Riiiiiiiight

GREENSBORO, NC -- Roy Carroll, recipient of $2 million in City tax credits, a block of a city street onto which he will build apartments and a noise ordinance specially crafted to (successfully) close the rooftop bar below his penthouse condo, supports a proposed redistricting of Greensboro city council because he doesn't think city council has been business friendly enough.

Is Carroll a business whiz or less than sincere?

The following from the Triad Business Journal makes one wonder:

"[Carroll] sent an unsolicited $16 million bid for the News & Record to Warren Buffett, the Omaha billionaire who bought the daily two years ago."

and

"Carroll wrote in the letter to Buffett. 'If a local daily publication is out of touch with the needs of its constituents, I can only wonder about its financial performance.'"

Carroll added to his letter "This is not a publicity stunt."

If it's not a publicity stunt, we have to take it at face value: It's a $16 million offer for a newspaper, the value of which the prospective buyer admits he can "only wonder."

Is this revelation a reflection of Carroll's sincerity or of his business acumen?

Paper tigers

GREENSBORO, NC -- From the News & Record's digital editor on the refusal of the Greensboro Police Department to make public video footage captured by officer worn body cameras:

"We'll continue to make the requests, and to fight for the information any way we can." 

Two points:

First, I have repeatedly asked the City of Greensboro for copies of the News & Record's requests for these videos and the city's denials. There are none. The News & Record makes these requests verbally and the city, therefor replies verbally. This matters because, without a documented record, it is harder for those of us interested in affecting public policy on this matter to participate. Policy makers, the ACLU or other interested groups or individuals do not have at their disposal a record of the requests and denials they could use to document the circumstances and nature of the City's refusals. The News & Record, ironically, is not contributing to the public record of the City's actions.

Second, it is simply untrue that the News & Record is continuing to "fight for the information any way we can." That sounds good and we might wish it were so, but it's empty rhetoric. The most forceful and definitive means by which the N&R could "fight" for this information would be to sue for it. Under North Carolina law, people or entities denied access to what they believe are public records can take it to court. The News & Record has not done that. They should if they think these videos are public record, but they haven't; so they are clearly not fighting for the videos any way they can. They are, quite contrary to their claims, confining their efforts to the mildest and least effective means: begging and pleading.

Opaque "Union Square Campus" demands answers

GREENSBORO, NC -- I have a wish. I wish that someone in our local paid media would stop, take a breath and realize they've gotten ahead of themselves in reporting on what has come to be described as the "Union Square Campus." This project, to be located on publicly owned land at the south sides of the downtown intersection of Elm Streets and Lee Streets, was once considered too contaminated for development until I identified federal funds to pay for for environmental remediation.

Twelve years later (nobody ever accused Greensboro of being supersonic), the site is ready for development and, in the blink of an eye, it has become "Union Square Campus." While the impression created so far is that this will be some sort of satellite campus for area universities, the ownership and money interests have been hard to follow. Instead we've had misrepresentations of the role of project's first building and tortured descriptions like this that are obviously more about hype than clear explanation:

"[A] catalytic higher education development with a first-building focus on training and education for health care professions..."

A catalytic higher education development?

It doesn't help that there is no online resource that describes the project in any detail—no web page, no Wikipedia entry—nothing other than disparate press release-driven announcements regurgitated by local media.

Between few public records, sparse news stories and the rumor mill, there are more questions than answers. Here are some things the professional media ought to clear up for us:

Who will own it?
Currently, the land for the project is owned by the City of Greensboro. Unpublished sources say that a developer was chosen who was to purchase the land but was disqualified for some unknown reason and a new developer was chosen but they have not taken possession of the property. In other words, they haven't purchased it but remain identified as the developer. Who is the intended eventual owner of the land and is the City of Greensboro going to sell it to them at fair market value or will be it be "donated"? Was the developer chosen through an open and fair process in the best interests of the citizens of Greensboro? Who will own the buildings, and not just the first; what is the ownership plan for additional buildings? Who is deciding?

These are matters of fiduciary responsibility of public property. Answers to these questions are of the utmost public interest.

How much is education related? Really.
Supporters hype the project as devoted to education—"A catalytic higher education development"—but only a single building has been described as being education related. Previous discussions and people who claim to know say that the property is also to include apartments and condos as well as commercial and office space.

Is the project being promoted as education related to procure public funding and public support when some portion, if not most of it, will be for other purposes?

Who gets the money?
It has been announced that the first building is to house classroom space, to be rented, hopes are, to local universities. Presumably, there will be other future rents, no matter the purpose of other eventual buildings. To whom will those rents go? Is that arrangement, whatever it may be, in the best interest of the citizens of Greensboro?

The next time reporters type "Union Square Campus" in a story, I wish they'd stop and ask themselves, "How much do my readers know about what this is? How much do I know?"

Records contradict police P. R.

GREENSBORO, NC -- At the conclusion of a months-long intensive traffic enforcement campaign on Battleground Avenue earlier this year, the Greensboro Police Department announced that a "benefit" of the campaign was a decrease in "part 1 index crimes"—the worst offenses, like murder, rape, robbery and auto theft—during the period of the patrols compared to the same period the previous year. Records contradict the claim that crime decreased.

From Greensboro Police Department press release.

It is ludicrous to claim that because two things correspond to each other, one caused the other. Without including other factors that influence crime, such as population and demographic changes, weather, economic conditions and other crime-fighting efforts, it is impossible to credibly say that increased traffic enforcement caused a decrease in crime. It's even worse when the numbers used to come to that conclusion are wrong.

Faulty logic did not stop the media from dutifully regurgitating the claim, however. No surprise there considering local media's lazy preference for stenography over journalism. Nonetheless, it turns out that the claim of a reduction in crime during that period, no matter its cause, is actually contradicted by police records.

Information provided by the police in support of their press release said that there were 24 part 1 crimes within a 1/4 mile of the traffic enforcement area in 2013 and 22 during the same period in 2014.

GPD's list of crimes

Among the crimes in 2014, the GPD said there was one motor vehicle theft. Police records contradict that representation. A search of crimes just on Battleground Avenue alone (not even including the 1/4 mile radius the police said they included) in the confines of the enforcement area (Cornwallis Drive to Horse Pen Creek Road) and only during the hours of operation of the campaign showed there were actually four reports of motor vehicle theft during the period of the enforcement campaign, not one.

They were:

01/16/2014 17:09 Incident Case #: 20140116343
Primary Offense: MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT - AUTOMOBILE 2906 BATTLEGROUND AV

01/30/2014 12:00 Incident Case #: 20140227146
Primary Offense: MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT - AUTOMOBILE 2605 BATTLEGROUND AV

02/12/2014 12:00 Incident Case #: 20140227152
Primary Offense: MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT - AUTOMOBILE 2605 BATTLEGROUND AV

03/03/2014 07:00 Incident Case #: 20140317073
Primary Offense: MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT - AUTOMOBILE 2630 BATTLEGROUND AV

When asked about the discrepancies, Captain John Wolfe, the officer in charge of the enforcement campaign said in an email:

"I can't speak to the numbers specifically as they are generated and reported through our crime analysis unit. I can speak to the methodology but not in this format. I will look into the discrepancies you've noted to determine how they occurred."

With four auto thefts instead of one, the total number of Part 1 crimes actually increased year over year, from 24 to 25. If the correlation-as-causation thinking still applies, one would say that as a result of the traffic enforcement campaign, serious crime rose 4 percent. Of course, the enforcement campaign no more deserves such sloppy blame as it deserved the sloppy credit assigned to it when the numbers were thought to imply something positive.

More fact avoidance at the News & Record

GREENSBORO, NC -- The News & Record features, from time to time, "Ask a reporter," in which people submit questions and a reporter answers them... or not. As I was just writing yesterday, the News & Record and, by extension, Greensboro, suffers from a preference to rely on the pronouncements of authorities instead of its own research. Today's "Ask a reporter" is another such example.

A reader asks for the number of traffic accidents within a half a mile of the intersection of Pleasant Garden Road and Liberty Road. Reporter Joe Gamm begins his reply with " We don’t have specific data on accidents at that intersection" and proceeds, in typical fashion, to turn to a spokesperson for a less than precise characterization.

Whatever Gamm meant by "we don't have specific data," the fact is the specific data is readily available online at the City of Greensboro police department's website, with the ability to provide exactly the kind of information the reader asked for, right down to the half mile radius. One would think the News & Record's crime reporter would be aware of this.

It turns out, with five minutes of effort, I was able to determine a precise data-specific answer to the reader's question.

Accidents within a half mile of the intersection of Pleasant Garden Road and Liberty Road
------------------------

Past 12 months: 21

April, 2013: 0
May, 2013: 2
June, 2013: 1
July, 2013: 4
August, 2013: 1
September, 2013: 1
October, 2013: 4
November, 2013: 3
December, 2013: 2
January, 2014: 0
February, 2104: 0
March, 2014: 3

Jim Kee adds profile to GreensboroCouncilCandidates.com

GREENSBORO, NC -- Jim Kee, incumbent candidate for Greensboro City Council district 2, has added his profile to GreensboroCouncilCandidates.com.

Kee, 55, works as a developer and property manager and is registered as Democratic. He says his three top issues are economic development, public safety and infrastructure.

In answer to what he has done, specifically, to increase transparency in city government, he says, "I continue to keep the citizens informed regarding proposed investments such as the performing arts center and the Florida street extension. I encourage citizen participation on all items."

Data visualized: Timeline of City responses to public records requests

GREENSBORO, NC -- How quickly is the City of Greensboro responding to public records requests? This interactive timeline illustrates the response times to records requests submitted to the city over a recent 45-day period.

Update: An earlier version of this post mentioned a request not contained in the data provided by the city. It was, in fact, nearly identical to another request that was among the data provided by the city so it has been removed from the timeline and the averages and numbers of records updated on the timeline accordingly.