What looked like a vacuum filled by the vote-yes effort of the local Rent Seekers’ Guild is much more interesting with the fairly resounding rejection of the $203m. slate of city of Charlotte bonds by Strengthen Charlotte, the grass-roots good government group.

The release sent out today:

StrengthenCharlotte Votes Down City Bonds

After extensive research & close vote, majority of members say need is great, but now is not the time

Charlotte, NC, October 21, 2010 – StrengthenCharlotte members, switching gears since their recent Susan Burgess memorial event to benefit Crisis Assistance Ministries, have voted in a straw poll to reject the 3 bonds on the November 2nd ballot, and will work to inform voters of the pro’s and con’s discovered in their research process over the next 2 weeks.

“We feel it is critical to find the facts and be as informed as possible, allowing our members to steer the direction and stances of the group,” stated StrengthenCharlotte Founder and President Tariq Scott Bokhari. “The transportation bond was defeated by a very narrow margin (57% against), while the affordable housing (64% against) and neighborhood improvement (72% against) bonds were more strongly opposed. While individual opinions varied, the majority sentiment was that despite the many important needs addressed by these bonds, the current economy and last 2 years of City Council spending on non-priorities outweighed the benefits.”

Board member Blake Narr added, “Once we compiled all the facts from as many sources as we could find, we carefully weighed the positions of the members, and are very proud to have captured the votes and reasons of possibly the most informed citizen straw poll on bonds ever.”

Many members expressed their belief in the need for these bonds to pass in November. StrengthenCharlotte member Jerry Fox voiced support of the bonds, citing that “these projects are included in the City’s long range capital improvements plan and can be funded within the city’s dedicated debt service fund.” Whitney Hodges pointed out, “I think voting to approve all of the bond expenditures is important to maintaining and increasing the current quality of life that Charlotte enjoys.” Ryan Stiens added, “I will vote for these based on my decision to believe that no new taxes will be necessary to service the debt and considering that borrowing costs are historically low.”

Other members weighed the facts and felt for various reasons the risks associated with these bonds outweighed the reward. StrengthenCharlotte board member Clay Lewis pointed out after his personal research, “no information was provided as to why these are unable to be funded through ‘pay as you go’ means – none appear to be unanticipated surprises, they are basic upkeep or standard run-of-the-mill activities, the things you’d expect would be budgeted and planned for out of tax revenues. Long-term interest rates are incredibly low, which sweetens the deal a bit but provides a false sense of security – cost of capital cannot singularly determine course of action.” Allan Schmitt also made the point that “the federal government has provided states and municipalities with significant funds for transportation over the past 12 months. The city has wasted much of this money on projects that I see as having no real benefit to the community (i.e., streetcar).”

“It is very important to our group that our members are informed and every voice is heard,” stated Bokhari, “and that some members may have been in the majority this time but might be in the minority view for the next initiative. Our primary goal is to encourage our members to listen to other points of view with an open mind, and approach needs from a logical point of view.”

The complete list of facts StrengthenCharlotte used in this exercise can be found at www.strengthencharlotte.com, and a list of voting results and highlights of for/against reasons from members can be found below. For questions, contact Tariq Scott Bokhari @ 704/999-0073, or by email at [email protected].
###

The following details list the StrengthenCharlotte Straw Poll results, as well as highlight certain reasons members supported or opposed the bonds:

StrengthenCharlotte Members – Straw Votes on Bonds:

Transportation Bond

· Yes = 43%

· No = 57%

Neighborhood Improvement Bond

· Yes = 28%

· No = 72%

Affordable Housing Bond

· Yes = 36%
· No = 64%

StrengthenCharlotte Members – Reasons for Voting on Bonds – Overall:

Reasons members will vote FOR Bonds:
· “I will vote for these based on my decision to believe that no new taxes will be necessary to service the debt and considering that borrowing costs are historically low.”

· “Infrastructure throughout the United States will always deteriorate more quickly than it can be repaired or replaced. In 2009, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) published The Report Card for American Infrastructure (see http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/). The overall grade given to our country’s infrastructure was a D. It is my opinion that a city’s investment in infrastructure will have a direct and proportional impact on its ability to attract new development under any economic condition. As we are hopefully beginning to recover from the recent recession, it is no time to stop investing in our infrastructure. I would also like to say that the City of Charlotte has a very impressive and capable Engineering and Property Management Division. I have worked with them as a civil engineering consultant for the past 3 years. It is no surprise to me that council would approve a bond package with no revisions.”

· “These projects are included in the City’s long range capital improvements plan and can be funded within the city’s dedicated debt service fund.”

Reasons members will vote AGAINST Bonds:
· “If there is a shortfall on selling these bonds (and there always is), the taxpayers are on the hook for it.”

· “We must get spending under control and prioritized.”

· “If I understand properly, General Obligation funds come from property taxes. The value of properties has lessened, but the city has increased property taxes. So in fact, it sounds like a tax increase. I am in no mood to vote for one more bond in the 21st century, with 20th century paradigms.”

· “The city wastes a ton of money… they will not get permission to borrow (or tax) any more from me. If projects are truly deserving they can find the money by cutting something useless… like our many train projects.”

· “No estimate for jobs created is provided for any of these public works activities – critical when voters are weighing whether to incur more public debt. Difficult to determine how close the city may be to losing its coveted AAA rating, as these bond issues could potentially result in a change and higher interest payments required on the debt.”

· “Now is not the time to be taking on more debt due to the likely shrinking revenue for the city and significant needs in the public school system. I find it hard to justify raising debt for bikeways when we are in the process of closing multiple schools.”

StrengthenCharlotte Members – Reasons for Voting on Bonds – Transportation:

Reasons members will vote FOR Transportation Bonds:
· “A lot of redundancy and a lot of money was approved in 2006, unfortunately, 2010 is a very different world. I think some of the bonds remain relevant and necessary while others are not given today’s economic outlook. Charlotte needs to be a forward looking city to remain a world class city and a desirable location that people want to relocate to. With the losses of banking we need to create other reasons to keep Charlotte a premier destination. We need to be leaders in a 21st century city, a green and livable destination so I would support the forward looking, ‘greener’ bonds: bicycle lanes, greener intersections, pedestrian signals etc. Keeping Charlotte on the cutting edge so people are talking about it, favorably, then moving here to start a business and raise a family.”

· “When it comes to transportation and infrastructure improvements, this is probably the wisest investment in today’s economy. This is an area where costs to do the work only rise and is a sector that was hit the greatest with the economic down turn. Installation of the improvements impact a lot of people and it is an improvement that last for many years.”

Reasons members will vote AGAINST Transportation Bonds:
· “We need our streets repaired but the council misappropriated that money.”

· “Housing would be affordable if it were not for the governments meddling in. We are in debt deep enough”

· “The federal government has provided states and municipalities will significant funds for transportation over the past 12 months. The city has wasted much of this money on projects that I see as having no real benefit to the community (streetcar is an example). This is not a priority for the city due to other city needs.”

· “$79.2mil requested and approved back in 2006, this represents a near doubling in just 4 years’ time. Return/ROI on these projects not all equal, the packaging makes an overall decision difficult. Suggest a ‘no’ vote and scrub the list again for only the critical few with funds from cuts elsewhere e.g. social programs”

StrengthenCharlotte Members – Reasons for Voting on Bonds – Neighborhood Improvement:

Reasons members will vote FOR Neighborhood Improvement Bonds:
· “I think voting to approve all of the bond expenditures is important to maintaining and increasing the current quality of life that Charlotte enjoys.”

Reasons members will vote AGAINST Neighborhood Improvement Bonds:
· “$25mil requested and approved back in 2006, this represents a 28% increase in just 4 years’ time. Difficult to justify neighborhood-specific projects during this challenging economy. Spending for the ‘public good’ falls short here based on information available. Suggest a “no” vote and prioritize only the critical few through other funding means or delay outright.”

StrengthenCharlotte Members – Reasons for Voting on Bonds – Affordable Housing:

Reasons members will vote FOR Affordable Housing Bonds:
· “If there is anything that this community needs it is affordable housing and programs that fill the gap for our hardworking citizens who are having trouble making ends meet.”

· “$10mil requested and approved back in 2006, this represents a 50% increase in just 4 years’ time. Given the area’s vacancy rates, it’s a lack of affordable housing availability, not simply housing availability. Unclear as to how the public bond money would be used in conjunction with private funds. With property values in decline and higher foreclosures/vacancy, particularly in low/moderate income neighborhoods, the funds would certainly go further in acquiring new properties. Focus on special needs individuals and families (elderly, disabled and homeless) ups the priority, suggest a “yes” vote”

Reasons members will vote AGAINST Affordable Housing Bonds:
· “The housing bonds are surprising based on the fact that the city council just voted to tear down and sell a large portion of low income housing in the Dilworth neighborhood. The city needs to play less of a role in setting up low income housing; this should be left largely to the private community with some broad government assistance. The city council should not determine who builds what and where.”

· “$25mil requested and approved back in 2006, this represents a 28% increase in just 4 years’ time. Difficult to justify neighborhood-specific projects during this challenging economy. Spending for the ‘public good’ falls short here based on information available. Suggest a “no” vote and prioritize only the critical few through other funding means or delay outright.”

Very interesting, especially as the group represents a younger cadre of local leaders. I have to believe the that sour economy and first-hand experience with actual scarcity has introduced these folks to the notion of prioritizing local spending needs — a potential sea-change in how Charlotte does business.