because they always say that. But then why do they make it so hard for the poor to escape poverty?

Scrutiny Who?

2011-06-08T16:36:00.003-04:00

barbieangell: how about some political news with a bit of an edge?....open minds are welcome at http://scrutinyhooligans.us/

Scrutiny Hooligan: Seventh Blogiversary

Happy 7th, Hooligans. I’m grateful that we’ve all come so far together.

MY COMMENT: It's my third anniversary being banned from this website. I'm logged in at Pack's Tavern to make this comment. It will be deleted within the hour.

30 Minutes later:

RELATED

Scrutiny Hooligans
Tim Peck | September 25, 2010
I am currently banned from the Scrutiny Hooligans community weblog, created by now-council member Gordon Smith, on the pretext that I violated commenting rules. That ban has been in place for more than a year.

Lemonade in Montford

2011-05-22T17:06:00.002-04:00

Rapture Me Softly

2011-05-20T11:37:00.001-04:00

Goodbye, everybody. It's been fun. Lot of laughs. OK, go now and get your rapture on. If it turns out to be a hoax, I need to get some more toilet paper and milk. I'll see you in either heaven or hell or Ingles.

Atlas Shrugged Movie Premiere

2011-04-16T13:37:00.017-04:00

Last night, I and many other friends went to the 7:00 PM showing of Atlas Shrugged: Part One.

We all had a great time. I took copies of the Asheville Daily Planet to hand out. This edition has an ineffective smear piece on Ayn Rand by Cecil Bothwell and my counterpoint comments on the same page.

Also, Fred Hofstad from Hendersonville was there. He and I are starting up a new Objectivist club for Asheville and Hendersonville, hopefully WNC. He made up some bookmarks (smart) advertising the new group and we both handed out quite a few.

The theater was packed but not quite sold out. Great folks were there: Me (haha), John North, Leslee Kulba (reporting), Brian Umbarger, Bernard Carman, Clarence Young, Aaron Watkins (Mises dude), Terry Elniff, Eric Gorny, Kathy and Doug Lack, George Danz and Debbie Dante.

One guy reserved the whole back row. I was standing at the back handing out stuff and I gave him some materials for his group. Another dude, Kenneth Elswick, said he knew me and was a HUGE Rand fan and he gave me his card.

We had a great time talking and networking outside the theater after the movie. John brought in a stack of papers to place in the lobby. And he took a group picture in front of the movie poster of the people still there later. It should show up in the next issue.

About the movie, I agree with Ari Armstrong:

OK, do I have to criticize the film? Here it is: the soundtrack was completely forgettable. No one left the theater humming the tune; there wasn't one. Where is John Williams when you need him?

Counterpoint: Ayn Rand

2011-04-11T01:45:00.006-04:00

The below is a brief article written to counter an opinion piece by Asheville city council member Cecil Bothwell smearing and misrepresenting Ayn Rand and her ideas:

1st ‘Atlas Shrugged’ film to debut April 15 in Asheville
Cecil Bothwell | Asheville Daily Planet | Friday, 15 April 2011

There can’t be another bad novelist who has done more damage to our world than the woman who called herself Ayn Rand. Her nearly indigestible polemics seem to appeal to the sophomore in us all, with their grandiosity and declamation of verities, and some few among us never manage to recover.

COUNTERPOINT

Despite detractors, Ayn Rand’s ideas called foundational
By TIM PECK | Asheville Daily Planet | Friday, 15 April 2011

Ayn Rand's Objectivism is a comprehensive, organic and consistent philosophical system exemplified in artistic form in her famous 'magnum opus' “Atlas Shrugged” – published in 1957 and a best-seller today with 7 million copies sold.

Now, a new and eagerly-awaited movie based on the book will receive a showing in the Asheville area, and around the country, this month, opening on Tax Day. It is Part One of a proposed three-part movie series and promises to bring renewed interest to the authors controversial views, which are gaining in popularity even without the film's assistance.

The film will approximate the novel somewhat faithfully, as all such earnest projects do (the filmmaker spent 20 years and $20M of his own money). And by all accounts from devotees, this first installment is not altogether bad; which was the main fear. Seeing it, you will learn something about the characters, the story and the philosophical ideas embedded in the “plot-theme.” The screenplay and production quality are quite good and the performers are unknown to the big screen (also good, in my opinion). All in all, I suggest it will be a worthwhile viewing for those interested in an improved understanding of the author's great contribution to literature, philosophy and human understanding.

To be sure, many remain hostile to Ayn Rand and her ideas. Some because of her devotion to the absolute primacy of reason and science over belief and dogma. Others because she unequivocally champions individual rights, rational self-interest and a thoroughly 'laizzez-faire' political-economy. And others still because they are simply unfamiliar with the foundational material and rely on biased vilification to draw undigested conclusions.

I would urge those few genuinely interested in clarifying their impressions of Rand to simply go and see the movie and enjoy. Better yet, go and read the number two best-selling book in the world and discover why it's appeal is quickening, why the fable told there grows less fictional every day and why Rand called hers “a philosophy for living on Earth.”

RELATED

The View from Asheville: Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged, the Movie
By: Tim Peck | Voices of the Tea Party | April 19, 2011
As a resident of Asheville, NC, it’s fitting that I’ve become embroiled in a controversy surrounding a movie based upon a major literary work.

LTE: Bothwell and Rand

2011-04-03T13:07:00.014-04:00

Bothwell’s opposition to ideas of Ayn Rand termed off-base
Asheville Tribune | April 7

Dear Editor,

I was confused, but not surprised, to read in your paper (“Bothwell to seek Shuler seat”, March 31, 2011) that Congressional hopeful Cecil Bothwell "opposes the views of Ayn Rand." Mr. Bothwell's main disagreement with Rand centers on her advocacy of Individualism; where every person has the moral right to live for his own sake rather than an unearned obligation to live for others. In countering Rand, Mr. Bothwell says, "We are a cooperative species. No one can make it alone. We're completely interdependent."

And yet, this is precisely what Rand supports: "Cooperation is the free association of men who work together by voluntary agreement, each deriving from it his own personal benefit." Interdependent cooperation is only possible so far as those doing the cooperating respect each others individual rights to life, liberty and property. And no group has any rights beyond the individual rights of the members composing it.

Rand states that, "any group that does not recognize this principle [of Individualism] is not an association, but a gang or a mob." Is it the gang or the mob that Mr. Bothwell prefers over Ayn Rand's rights-respecting cooperation of individuals, each properly living for his own sake and pursuing values in his own self-interest? I'm confused.

TIM PECK
ASHEVILLE

RELATED

Individualism in America

Obama v. Obama

2011-04-02T14:27:00.002-04:00

On Wednesday, Senator Rand Paul, with little notice, attached an amendment to the small-business re-authorization bill. The amendment, which chastises President Obama for his actions in Libya, urges members to adopt the president’s own words as “the sense of the Senate.”

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

Jane Bilello

2011-03-30T20:38:00.002-04:00

VOTER REGISTRATION

Jane Bilello
Chairman of the Asheville Tea Party

Liberty Dollar

2011-03-19T21:50:00.002-04:00

Liberty Dollar creator convicted in federal court
Clarke Morrison | Asheville Citizen-Times | Mar. 19, 2011

The leader of a group that marketed a fake currency called Liberty Dollars in the Asheville area and elsewhere has been found guilty by a federal jury of conspiracy against the government in a case of “domestic terrorism.” Bernard von NotHaus was convicted Friday at the conclusion of an eight-day trial in U.S. District Court in Statesville. The jury deliberated less than two hours, according to the Department of Justice. Charges remain pending against William Kevin Innes.

Liberty Dollar founder convicted on federal charges
David Forbes | Mountain Xpress | March 18, 2011

Liberty Dollar founder Bernard von NotHaus was convicted today on federal charges in Statesville. The case has local implications, because Asheville Liberty Dollar head Kevin Innes also faces trial. Innes has asserted that he is innocent of any wrongdoing, and sought local support.

RELATED

Injustice Comes to Asheville
Kevin Innes
Dear Friends of Freedom,...

LTE: Equality Resolution

2011-03-13T23:09:00.008-04:00

Letter to the Editor
Asheville Tribune | March 17, 2011

Dear Editor,

Contrary to the editorial position of the conservative Asheville Tribune, imposing a Christian version of Sharia law on free Americans in a pluralistic society is thrice-times wrong.

Marital union is a voluntary, peaceable and rightful contract between free adults; often involving property, reputations, assets and even children. Just as in any promissory contract, it is the proper role of the government to adjudicate contestable disputes should they arise. Sadly, our gay citizens are prohibited by law from entering into these romantic contracts. This is a violation of individual rights and a proper government should stand against these prohibitions; as the Equality Resolution does.

In the state of North Carolina, heterosexual couples can legally marry. This qualifies them for certain privileges and legal recognition. Homosexual couples are immorally prevented by the government from getting married, according to the dictates of their best judgment. This is a violation of individual rights. To compensate for this objective injustice, the City, among other things, will create a registry of gay couples, who are forced to remain single, that meets certain criteria for a civil union in the event that institutions are inclined to recognize and respect their rights. Were gays able to exercise their natural born right to marriage, none of this would be necessary.

To cavalierly suggest, as the Tribune does, that gay men are free to marry lesbian women, or vice versa, is an appeal to illogic and oppression. It is like saying that you are free to practice religion so long it is the religion of Islam. Whoever agrees to the one, must agree to the other.

TIM PECK
ASHEVILLE

RELATED

Asheville council errs with OK of gay rights intrusion
Editorial | Asheville Tribune | March 10, 2011
It was disappointing, but certainly not surprising, that Asheville City Council voted 5-1 on Feb. 22 in support of equal rights for same sex partnerships.

Letter to the Asheville Daily Planet
Tim Peck | March 2011
Equality resolution OK praised; mayor lambasted

Letter to the Asheville Tribune
Tim Peck | March 3, 2011
Equality resolution approval praised, but mayor lambasted.

Atlas

2011-03-12T21:20:00.004-05:00

RELATED

Atlas Shrugged movie review
by C. A. Wolski | The Objective Standard
Although Ayn Rand published her epic novel Atlas Shrugged fifty-four years ago, and although it has consistently sold hundreds of thousands of copies annually, Rand’s magnum opus has spent decades mired in Hollywood “development hell.”

Atlas Shrugged movie questions

2011-03-10T21:06:00.003-05:00

From Kevin Rollins:

I'm putting together a story for Tea Party Review on the Atlas Shrugged movie. Would you mind sending me written answers to a few questions? I will be happy to quote you and list your organizational affiliation.

QUESTION: As an Objectivist and a Tea Party member, are you excited about this movie coming out in a few weeks?

Yes. I am very exited. I've seen mixed reviews but so far no one has said that this is a bad movie. Consequently, it will garner interest and provide an opportunity to the viewing public to engage in discussion of Rand, Objectivism and the proper role of government. As a libertarian, this will likely advance my values.

QUESTION: What in your view is Objectivism and how does it relate to the message of the Tea Party?

Objectivism is an integrated, comprehensive philosophical system that incorporates politics. The politics of Objectivism is unregulated laissez-faire capitalism and its corollary of political freedom. The tea party's message ought to be and in many cases is, individual rights, limited government and free markets. The connection between Objectivism and the tea party movement is weak but promising. The tea party movement has no intellectual foundation. Objectivism provides it and I have promoted Objectivist principles in our tea party organization.

QUESTION: How important is Atlas Shrugged to understanding Objectivism?

Atlas Shrugged is foundational to the understanding of Objectivism.

QUESTION: Do you think we have a problem of too many Jim Taggarts and Wesley Mouches running around DC?

We have too many Jim Taggarts and Wesley Mouches in our culture generally. Politics follows culture. If we have these types in DC, it is because their mentality prevails in the culture. It is culture that must change first, then the quality of politics will follow suit.

QUESTION: Are people in Asheville trying to get the movie screened locally?

I am the only Objectivist in Asheville. No one I know is trying to get this movie screened. I expect it will be screened at our local art house when it is released.

QUESTION: If you have anything else you think I should include, please fire away.

This movie will be virulently attacked by ideological left in Hollywood, the partisan press and academia. It is vitally important that we are prepared to defend the values and principles represented in this movie and the book upon which it is based.

RELATED

An Introduction to Objectivism Part 1
Lecture by Leonard Peikoff

Art

2011-03-10T14:02:00.000-05:00

Leslee Kulba

2011-03-09T14:57:00.000-05:00

Mom of the Year

2011-03-08T00:06:00.008-05:00

Erika Conrad Franzi

Equality Resolution Latest

2011-03-03T21:33:00.002-05:00

In the meantime, we have some developments.

The principles of the Asheville Tea Party are:

"ATP/PAC has and will continue to support our local and state representatives to pass legislation that advances our core values, specifically, the promotion and preservation of individual rights, Constitutionally-limited government, fiscal responsibility, and free markets."

Here is the question I put to the chairman of the Asheville Tea Party, Jane Bilello:

What is the Asheville Tea Party's position on Asheville City Council's Equality Resolution?

Thank you.

TIM PECK
ASHEVILLE NC

Cecil Bothwell wrote:

On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 7:31 AM — Thanks for the query, Tim. I'm eager to hear a response

Gary M. Shoemaker, Buncombe County Republican Party Membership Chairman, tea party member and leader of Buncombe Forward wrote:

Mar 4, 2011, at 8:35 AM — Speaking for myself... Yawn. What position?

Erika Franzi, former Asheville Tea Party Chair wrote:

Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 9:39 AM — Not to be a troublemaker, but it seems to me that an organization dedicated to the rights of the individual should have a position on this issue and it ought to be fairly easy to produce when asked.

Here is an exchange with city council member Cecil Bothwell and George Danz, recently resigned (Mar 4) from the Asheville Tea Party Board of Directors over his disagreement with Chair Jane Bilello about his right to respond to my original question. Here George comments as a former board member and Bothwell replies:

George E. Danz: Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 10:58 AM — Why does the Asheville City Council continue to outdo our own Federal Government’s reckless spending programs and efforts to produce equality of outcome instead of equality of “opportunity” when all of us here know that the city is flat broke?

Cecil Bothwell: Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 2:00 PM — I'm not at all clear what "reckless spending programs" you are referring to. None of the four items in this resolution involve expenditures. None of them are aimed at producing "equality of outcome."

George E. Danz: Why does Council continue to pay its itself far more for the work they do than similar councils all over the state?

Cecil Bothwell: To the best of my knowledge our compensation is fairly comparable to NC cities with 100,000+ population. Given that we have a daytime population of about 120,000, I don't see that as much out of line. I do know that I put in well over 20 hours per week on the job, and it is terribly disruptive of other work because committee meetings and meetings with constituents, welcoming addresses to visiting convention and business groups, etc. are scattered through the week. The question of compensation becomes one of whether we only want rich people or people with a profitable angle on pubic policy to run our government. I'd be willing to hear arguments either way on the matter.

George E. Danz: What do the 4 resolutions below have to do with the State or Federal Constitutional powers? For example, our US Constitution in Article I, Section 8 lists only 16 powers of the Federal Government. Nowhere in those 16 are there provisions for ANY of the council’s 4 resolutions. Most state constitutions are modeled after the Federal, except insofar as the 10th Amendment provides the states powers to act not included in Article I, Section 8, I would be highly surprised if the state or city charters allowed council to act in favor of the council’s 4 resolutions below.

Cecil Bothwell: A resolution is a "sense of the legislature" statement. It is not an ordinance.
Adding gender orientation to the list of those protected under our employment rules should be unnecessary, given that we are all guaranteed equal treatment under the law. Sadly, we have had to specify that discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, color are not permissible, in order to remind people that "everybody" means "everybody." This simply reinforces what should already have been regular practice.
Bullying should be covered under assault laws. But again, emphasizing such specific acts has proved helpful in other municipalities. The resolution commits us to attempting to fashion a meaningful ordinance to protect people, particularly children, on City property. Such an ordinance will be debated in the future.
The domestic partner registry we endorsed is completely legal and will pay for itself through fees. While it carries no legal strength, it has been found in other municipalities that registration in such a public record is helpful when partners are in the hospital, for example. Hospitals tend to grant partners the visitation rights usually accorded marital partners, for example. And many employers now provide access to health insurance plans for domestic partners. Registration can be part of the proof offered that the person in question is indeed a long-term partner.
It is entirely legal for the City Council to have a legislative agenda. We routinely ask our local delegation to support this or that bill. Asking them to endorse same-sex marriage is no different than asking them to approve a food and beverage tax or secure funding for the Civic Center.
George E. Danz: Has council carefully and fully calculated the cost to Asheville taxpayers for implementation of these 4 resolutions?

Cecil Bothwell: There is no cost whatsoever to the resolutions themselves, because they are simply resolutions. There will presumably be some legal staff time involved in contacting the School of Government for model bullying legislation, but since we ask Staff to investigate multiple ideas each month, breaking out which hour is spent on this or that is fairly intangible. I can pull up model legislation in about 15 minutes online, so I can't imagine this is a really difficult task. And, as I said above, the Registry will be priced to pay for whatever time and record keeping it entails.

George E. Danz: My guess is they have NOT! And finally, doesn’t council owe it to its citizens an opportunity to vet resolutions that surely cost taxpayers and over-reach their understanding of the just powers of the city council BEFORE they go off half-cocked on resolutions such as the 4 council has made?

Cecil Bothwell: We do. This resolution has been examined by Staff and Council for at least a month, while elements of the resolution have been under consideration for well over a year.

Stay tuned... This could take a while...

RELATED

Erika Franzi, Tim Peck Resign From Asheville Tea Party
ThunderPig | November 15, 2010
It is with great reluctance to announce that Founder, Erika Franzi, and Board member, Tim Peck have resigned from Asheville Tea Party and Asheville Tea PAC. It has been Erika's vision, leadership and unwavering belief in our mission that propelled the Asheville Tea Party and the Asheville Tea PAC to its successes, presence and influence.

Equality Resolution
Tim Peck | Feb 23, 2011
Congratulations to Asheville City Council for adopting the resolution in support equal rights for all Asheville citizens.

Tea For Two
Verve Magazine | October 2010
On the national political scene, everyone’s talking about the Tea Party. What is the “party” up to locally? We asked its leaders.

Equality Resolution

2011-02-23T16:43:00.035-05:00

Congratulations to Asheville City Council for adopting the resolution in support equal rights for all Asheville citizens; Mayor Bellamy dissenting, of course. And boo, double boo, to all of the other dangerous moralistic religionists who spoke in opposition during public comments in their ongoing effort to apply the coercive force of government to impose their peculiar religious views on all others. I expect the good mayor will be shown the door in the due course of time. Good riddance.

Marriage is a peaceable voluntary contract between free individuals often involving property, reputations, assets and even children. Just as in any contract, it is the proper role of the government to adjudicate contract disputes when they arise. Sadly, our gay citizens are prohibited by the government from entering into these contracts. This is a violation of individual rights.

Heterosexual couples can legally get married. This qualifies them for certain privileges and legal recognition. Homosexual couples are prevented by the government from getting married. This is a violation of their individual rights. To compensate for this injustice, the city will create a registry of gay couples, who are forced to remain single, that meet certain criteria for a civil union. Were gays able to exercise their right to marriage, none of this would be necessary.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHEVILLE THAT:

The Asheville City Council act to affirm and protect the equal rights of all its citizens by:
Extending the city’s employment discrimination clause to include “sexual orientation”, “gender”, and “gender identity or expression”;
Enacting an anti-bullying ordinance for all city institutions and grounds;
Creating a Domestic Partner Registry to recognize same-sex relationships for the purposes of providing documentation and offering a mechanism through which hospitals, businesses, and other entities will have the opportunity to recognize these relationships; and
Endorsing and supporting the rights of same-sex couples to share fully and equally in the familial rights and responsibilities of civil marriage.

I’m not sure, though, that Asheville city attorney Bob Oast got it right during this council meeting. He said that Bill Russell’s absence would count as a non-vote and council would need a tie-breaker. I believe that if a member is unexcused in their absence for a vote, then the record will show a “Yah” vote for that member.

Chapter 160A. Cities and Towns. Article 5 - Form of Government. §160A‑75. Voting. "No member shall be excused from voting except upon matters involving the consideration of the member’s own financial interest or official conduct or on matters on which the member is prohibited from voting under G.S. 14‑234, 160A‑381(d), or 160A‑388(e1). In all other cases, a failure to vote by a member who is physically present in the council chamber, or who has withdrawn without being excused by a majority vote of the remaining members present, shall be recorded as an affirmative vote."

RELATED

Council passes equality resolution, 5-1 ***UPDATED WITH VIDEO***
by Margaret Williams, David Forbes, Jake Frankel on 02/23/2011
Some civil, and not so civil discussion on the Equal Rights resolution in the Mountain Xpress. See comment thread below the main article

Impact of Asheville vote on same-sex rights unclear
Mark Barrett | Asheville Citizen-Times | Feb. 23, 2011
ASHEVILLE — The impact of City Council's passage of a resolution endorsing more rights for same-sex couples will be partly symbolic and partly concrete, people on both sides of the issue said.

If It Looks Like a Duck, Quacks Like a Duck . . .
Posted February 22nd, 2011 at 11:44 PM by Leslee Kulba
I see the bait hanging on the trap, but I feel I must take it. I must say I am somewhat uncomfortable with your post and have seriously considered deleting it. MY RESPONSE: My comments, expanded, appear in the Mountain Xpress and will appear in your newspaper, the Asheville Tribune. Good luck shutting me up. [NOTE: Leslee Kulba deleted my response from her weblog at the John Locke Foundation.]

LTE: Equality resolution approval praised, but mayor lambasted
Tim Peck | Asheville Tribune | March 3, 2011
Congratulations to Asheville City Council for adopting the resolution in support equal rights for all Asheville citizens.

Walmart Bad, Ingles Good

2011-02-18T16:03:00.029-05:00

Five years ago, a request for a zoning change was made by Walmart for the property on Smoky Park Highway next to the existing Lowe's.

Wal-Mart wants West Asheville store
by Mark Barrett, Asheville Citizen-Times | November 10, 2005

ASHEVILLE — Discount giant Wal-Mart Stores wants to put what would be its second Asheville Supercenter store just west of the Lowe’s home improvement warehouse on Smoky Park Highway in West Asheville.

The proposal for a 184,000-square-foot store could be the subject of one of the first major development votes taken by a new City Council after a fall campaign in which growth issues were prominent.

Zoning for the “vast majority” of the 25-acre site allows big box retail stores, but part would require rezoning and the project requires council approval because of its large size anyway, Joe Heard, city director of development services, said Wednesday.

The application for a zoning change that would have allow the building of a Super Walmart was withdrawn because city council had the majority votes against the resolution. This was after a sustained protest by community anti-Walmart activists. Asheville lost millions in tax revenue, 400-plus jobs and a great place to shop on a prime co-location site.

“I really feel sorry for the trailer park residents who were going to be paid $7,500 apiece to defray their moving expenses,” said store proponent and city resident Tim Peck, referring to relocation assistance Wal-Mart offered. “Now they’re going to still have to move out when the next developer purchases that property, and they’re going to get nothing.” -Asheville Citizen-Times

Asheville City Council will vote February 22, 2011, on a conditional zoning application by Ingles Super Markets to build a new mega-Ingles on Smoky Park Highway. [City Council Documents]

Proposed
New Ingles Store: 105,175 SF
Future Retail: 32,060 SF
Car Wash: 2,280 SF
Gas Canopy/Convenience Store: 8,745 SF
Total Shopping Center: 253,173 SF
[source: city council documents]

No two-year-long protests. No news coverage. No public discussion or notice. No Warren Wilson students coming out of the woodwork.

What changed?

UPDATE

Asheville City Council to decide Ingles supermarket proposal
Mark Barrett | Asheville Citizen-Times | Feb 18, 2011, 9:29 PM
ASHEVILLE — Critics and the city's planning staff said approval of a large new Ingles supermarket on Smoky Park Highway as currently proposed would undermine city development rules...

Council's call an opportunity for better plan for new store
Editor | Asheville Citizen-Times | Feb. 23, 2011
Asheville City Council's no-call regarding the construction of a new Ingles grocery store on Smoky Park Highway on Tuesday night was the correct call...

Bigger Ingles eyed in Asheville, but same issues cited
Mark Barrett | Asheville Citizen-Times | Feb 25, 2011
ASHEVILLE — Ingles Markets is considering nearly doubling the size of its supermarket on Brevard Road near Biltmore Square Mall, but a company official says the application is just a trial balloon for now...

RELATED

Wal-Mart Forum
Tim Peck | December 20, 2005
Last night, the development team for the proposed west end Wal-Mart Super Center held a public forum at the West Asheville Community Center to share their plans for the project and field questions and concerns and take any other input on their large development initiative that the community might want to provide.

Wal-Mart Gets, Like, Totally Zoned
By Tim Peck | Mountain Guardian | March 8, 2006
The final Planning & Zoning Commission hearing on the rezoning of a few parcels in west Asheville for a new Wal-Mart Super Center was held on March 1st.

Meeting: No Wal-Mart
Tim Peck | March 22, 2006
Attended a meeting of the local Wal-Mart Watch group. David Roat, who worked on Robin Cape's campaign, arrived late but when asked how things seemed to be going he appeared very confident that the Wal-Mart project would not survive city council.

Public Comment [video]
Tim Peck | April 11, 2006
Attended the city council meeting for April 11, 2006. This was to be the Wal-Mart meeting but Wal-Mart withdrew its application for a zoning variance at the last minute. I spoke about this during the public comment portion of the meeting. Here is the text of my comments.

Wal-Mart drops West Asheville store plans
By Mark Barrett | April 12, 2006 | Asheville Citizen-Times
Wal-Mart Stores dropped its proposal for a West Asheville Supercenter store Tuesday just hours before a scheduled City Council vote that may well have gone against it.

The High Cost of Low Motives
By Tim Peck | Mountain Guardian | April 28, 2006
In a recent city council discussion on taking private property for public use, council member Holly Jones said, "I will say that probably calling something socialism is not really helpful in going forward with an open mind."

Wal-Mart Clarification
By Tim Peck | Mountain Guardian | June 16, 2006
Thomas N Rightmyer wrote: "The proposal is for a 204K building (larger if I remember correctly that the West Asheville proposal) with 917 parking spaces."

Board of Adjustment: Wal-Mart
Buncombe County Board of Adjustment | June 14, 2006
Agenda: Wal-Mart request for three zoning adjustments regarding parking spaces and loading docks.

Liberty on the Rocks

2011-02-15T15:13:00.001-05:00

Our new logo:

NC War on Affordable Housing

2011-02-06T12:08:00.005-05:00

Letter to the Governor
By Bernard Carman and Tim Peck

Dear Gov. Perdue,

I was moved to write you upon reading your "Setting Government Straight" webpage, especially the page devoted to Regulation Reform on which you said:

"Today, I'm asking North Carolinians to tell me what you would do to set government straight. Tell me about rules that defy common sense — rules that hinder job creation — slow progress — or hurt local governments or schools. I can promise — North Carolina will listen to you."

I wish to share with you that various current state and local laws are working together to prohibit homeowners from offering affordable housing in Asheville, and in NC at large. As a result, less affordable housing is available and also many homeowners now face foreclosure and bankruptcy.

Simple legislative reforms can offer solutions which would prevent unnecessary hardships levied upon thousands of North Carolinians. [continue...]

RELATED

LTE: Reclaim legislative authority at the local level
by Tim Peck | Mountain Xpress | 12/07/2010
In your article about a Montford homeowner under attack by the city for having “too many people” (Sustainable For Whom, 11/16/2010), Assistant Planning Director Shannon Tuch says, “This is all based on life-safety requirements.

Gay Iowa

2011-02-03T20:30:00.006-05:00

Zach Wahls, a 19-year-old University of Iowa student, spoke about the strength of his family during a public forum on House Joint Resolution 6 in the Iowa House of Representatives. Wahls has two mothers, and came to oppose House Joint Resolution 6 which would end civil unions in Iowa.

Tucson Massacre

2011-01-11T16:48:00.012-05:00

My Comments on the Matt Mittan Radio Show
January 11, 2010, 4:40 pm
Podcast 23:18:00

I'd like to take issue with an earlier caller who suggested that the tea party needs to police its own people.

I'm a founding member of the Asheville Tea Party. We don't police our own people. And you know why, Matt? Because we don't have to. We don't have quazi-military thugs standing around at polling places intimidating voters. We don't have SEIU union thugs beating up black protesters at rallies. We don't have people biting off fingers at political rallies. We don't have people making movies called "The Assassination of George W. Bush." We don't have people sending mail bombs to university professors. We don't have people spiking trees, burning SUV's, breaking windows or throwing pies at people we disagree with.

What we DO have is ordinary people and passionate patriots who believe in the founding principles of this country and who are legitimately critical of a greedy government that is growing recklessly out of control.

So, just what is there to police? If you want to learn how to be intelligent, rational, and peace-loving, just watch what the tea party is in fact doing. We're studying the issues, contacting legislators, promoting candidates and educating the public.

I'd like the earlier caller and your listeners to know that we're not going to change our rhetoric. We're not going to change our values. We're not going to let up on the pressure for limited government. And we're never going away.

Frankly, I have never understood from the beginning of this incident why anyone is talking about inflammatory political rhetoric. What's the connection? Jared Loughner, the perpetrator, is not cooperating with authorities and so far there is no evidence that the Tucson Massacre was motivated by any ideas. At this point, it seems pretty conclusive that it was motivated by insanity and not the tea party.

###

RELATED

Jared Loughner’s friend says suspect ‘Did not watch TV...disliked the news’
ABC News | January 12, 2010

Institute for Political Justice

2010-12-24T23:02:00.001-05:00

We like to refer to our new initiative as Tea Party 2.0.

You may recall that the Tea Party Movement began as a kind of unformed populist tax and mortgage bailout revolt without any clear philosophical basis.

We tried to give the Asheville Tea Party some kind of ideological focus around the classical liberal principles of individual rights, limited government and free markets. Some other groups attempted the same thing and I think they have been the most successful. For the groups that adopted this strategy, this formulation has served them well.

We also altered the organizational to reflect a more project-oriented structure to refocus the group toward effective project management practices and distributed leadership.

However, I suspect that, for the movement overall, the tea party brand will not be sustainable for the long term and will fragment into an assortment of agenda-driven efforts. Some would be grassroots, some ideological, some exploited, some remaining philosophically unformed. And quite possibly all keeping the tea party name with no explicit criteria for involvement.

What we want to do is propose an organization that carries the tea party ideals forward with a clear ideological vision from the start as opposed to finding out a year later that your members don't agree with you on anything.

Our idea is to take one of the primary principles and make that principle the focus of an organization. Candidate principles might be: Liberty, Peace, Justice, Property, Self-Determination, and so on. Any principle chosen would be interpreted from a classical liberal point of view and any one would reflect the same libertarian perspective. Put differently, all roads lead to Rome.

We have decided to adopt the concept of Justice and place it in a political context. Our focus will be the promotion of Political Justice. Justice, simply put, means getting what you deserve. We believe that individuals have rights and deserve to have them protected in a variety of ways. In a political context, it means that governments are instituted for the sole purpose of acknowledging, respecting and protecting those rights. That is, a proper government in a free society is charged exclusively with the task of ensuring that individuals get what they deserve; which, in our view, is the protection of the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.

The mission of a new organization focused on political justice would be to champion, promote and educate the public on this principle in the abstract and as applied in concrete cases. We will need an organizational structure designed to support this mission, a staff that understands our mission and funding resources to fulfill our mission.

We imagine similar organizations around the country taking the approach of leveraging our contacts, experiences and successes as tea parties to build a network of affiliated political organizations that have a set of explicit and shared goals.

This is a possible vision for advancing the promise of the Tea Party Movement by other means. I believe that politics follows culture and that to change politics in a meaningful way for the long term, we must start with cultural change. We hope that the Institute for Political Justice can become a model for effecting that kind of change.

Justice in a Free Society

A free society requires a limited government that enacts and enforces objective laws for the sole purpose of protecting individual rights. Also essential to a free society is a proper concept of Justice.

Justice, in short, means getting what you deserve. If you were to get what you do not deserve or to not get what you do deserve, it would be unjust and either you or someone else would suffer an injustice.

The question becomes: What do you deserve? -- as an individual and as a human being.

A squirrel deserves to gather nuts. An eagle deserves to fly. And the lion deserves to hunt. What does Man deserve, in general? -- and, in particular, what do you deserve?

Man is distinguishable from the animal kingdom by virtue of his reasoning mind, free will, self-consciousness and individuation.

Man deserves to be Man. Free to eat and breathe --yes. But also free to think and free to act. But what does that mean in a social context? It means the freedom to peaceably act in the world on your own rational judgement without interference.

Justice is "a concept that designates the act of judging a man’s character or actions exclusively on the basis of all the factual evidence available, and of evaluating it by means of an objective moral criterion?" -AR

Justice is the confluence of ethics and politics. It is where you in fact do what you ought to do and are judged as you ought to be judged. Justice is the concrete application of abstract principles. It is the concrete realization of what ought to be.

You, as a human being, and in a community of fellows, ought to be free to peaceably act on your own judgment -- alone or in concert. To do what is in your own best interest -- whether privately or in cooperation with others. You ought to be able to exploit the resources around you for your own ends. You ought to be able to trade freely with others, enter into binding contracts, and speak your mind without censure. You ought to be free from coercion, predation, force and fraud. And you ought to make life, productiveness, prosperity and happiness your goals.

In the event your peaceable, rightful pursuits are met with force and ill intent, you ought to have recourse to justice. In the private realm, in the economic realm and in the political realm.

The idea of political justice is grounded in the concept of Man's rights. First, that Man possesses individual rights and that those rights are inseparable from his nature. Second, that those rights must be protected by standardized and narrowly constructed legal customs and institutions.

The Institute for Political Justice is a research, education and advocacy organization that supports and promotes the application of justice in the political realm. Specifically, with respect to the recognition and protection of individual rights in a free society.

About

Liberty issues advocacy organization, funded by grant money. Focus on any/all issues where the government is infringing upon individual rights. List of issues would include many items which bring together people from across the political spectrum. (Ideal for Asheville.) Main focus would be organizing and hosting educational forums in Asheville. Opportunity to invite and host guest and expert speakers from around the country to address specific topics. Some issues that spring to mind:

Parental rights
Decriminalization of marijuana
Rights when confronted by law enforcement
Property rights/Imminent Domain abuse
Forced annexation
Rights during a state of emergency
Contract rights (same-sex, civil marriage)
Health freedom
Free speech rights
Rights when demonstrating/protesting
Homeschoolers’ rights
the list in endless...

In addition to hosting events, we would maintain a website and newsletter. Possibly a print publication of some kind.

Two-to-four salaried positions:

Executive director
Communications director
Events coordinator
Treasurer/CFO

Leased office space.

People I would like to have involved:

Erika Franzi
Tim Peck
Nancy Grace
Dan Eichenbaum
John Maltry
Betty Jackson
Will Vine
Robert Malt
Aaron Watkins

Foundations:

http://www.cgkfoundation.org/apply/
http://www.bradleyfdn.org/application_procedure.asp
http://atlasnetwork.org/
Art Pope: http://media.photobucket.com/image/art%20pope/jprotzman/Puppetshow-2.gif

The Asheville Tea Party

2010-12-24T22:51:00.007-05:00

Best Practices in Project Management As Learned in the Asheville Tea Party

by Tim Peck and Erika Franzi

Background

Beginnings

When our first tea party was held in Asheville, North Carolina, in February, 2009, we had about 20 people join us in the drizzling rain for a lackluster protest and pork sandwiches in a pocket park. There was no organization beyond a simple call to action and a prepared lunch with sweet tea.

Yes, we had signs and, yes, we had purpose. We spoke briefly to the small crowd and interviewed with the one local media reporter that bothered to show up. But our organizational vision for the future was nonexistent. We really had no idea what would happen next. What we did know was that the Asheville Tea Party had been born and we were determined to carry it forward in some form.

Development

Happily, the aftermath of the failed Ron Paul for President campaign left the Asheville activist community with a remnant of libertarian enthusiasm and after several brainstorming sessions between a few ‘ad hoc’ groups we were able to plan and coordinate our next tea party rally. This time we would aim higher, select a high profile date and prepare a speaker’s roster. Momentum was gathering in the tea party movement nationally. A spark had been lit and we were encouraged that our small isolated contingent in Western North Carolina could become significant.

With two big tea party rallies under our belt -- one on Independence Day and one on Tax Day -- we were well on our way to becoming a recognized force in the community. With that success came the need for more formal organization. So, at this point we had gone from a single person putting out the call for a rainy-day gathering to a series of ‘ad hoc’ efforts to mobilize hundreds at City Hall for major protest events. And now, if we wanted to continue, we needed to formalize our organization to identify opportunities, propose initiatives, gain membership, plan events, focus our purpose and, most important, to ensure that we had the resources and structures in place to carry out our vision.

Traditional Organization Management

Structure

Our natural impulse was to identify a leader and form a group of committed activists around her. She would become the focal point for all tea party activities and her few followers would advise and consent and help out from time to time. Now we had the outlines of a chairperson and a board of directors who would all meet as time and circumstance allowed; which was seldom. This essentially created a traditional top-down hierarchical organizational pyramid that served us well for our immediate purposes, given the scope of our operation. For a time, we had only a few initiatives that we were engaged in and could juggle the various tasks by channeling all responsibilities through the leader who would then coordinate and control activities.

Limitations

With growing success, growing membership and a growing presence in the community, we soon we had accumulated more business on our table than could be easily handled by one person in authority and a group of fickle or despondent assistants. Delegation itself became an onerous and time-consuming task. It became the chairman’s lot to field suggestions for action from every quarter, assess their value, solicit help for planning and execution and to then determine the priority and status of each activity.

In our case, as in so many, our chairman was a stay-at-home mom with mouths to feed, bills to pay, school teachers to consult and a vast domestic empire to maintain. Coupled with the responsibilities of a leader of a burgeoning political activist organization, it became increasingly impossible to fulfill the grand plans being funneled on to her plate. The stress and strain of these collected responsibilities was not sustainable under current conditions. We needed more manpower, more money, more delegation and much more time to get things done. Time and energy for a beleaguered house-wife and mother of four is at a premium and the outlook for our organization turned dim. Even with greater resources at our disposal, the top-down structure of our organization itself made demands on her time and energy that could never be met. How could one person do it all?

It was clear that the key members of our organization who were shouldering the lion’s share of the work would eventually become burned out and resign out of frustration and exhaustion. And such an eventuality would mean the end of the Asheville Tea Party.

We needed a change. Not necessarily in resources, which were not forthcoming, but in structure. We needed a management structure that would prevent the accumulation of responsibilities on to the shoulders of one person at the top of the narrow pyramid.

With the looming resignation of our chairman and the general dissolution of our group in sight, we had to look outside traditional management approaches to solve our problem and it appeared that more of a project management approach might be the structural solution to our problem. It might be that by simply changing the way we do things we could avoid certain process bottlenecks and even gain the advantages in efficiency and leadership development that were desperately needed at this point in our evolution.

In the pattern of other tea parties around the country, the Asheville Tea Party initially established itself as a protest group. We were reactive and made our name saying ‘No’ to disaster. We spent our social capital mobilizing the community to come together at large gatherings to demonstrate against overreaching public policy such as corporate and mortgage bailouts, high taxation, irresponsible spending and socialized health care. We later turned our efforts to communications, education and engagement in electoral politics. We had a website, a regular newsletter, a political action committee (PAC), a growing membership, a board of directors and a weekly social gathering to help fill the participation gaps between rallies and formal meetings. The focus of our activities had been shifting away from being an inchoate protest group to becoming a more action-oriented and results-oriented political organization. It was time to become pro-active and develop strategies for advancing our values in the political marketplace in more meaningful and lasting ways.

The shift from protesting to activism, combined with extreme functional limitations, required some new thinking.

The Project Management Model

Theory (Benefits)

It was clear that among the various models for management, the traditional, top-down, departmental style would not serve us well for the long term. Aligning a small, action-oriented organization according narrowly-defined functional categories, such as Executive, Finance, Operations, Personnel, and so on, would not relieve the chairman of the burden of the majority of initiative development, execution, oversight and control.

So we decided to take a look at a management approach that appeared to be working quite well in the business sphere when dealing with complex, results-oriented action: Project Management.

Managing activities according to projects is just what we needed. It’s an approach that takes a specific initiative and defines it as a set of actions that have a beginning, a middle and an end. It has its own clear objective to be achieved within a definite timeframe. It is controlled within its own domain. It must account for leadership, it must build its own team and it must develop its own tasks, its own schedule and its own budget. It must determine and report on its own status and take corrective action wherever necessary. All functional aspects are accounted for within a confined sphere of activity.

The project management approach differs from the traditional management approach in some important ways that would be valuable for us to leverage.

Chief among them is its ability to distribute leadership. Projects come and go and in order to maintain a portfolio of projects it is necessary to continually identify and develop leadership skills across the organization. Projects can be simple or complex and the various degrees of leadership skill available in the organization can be matched with project needs. Members with good leadership skills can take on bigger projects and members with little or no leadership skills can acquire them by working on smaller projects, either as team leads or team members. In this way we are able to reach down into deeper levels of leadership in the organization and bring out latent talent that can be exploited to the advantage of the organization and the individual activist.

The project management approach also brings with it the delegation of responsibility as a systemic attribute. A project must be defined and proposed with a full accounting of its functional aspects. This requires that a project manager take on the responsibility of defining those aspects on his own outside of executive oversight. Once defined, a project is proposed to the program management board and approved or not. Neither the board nor the chairman need spend time and energy developing these proposals. Once approved, management of the project falls entirely on the shoulders of the team lead and team members. The board and chairman only come into play to periodically discuss a project’s status and reassess its priority within a “family of projects” -- or Program. All typical departmental functions are replicated within each project. And a select Program Management Board determines which projects are on track, which projects deserve attention and which projects best serve the goals of the organization.

The project management approach also allows for an effective separation between the discrete management of project activity and the general management of important functional processes such as finance, recruitment, communications, liaison activities and overall program development. Projects happen periodically, while processes happen all the time. Projects come and go as they are initiated and completed. Processes are ongoing and must be controlled by a persistent body; in our case, the Program Management Board.

Besides general process management, the Program Management Board is also responsible for developing and maintaining a portfolio of projects designed to advance the mission of the organization. The board must introduce and consider proposals for projects to be performed, assess priorities among adopted projects, optimize the portfolio by adding, modifying, re-ording or canceling projects, and lend financial or other support to priority projects as needed.

The primary method for performing a portfolio review is the project status report conducted at regular Program Management Board meetings. The Board would hear a brief presentation from each Project Manager in turn that would update the Board on whether a given project is on track or not, what key accomplishments have been made, what action items are completed or outstanding, what issues or concerns should be discussed and resolved, and what corrective action should be taken to optimize the project.

Once the Board has been updated on all active projects, it can determine the overall health of the portfolio, form a clearer picture of organizational effectiveness and proceed with executive decisions regarding the worth and viability of its current operational focus. It is the Board’s responsibility to champion and celebrate strong projects and to identify weak projects that should either be fortified or abandoned.

Weak projects are those that are unpopular, have no team or that marginally support the mission. They tend to receive little moral or financial support and may simply be untimely. Things can change fast in the world of political activism and even projects that start out well can be eclipsed by events and the mood of the times. The Board must ruthlessly measure its portfolio against the capabilities and the enthusiasm of its members.

As a part of setting expectations for organizational activities, the Board must clearly define and communicate the role of the Project Manager in its present context. The key responsibilities of the Project Manager are to define and propose projects, develop project plans and budgets, assemble teams for action, execute a set of tasks that drive toward a goal, control activities for effectiveness and periodically assess and report on project status. Finally, the Project Manager must retire projects as they meet their objectives and come to a close by resolving all outstanding issues, documenting their success and reporting to the Board the degree to which projects have fulfilled their promise to add value.

All projects and processes must support the organizational mission as established by the Chairman and the Program Management Board and that mission should be well-articulated, documented and presented at each formal meeting as a foundation element that resets the purpose and focus of the meeting.

Practice (Outcomes)

The switch from traditional management to project management in the Asheville Tea Party changed the way we did things, who would be doing them and how they would get done. It was important for us to communicate to our membership and the community that we would be undergoing a shakeup. We needed the community to understand that those changes were necessary and a positive development rather than a consequence of dysfunction. And we needed our membership to know that we would be setting new expectations for participation in furthering our goals. For this purpose, a formal announcement and press release was distributed summarizing our decision and its consequences.

ANNOUNCEMENT

It is with great enthusiasm that we announce some exciting changes which will enhance our efficiency, effectiveness, agility, and capabilities as we move into the future.

Structural Change

It is impossible to deal with all of the legislation, conflicts, and crises that befall us each day under an organizational structure with one person at the top identifying, prioritizing and coordinating activities. In order to meet the daily onslaught of issues that face us at the local, state and federal level, we are restructuring the organization.

We are adopting a program and project management approach. We are also broadening the base of our management team to include members from counties other than Buncombe. There are many talented individuals outside of Buncombe County who share our vision and want to further the cause. We heartily welcome their contributions and support.

We will be encouraging individuals to become project team leaders. Is there an issue, a piece of legislation, or an event that piques your interest? Are there others who share that interest in your circle of friends and contacts? You will have the opportunity to have autonomy over the project. Some of those projects are listed at the bottom of this email. We encourage you to get involved. For further and more detailed information, please check out our website (ashevilleteaparty.com). You can also reach us by email.

Organizational Change

In combination with the above changes, ATP's founder and chairman, Erika Franzi, will be taking a position on the newly formed Program Management Board. Our new chairman will be Jane Bilello, resident of Henderson County, member of the ATP Board of Directors, long-time Tea Party activist, and retired educator.

"I am humbled to have been passed the responsibility of carrying the torch for Asheville Tea Party," said new chairman Jane Bilello. "Erika Franzi has some very big shoes and casts a very tall shadow. Erika is not going away. She will continue to serve on the Board and be an ever-present guide and mentor to all of us and to me especially. Asheville Tea Party is what it is because of Erika's vision, leadership and unwavering belief in Asheville Tea's mission."

The mission of the Asheville Tea Party is to provide an organizational foundation for the execution of projects that advance our core values; those being specifically: the promotion and preservation of individual rights, Constitutionally-limited government, fiscal responsibility, and free markets.

"It has been my great pleasure to work as chairman of the Asheville Tea Party for this past year and a half," said former chairman Erika Franzi. "I have had the honor of meeting many, many people who understand and believe deeply in our core values. Jane Bilello is one of the most dedicated defenders of these values among us. I have no doubt that she will guide the Asheville Tea Party well with the help of the board, the membership, and her own Constitutionally-informed internal compass."

The restructuring of the Asheville Tea Party will be achieved by modifying the bylaws in order to: flatten the organization; implement 'ad hoc' project teams; facilitate distributed leadership; assign liaisons with grassroots coalitions; and integrate regional memberships. The purpose of implementing this structural change is to make the organization more agile, efficient and capable; to make the organization more action-oriented; and to enhance its long-term viability.

What Is A Project Leader?

This description, contained in our constitution and bylaws, explains the role of a Project Leader:

Determine individual project meeting time, place and members
Meet as often as project members see fit
Select, define and control project
Ensure that all resources and activities are on target throughout duration of the project (staying on plan)
Determine resources needed and report to Program Management Board
Determine scope of operations
Report progress to Program Management Board
Disband project at completion with optional video documentation
With the announcement of our structural changes in place, we were now ready to roll out our plans and hope for the best. This required first installing our new Chairman and selecting a Program Management Board from our membership. Then we would need to substantially revise our current activities as projects under a new operational regime. The key questions for us now would be: Can we find leaders in our second tier to adopt and manage projects? -- and will everyone involved adapt comfortably to the structural changes we were implementing?

Tea Party 2.0

Case Study

LTE: Montford House

2010-12-08T05:26:00.010-05:00

Reclaim legislative authority at the local level
by Tim Peck | Mountain Xpress | 12/07/2010

Dear Editor,

In your article about a Montford homeowner under attack by the city for having “too many people” (Sustainable For Whom, 11/16/2010), Assistant Planning Director Shannon Tuch says, “This is all based on life-safety requirements. When you have eight related people living in a house, there's a head of household...who would act...in the family's best interest to get everybody out. When you have eight unrelated people, it's pretty much every man for himself."

Ms. Tuch's assertion that a head-of-household is more likely to act in his self interest than eight unrelated occupants is simply unfounded. I'm sure Ms. Tuch excels at her government job, but she's a dull sociologist.

Recently, a small fire broke out at Bernard Carman's home—for the first time since taking ownership 22 years ago—inside someone's locked and vacated room. The smell of smoke was detected in minutes by several housemates. Acting quickly and in a coordinated effort, a resident climbed a ladder, entered the window and doused a burning blanket moments from flaming. The house was saved and without fire damage. Four unrelated people acting together effectively mitigated a serious life-safety incident.

I suspect Ms. Tuch is not so interested in the life-safety issues of eight unrelated people living in a spacious and secure home. What she does though is provide a pretext for enforcing North Carolina housing code which precisely defines who can live where in Asheville. A simple inspection of the historic home would satisfy any observer that this residence is adequate, safe and well-maintained.

We need to reclaim legislative authority at the local level. We can determine for ourselves a whole range of civil issues without blanket interference from a distant legislature. The only thing standing in the way of justice in this and many other cases is the lack of home rule.

TIM PECK
ASHEVILLE

Background

Bernard Carman is a long-time homeowner in the city of Asheville and has been an active participant in local community affairs for over a decade.

Since 1988, he has owned and lived in a beautiful 3-story, 8-bedroom house in Asheville's Montford Historic District. During those 22 years He has improved the property and rented out rooms to tenants at below market rates, and so far He has not encountered a shortage of poor people to rent rooms to. This affordable housing is now under attack by a city that vigorously promotes affordable housing and even subsidizes it with tax breaks and other incentives.

The reason his home is under attack is that housing regulation mandates that single-family homes cannot be occupied by more than 5 unrelated people. And he is prohibited by zoning code from operating either a boardinghouse or a bed-and-breakfast homestay. The choices he's been given are to either summarily evict 3 people or upgrade the home with expensive safety equipment.

Evicting 3 renters would cost him the lost revenue of about $18,000 a year. He would have to make up the difference himself or significantly raising the rent on the remaining tenants. Absorbing the cost himself would bankrupt him and risk foreclosure on his 22-year investment. Raising rent would mean that 5 renters would be paying for 3 empty rooms and this would certainly put the property outside the definition of affordable housing.

If he decides to continue renting to more than 5 unrelated people, then instead of being subject to residential housing code his home would be subject to commercial code. This would require that an elaborate sprinkler systems be installed, which he estimates would cost around $30,000.

In any case, as long as his property is in violation of housing regulations he is subject to fines of $100 per day until he can prove that it is fully in compliance one way or another. Neither evicting tenants nor installing safety equipment can be done quickly and he has have spent three months so far communicating with city staff on the specifics of my case and seeking remedies as well as exploring and weighing my options for compliance and he could be facing $9,000 worth of fines as of today.

For 22 years he has paid his taxes, improved the neighborhood, increased property values and offered affordable housing to the community. He has harmed no one else and has not risked the safety or well-being of his friends.

Meanwhile, the City of Asheville is combating homelessness and poverty and is offering developers taxpayer-funded subsidies, tax breaks and economic incentives in exchange for building affordable housing in our city.

This is how the City of Asheville is both promoting and destroying affordable housing at the same time.

Home Rule

Any one visiting Bernard's home would find that it is spacious, accommodating, well kept and safe, with modern fixtures, appointments and appliances. There are fire escapes to the top story and fire extinguishers on every floor. The people that live there are friendly and mature and they get along well and look out for each other.

If city staff or a fire marshal were to inspect the property for themselves, this is what they would find. But they would not be able to consult their own judgment and declare the home to be safe, quiet, orderly and no threat to the neighborhood or its occupants.

But North Carolina is not a home rule state and the city must defer to state law in these matters. Legislators in Raleigh determine who can live where in Asheville. The city is only allowed to make housing regulation more restrictive but not less. If we had home rule, lawmakers in Asheville could resolve these problems on a case-by-case basis and, if that were so, I believe Bernard would be allowed to continue offering affordable housing to poor people in Asheville.

Taking

1. In Montford, you have two homes next to each other that are very similar in design and structure. The neighbor's property is worth a lot more than Bernard's. Why should Bernard's property be worth substantially less than his neighbor's? The neighbor's property is a Bed and Breakfast. A Bed and Breakfast is going to be worth more than a single-family home because it's been renovated and developed to be commercial income-producing property. Running a Bed and Breakfast is something Bernard has considered in the past. But Bernard cannot convert his single-family home into a Bed and Breakfast because of a zoning ordinance that prohibits two Bed and Breakfast Homestays from being next to each other. According to the Unified Development Ordinance, no two B&B's can be closer than 500 feet from each other. So, while the neighbor can operate a B&B, Bernard cannot. That constitutes a government taking without compensation.

2. Bernard's home was built 100 yeas ago to be an 8-bedroom house. Since Bernard bought the home 22 years ago, it has been housing 8 people in those 8 bedrooms. Along comes a law that prohibits Bernard from housing 8 people. The law says that Bernard can only have 5 people residing in his home. Now he cannot use 3 bedrooms as they were intended and must essentially keep them empty and unused. The house came first, then a law was established that denied Bernard the full use of his property as he saw fit and in a way that harmed no one else. That constitutes a government taking without compensation.

RELATED

Do North Carolina Local Governments Need Home Rule?
Frayda Bluestein |UNC School of Government | Fall 2006
North Carolina local governments are created by the state and derive all their powers by delegation from it.

Resident Fined For Providing Affordable Housing

2010-12-02T09:59:00.002-05:00

The City of Asheville promotes and destroys affordable housing at the same time.

Sustainable for whom?
Amid push for denser development, Montford residents face eviction
by David Forbes | Mountain Xpress | 11/16/2010

“Sustainability” has cropped up frequently in city policy statements in recent years, often accompanied by pleas for denser, more affordable housing to promote a style of living that proponents maintain is more energy-efficient and compatible with mass transit. But Montford resident Bernard Carman says he’s not impressed. He's owned a historic home on Cumberland Avenue, just north of downtown, for 22 years, undertaking extensive renovations (the house didn't have a working bathroom when he purchased it) while watching neighboring derelict buildings morph into swank bed-and-breakfasts. Carman shares the massive, eight-bedroom residence with seven roommates, providing affordable housing (currently $400 a month) without requiring potentially intrusive new construction or economic incentives from the city...

“This is all based on life-safety requirements,” she explains. “When you have eight related people living in a house, there's a head of household or parental figures who would act altruistically or in the family's best interest to get everybody out. When you have eight unrelated people, it's pretty much every man for himself..."

To be in compliance, barring major renovations, Mr. Carman would have to evict three of his eight tenants from his eight-room three-story home and leave those three bedrooms empty; that is, unoccupied and generating no income for the homeowner, contrary to his judgment. This constitutes a government taking. The home existed before the law. The new law deprives Mr. Carman of the right to use and dispose of his property as he sees fit. When the government takes property for a public purpose, it must compensate the property owner. Mr. Carman should receive a check for $1,500 per month from the City of Asheville to compensate him for the loss of income producing property forcibly imposed on him by law.

RELATED

Bernard Carman: Asheville Affordable Housing Threatened
Posted by Michael Muller | Mountain Xpress | October 13, 2010
Dear Asheville City Council members, past and present, and activists of our Asheville community: My name is Bernard B. Carman. I am a long time resident of Asheville and a ~22 year home owner in Montford. I have lately become aware of a general problem with our zoning ordinances as they stand today and I would like to share with you some of my concerns and recommendations for improvements.

Asheville ordinance may force Montford landlord to kick out renters
John Boyle | Asheville Citizen-Times | October 17, 2010
For 22 years, Bernard Carman has provided a nice little slice of affordable housing. But it looks like the city, which ironically enough promotes the daylights out of affordable housing and even finances some of it, might just shut him down. At the very least, Carman faces the unpleasant option of having to kick three of his eight renters out, which he finds untenable for philosophical and financial reasons.

What the fudge
by Brent Brown | Mountain Xpress | 11/23/2010

National Homelessness and Hunger Awareness Week was a great success in Asheville and Buncombe County this year. During the week of November 14-20 2010, the Asheville-Buncombe Homeless Initiative raised awareness about homelessness, dispelled myths, and talked with the community about existing efforts to end homelessness.

To comply with zoning rules, three residents will leave Montford home
by David Forbes | Mountain Xpress | 12/03/2010
To avoid fines, Bernard Carman, a Montford landowner involved in a dispute over city zoning rules that prohibit more than five unrelated tenants from living in his eight-bedroom house, says three tenants are leaving in order to comply with the rules.

TSA Screenings

2010-11-22T18:58:00.004-05:00

Intrusive, arbitrary, ineffective and offensive TSA security screenings are a consequence of a timid foriegn policy that is unwillling to identify and eliminate the threat of violent anti-Western, anti-civilization Islamist totalitarianism.

America is not screening at airports for Imperialist Japanese kamize pilots. America is not screening for German Nazi commanders. That is because we thoroughly defeated and demoralized those enemies. What is missing in our national defense regime today is a foreign policy of self-interest that is willing to thoroughly defeat our enemies.

Screening for potential physical instruments of violence blatantly ignores the ideological origins of the threat posed by Islamic fundamentalism. It is a willful ignoring of the facts of reality. It demonstrates to our enemies that we are willing to routinely violate the rights of our own innocent to appease the sensibilities of our enemies. This is a prescription for national suicide.

RELATED

Assault the enemy, not the citizenry
by Linn and Ari Armstrong | November 26, 2010
If we want to get serious about checking out people who may be a threat to us, it is perfectly obvious to anyone with a lick of common sense that a three-year-old Texas girl poses no danger. In our era threats come from a small minority of those with ties to the Islamic world.

Nude Scanners Vs. The Foundations Of Capitalism
Wendy Milling | Forbes | 11.30.10
All it would take to return to the era of safe and unmolested air travel would be to ruthlessly stamp out Islamism by completely destroying all the states that support it and laying down the law for the survivors in those states. Terrorism cannot occur if its perpetrators are dead and its sympathizers thoroughly demoralized.

The Rich Anti-Capitalist

2010-11-19T10:25:00.000-05:00

George Soros: "The success of market fundamentalism (capitalism)in America which has really kind of skewed public opinion against their own interests...Certainly, if you eliminated that then the public interest would be better served. And presumably it would lead to a more equal distribution of wealth."

Marriage Amendment

2010-11-09T22:20:00.003-05:00

Comments made on the Matt Mittan radio show
November 9, 2010, at 4:50pm
Podcast, begins at 00:34:00

I won't be surprised at all if religious right Republicans squander their dominance in the General Assembly by making a priority out of social or moral issues -- which are really religious issues.

This is a case of Christian theocrats attempting to codify their own religious beliefs in the law that should be secular.

For some reason, Christians seem uniquely unable to practice their religion between their ears.

To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, I would like to know how any same sex marriage breaks your leg or picks your pocket. I could marry my ashtray and it wouldn't cause any harm to anyone else. And it certainly wouldn't prevent you from practicing your religion.

Secondly, this amendment is couched in terms of representing the will of the people. As though people have the right to vote to violate other people's rights. Democracy is mob rule. We live in a country where the government is supposed to protect us from democracy. If a majority voted to ban Christianity, should we respect the will of the people?

RELATED

GOP: Dance With The One Who Brung You
By Paul Hsieh | November 3, 2010
Similarly, the recurrent theme in the countless grassroots Tea Party rallies across the country has been for fiscal responsibility and limited government — not social conservative issues such as abortion and gay marriage.

Shuler vs Pelosi

2010-11-09T10:30:00.014-05:00

Former Speaker Pelosi will run for House Minority Leader in the 112th Congress. NC District 11 Representative Heath Shuler will challenge her for the number one party leadership position.

Scenario One has Obama as President, Boehner as Speaker, Pelosi as Minority Leader, Democrat-controlled Senate. The result might be so-called "gridlock." But gridlock has never deterred the advance of statism.

Scenario Two has Obama as President, Boehner as Speaker, Shuler as Minority Leader, Democrat-controlled Senate. The result might be bipartisanship. Bipartisanship has never fueled the advance of liberty.

Bipartisanship might mean that more statist public policy gets through Congress and signed by the President. Gridlock might mean less statist public policy gets through Congress and signed by the President.

In the absence of a major tea party influence, gridlock would be preferable from a liberty point of view. In which case, it would be preferably if Pelosi retained Democrat Party leadership. Also, Republicans would relish an ongoing partisan contest from a power politics point of view.

In the presence of a major tea party influence, gridlock could prevent the repeal or reduction of statist public policy. Genuine tea party principles should reduce to the promotion of individual rights, limited government and free markets.

The question is whether or not there is sufficient tea party influence in Congress to make bipartisanship appealing to the liberty agenda. The acceptance and adoption of tea party values in seats of power would be a function of 1) the tea party's understanding and embrace of a consistent libertarian political philosophy and, 2) the ability of the tea party movement at large to exert influence in the culture and in political leaders.

There is a new Tea Party Caucus in the House, Allen West will join the CBC. Rubio and Paul are now Senators. The Democrats and partisan media are flummoxed. Constitution talk is ubiquitous. Liberty candidates will be encourage in the next round of elections. And there are other signs that a greater liberty influence is being felt in politics.

I feel that another positive development for the liberty movement would be the election of conservative Blue Dog Heath Shuler to the number one Democrat Party leadership position, over against Pelosi. If the larger liberty community could get behind Shuler in his bid for leadership for strategic reasons, his election could prove fatal to the progress of statism and lead the country into a more serious conversation about direction.

Politics follows culture. The success of any liberty agenda will not result from a single election or the passage or repeal of legislation. It must burst forth from the culture prior to a sustainable element in politics.

The recent mid-term elections have been rightly portrayed as a repudiation of the hard left Obama-Pelosi progressive agenda. The election of Shuler as party leader would further solidify this sentiment in the public consciousness.

It is for these reasons that I support the election of Heath Shuler as Minority Leader in the U.S. House of Representatives in the 112th Congress.

RELATED

Black Caucus mum on Tea Party Republican who wants to join
By Mike Lillis | The Hill | November 8, 2010
Rep.-elect Allen West (R-Fla.) indicated last week he intends to join the CBC to challenge the group's "monolithic voice."

Defeated Democrats Pen Letter to Implore Pelosi to step aside
by Chad Pergram | Fox News | November 08, 2010
"Madam Speaker, fairly or unfairly, Republicans made you the face of the resentment and disagreement in our races. While we commend your years of service to our party and your leadership through many tough times, we respectfully ask that you step aside as the top Democrat in the House."

Moderates Eye Retaliation Against Pelosi
By Steven T. Dennis | Roll Call Staff | Nov. 9, 2010
There also is frustration that no one credible has emerged to take on Pelosi; no one considers the threat by Rep. Heath Shuler (N.C.) to run to be anything more than a token gesture by the Blue Dog.

Midterm Election Analysis [video]
Communist Party USA | November 5, 2010
Democrats suffered a serious setback in Congress, jeopardizing a labor and people's movement agenda.

Jeff Miller Interview

2010-10-24T11:15:00.008-04:00

I thought you might enjoy this.

Jeff Miller is a conservative Republican candidate running for U.S. House of Representatives from North Carolina district 11 on a pro-life position. So I thought I'd call into a local radio interview and ask him a question (at minute 16:00).

Jeff Miller on "Take a Stand" with Matt Mittan
570 AM WWNC Radio
October 20, 2010
Podcast: http://is.gd/gdebU
Tim Peck question @ 00:16:00

The Veracity of Jane Whilden

2010-10-16T10:33:00.029-04:00

North Carolina Representative Jane Whilden (D116) has claimed, in her bid for re-election in 2010, that she is a long-time opponent of forcible annexation. However, we find that her words and her actions are at odds.

Below are statements from Rep. Whilden where she claims, on two different occasions on the campaign trail, to have been a co-sponsor of an annexation reform bill.

Jane Whilden on Annexation
CIBO Luncheon
October 14, 2010
CIBOdebate.MP3, 00:18:30

"I have voted three times against forced annexation. I have actually signed on as a co-sponsor for legislation and I am willing to do so again. The bills in the legislature this past session passed the House but were not taken up by the Senate. Which means they basically died, they go away, and so the legislation has to be re-introduced and pass both houses in order to become law."

Jane Whilden on Annexation
League of Women Voter Forum
October 12, 2010
Mountain Xpress Video, Part 4, 00:19:24

"I have co-sponsored and voted for a bill against forced annexation. It passed the House. It got to the Senate and it stalled, and I'm not really sure why, but it was not take up by the Senate."

Here is House Bill 524, Annexation - Omnibus Changes: http://is.gd/g4sux

Where is Whilden's name as a sponsor or co-sponsor?

Here's the vote where Whilden was the deciding 60th vote that sent Goforth's bill back to the Appropriations Committee, a committee on which Whilden sits, instead of letting it have an up or down vote: http://is.gd/g4swt

Bill Jacket for House Bill 524

The Bill Jacket is proof that Jane Whilden was neither a sponsor nor a co-sponsor of the bill.

Since the vote was 60-59, she was the deciding vote. Goforth, a handful of Democrats, and all the Republicans voted NOT to re-refer the bill. If Whilden voted for the motion to re-refer, then it is she herself who voted to kill and/or gut the bill; contrary to her claim above of not know how all of this happened.

Once it was sent back, it was significantly altered, including the "poison pill" provision that would require any area under threat of annexation by Asheville to obtain approx. 10,000 petition signatures in 10 days.

Original Bill: http://is.gd/g4syk
Final Bill: http://is.gd/g4szl

It is conceivable that Whilden would justify her vote to send the bill back to committee by claiming that she "just thought the bill needed some more work" or that she "just wanted to make sure it would pass."

This is nonsense. If she wanted changes, she could have amended the bill from the floor, but because she was not a prime sponsor, the amendment would have been hostile and likely failed.

Why would Whilden go against the bill sponsors? And why didn't she just amend the bill from the floor?

RELATED

Asheville City Council tables annexation policy
by Margaret Williams | Mountain Xpress | 10/12/2010
In a marathon meeting that started with a 3 p.m. work session and wound through several public hearings that didn’t wrap up till after 11 p.m., Asheville City Council members voted 5-2 to table annexation decisions for the next 12 months.

Public Comment (not given)
Tim Peck | October 12, 2010
The use of force is an ugly thing.

LTE: Glenn Beck

2010-09-30T10:26:00.001-04:00

Dear Editor, Asheville Tribune,

In its recent editorial critical of large-scale conservative protests in Washington, D.C., UNCA's sophomoric Blue Banner newspaper relays its received Progressive talking-points and proceeds to conflate Glenn Beck's well-attended religious tent revivals and the populist national Tea Party Movement in an attempt to discredit them both with a searing swipe. And yet fails for these very good reasons:

First, by descending into 'ad hominem' personal attacks, the Banner reveals the absence of a valid counter-argument within the points it thinks it is making. Inflammatory slurs like "lunatic" and "snakes" reveal little in the way of facts and logic, but a great deal about the pettiness of hostile ideological bias in local media. Let us just say it is unpersuasive.

Second, the Banner simply invents ill motives for both phenomena and directly resorts to a well-worn approach in political debate: smear your opponents with manufactured intrigue. By mischaracterizing the nature of Beck's event as "equating the rich white American's economic and spiritual struggle to the civil rights movement," the Banner creates a straw-man which it would then strike down with unfortunate and snippy rhetorical flourishes. Mixing in a little birther-mania for good measure.

To be sure, Glenn Beck is a maudlin, self-aggrandizing theocratic sentimentalist with more persona and poignant pauses than compelling analytical substance. But Beck certainly has both the legal right and the moral sanction to host a quasi-political rally at the Lincoln Memorial; even after the fashion of King in his heyday. It seems Beck is experiencing a bit of a brush with popularity these days. He appeals to a certain bent in the political marketplace. And from which I'm sure he'll profit. I don't begrudge him that. We need bread and circuses.

The Tea Party Movement, on the other hand, is an independent, decentralized, nonpartisan, grassroots political issues-oriented community that stands against the out-of-control growth of government power, scope, arrogance, recklessness and corruption and stands for restoring the supremacy of individual rights in American society; for re-establishing an objective rule of law under a constitutionally-limited and accountable government; for fiscal responsibility that does not privatize profits and socialize losses; and for the full realization of an economy that is free from government interference and political controls. This fact the Banner is loathe to acknowledge -- even after two years. Fonder are the caricatures.

The Blue Banner seems now to decry populist movements of democratic political dissent and zealous religious revivalism; which were all the rage in the 60's when Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., marched on the same grounds that tea partiers and the reverent do now.

Remember those bumper stickers from the 60's? "Power to the People." "Dissent is Patriotic." A new breed is preaching those values. Disaffected America today is peeling back those bumper stickers from the hand-painted minivans of yesterday and is now pressing them onto their Suburbans and pickup trucks with the same passion and for the same reason. Right On!

TIM PECK, ASHEVILLE

###

RELATED

Tea Party Movement is a Revival of the Middle Class
By Tony Blankley | September 29, 2010
Ortega famously argued that a materialistic mass population had no self-restraint, only takes from its civilization -- in contrast to the elites who still sacrificed for the greater good. Lasch's point -- and mine -- is that roles are now reversed. It is the elites who are the materialists and the tea party/middle-class American who is prepared to sacrifice for our grandchildren's freedom and prosperity.

Scrutiny Hooligans

2010-09-25T12:25:00.013-04:00

I am currently banned from the Scrutiny Hooligans community weblog, created by now-council member Gordon Smith, on the pretext that I violated commenting rules. That ban, abruptly enacted without communication, has been in place for more than a year.

[All I get is a big blank white screen. Can't read anything unless I go somewhere else and log on with a different IP address.]

The following is an email thread started when I attempted to respond to comments that specifically mention my name by forwarding my responses to others who are not banned to afford me an opportunity to answer my critics.

It includes comments from some friends, council member Gordon Smith and the SH Administrator on my status at the website and my recent attempts to address and resolve this matter.

-TIM PECK

Replies to Certain Scrutiny Hooligans Commenters

From: Tim Peck
To: D.D.
Sent: Fri, September 17, 2010 12:03:05 PM
Subject: reply to john, matt

John Baughmann
September 16th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Yeah, Tim. He once said that co-ops are immoral because they didn’t make a profit. I’m still not sure what that means…

1. I have never commented on the morality of co-ops.

2. Your comment appears to be in support of a previous comment regarding a ban in place for supposedly violating a rule. However, the point of your comment is a complaint about a point of view; which is not the subject of any ban. It seems you are in support of a ban based on opinion and that would be inconsistent with the comment rules set forth by the administrator.

Matt Rawlings
September 15th, 2010 at 10:58 pm
Dixiegirlz: Tim Peck doesn’t need to post here–Franzi is posting. Ever notice on other blogs how often Peck’s quotes are Franzi’s?

No, Matt, I've never noticed how often my quotes are actually Franzi's. Certainly you can point readers to many such examples to support your claim.

At any rate, I am unsure as to how the fact that Erika Franzi posts here would obviate my interest in commenting on topics or replying to others here as well. Any expanded explanation of your point would be appreciated.

How's that Coffee Party coming along?

From: Tim Peck
To: D.D.
Sent: Fri, September 17, 2010 11:54:47 AM
Subject: comment ban

Admin Hooligan
September 16th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
Tim Peck violated our comments policy by engaging in a form of spamming known as comment flooding. Until he apologizes to the contributors and readers of Scrutiny Hooligans, he will continue to be banned.

And just how would someone go about apologizing for flooding comments on a comment board that I have been banned from commenting on?

Here's my apology:

"I'm sorry I broke out a series of questions into 8 separate comments so that readers could respond to each one individually."

From: F.B.
To: Tim Peck
Sent: Fri, September 17, 2010 1:07:07 PM
Subject: scrutiny hooligans

Looks like they did not forgive you. The posts I made for you seem to have been removed.

From: Tim Peck
To: Gordon Smith
Sent: Fri, September 17, 2010 1:12:21 PM
Subject: Fw: scrutiny hooligans

There must be some mistake.

From: F.B.
To: Tim Peck
Sent: Fri, September 17, 2010 2:01:25 PM
Subject: Scrutiny Hooligans

COMMENT POSTED:

D.D.
September 17th, 2010 at 1:58 pm

ADMIN: “Tim Peck violated our comments policy by engaging in a form of spamming known as comment flooding. Until he apologizes to the contributors and readers of Scrutiny Hooligans, he will continue to be banned.”

I saw Mr. Peck’s version of what transpired and his apology.

What’s he supposed to do, self-flaggelate with a cat-o-nine tails, in Pack Square till no more flesh is on his back?

Earlier this year there were discussions about other affiliates coming here to voice opinions (but there was hot comment about the level of literacy that was expected)….Mr. Peck always writes articulately and well, though he tends toward a different mindset.

From: Tim Peck
To: Gordon Smith
Sent: Sat, September 18, 2010 11:57:34 PM
Subject: Fw: scrutiny hooligans

Please forward to your weblog administrator and I'll add my comments from below.

Here's my apology:

"I'm sorry I broke out a series of questions into 8 separate comments so that readers could respond to each one individually."

From: D.D.
To: Tim Peck
Sent: Sun, September 19, 2010 11:07:37 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: scrutiny hooligans

The lame-o excuse given by whoever admin dude is, is a cover.

The fact is they are not that comfortable with sharing a forum to opposing points of view. Mores the pity. There's been quite a bit of arm twisting to vote straight Democrat of late. They are not at all appreciative of new blood entering the fray. It appears to be a thinly veiled tool to sway voting.

That said...it's not like they have a tremendous amount of traffic on Scu-Hoo...there are days with no comments, what-so-ever.

D.D.

From: Tim Peck
To: Gordon Smith
Sent: Sun, September 19, 2010 2:51:02 PM
Subject: Re: scrutiny hooligans

Can we now dispense with the idea that I was banned from Scrutiny Hooligans for violating a technical rule of the comments policy?

From: Erika Franzi
To: Tim Peck
Cc: Gordon Smith
Sent: Sun, September 19, 2010 5:43:18 PM
Subject: Re: scrutiny hooligans

Who ever actually believed it? That is, outside of that cadre of pseudonymous commenters who mindlessly tap out ad hominem attacks against all those with an original thought, yet crow about their love of diversity of thought. Diversity of thought for these guys means having two thoughts in one day. And remembering both of them.

You know I like you a lot Gordon, but at the risk of further pissing you off, you really should take out the actual trash in the SH comment section, if there's to be one. Tim raises the level of discourse. The usual commenters simply make the comment section palatable to other progressives. It has been my observation that you are somewhat above that sort of partisan hackery and nonsense. I hope I haven't been wrong.

Awaiting my own banishment.

E

From: Tim Peck
To: Erika Franzi
Sent: Sun, September 19, 2010 6:21:37 PM
Subject: Re: scrutiny hooligans

Exhibit 1:

Admin Hooligan
September 16th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
"Tim Peck violated our comments policy by engaging in a form of spamming known as comment flooding. Until he apologizes to the contributors and readers of Scrutiny Hooligans, he will continue to be banned. But, because John Galt said that he owes nothing to his brothers, I’m guessing that we’ll never see his smiling Gravatar again. It’s ironic, really, that a blogger who disallows commenting on his own blog would act like such a grade-A spammer jerk on ours."

From: Gordon Smith
To: Erika Franzi
Cc: Tim Peck
Sent: Sun, September 19, 2010 7:14:00 PM
Subject: Re: scrutiny hooligans

Hi, everybody.

I've forwarded the conversation on to Admin. Admin is sovereign.

As to the "trash" - You don't have to visit if it's offputting. Based on your opinion of the ScruHoo commenters you must find it very offputting. Alternately, you could have conversations at other blogs. It is a big internet after all. Some people even begin their own blogs and foster their own commenting community. Lots of choices, y'all! As to "banishment", it's pretty easy to read the comments policy. Tim is one of only two or three people in six years of blogging that have had their privilege suspended.

I think we've done an excellent job creating a smart, funny, and sometimes absurd commenting culture at ScruHoo.

Lastly, I never expect to pass the ideological or philosophical purity tests given by many different types of True Believers.

We'll wait to hear from Admin,

Gordon

From: Erika Franzi
To: Tim Peck
Sent: Sun, September 19, 2010 7:20:21 PM
Subject: Fwd: scrutiny hooligans

Let it go.

He is the artful dodger. Didn't answer a single issue and he never will. What he did is suggest that we are overly sensitive to their comments and should go elsewhere.

He's insulting and not particularly bright. I am quite disappointed.

I'm done here.

E

From: Tim Peck
To: Gordon Smith
Sent: Sun, September 19, 2010 7:46:14 PM
Subject: Re: scrutiny hooligans

Let me attempt to carefully interpret Erika's email for Asheville's freshman city council member Gordon Smith:

The Administrator for your declared community weblog is lying asshole.

Thanks for your concern in this matter. Let me know,sir, if you need any help in others that might come across your desk about which you are completely baffled.

From: Gordon Smith
To: Tim Peck
Sent: Sun, September 19, 2010 8:23:49 PM
Subject: Re: scrutiny hooligans

You missed your calling, Tim. You ought've been a diplomat.

I'm sure you're not spending too much time thinking about your commenting status at ScruHoo what with the many efforts you're helping to spearhead with the Asheville Tea Party. I appreciate your candor and endless patience.

G

From: Tim Peck
To: Gordon Smith
Sent: Sun, September 19, 2010 8:26:50 PM
Subject: Re: scrutiny hooligans

It's not too much to get to the bottom of abject duplicity in local politics. In fact, it's a pleasure. The laughter alone is worth the effort.

From: Gordon Smith
To: timothypeck@yahoo.com
Sent: Mon, September 20, 2010 10:46:21 PM
Subject: In response

Tim,

I received this from Admin today:

Mr. Peck,

Thank you for your continued interest in Scrutiny Hooligans. We will soon be implementing programming measures that will attempt to address and hopefully improve many of the issues that we've been having with the way our installation of WordPress handles comments. We're running tests right now, and we're estimating that we're three to five months away from a solution. Until then, we won't be making any decisions about the removal of any IP addresses from our blacklist.

Regards,
Management

From: Tim Peck
To: Gordon Smith
Sent: Mon, September 20, 2010 11:51:37 PM
Subject: Re: In response

Translation: "I'm a dick."

Thanks for your clarification. I'll be sure to pass this along to the others.

Regards,

My ass

RELATED

BlogDrama Open Thread
Scrutiny Hooligans weblog | October 7, 2010

Dixiegirlz: I still think the reasoning for barring Tim Peck is lame. He should be allowed back into the fold. Our country is better for opposing, yet polite points of view.

Matt: Are we REALLY still discussing the comments policy & TP? If you really feel the need to read his pointless and offensive comments-look at the abundance on other local blogs/news media sites. I have yet to see one of his posts add something new to a discussion or wasn’t simply repeating the words of his master, the local tea brewer. I find the lack of TP comments on this blog refreshing. Now, can we discuss solar panels and the White House?

Tim Peck: It might be helpful to Mr. Matt Rawlings (of now-defunct Coffee Party fame) to know that there is no commenting rule that allows for the barring of participants due to the disagreeable nature of the content of their comments; no matter how "refreshing" their absence might be to the simple-minded. Even the "pointless and offensive" (and undecipherable) comments offered by Mr. Rawlings are still allowed to stand at Scrutiny Hooligans.

Interview: American Independent

2010-09-21T21:19:00.004-04:00

Asheville Tea Party remains neutral in Shuler-Miller race
Aaron Sarver | American Independent News Network | September 21, 2010

Now with more than 700 people subscribing to its e-mail newsletter, the Asheville Tea Party (ATP) has grown rapidly in the past few months as voters tune into the fall elections. Membership in the group is a non-formal affair, requiring no dues. And with the attention and influence tea party factions continue to wield, on both local and national levels, many established Republicans are trying to shore-up their local tea party’s endorsement.

Speaking about the group’s process for endorsing candidates, Tim Peck, co-founder of the ATP, says, “We need to remain non-partisan and be very clear on who we’re going to endorse and why, we’re not just going to fall in line. This is a clarifying moment for us as an organization. Through this process of looking very seriously at the substance of the candidates we’ve been able to differentiate between the people who really understand our mission and those who expected us to be something else.”

The Asheville Tea PAC, which the Asheville Tea Party uses to raise funds and run ads, has endorsed several local candidates for the General Assembly, all Republicans, including R.L. Clark for Senate District 49, Jim David for Senate District 50, Mark Crawford for House District 115, Tim Moffitt for House District 116 and Sam Edwards for House District 118. Yet, the ATP has not endorsed either candidate in the 11th District congressional race between incumbent Democrat Heath Shuler and Republican challenger Jeff Miller.

The group uses the Independence Caucus Survey, which consists of 80 yes-or-no questions focusing mainly on tax and fiscal policy, to determine endorsements. Audio from each endorsed candidate is available on the Independence Caucus website, which is used to clarify answers (and non-answers) to any questions. Peck says, “It’s not just yes-or-no questions. It’s more in-depth, why did you answer yes or no to these questions.”

Peck says both Democrats and Republicans are eligible to receive an endorsement so long as they take the survey and participate in an interview. Neither Shuler nor Miller has taken the survey, though the ATP has encouraged both candidates to do so in their print advertisements, which lists the group’s endorsed candidates. Peck says a lot of people in the ATP will vote for Miller. “We have a lot of internal wrangling over whether to endorse the Republican nominee.”

But Peck believes the group will stick to its strict endorsement criteria. And for those who expect the ATP to automatically get behind Miller, Peck said, “You ought to be able to find another political organization who will endorse a Republican regardless of their merit.”

Peck doesn’t think highly of Miller himself. “He’s a waffling big-government conservative. He’s already flip-flopped on Social Security. He’s not able to defend his position on Social Security so he flip-flops on it.”

The ATP did endorse a candidate in the Republican primary, Dr. Dan Eichenbaum. Eichenbaum bested Miller by 48-27 percent in Buncombe County, which includes Asheville (the largest county and largest city in the 11th District). Miller won the primary 40-34 percent overall, with four other candidates on the ballot.

Peck, who is registered as “unaffiliated,” Buncombe County’s official term for independent, says the group is not just a bunch of disaffected Republicans, and that he will continue to go to great lengths to explain how tea party groups are misrepresented by the media. “Don’t confuse Glenn Beck and the tea party and Sarah Palin. Anytime Glenn Beck says something stupid, that paints the tea party in a bad light. … A lot of these groups don’t have anything in common.” Peck says the group’s views are frequently misunderstood on local blogs and forums as well, and he frequently points to the group’s mission statement to try and set others straight about the ATP’s views. It reads, in part:

The Asheville Tea Party is an independent, local, voluntary, nonpartisan, grassroots political activist organization that stands for individual rights, limited government, fiscal responsibility and free markets; and was created by concerned citizens in response to the out-of-control growth of government power, scope, arrogance, recklessness and corruption.

Miller isn’t the only GOP candidate Peck is wary of endorsing. Of incumbent Republican Sen. Richard Burr — running for reelection against Democrat Elaine Marshall and Libertarian Michael Beitler — Peck has previously said of ATP’s views of Burr, “They’re just not interested in what Burr has to offer.” Peck didn’t consider his favored candidate Beitler a spoiler in Burr’s chances of reelection. “If Burr loses by 7 percent he needs to think about that,” Peck said. “He will lose because he’s wrong on the issues. I would consider Burr the spoiler.”

###

Dickie Green Interview

2010-08-29T10:14:00.002-04:00

video platform video management video solutions free video player

LTE: Gay Marriage Bans

2010-08-12T13:44:00.002-04:00

TO: ASHEVILLE TRIBUNE

Dear Editor,

Our Founding Fathers hated democracy. So do I. Democracy is rule by public whimsy. Whereas the Founders envisioned for our nation a rule of objective law, not of fickle men. Under this vision, the protection of rights trumps the wishes of a mob, any mob, no matter their fallacious appeals to authority.

Thankfully, U.S. Federal Judge Vaughn Walker agreed with the Founders and me in his decision overturning California's proposed Constitutional ban on gay marriage. With his decision, free adults retain the right to enter into voluntary contracts on their own terms unmolested by their neighbors. And this is how it should be--for all of us.

If a majority voted to ban Christianity, should we respect the will of the people? I pray not.

TIM PECK
ASHEVILLE

RELATED

Where Do People Like This Come From?
Neal Boortz | August 10, 2010
Another letter-writer says that "Elected officials have the duty to vote the line of the majority of their constituents. This is the basis of representation by population in the Constitution." Sorry ... wrong.

Gay Marriage
Tim Peck | July 24, 2007
Some are using religion to justify discrimination against gays while others use religion to justify acceptance of gays. Both are wrong.

Home

2010-07-10T22:46:00.004-04:00

Jane says: "Home is wherever I'm with you."

Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeros on Letterman
The Debut of Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeros on Network Telivision

Beitler on Fair Tax

2010-07-07T10:44:00.007-04:00

“The income tax and the IRS must be abolished. No government should punish hard work and savings. If we truly want to stimulate the economy, we must stop discouraging hard work and savings in America. More than 20% of the cost of everything we buy is the embedded cost of the current tax system. The size and complexity of the tax code is a national disgrace. The FairTax is the solution. The FairTax would replace income taxes and payroll taxes with a simple national retail sales tax. Let’s make the FairTax a top priority.” --Mike Beitler

Dr. Michael Beitler is a libertarian spokesman for individual rights, limited government, and capitalism. During Mike’s 30-year career, he has been recognized as a leading business executive, business consultant, business professor, and business author. Dr. Beitler’s book, Strategic Organizational Change, is required reading in MBA programs worldwide. Mike’s DVD,Overcoming Resistance to Change, has been ranked the #1 business video on amazon.com. Mike’s book, Rational Individualism, is widely acclaimed by libertarians and free-market advocates as the leading guide for today’s political and economic issues.

Earmarks

2010-06-24T12:39:00.000-04:00

June 24, 2010

Dear Managing Editor, Asheville Tribune,

In his opinion series on authentic conservatism, Dr. Carl Mumpower takes issue with Ron Paul bringing pork home to his congressional district in Texas ('Ron Paul Tap Dances on Earmarks,' June 4, 2010).

I agree with Ron Paul.

Ideally, taxpayers should be relieved of the ever-growing burden of involuntarily funding an out-of-control, unconstitutional, greedy and corrupted government. As it happens, however, taxes are forcibly seized by the federal government and should, by some means, find their way back to their rightful owners. Since the government is unwilling to either cease the confiscation outright or directly return the spoils of plunder, pork is the next best substitute to allowing taxpayers to keep their own money.

Without the earmarking of certain ill-gotten gains, every other state in the Union can and will lay claim to the money seized from Texans. Reclaiming this money for his constituents through pork programs, Rep. Ron Paul is standing athwart the Marxist redistribution of wealth saying, "Stop!" -- something I thought Dr. Mumpower would applaud.

You learn something new every day.

TIM PECK
ASHEVILLE

BP Oil Spill: A Fuller Picture

2010-06-24T09:20:00.027-04:00

BP's sub-contracted Deepwater Horizon oil rig — a 30-story, fifth-generation, ultra-deepwater, dynamically-positioned, column-stabilized, floating, semi-submersible Drilling Unit — exploded on April 20th and sank two days later, unleashing a gushing discharge of oil into the Gulf of Mexico that promises to upset the ecological stability of a vast region for years.

This devastating oil spill is a great industrial disaster with widespread negative effects for both the environment and those who live, work and play in the impacted areas. And we mourn the loss of those who died in the explosion.

This crisis is far from over, but we can take steps now to examine the accident and our responses to it. If we are to have any assurance that a catastrophe of this kind and degree is not repeated, we need to have a clear-eyed and unflinching view of all of the contributing factors involved.

HAZARDOUS ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

Oil companies like BP are protected by a $75M cap on damages put in place by an act of Congress in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. After the Exxon-Valdez disaster (1989) had been cleaned up and nearly paid for by Exxon, oil companies lobbied Congress for liability limits that would establish a maximum amount they would have to pay in the event of a disaster. A Republican Congress and President Bill Clinton together enacted law requiring that oil companies be limited to paying $75M for cleanups, leaving the taxpayer with any remaining costs. In return for this legislative favor, the government could now tell the oil companies where they could or could not drill.

BP entered into an agreement with the state of Louisiana to drill in 500 foot waters off their coast. But the federal government superseded that agreement and told BP that it could only drill farther out in much greater depths; where no well had ever been broken and under conditions the government had never before monitored. And for this dangerous adventure, BP would only need allocate $75M toward any possible mishap. In the case of an oil company worth hundreds of billions of dollars, a $75M cap, well below the $14 billion estimated for the cleanup, amounts to a corporate bailout. BP, by the way, presently earns roughly $6 billion per quarter.

The liability cap is, at bottom, an instance of private enterprise -- Big Oil -- successfully lobbying the power of government to gain undeserved market advantages. This government-granted advantage becomes an incentive to hazard short cuts, hide secret problems and cozy up to willing regulators for further advantage. It is a perverse incentive based on the secure knowledge that no matter what the extent of an incident, BP would easily survive to mark down the relatively minor financial loss as a ledger entry under “The Cost of Doing Business.”

Without such a forgiving cap, BP would be forced into the position of having to rigorously assess the risks of drilling in dangerous, relatively inaccessible 5,000 foot deep waters and possibly suffer the actual cost of a potentially uncontrollable and financially devastating spill.

The ruptured well at the bottom of the sea is so deep underwater that no one can physically get to it because of the intense pressure and freezing cold. This inaccessibility is a factor in the several failed attempts to stop the spill using robotic submersibles. Had BP been allowed to drill on land or in more shallow waters currently off-limits, a similar accident would have been manageable and remedied in short order. Environmentalists should ask that bans on drilling in lower risk areas like ANWR and the shallow-water continental shelf be rescinded. Today, we are drilling in high risk areas because cheaper, less risky sources of oil have been deemed off limits.

HAZARDOUS BUREAUCRATIC ENVIRONMENT

The federal government regulates off-shore drilling. The entity charged with setting safety guidelines, conducting safety inspections and enforcing safety regulations is the Minerals Management Service (MMS), an Executive Branch agency under the Department of the Interior.

This agency is notorious for its corruption and incompetence and begging for a shakeup. MMS had never required any of the critical backup systems -- the deadman, the autoshear, the underwater robots -- to be tested and many of the cost-cutting measures adopted by BP, and condemned by its critics, were approved by the agency charged with oversight.

A regulatory rule was ignored requiring oil companies to submit proof-positive that any blind shear rams in use would actually shear pipe and seal a well 5,000 feet down. MMS went on then to approved BP’s Macondo Prospect permit without requiring this proof. MMS has in fact approved hundreds of permits without requiring this proof and BP claims that no such proof was ever requested of them. MMS commissioned a study by the Scandinavian SINTEF Group that documented over 100 failures of blow out preventers. The group formally recommended a redundant system saying, "All subsea B.O.P. stacks used for deepwater drilling should be equipped with two blind shear rams." MMS did not incorporate this recommendation into their regulatory regime.

Rounding out the scandal, MMS staff were perpetually being found in compromising positions. Tim Dickinson reports in Rolling Stone magazine:

“When agency staffers weren't joining industry employees for coke parties or trips to corporate ski chalets, they were having sex with oil-company officials. But it was American taxpayers and the environment that were getting screwed. MMS managers were awarded cash bonuses for pushing through risky offshore leases, auditors were ordered not to investigate shady deals, and safety staffers routinely accepted gifts from the industry, allegedly even allowing oil companies to fill in their own inspection reports in pencil before tracing over them in pen.”

Far from being out of the loop, BP told MMS on Feb. 13th that it was trying to seal cracks in the well about 40 miles off the Louisiana coast. MMS was also well aware of risk factors connected to the failed blowout preventer. An investigation by The New York Times revealed that:

"MMS repeatedly declined to act on advice from its own experts on how it could minimize the risk of a blind shear ram failure in the blowout preventer. It also shows that the Obama administration failed to grapple with either the well-known weaknesses of blowout preventers or the sufficiency of the nation’s drilling regulations even as it made plans this spring to expand offshore oil exploration."

The government has also failed us in a number of ways since the spill. What the Executive Branch should have done early on, but did not, was review the plans for coping with the disaster and intervene decisively to move crusty bureaucracy in flexible and responsive directions. Instead, we have seen classic bureaucratic stalling, obstruction and confusion.

In one case, the implementation of plans to dredge and build sand berms along the coastline in effected states has been held up the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the agency that must approve these plans, because the barriers may impede natural water flows.

In another case, the Obama administration declined a Dutch offer to aid in the clean up partly because of the pro-union, protectionist Jones Act, which restricts foreign-built and foreign-staffed sea craft from operating in U.S. waters. The Bush Administration waived the Jones Act to help with relief efforts in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. The Obama Administration should do the same and, to date, has not. The Dutch offered to fly their skimmer arm systems to the Gulf three days after the oil spill started. The offer was apparently turned down because EPA regulations do not allow water with oil to be pumped back into the ocean. But if all the oily water was retained in the tanker, the capacity of the system would be greatly reduced because most of what is pumped into the tanker is sea water.

It is also perplexing that only 20 America's 2,000 skimming barges are being deployed in the Gulf on the off chance that the other barges might be needed for oil spills elsewhere. These few vessels performing cleanup operations off Louisiana were halted for 24 hours while the U.S. Coast Guard fulfilled its regulatory function of inspecting them for fire extinguishers, life vests, etc.

Alabama Governor Riley complained that there is no single person in charge. Both Gold Coast governors have developed plans with the Coast Guard's command center, but those plans were frustrated when agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service asserted themselves. Says Riley, "It's like this huge committee down there and [for] every decision that we try to implement, any one person on that committee has absolute veto power." For example, the EPA has repeatedly changed its mind regarding the chemical dispersants that Louisiana is allowed to use.

UNHELPFUL SOLUTIONS

Some of the cleanup methods being employed are actually very harmful to people, the environment and marine life. More so than oil. Oil naturally breaks down in sea water over time through weathering, feasting micro-organisms, and solar decomposition. Oil is a common, natural presence in the environment, including in the Gulf of Mexico. A 2009 article in Environmental Science and Technology reported that the naturally occurring Coal Oil Point seep field off the coast of Santa Barbara has leaked up to 200 barrels of oil into the ocean every day for perhaps thousands of years. Yet marine organisms still prosper there.

In response to the Gulf spill, toxic dispersants like Corexit (banned in Europe) are being used. Dispersants don't clean, they disperse. They prevent oil from rising to the surface of the water which limits its exposure to nature's cleansing agent: the Sun. Keeping oil below the surface with dispersants hampers the natural process of decomposition. The warmer the water and the greater the solar exposure, the faster oil breaks down. One gallon of a Corexit and oil mixture is capable of rendering 383,141 gallons of water highly toxic to fish. And BP has ordered another 805,000 gallons of these type dispersants to dump into the Gulf.

There is, though, one proven technique that has been used to quickly stop deep water oil leaks: a controlled nuclear detonation. This technique has quickly and permanently stopped oil leaks in 4 out of 5 attempts by Russia in the 1960’s and 1970’s. The US government can authorize such an option.

UNHELPFUL REACTIONS

The Executive Branch has proposed a controversial six-month moratorium on offshore drilling against the advice of experts. The result would be that, after an international bidding war, the best and safest rigs would be redeployed elsewhere in the world to satisfy world demand and leave the U.S. with the oldest, least desirable and least safe rigs. This would simply increase the probability of another major disaster. An arbitrary six-month moratorium on new deep-water drilling would further damage the already faltering economies of the Gulf states and could result in the loss of 20,000 oil industry jobs. The drilling industry estimates the moratorium would cost rig workers as much as $330 million per month in wages. And this does not take into account businesses serving those rigs, like machine-shop workers.

Making matters worse, the White House is engaged in a cynical, politically-motivated public relations campaign that would dishonestly lay all of the blame on private enterprise to obscure its own culpability. This indignant kabuki dance has helped to fuel a general anti-business hostility in the nation that is inciting consumers and activists to target small business-people who own BP gas station franchises for boycotts and vandalism. Attacking and boycotting these small businesses has no impact on BP. The majority of BP stations are privately-owned. Instead, these actions only hurt local business and the low-skilled employees they hire. And much of the gasoline sold at BP gas stations comes from other sources. No practical good can come of grandstanding and demonizing BP. No amount of bullying, boasting, threatening, or emoting will solve a complex technical problem.

Leveraging the hostility it has fueled, the government now demands that it should take over the claims payment process by appropriating financial assets for disbursement to injured parties on its own terms. First of all, the government does not have a good track record of efficiency in handing out aid to disaster victims -- or, in some cases, non-victims. And having the government disburse claims money gives the illusion that the government is solving the problem when it has only seized assets to distribute according to political calculation.

The compensation process is the proper function, first, of the private sector and, second, the judicial system. Instead, the White House is expropriating vast sums of money from a private enterprise to distribute to whomever it deems worthy of compensation. That is precisely what is happening with the $20 billion shakedown of BP to compensate people allegedly harmed by the spill. This should guarantee a steady stream of claimants and rooms full of indifferent bureaucrats and attorneys. The takeover of the claims process also fosters the illusion that politicians are doing something, diverting attention from their own culpability.

Further exacerbating the problem has been the two-month-long partisan media blackout of the government's obstructions and incompetence before and after the spill. Faking reality does not change it. And the media have once again failed to perform its watchdog function.

LIMITED GOVERNMENT

The proper role of government in a free society is limited; that is, limited to the protection of individual rights within a framework of objective law. The government should and must protect individuals from violence, fraud and willful negligence.

The federal government owns the property where BP and other oil companies drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico and has an obligation to ensure its proper and safe use. This should include ensuring that no action take place on that property that would egregiously pollute the common environment or endanger the lives and livelihoods of the people there. A property owner has both rights and responsibilities in this respect and must take pains to avoid causing harm.

All property owners should regulate; that is, control or direct by rule, principle or method the uses to which their property is put. You may apply a rule in your own home that admits no handguns and all guests must comply. The federal government may likewise set rules regarding what types of activity take place on its property and parties to lease agreements must comply. In the case of the homeowner, a simple acknowledgment may suffice. In the case of complex and dangerous deep-sea oil exploration, rigorous standards, inspections and enforcement actions are necessary. In both cases, transparency on the part of the guest is required.

Any breach of established rules should be met with impartial enforcement for the benefit of the innocent. As it is, the Interior Department, through MMS, holds the keys to access to offshore drilling. It is through government dereliction, corruption and graft that BP receives unfair advantages in the marketplace.

SUGGESTIONS

What needs to be addressed is a legal and policy framework that encourages and rewards misconduct on the part of Big Oil.

Total liability: Government-imposed liability caps should be removed to expose oil companies to the actual cost of damages in the event of an incident. In this way, self-interest begets compliance. Oil companies that would like to make money instead of lose it will take extreme measures to avoid the consequences of bankruptcy. It is the artificial removal of risk through government intervention that introduces hazard into the equation by falsifying reality. Capping liabilities does not eliminate real damage. It simply transfers the real costs from the guilty to the innocent.

Insurance: Rather than relying on corrupt and incompetent government bureaucrats to police risk, oil companies should submit to the oversight of insurance companies who stand to lose a great deal in cases of negligence or other bad behavior. An insurer would certainly require the oil company to put up a substantial performance bond as a safeguard against a breach of contract. And if the oil company is held fully liable for damages, they would be foolish not to take out policies that match their exposure.

Prosecution: The government must fulfill its proper role of protecting rights and conduct a thorough and objective investigation into the accident to determine if and where any criminal negligence might have occurred.

Adjudication: The courts should vigorously fulfill its role of redressing grievance by quickly and appropriately processing injury claims based on merit. Litigation is the purview of government. If litigation in this case becomes dragged out to the detriment of the actually injured, then this would be yet another example of the failure of government, not the private sector.

Non-intervention: Government needs to get out of the habit of handing out favors based on political calculation and personal aggrandizement. It is government intervention in the economy that creates lobbyists, corporatism and special interest groups who act rationally in their own interest in an un-free market. Corporations and special interest groups can only buy government favors when government is for sale.

GOING FORWARD

We ought to acknowledge that oil has brought us a many life-enhancing, wealth-producing, comfort-creating advancements over the past hundred years or so and it remains an essential element in our lives. Not only does oil fuel the automobiles, freighters, jets, trucks, and industrial machinery that power our global economy, its derivatives are found in hospital products that ensure our health: durable, flexible plastic (oil) tubes that safely delivered food, coming from a sealed plastic (oil) bag that securely stores it; oil tubes designed to vacuum excess fluids; disposable foam (oil) cradles to prop up the patient’s arms or legs if necessary–made of oil so as to be disposable; disposable, sterile gloves are either latex or synthetic–that is, made of oil; disposable surgical masks and head-coverings; sanitary plastic (oil) trash-bags for medical waste. Infection in the hospital operating rooms used to be a highly-common and deadly product of surgery due to a lack of petroleum products.

There is also mounting evidence that oil is abiotic in origin; that is, not derived from fossils. Meaning that oil may well be a renewable resource generated from deep withing the Earth's crust that can serve mankind's needs indefinitely without reaching any mythical or hoped-for peak. There is no viable alternative to oil on the horizon and we should continue to find ways to safely and cheaply extract it for our use.

And there is no use in disparaging our use of a valuable resource by characterizing it as an “addiction.” We are no more “addicted” to oil than we were “addicted” to wood two hundred years ago for warmth or sailing ships. We "use" oil and its derivatives for many good things that make life agreeable and would be hard-pressed to do without it.

I hope the spill is stopped and the Gulf waters cleaned up as soon as possible. But I also hope that the oil already spilled can be salvaged for consumption to our benefit. If we are to continue are present lifestyles of prosperity, convenience and health, we will need to pursue the values of civilization and that includes continuing to explore for oil. Let's make sure we do it properly and avoid the many mistakes that went into causing our current crisis in the Gulf.

While BP is ultimately responsible for the spill – and for cleaning it up – the federal government is implicated in many significant ways as well. A lot of people have been calling for BP to be held to account, and they should be. But a fuller accounting will be one that includes all of the perpetrators and their degree of culpability. In that case, for all of its failures, the federal government must be placed in the docket as well.

###

RELATED

Red tape keeps prized oil-fighting skimmers from Gulf, coastline
Chris Kirkham | The Times-Picayune | June 28, 2010
Just weeks after the oil spill crisis began to unfold in the Gulf of Mexico, the French foreign minister volunteered a fleet of oil skimming boats from a French company, Ecoceane. A month later, in early June, Ecoceane Chief Executive Eric Vial met with BP and Coast Guard officials to present the idea.

Morning Bell: Obama’s Oil Spill To-Do List
Rory Cooper | The Foundry | June 30th, 2010
The oil spill crisis in the Gulf of Mexico gets worse by the day. Oil spews from the broken well, further polluting our water and shores. The clean-up efforts drag on with bureaucratic interference, making matters worse. And what is the Obama administration doing?

Why Is the Gulf Cleanup So Slow?
by Paul Rubin | Wall Street Journal | July 2, 2010
As the oil spill continues and the cleanup lags, we must begin to ask difficult and uncomfortable questions. There does not seem to be much that anyone can do to stop the spill except dig a relief well, not due until August. But the cleanup is a different story. The press and Internet are full of straightforward suggestions for easy ways of improving the cleanup, but the federal government is resisting these remedies.

Obama decried, then used, some Bush drilling policies
By Neil King Jr, Keith Johnson | Wall Street Journal | July 6, 2010
Less than four months after President Barack Obama took office, his new administration received a forceful warning about the dangers of offshore oil drilling.

Jones Act Waiver

2010-06-21T13:04:00.005-04:00

"Hurricane Katrina formed over the Bahamas on August 23, 2005 and crossed southern Florida as a moderate Category 1 hurricane, causing some deaths and flooding there before strengthening rapidly in the Gulf of Mexico. The storm weakened before making its second landfall as a Category 3 storm on the morning of Monday, August 29 in southeast Louisiana." -Wikipedia

RELATED

GOP senators introduce bill to suspend Jones Act
Republicans are putting the pressure on President Obama to waive the Jones Act. Three GOP senators introduced legislation Friday to ease the passage of foreign ships in the Gulf of Mexico to help with the oil spill cleanup.

BCGOP

2010-06-19T15:23:00.008-04:00

RL Clark

2010-06-19T07:26:00.004-04:00

Photo by Michael Muller

Don't Tread On Me, Goyim

2010-06-15T13:10:00.001-04:00

Time is of the Essence

2010-06-13T11:19:00.003-04:00

The White House cordially invites BP Chairman to a meeting on Jun 16 saying, "time is of the essence." Rig exploded Apr 20.

To Be Seen Of Men

2010-06-02T12:13:00.003-04:00

Rand Paul

2010-05-27T10:56:00.003-04:00

Paul and the Private Parts
Bigots are not the only ones hurt by bans on discrimination.
Jacob Sullum | May 26, 2010

Last week James Clyburn, a former civil rights activist who is now a Democratic congressman from South Carolina, warned that if Rand Paul is elected to represent Kentucky in the Senate, "it will be the first step…to turning back the gains that we started making way back in the 1860s." The comment, provoked by the Republican candidate's criticism of the federal ban on racial discrimination in places of "public accommodation," was not just hyperbolic but radically misguided, because Paul's position is based on the same principle that led to the abolition of slavery and the long struggle for equality that followed it: the principle of self-ownership...

Megyn Kelly on Immigration Law

2010-05-22T23:02:00.002-04:00

Posting Frequency

2010-05-11T13:31:00.002-04:00

People looking for frequent weblog updates should refer to the Asheville Tea Party website. That's where I'm doing most of my posting right now.

Primary Election Reflections

2010-05-05T21:59:00.005-04:00

As an unaffiliated voter in Buncombe County, I am very pleased at how my candidate, Dr. Dan Eichenbaum, performed in the Republican primary. Had the other spoiler candidates withdrawn, I believe the Dr. Dan would have won the contest outright.

Numerically, Dr. Dan came in a surprisingly close second for a candidate with no name recognition and no prior public service. Geographically, Dr. Dan gained the greatest support; having won 8 out of fifteen counties in the district. And he received support from the widest possible ideological spectrum that included conservatives, libertarians, the non-ideological and even some progressives.

It's amazing that most of the six candidates that really had no chance could not afford the front-runners the latitude to court a greater swath of voters in the region. Newman was unliked in his own county. 800 people wanted "Jake" Howard to be our representative. And Kenny West should have been running for pastor instead of considering any serious elective office. Even local Republicans took pains to undermine Eichanbaum's appeal by rudely crashing tea parties criticizing his support base and spreading falsehoods in public forums. I mean, who are these people?

There has been no better political season to make advances for individual rights, limited government and free markets than this one. But they would have none of it. Their pettiness and self-regard would stand in the way of genuinely advancing their values in the political marketplace.

In spite of all of these thoughtless countervailing forces, Dr. Dan edged into such a close second that a run-off election is still in play.

Jeff Miller is a nice enough guy, I suppose, but he has no chance of offering Heath Shuler a significant challenge. Much like Shuler, and most Republicans, Miller has no compass; no underlying integrated political philosophy that informs his public policy views. He, like every typical pol, has to consider and weigh each issue as an isolated, floating phenomenon and clumsily discover his position on it. Whereas, Dr. Dan has the hard-won luxury of simply applying a well-grounded philosophical perspective to any issue that arises. You can readily deduce his position on a range of issues from his philosophy rather than hoping he will get it right more often than a broken clock. This is precisely the quality we should be looking for in a representative of the people: fore-knowledge.

I look forward to working with Dr. Dan in any future flirtation with public office, if he so chooses, and will certainly back him as a friend, supporter and tea party member were a run-off bid secured in the coming weeks.

God's Gift to Theocrats

2010-05-01T17:47:00.003-04:00

RL Clark

2010-04-29T21:46:00.013-04:00

RL Clark is the Asheville Tea Party's recommended candidate for NC Senate District 49. He has already served two terms in the North Carolina Senate (1995-1996, 1997-1998), where he earned the nickname "Senator No" due to his unyielding resistance to voting for irresponsible spending bills.

Candidate Survey - R.L. Clark
by Mountain Xpress | 04/21/2010

MX: What most distinguishes you from your opponent?

My previous legislative accomplishments: Cut over $1 billion personal, food, excise, inheritance and business taxes. Repealed intangibles tax. Created charter schools; returned control to local boards of education. Required sex offenders to register for life; repealed prison cap. Increased homestead exemptions for elders.

MX: What are your top three legislative priorities?

Jobs creation by reducing business, individual and personal taxes plus eliminating unreasonable and unnecessary rules and regulations.
School choice, vouchers and removal of charter-schools cap.
Compliance with U.S. and N.C. constitutions regarding state sovereignty and legislative redistricting.

Campaign 2008

Campaign 2010

RELATED

The Definition of Insanity
Micheal Muller | April 28, 2010
Don Yelton is an angry little man with an enormous ego: he runs for office every year because he has a captive audience of Republicans who are either too afraid to stand up to him or too stupid to realize that he’ll never win an election.

Asheville Video

2010-04-29T10:38:00.001-04:00

Little Republicans

2010-04-25T22:47:00.010-04:00

From: Darrell Barry
Subject: Obama's vacation
To: Asheville Tea Party

I now have my doubts about the Tea Party Movement, what is going on? The very man whose policies we are protesting gets a free ride. No protests except a few anti-war demonstrators. I smell something rotten in Denmark or should I say Asheville. My support is rapidly dwindling.

On Apr 25, 2010, at 8:58 PM, Richard Bernier wrote:

Erika,

We did not have to be were we are right now with the ATP - my words fell on the deaf ears on the phone with you a few days before you endorsed Dr.Dan. I would suggest that you consider to resend any endorsements if you hope to return the ATP to the numbers that ATP had a year ago.

ATP is alot of hard work, one may make mistake when working on this large task but its clear that something is wrong, please save this movement & make larger steps in the hopes to get America on track.

Let the people speak - no liberty without this basic freedom.

Erika Franzi, Asheville Tea Party:

"The people are, and always have been, free to speak.

The Asheville Tea Party is an organization dedicated to the promotion of individual rights, limited government, and free markets. If one is interested in protesting a Presidential vacation, he or she should perhaps look to the Carolina Stompers or the Buncombe County GOP, or host his or her own protest.

Regarding the endorsement of Dr. Dan, the Asheville Tea Party held an open candidate's debate and a straw poll and made an endorsement from among all participating candidates. We are not obliged to continue providing all candidates with a platform for campaigning. What we are obliged to do is fully support the candidates that have been selected for endorsement or recommendation by our organization. We have done our job and will be campaigning for the candidates that we have selected.

It's not the job of the Asheville Tea Party to promote all candidates. We have a distinct point of view and that's what we are promoting. The candidates that come closest to advancing our values have received our endorsement or our recommendation. That is the fair and just way for us to proceed. To indiscriminately present inferior candidates after an endorsement would be unfair to our membership and an abuse of trust.

Organizations like the Carolina Stompers, 912 Project, Conservative Thunder or the Buncombe County GOP are welcome to introduce any or all candidates for the consideration of their membership -- even candidates that insufficiently uphold the Tea Party values of individual rights, limited government and free markets. We have completed that phase and are proceeding to the next logical phase: actively promoting selected candidates."

RELATED

Asheville Serves Obama Weak Tea
Darrell Barry | April 28, 2010
This action, or should I say, lack of action really set off alarm bells for me.

Jane Bilello Resignation

2010-04-25T21:10:00.011-04:00

From: Jane Bilello
To: Bill O'Connor
Date: April 26, 2010
Subject: Resignation

Mr. O'Connor,

Since its inception over a year ago, the Henderson County TEA for Liberty organization has come a long way. TFL has had some successes but, in the end, far too many failures. And we arrive at our present sad milestone along a crooked, stony path. It is clear now that we are at a crossroads from which we must not turn away.

To look forward with clear vision and an eye toward progress, we must squarely face the causes that place us here and the choices ahead for our next footfall.

I recall the words, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

In this quote, Edmund Burke acknowledges a fundamental principle that applies to a variety of situations. Most certainly political ones. It is the principle of discrimination.

While all men are created equal, they seldom stay that way. And when presented with choices in the political marketplace, it is the obligation of the ideologue to discriminate; that is, to sort out the good from the bad and the good from the better. To avoid this obligation is to stand for nothing, to stand without principle, as well as to betray the trust of those who look to him to apply the judgment necessary to steer a clear and profitable course for the body he represents; in this case, the Henderson County Tea Party.

You state in your recent letter to TFL members (Apr 22, 2010), "We can all be proud that no candidate or event that we have been asked to publicize has been denied. Our group stands firmly neutral in all contested primaries, and has made no endorsement of any candidate for any office."

This is the abdication of judgment. How can a man be proud of turning his back his duty to discriminate? To discuss the inferior in any manner implying neutrality, is to sanction inferiority. One must speak up in situations where silence can be taken as agreement with or the sanction of inferiority. In political contests, where so much is at stake, one must discriminate.

But then let's examine the matter more closely. Is this in truth what you have done? -- turn your back on exersicing judgment? Do you expect us to believe that you see Heath Shuler, Patsy Keever and Jeff Miller as political equals, each deserving an impartial representation on our website, in our literature and in our public statements?

As it happens, however, we know that you yourself have endorsed congressional candidate Jeff Miller in the newspaper and in a flyer sent to voters wherein which you identify yourself as "Founder of the Henderson County Tea Party."

Are we to suppose that this is not an endorsement sanctioned by the TFL? Why identify with the organization that professes to have no skin in the game? You can't have it both ways, my friend. And we won't let you.

What is worse, you have directly and indirectly slandered the Asheville Tea Party, of which I am a proud board member, and its leader. ATPAC has been forthcoming, public and transparent in its principles and in its goal to find, assess and support candidates based on those principles. There is no secrecy at work here. Only due diligence.

You never did that. ATPAC has accomplished what TFL set out to do last July. You hijacked that process and used TFL to widen the circle of your personal influence and power. You have also been hostile to me since I joined the Echenbaum campaign. This is a double standard that redounds to your disfavor. Are we to praise you for your endorsements and blame others for theirs? These, among other spears and arrows, you have thrown at me and ATPAC, to name a few.

Your letter to TFL members is another in a long string of thinly disguised attacks on your betters. Your preoccupation with slandering and vilifying a more successful sister organization in the eyes of others is childish and shameful and has made you a severe liability to the tea party movement locally. You do more harm to our cause by opening your mouth than does lady liberty in closing her eyes.

You speak for fewer and fewer as each drop of ink spills from your poisoned pen and it is time for you to retire to the cell from which you first emerged and lock the cage door behind you. In short: you have become useless to the cause our organization was formed to champion.

Instead, you are a pompous windbag with a funny hat who has nothing more to trumpet but his own impotent disgruntlement. Your persistent displays of emotional dysfuntion are a hinderance and, finally, an embarassment. This is too distracting to a movement that, now more than ever, needs men and women of character, conviction and a modicum of appeal. You have shown yourself to be devoid of these qualities.

In sum, when discrimination was wanted, you were neutral. When unity was wanted, you were divisive. When leadership was wanted, you were self-absorbed. And when pettiness is hated, you are its standard bearer.

You have in fact served TFL so badly that you have become quite indistiguishable from our critics. You are neither a leader nor a follower. You are a thorny obstacle that must be kicked to the wayside, and with haste.

I have a long laundry list of complaints and reasons why I can no longer support this organization which had so much promise. I will be submitting them to the 'why-are-folks-leaving-TFL' committee.

It is time to confess that you are not at all my 'cup of tea.' And time as well to dissassociate myself with the countless harms you insist on inflicting on our coalition with good people.

There is no one more disappointed with you than I. You know that I was always supportive and available. But now I am done and I encourage others to reflect on my concerns, to think for themselves and to follow their hearts.

In resignation,

JANE BILELLO, et. al.

Tax Day Protest

2010-04-21T00:17:00.001-04:00

Photo by Asheville Daily Planet

Get Dizzy

2010-04-11T22:23:00.002-04:00

Who is Ray Noland?

2010-04-05T11:27:00.020-04:00

From the Mountain Xpress:

The city’s Parks, Recreation and Cultural Arts Department recently announced that three local artists have been chosen to have their artwork appear on buses as part of the city’s first-ever “Art on Transit” bus art competition. Each artist will be awarded a $750 honorarium and their designs will grace the sides of a big bus.

The winners were Ray Noland’s “Jeweled Forest, a color-splashed, whimsical forest; Naomi Johnson’s photos of local food and farmers; and Nina Ruffini’s “Message” featuring bunnies adrift in boats.

Noland and his bus (Photo: Jen Bowen):

Interview with Ray Noland by "Angeline":

As much as I’d like to, I can’t pretend to know him well. But what little I do know is that Ray is making some of the most iconic and important art to come out of Chicago since Carl Sandburg wrote about a “City of the Big Shoulders.” CRO is currently in Asheville, North Carolina, fundraising for a new street art campaign combating the ignorance and idiocy that is the Tea Party Express. Can you dig it? Read more below and consider participating in The People’s Party, either by donating to the cause or spreading the word by downloading this free poster and putting it up WHERE FREEDOM RINGS.

The "art" of Ray Noland:

More "art" by Ray Noland posted on public utility box on Walnut St and Broadway in downtown Asheville (since removed by the City of Asheville Public Works Department).

RELATED

Ray Noland
Tim Peck | Asheville Tribune | April 9, 2010
First, along with two other contestants, Mr. Noland is an artist who was awarded public money to create fantastical, larger-than-life graphic images for the artistic “wrapping” of city buses in Asheville’s “Art on Transit” project, sponsored by our Parks, Recreation and Cultural Arts Department. To be sure, there’s nothing that eases the drudgery of a daily commute in our privately-owned vehicles than seeing largely empty city buses concealed in aesthetically pleasing screens funded by those very same commuters.

Dan Eichenbaum for Congress

2010-04-03T14:55:00.003-04:00

All Wee-Weed Up

2010-04-01T22:59:00.000-04:00

Scrutiny Hooligans

2010-04-01T12:54:00.018-04:00

Below is a graphic published in the footer of the local Progressive group weblog Scrutiny Hooligans for a special April Fool's Day jest. (It will be removed after today, of course.)

This weblog was created by now city council member Gordon Smith, who still contributes to the site.

RELATED

Asheville City Councilman Shows Us How He Really Feels
Erika Franzi | April 1, 2010
I wonder how many of the folks who voted for Asheville City Councilman Gordon Smith really know who they elected. Meet Gordon “Screwy Hoolie” Smith, proprietor of Scrutiny Hooligans, Asheville’s favorite prog-blog.

Scrutiny Hooligans Unveils New Design
by Michael Muller | Mountain Xpress | April 1, 2010
Prompted by the recent ascendancy of Chad Nesbitt to the leadership of the Buncombe County Republican Party, Scrutiny Hooligans, a local political blog, has unveiled a new look this morning.

Meet City Council
Councilmember Gordon Smith was elected to the Asheville City Council in 2009.

Rank Stranger

2010-03-28T15:04:00.002-04:00

Socialism

2010-03-23T15:41:00.002-04:00

Civil Disobedience

2010-03-18T18:23:00.002-04:00

RELATED

Resisting ObamaCare, Gandhi Style
Shikha Dalmia | Forbes | 03.24.10
President Barack Obama came into office promising hope and change. But he might get more change than he hoped for. By foisting ObamaCare on a deeply unwilling country he might have set the stage for the largest civil disobedience movement since the civil rights era, which, if it plays its cards right, could undo his legislation and his legacy.

Health Care Reform on Progressive Radio

2010-03-13T20:13:00.000-05:00

Asheville Tea Party members Tim Peck and Bernard B. Carman talk Tea with Blake and Lesley on the Local Edge Radio show on Asheville’s Progressive Talk Radio 880 AM, the Revolution

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

Hope and Change

2010-03-07T21:12:00.001-05:00

Coffee Party

2010-03-07T17:17:00.004-05:00

So, the Coffee Party is brewing.

MISSION: The Coffee Party Movement gives voice to Americans who want to see cooperation in government. We recognize that the federal government is not the enemy of the people, but the expression of our collective will, and that we must participate in the democratic process in order to address the challenges that we face as Americans. As voters and grassroots volunteers, we will support leaders who work toward positive solutions, and hold accountable those who obstruct them.

A proper government can never be simply a "reflection of the collective will." It must necessarily be based on an objective rule of law; not the rule of men, or 'democracy.' And the sole object of its actions should be the protection of individual rights, including property rights, from the violations that obtain from the exercise of collective will.

When a majority can vote to violate another person's rights, you have a perversion of government and the advancement of tyranny.

It is government intervention that creates lobbyists, corporatism and special interest groups who seek to petition politicians who are for sale to secure the fruits of legal plunder and power brokerage.

A government that remains within its constitutional bounds perpetrates no interference, confers no favors and invites no petition.

RELATED

The Nature of Government
by Ayn Rand
This essay explains, in fundamental terms, what a government is, why government is necessary to a civilized society, and why a proper government must be constitutionally limited to the function of protecting, not violating, the rights of the individual.

Asheville Tea Party Debate

2010-03-06T14:09:00.018-05:00

The Asheville Tea Party held a debate of North Carolina 11th district congressional candidates at Asheville-Buncombe Technical Community College Friday evening before an audience that nearly filled 400-seat Ferguson Auditorium.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
By Tim Peck

TEXT OF INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

Good evening, patriots.

The Asheville Tea Party is a nonpartisan group that stands for restoring the supremacy of individual rights in American society; for re-establishing an objective rule of law under a constitutionally-limited and accountable government; for fiscal responsibility that does not privatize profits and socialize losses. We stand for the full realization of an economy that is free from political interference and political controls. And we stand for tax relief for private individuals, business-people and entrepreneurs who involuntarily provide boundless resources to an unlimited and corrupted government.

Our goal is to transform our socialistic economy and our socialistic culture into one that unequivocally champions and advances individualism, personal responsibility and economic freedom.

But we may not get there right away. It may take time. It may take a long time. At any rate, we are here today to begin the long and hard work of righting our faltering ship of state. We now live in a nation that our founding fathers would not recognize. We live in a nation that has reversed the subservient role of government. And, for us today, there is a lot of work ahead.

And I think we can succeed, so long as we narrow our focus to those things that are most important in advancing our values over the long term. And so long as we focus on unity over division. The cultural and political landscape is our battleground and let it be said: We are present for duty.

The accomplishments that lie behind us now are many and important. We have held several Tea Parties here in Asheville. We have held several health care reform protests. We have met with, called, faxed, emailed and generally hounded our representatives in Congress with complaints, criticism and positive recommendations for legislative action. We have established a presence on the internet and in local media reporting. We are running ads in newspapers and on the radio to promote our events and issues. And now we are holding a political debate for all candidates running for NC House District 11. (Although, not everyone showed up.)

At the national level, we participated in the recent March on Washington that drew an official estimate of 1.2 million strong. We attended the successful National Tea Party Convention in Nashville last month. (You may have heard about that.) We have built and are building coalitions with other groups sympathetic to our cause. And we are busily sweeping liberty candidates into office across the country and giving big government politicians from both major political parties a lot of heartache.

The plans we have ahead of us are also many and important. Locally, we have established a political action committee that will enable us to identify, evaluate and promote specific candidates for elective office who match our criteria for suitability. We are planning now for the next March on Washington in September. (We hope you can join us for that.) And we are bubbling with enthusiasm as well as ideas to carry us through the present drama-laden election season and on to the next and the next and the next.

They thought if they ignored us, we’d go away. They thought that if they insulted us, we go away. They thought that if they fought us, we’d go away. Not only is the Tea Party Movement not going away, we’ve gone international. Now folks are holding tea parties in England.

Everywhere we can, in public and in private, we have sounded a persistent message of who we are and where we are going. And it should be clear to anyone paying attention: We are NOT going to shut up. We are NOT going to go home in surrender. We are not going away — EVER.

Thank you. Thank you all for being here.

###

RELATED

GOP candidates spar at Asheville Tea Party debate
by Jonathan Walzak | Asheville Citizen-Times | March 6, 201
While they sometimes disagreed on solutions, the candidates generally agreed on two opinions: The current leadership in Washington is corrupt, and voters need to take their anger to the polls.

The Speech in Context

video platform video management video solutions free video player

A Stern Talking To

2010-03-03T17:57:00.002-05:00

“So all of a sudden we are witnessing the first new American economic plan led by the government not necessarily led by the private sector.”

Who Can Beat Obama?

2010-02-11T15:34:00.006-05:00

Obama Virtually Tied With Generic Republican Candidate In 2012
Huffington Post | February 11, 2010

Registered voters nationwide favor Obama by a slim margin -- 44 percent to 42 percent -- over a generic Republican candidate. That gap is within the poll's 4 percentage point margin of error. Three percent said they would vote for a different candidate, and 11 percent had no opinion.

RELATED

Ron Paul wins CPAC straw poll
By Alex Pappas | The Daily Caller | 02/20/10
A fired up crowd of young conservatives said Ron Paul is their man this afternoon, as the Texas congressman and former 2008 presidential candidate won the annual CPAC straw poll with 31 percent of the vote.

LTE: Shuler

2010-02-11T11:03:00.001-05:00

Government should mostly stay out of health care reform
Tim Peck | Asheville Citizen-Times | February 11, 2010

I urge my representative in Washington, D.C., Congressman Heath Shuler, to persist in his opposition to socialized health care and continue to vote against it whenever it raises its head. Not because the health care reform proposal does too little or needs improvement, but because it's wrong; morally and practically. It's a public policy clunker and should be scrapped.

Instead, Rep. Shuler should support free market health care reforms -- such as establishing interstate insurance markets and promoting Health Savings Accounts. Why? Because it would be both good policy and good politics. According to CNN, 8 of 10 Americans are happy with their current health care, but are legitimately concerned about rising costs. Such reforms would address these concerns and preserve quality of care without coercing unwilling Americans into a costly government-run health care regime that would mandate individuals purchase health insurance as a condition of citizenship.

President Obama has recently implored Congress to move forward on health care, "even if it's difficult." That it is becoming difficult is precisely why it should fail. A health care reform failure would be a big win for Shuler -- and America.

TIM PECK
ASHEVILLE

Anti-Speech Laws

2010-02-10T22:42:00.000-05:00

"The recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee knocked down long-standing restrictions on corporate and union contributions to political campaigns and was a definitive move toward the restoration of free speech in America. Yet many Americans are up in arms over the ruling, viewing the decision as an invitation for rampant corruption in Washington. While people are right to be concerned about political corruption, there’s a serious misunderstanding about what gives rise to it and how it can be eliminated."

War On Free Political Speech
Yaron Brook | 03.21.08

[...] Can't large contributions buy political favors? They can--when politicians have power to grant special favors to special interests in the first place. . . It's not money that corrupts--it's the lure of arbitrary political power. A true crusader against political corruption would not strip American citizens of their right to free speech; he would seek to put an end to the government's power to grant special favors to any group...

Campaign Finance Reform: A Libertarian Primer
by Robert A. Levy | January 28, 2010

[...] As for money, it's just a symptom. We have a big money problem because we have a big government problem. By restraining the regulatory and redistributive powers of the state, we can minimize the influence of big money. Restoring the Framers' notion of enumerated, delegated, and limited federal powers will get government out of our lives and out of our wallets. That's the best way to end the campaign-finance racket, and root out corruption without jeopardizing political speech...

Andrew Breitbart at Tea Party

2010-02-08T12:22:00.001-05:00

Tea Party Movement Says "Don't Tread on Me"