Document Actions
Wednesday: The rest of the story
posted at 2007-11-14 23:00 | Last modified 2008-01-13 01:47
Déjà vu all over again
For those of you who've noticed that no one in NC seems to want an Outlying
Landing Field in their backyard, today’s newsflash: no one in NC seems to
want an Outlying Landing Field in their backyard.
But now it’s official. The head of the OLF Study Group, Judge Sidney Eagles,
sent this letter to Governor Mike
Easley, who forwarded it on today to the NC Congressional delegation and the
Navy, recommending that the Navy look
for alternatives to its six NC sites so far.
No one else thought this was news either. Congressman. G.K. Butterfield was pretty blunt:
"After months of hearings and meetings the only thing the state and OLF Study Group seem to have determined is what everyone in northeastern North Carolina already knew - there's overwhelming opposition to the project there."
The rest of his letter is here.
Senators Burr and Dole are convinced someone in NC must want the OLF.
Right?
“This collaborative effort between your administration and the Navy produced six new proposals for OLF sites. As we expected, these sites have been rejected by residents and local officials. We believe your Administration should continue its work with the Navy to come up with a site that has the support of the local community and meets the needs of the United States military.”
The full text of that letter is here.
Update: Governor Easley fires back:
"The people in Gates and Camden Counties do not want the OLF therefore I do not want the OLF in Gates and Camden. It is time for Elizabeth Dole to learn that she represents the people of North Carolinaincluding those counties. The U.S. Navy is funded by the U.S. Senate therefore it responds and reports to the Senate. I hope Sen. Dole will accept her responsibility and speak for her people."
Next? Stay tuned.
Oh, really?
A new poll by the NC Economic Development Assoc. says NC voters think
incentives are good. Oddly enough, that’s what NCEDA says, too. Wonder
how much questions like this had to do with it?
"…Which course of action do you support?
• Having opponents of the economic tax incentives continue to file lawsuits and fight in court to stop them.
--OR--
• Stop filing lawsuits that tie up the courts and let the state continue to offer these incentive packages."
Check out the rest of the survey for yourself. Just don't expect silly details like full crosstabs, methodology, or MOEs.
What price policy?
A new report from the Institute for Southern Studies says global-warming
critics at the John Locke Foundation are on the payroll of big gas and oil companies,
accepting $126K from fossil-fuel-related interests from 2002 to
2005.
What's missing from the report is the fact that JLF took in somewhere north
of $8.5 million in that timeframe. That puts the allegedly oil-tainted money at
less than 1.5 percent of its budget, which would be a fire-sale price for a
major policy position. You can see JLF’s 990s here
at Guidestar (free registration required).
On the other hand, the report does make some interesting connections between
JLF and advocates for Big Oil, and some valid points about the questionable
accuracy of the science the Foundation uses to try to debunk climate
change. It’s worth a read, whatever side of the issue you’re
on.
Blogger cred
Two big stories at Kos this week illustrate the changing landscape of
political reporting in the age of “new media” (however you define that):
First, the DNC is setting aside more than 50 press credentials for all kinds of bloggers at next year’s Denver convention. The standards for qualification are a little funky, but hey, it’s still progress over ’04.
Second, Kos himself is getting an election-season print byline – in Newsweek, no less. Is he gaining cred or selling out? You tell me.
Comments? Drop me a line.
