Conservation Insider Bulletin

Conservation Insider Bulletin

Published weekly for the Conservation Council of North Carolina

Conservation News to Peruse & Use

Editor: Dan Besse, earthvote@ccnccpac.org

July 27, 2007

Legislative Watch: Proposed Budget Deal Includes Land Measures; Half a Hog Bill Passes

Proposed Budget Deal Includes Land Measures: As of earlier this afternoon, the printed copies of the full budget were not yet available (and Republicans were complaining about it), but some key contents of the proposal were well known. In particular, the budget proposal from conference committee negotiators would include a local-option increase in the land transfer tax, as one possible replacement for sales tax revenues to be taken by the state in conjunction with taking over the previously county share of paying for Medicaid. The realtor lobby was aghast. Municipalities were reported to be none too pleased, as well, as the word in circulation said that they wouldn't get access to any of the new revenues—but would lose their share of the sales tax proceeds which would go to the state. On the spending side, the budget is reported to contain about $550 million in bond debt for new capital expenditures, including $100 million for local water and sewer projects and $120 million for land conservation. When the budget hits the floor, it will need two separate votes from both the House and Senate.

Half a Hog Bill Passes: The N.C. Senate approved and sent to the governor this week legislation which takes another half-step toward addressing the problem of hog lagoons in North Carolina. In place of the series of leaky "moratoriums" on new factory hog farms, the bill includes a permanent prohibition on new waste lagoon and sprayfield systems in the state. However, the bill also permits farms with existing such fields to continue to use them indefinitely. This compromise measure sets up hog farms as a continuing hot environmental debate issue. On the positive side, the bill also includes state assistance for a voluntary program for farmers to change their lagoon-sprayfield system to a more environmentally friendly, modern alternative.

Campaign Watch: Asheville's Possible Return to Partisan Elections Roils Local Politics

During the past biennium, Asheville's City Council has compiled a record that conservationists in most other North Carolina cities would find enviable. Among other steps, the city took these:

--Created a public transit marketing campaign and expanded bus service routes, boosting bus ridership by more than 33% in just two years;

--Strengthened rules designed to control environmental impacts from development on steep hillsides and ridgetops;

--Joined other cities nationwide in efforts to control greenhouse gas emissions which contribute to global warming;

--Required new city buildings to meet "green construction" standards;

--Added a major new city park; and

--Doubled annual city investment in sidewalks and greenways.

As in most of North Carolina's larger cities (and a great many of its small towns), dealing with the impacts of new growth and development is a central theme underlying much of all city policy debate. Officials and candidates can be evaluated in substantial part by their thinking and positions on related issues.

Yet none of that is the hot topic of the hour in Asheville city politics. Instead, the debate du jour is over partisan vs. nonpartisan elections. Just last month, a bare majority of the council (four of six) voted to return to explicitly partisan elections, in which candidates run as Republican or Democrat in party primaries, and appear as their party's nominees on the general election ballot. The change was to be effective this year.

Proponents of the change (including two of the three incumbents up for re-election this year) argued that a partisan system merely recognized what was taking place in reality, and gave voters more information about candidates' likely leanings on key issues. However, in a city which has a relatively activist voter base, including a significant percentage of voters who consider themselves (fairly aggressively) anti-partisan, the decision has proven surprisingly controversial.

Opponents argue that the change is intended to disadvantage Republicans and unaffiliated candidates (although unaffiliated candidates have historically been unsuccessful in Asheville). They organized a petition drive to put the question to a full city vote, and gathered about the 5,000 signatures needed to do so. The Buncombe County Board of Elections has yet to certify that enough signatures were collected, and the question is still hanging. If the issue goes to a full public vote, the return to partisan nomination and election would be postponed, or even overturned.

Asheville has a six-member city council, elected for four-year terms on a staggered basis. Three of the six seats are up for election this year. (The other three seats, and the mayor's post, will be on the ballot in 2009.) All council seats are at-large (elected citywide). The three incumbents up this year are all seeking re-election: Jan Davis, Bryan Freeborn, and Brownie Newman. All three are Democrats. They have been joined by a fourth Democratic candidate, newcomer Elaine Lite, and four Republican challengers: Matthew Hebb, Bobby Johnston, Bill Russell, and Selina Sullivan.
The underlying issues of significance to the economy and quality of life in Asheville revolve around—no surprise here—growth, housing, transportation, development, and environment. Two of the three incumbents (Newman and Freeborn) have been among an assertive block on the council which has pressed for stronger growth management policies and programs. The Democratic challenger (Lite) also comes from that perspective. In contrast, three of the four Republican challengers talk about shifting to policies that would be more lenient on regulation of business and development.

Together with Asheville's size and location (North Carolina's largest mountain city and a traditional bellweather on policy for the region), the outcome of debates on these central policy questions is likely to have regional (and even statewide) significance. But that showdown will just have to wait—while we see whether candidates will be running with an "R" or "D" after their names. What proponents hoped would bring more clarity to local debate on development issues may serve instead as a screen of distraction, allowing candidates favoring weaker regulations to run under a mantle of claimed populist sentiment.

On an interesting side note: Newman held his formal re-election campaign kickoff this week, drawing a large crowd to an event which featured an interesting environmental-theme effort. He announced plans to distribute 2,500 energy-efficient compact fluorescent lightbulbs in a door-to-door blitz, which he is calling his "Energy Independence Day" canvass.

(CIB Editor's Full Disclosure Note: One of the Asheville candidates, incumbent Brownie Newman, is the staff political director for CCNC.)

Education & Resources: Public Prefers Renewable Energy

CCNC this week released the results of a new statewide poll on energy topics. Highlighting the results: The public overwhelmingly supports development of renewable energy sources, including solar and wind power. A strong majority of respondents also agreed that global warming is a serious threat calling for immediate action, and opposed expanded use of coal for energy.

Results on the question of nuclear power were more equivocal. While 89% of respondents favored more solar energy and 88% backed more wind power, just 61% favored expansion of nuclear generation. When asked whether they supported more nuclear at the cost of higher electric rates, support for more nuclear energy plummeted to 36%. If electric rates have to go up, respondents overwhelmingly preferred that the increase go to pay for more renewable energy (77%) versus more nuclear power (17%).

Finally, respondents overwhelmingly approved of requiring utilities to invest in energy efficiency (79% support versus 15% oppose); and opposed allowing utilities to begin charging consumers for the costs of new power plants before they go into service (only 16% support and 72% oppose).

The results were based on a telephone survey of 435 likely North Carolina voters, conducted on July 18 for CCNC by the Public Policy Polling firm.