Showdown at the BOCC meeting

Scott Mill was item 10 at the Board of County Commissioners meeting earlier this evening, and it came up a little before 8pm (the agenda is online at www.durhamcountync.gov/departments/bocc/Agendas/Current_Meeting_Agen.html).  The opponents filled an entire row on the left side of the room, and a few other seats, with more than half as many people as the developers.   Commissioner Lewis Cheek was absent.  This was a substantive hearing and the discussion was pretty sharp at points, and the political plays were clear.  

 

The hearing began with a summary of the Commissioners' past decisions in the rezoning request, that it was continued (meaning delayed, I think) twice, etc.   A man from the City-County Planning Department spoke.  I think the basic point was that the plan as submitted for this meeting violates the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), so the Commissioners could not approve the plan legally (if they did, they would likely lose a resulting lawsuit).   One problem was that the plan is inconsistent, for example on a buffer required for a wetland on the site.  I think there was a second, similar problem.   Commissioner Rev. Philip Cousin asked if this inconsistency was the only problem, implying that these are just technicalities that could be ignored.   Then or later the County Attorney mentioned a judge who said technicalities are the law.   

 

Bill Ripley spoke early on, trying to make a Powerpoint presentation, and argued that the committed elements agreed with the neighbors remained.   There would be only 71 houses, with a 12' separation between them, more open space, a tapered eastern buffer strip, open space on the south side, undisturbed except for a trail and any necessary infrastructure, 46% less traffic, 50% fewer students, etc.   Several people yielded on each side to allow the main people to speak for more than 2 minutes. 

 

Speaking next was a woman from the IUKA company, which is the actual owner of much of the property (I think 37 acres out of a little over 44 acres).   She said that IUKA had held that land for 40 years and already lost over half to the Army Corps of Engineers, which she seemed to count as environmental protection having been given its share.   She said the neighbors had never contacted IUKA to discuss their concerns. 

 

Next a member of the Durham People's Alliance spoke, since the PA voted to oppose Scott Mill for its environmental and process problems, last Thursday.  

 

The Headwaters branch of the Sierra Club also had a speaker against the rezoning.  Then three members of Northeast Creek Stream Watch ( www.necreek.org) spoke strongly (but not officially, though the group did send out an official letter of opposition).   The President of the Lyon's Farm homeowners' association spoke, and I think said the residents were offended by how this rezoning has been pushed. The leader of the neighborhood opposition, Carol Young, from Lake Park, outlined the arguments against.   She pointed out conflicting house separation figures, the lack of response from Ripley on requests for Scott King Rd. buffer opacity figures and the restrictive covenant covering noise, and she said the Sheriffs Department is not able to enforce community rules like that.   I think she was the one who said IUKA was not available for dialogue, and she or someone else said it should be up to the applicant for rezoning to contact the community.  

 

Several more people spoke for and against.  Ripley's negotiator said the committed elements were still in effect and that the problem was just a return of distrust.   A longtime resident and watcher of development said Ripley had promised one thing after half a Sunday of discussion with her about a development in a key part of the New Hope Creek lands, but the next day submitted a different plan.   I think she is the speaker who said this was the worst case she has seen in 40 years.  Another important opponent, Liz Pullman, spoke and rebutted the negotiator's argument.   Someone called the proponents land speculators, whom the BOCC does not need to coddle (later Cousin or Page said the proponents were not speculators, because they have owned the land for so long).   By this point people were calling Ripley out as a bad developer. 

 

After these comments, the Commissioners began deliberating.  Cousin started by asking for definitions.   The thrust of his question about inventory sites was whether landowners, who are not informed that a survey is being done, could challenge it (apparently they can).  He said he is not against having surveys, but consider how he voted and his comments, which ignored the inventory and favored the rezoning.   He cast this case as "a tragedy of miscommunication and lack of communication" and said "this is about to take my first prize" as a trainwreck of a case.   Commissioner Rev. Michael Page said he found the case very confusing, but as the meeting went on he came out more in favor of the rezoning.  I think he and Cousin did not see why this case was so drawn out. Ripley was asked to clarify points, and argued that the inconsistencies were an attempt to be helpful or honest, for example by not submitting a new plan.   Then there were questions that opponents could answer.  Chairwoman Ellen Reckhow wanted to ask the opponents, and the audience was saying to call on Liz Pullman and Carol Young.   Page wanted to postpone the decision again, which I think was an attempt to help Ripley by giving him another chance and it would possibly weaken the opposition by dragging the process out further.   Carol Young said no to this from the audience and Page said he would not return her phone calls because she is rude (I think he specifically said "I, Michael Page, won't return your phone calls, because you are rude, Mrs. Young")!  

 

Both Cousin and Page were focused on the development side and only explicitly said they were sorry to disappoint the landowners.   Page especially said both sides were at fault.  Reckhow and Commissioner Heron were on the anti-rezoning side, but went out of their way to say development could happen responsibly, but recommended that the owners get a different developer (I think Heron said it first).   Eventually all of the Commissioners (but the absent Cheek, of course), said this.  I hope this is not seen as a promise to approve a development.   A better development is possible, but whatever is proposed, it will have a negative impact on parts of the environment, so we shouldn't be greenwashing it.    

 

None of the Commissioners would make a motion, so there was a ten-minute recess, to the astonishment and irritation of many.   After the break Heron and Reckhow motioned for approval.  I think the order was, voting to approve: Cousin and Page; then, voting against: Reckhow and Heron.   A tie means the rezoning request is denied, but under the UDO, a rezoning request can be made again immediately, instead of after 12 months.  The opponents clapped.   This was around 9:30, instead of the 40 minutes allotted in the agenda, and the public part of the meeting went on until around 9:45.   

 

After most of the audience had left, Cousin and Page again said how sorry they were for the landowners. 

 

There are obvious divisions in this case.  The vote was divided by race, sex, and party.   The opponents were all or mostly white, against a black-owned company (Ripley and his associates are white though).  This could be seen as a racial problem, and Page or Cousin implied this strongly in their last remarks.   Progressive people need to try to ease racial/ethnic tensions, but this is also probably a case of race being used to cover over class issues.  There are the black landowners (who don't live on the property), the all or mostly white middlemen, and the all or mostly white suburban neighborhood opposition.  It is complicated, with the middlemen possibly using the landowners, but it is still developers and seemingly absentee landowners against neighbors, who are probably mostly working class, though probably mostly white collar.   There were longtime residents on each side I think.        

 

Some other items:

 

Before Scott Mill, there was the issue of whether undocumented immigrants will be paid by the City to work on housing projects.   I think Victoria Peterson brought this up.  I think this is an attempt to divide the working class on ethnic lines, though it would be preferable if business would hire Durham residents and increase the employment rate.   It also probably would violate the City's immigration neutrality resolution to make this distinction. 

 

The other two rezoning cases after the Scott Mill item were postponed.  The last item then was a tax on land transfers.   Peterson also spoke against this, and there were at most four guests left in the meeting.  I wondered if this is a case like the opposition to the estate tax, which argues that workers and family farmers are hurt by it, while it most affects the rich, and is a progressive tax.  

 

More to come.              

 

 

Scott Mill rezoning agenda summary:

 

The Board is requested to deny a request for a zoning map change for 44.336 acre site located on the south side of Scott King Road, east of Herndon Road and west of Grandale Drive.   PINs 0727-03-33-0274, -3487, -5136, and -6917.  Request: RR; F/J-B to PDR 1.680; F/J-B

 

This case was opened and continued at the June 26, 2006 Board of Commissioners meeting and continued again at the August 28, 2006 Commissioners meeting.   The public hearing for this case was closed at the September 25, 2006 Commissioners meeting as a result of proposed changes to the development plan that required review by the Planning Commission.   Staff was directed to re-review the item as a result of the proposed changes and process it accordingly.  The applicant subsequently has withdrawn the changes proposed at the September 25 ^th meeting in order to avoid returning to the Planning Commission and refused to make the changes required for the development plan to meet ordinance requirements, asking that the case go directly to the Board of Commissioners.

 

To adopt as support for its action on the proposed zoning map change the determinations that, notwithstanding its consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the request is neither reasonable nor in the public interest in light of information presented in the public hearing and in the agenda materials.

 

Alternatively, in the event that a motion to deny the item fails, the Commissioners adopt as support for their actions on the proposed zoning map change the determination that the action is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is reasonable and in the public interest in light of information presented in the public hearing and in the accompanying agenda materials.

 

Staff Recommendation: Denial, based on the development plan not meeting minimum ordinance standards including 1) failure to show an appropriate buffer around "Wetlands Area 'A'" on sheet D-1 and 2) internal inconsistencies with the committed elements #4, #5b, and #5c not reflected sheet D-2.

 

Planning Commission Recommendation and Vote: Denial, 12-0 on April 11, 2006.   The Planning Commission finds that the requested revision to the zoning districts of the UDO is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan.  The commission recommends that the request be denied based on finding that the project will adversely impact sensitive environmental areas, that there is significant opposition from the surrounding community, that the density of the project is inconsistent with the neighboring land uses and densities, and considering the information in the staff report and comments received during the public hearing.

 

Resource Person(s): Frank M. Duke, AICP, City-County Planning Director

 

County Manager's Recommendation : The Manager recommends that the Board conduct a public hearing on the proposed zoning map change and deny it, if appropriate, based on the comments received.

Showdown at the BOCC meeting

Scott Mill was item 10 at the Board of County Commissioners meeting earlier this evening, and it came up a little before 8pm (the agenda is online at www.durhamcountync.gov/departments/bocc/Agendas/Current_Meeting_Agen.html).  The opponents filled an entire row on the left side of the room, and a few other seats, with more than half as many people as the developers.   Commissioner Lewis Cheek was absent.  This was a substantive hearing and the discussion was pretty sharp at points, and the political plays were clear.  

 

The hearing began with a summary of the Commissioners' past decisions in the rezoning request, that it was continued (meaning delayed, I think) twice, etc.   A man from the City-County Planning Department spoke.  I think the basic point was that the plan as submitted for this meeting violates the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), so the Commissioners could not approve the plan legally (if they did, they would likely lose a resulting lawsuit).   One problem was that the plan is inconsistent, for example on a buffer required for a wetland on the site.  I think there was a second, similar problem.   Commissioner Rev. Philip Cousin asked if this inconsistency was the only problem, implying that these are just technicalities that could be ignored.   Then or later the County Attorney mentioned a judge who said technicalities are the law.   

 

Bill Ripley spoke early on, trying to make a Powerpoint presentation, and argued that the committed elements agreed with the neighbors remained.   There would be only 71 houses, with a 12' separation between them, more open space, a tapered eastern buffer strip, open space on the south side, undisturbed except for a trail and any necessary infrastructure, 46% less traffic, 50% fewer students, etc.   Several people yielded on each side to allow the main people to speak for more than 2 minutes. 

 

Speaking next was a woman from the IUKA company, which is the actual owner of much of the property (I think 37 acres out of a little over 44 acres).   She said that IUKA had held that land for 40 years and already lost over half to the Army Corps of Engineers, which she seemed to count as environmental protection having been given its share.   She said the neighbors had never contacted IUKA to discuss their concerns. 

 

Next a member of the Durham People's Alliance spoke, since the PA voted to oppose Scott Mill for its environmental and process problems, last Thursday.  

 

The Headwaters branch of the Sierra Club also had a speaker against the rezoning.  Then three members of Northeast Creek Stream Watch ( www.necreek.org) spoke strongly (but not officially, though the group did send out an official letter of opposition).   The President of the Lyon's Farm homeowners' association spoke, and I think said the residents were offended by how this rezoning has been pushed. The leader of the neighborhood opposition, Carol Young, from Lake Park, outlined the arguments against.   She pointed out conflicting house separation figures, the lack of response from Ripley on requests for Scott King Rd. buffer opacity figures and the restrictive covenant covering noise, and she said the Sheriffs Department is not able to enforce community rules like that.   I think she was the one who said IUKA was not available for dialogue, and she or someone else said it should be up to the applicant for rezoning to contact the community.  

 

Several more people spoke for and against.  Ripley's negotiator said the committed elements were still in effect and that the problem was just a return of distrust.   A longtime resident and watcher of development said Ripley had promised one thing after half a Sunday of discussion with her about a development in a key part of the New Hope Creek lands, but the next day submitted a different plan.   I think she is the speaker who said this was the worst case she has seen in 40 years.  Another important opponent, Liz Pullman, spoke and rebutted the negotiator's argument.   Someone called the proponents land speculators, whom the BOCC does not need to coddle (later Cousin or Page said the proponents were not speculators, because they have owned the land for so long).   By this point people were calling Ripley out as a bad developer. 

 

After these comments, the Commissioners began deliberating.  Cousin started by asking for definitions.   The thrust of his question about inventory sites was whether landowners, who are not informed that a survey is being done, could challenge it (apparently they can).  He said he is not against having surveys, but consider how he voted and his comments, which ignored the inventory and favored the rezoning.   He cast this case as "a tragedy of miscommunication and lack of communication" and said "this is about to take my first prize" as a trainwreck of a case.   Commissioner Rev. Michael Page said he found the case very confusing, but as the meeting went on he came out more in favor of the rezoning.  I think he and Cousin did not see why this case was so drawn out. Ripley was asked to clarify points, and argued that the inconsistencies were an attempt to be helpful or honest, for example by not submitting a new plan.   Then there were questions that opponents could answer.  Chairwoman Ellen Reckhow wanted to ask the opponents, and the audience was saying to call on Liz Pullman and Carol Young.   Page wanted to postpone the decision again, which I think was an attempt to help Ripley by giving him another chance and it would possibly weaken the opposition by dragging the process out further.   Carol Young said no to this from the audience and Page said he would not return her phone calls because she is rude (I think he specifically said "I, Michael Page, won't return your phone calls, because you are rude, Mrs. Young")!  

 

Both Cousin and Page were focused on the development side and only explicitly said they were sorry to disappoint the landowners.   Page especially said both sides were at fault.  Reckhow and Commissioner Heron were on the anti-rezoning side, but went out of their way to say development could happen responsibly, but recommended that the owners get a different developer (I think Heron said it first).   Eventually all of the Commissioners (but the absent Cheek, of course), said this.  I hope this is not seen as a promise to approve a development.   A better development is possible, but whatever is proposed, it will have a negative impact on parts of the environment, so we shouldn't be greenwashing it.    

 

None of the Commissioners would make a motion, so there was a ten-minute recess, to the astonishment and irritation of many.   After the break Heron and Reckhow motioned for approval.  I think the order was, voting to approve: Cousin and Page; then, voting against: Reckhow and Heron.   A tie means the rezoning request is denied, but under the UDO, a rezoning request can be made again immediately, instead of after 12 months.  The opponents clapped.   This was around 9:30, instead of the 40 minutes allotted in the agenda, and the public part of the meeting went on until around 9:45.   

 

After most of the audience had left, Cousin and Page again said how sorry they were for the landowners. 

 

There are obvious divisions in this case.  The vote was divided by race, sex, and party.   The opponents were all or mostly white, against a black-owned company (Ripley and his associates are white though).  This could be seen as a racial problem, and Page or Cousin implied this strongly in their last remarks.   Progressive people need to try to ease racial/ethnic tensions, but this is also probably a case of race being used to cover over class issues.  There are the black landowners (who don't live on the property), the all or mostly white middlemen, and the all or mostly white suburban neighborhood opposition.  It is complicated, with the middlemen possibly using the landowners, but it is still developers and seemingly absentee landowners against neighbors, who are probably mostly working class, though probably mostly white collar.   There were longtime residents on each side I think.        

 

Some other items:

 

Before Scott Mill, there was the issue of whether undocumented immigrants will be paid by the City to work on housing projects.   I think Victoria Peterson brought this up.  I think this is an attempt to divide the working class on ethnic lines, though it would be preferable if business would hire Durham residents and increase the employment rate.   It also probably would violate the City's immigration neutrality resolution to make this distinction. 

 

The other two rezoning cases after the Scott Mill item were postponed.  The last item then was a tax on land transfers.   Peterson also spoke against this, and there were at most four guests left in the meeting.  I wondered if this is a case like the opposition to the estate tax, which argues that workers and family farmers are hurt by it, while it most affects the rich, and is a progressive tax.  

 

More to come.              

 

 

Scott Mill rezoning agenda summary:

 

The Board is requested to deny a request for a zoning map change for 44.336 acre site located on the south side of Scott King Road, east of Herndon Road and west of Grandale Drive.   PINs 0727-03-33-0274, -3487, -5136, and -6917.  Request: RR; F/J-B to PDR 1.680; F/J-B

 

This case was opened and continued at the June 26, 2006 Board of Commissioners meeting and continued again at the August 28, 2006 Commissioners meeting.   The public hearing for this case was closed at the September 25, 2006 Commissioners meeting as a result of proposed changes to the development plan that required review by the Planning Commission.   Staff was directed to re-review the item as a result of the proposed changes and process it accordingly.  The applicant subsequently has withdrawn the changes proposed at the September 25 ^th meeting in order to avoid returning to the Planning Commission and refused to make the changes required for the development plan to meet ordinance requirements, asking that the case go directly to the Board of Commissioners.

 

To adopt as support for its action on the proposed zoning map change the determinations that, notwithstanding its consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the request is neither reasonable nor in the public interest in light of information presented in the public hearing and in the agenda materials.

 

Alternatively, in the event that a motion to deny the item fails, the Commissioners adopt as support for their actions on the proposed zoning map change the determination that the action is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is reasonable and in the public interest in light of information presented in the public hearing and in the accompanying agenda materials.

 

Staff Recommendation: Denial, based on the development plan not meeting minimum ordinance standards including 1) failure to show an appropriate buffer around "Wetlands Area 'A'" on sheet D-1 and 2) internal inconsistencies with the committed elements #4, #5b, and #5c not reflected sheet D-2.

 

Planning Commission Recommendation and Vote: Denial, 12-0 on April 11, 2006.   The Planning Commission finds that the requested revision to the zoning districts of the UDO is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan.  The commission recommends that the request be denied based on finding that the project will adversely impact sensitive environmental areas, that there is significant opposition from the surrounding community, that the density of the project is inconsistent with the neighboring land uses and densities, and considering the information in the staff report and comments received during the public hearing.

 

Resource Person(s): Frank M. Duke, AICP, City-County Planning Director

 

County Manager's Recommendation : The Manager recommends that the Board conduct a public hearing on the proposed zoning map change and deny it, if appropriate, based on the comments received.

Scott Mill final vote tonight

The Scott Mill rezoning vote is on the County Commissioners' agenda tonight (the 12^th) and opponents need to fill the room for that vote.   I've said a lot of this in past posts, but this is another post on what is going on and why I support the opponents.  Any factual inaccuracies here are my fault - but as far as I can tell, these are the facts (please comment or get in touch if you think I'm in error).  I will try to post about the meeting afterward.    

 

The project, Scott Mill, is located near the American Tobacco Trail (ATT) at the southern end of Durham County.   The opposition tried to negotiate a mutually acceptable development plan with Bill Ripley, who has an option on the land, over the summer, but he has resorted to what I see as misleading and undemocratic tactics, to push forward a development that will harm NE Creek's (and ultimately Jordan Lake's) water quality, the larger environment, and the people of Durham.   There are fears that Scott Mill will be like Indigo Corners, at Mt. Moriah Rd. and Chapel Hill Boulevard, and the Herndon Rd. development down the road from the Scott Mill site.   Scott Mill is a necessary fight in resisting sprawl, the degradation of waterways, and the control over local government by development interests in Durham and the region.  The opposition would have acquiesced to living with development, if the agreed-to committed elements had been kept.  As a resident who grew up in the area and often hikes in the public bottomlands along the Creek, I am leery of development, but I am not against development.   I am more offended by how this development has been pushed up to now, than by the development plan itself, though it could be more socially beneficial.   Many of the problems of development are not the fault of one development, but caused by the total of existing problems and new development together.  The opposition would like help publicizing this struggle, lobbying the Commissioners, and bringing out many people in opposition at the meeting on the 12th, to discourage the Commissioners from approving the request.   I expect that there will be a carpool, probably at 6:30pm, from the Parkwood Branch Library.  I think comments to the Commissioners were needed by the 8 ^th especially, but it might not be too late.  I would include a summary from the opposition, but I don't know if it is meant for blog posting.  

 

The site

 

The roughly 45 acre Scott Mill residential development is planned for a peninsula of higher ground above NE Creek's floodplain south of Scott King Rd., between its intersections with Herndon and Grandale roads.   The floodplain is a large wild area protected as State Game Land and by the Army Corps of Engineers.  That area is also within a Natural Inventory Site, surveyed in the late 90's to see what rare species and habitats exist on the protected land around Jordan Lake.   There has not been development of any of the other Inventory sites.  The survey found colonies of the "significantly rare" plants Lewis' heartleaf and Indian physic, and reported that "The mesic forest [a forest on well-drained soil] at the site is one of the best examples of Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest, Floodplain variant known in the project area, and perhaps the best in the state," and "worthy of protection as a Registered Natural Heritage Area."   Many large hardwoods 2-3' in diameter were also noted. 

 

There will be an environmental affect from development, even within the parklands, such as loss of habitat for animal species, worse water quality, and more harvesting of plants.   The swampy area outside the site is an important amphibian breeding area, and many of the species live in upland habitat, such as Scott Mill, as adults.   The toad breeding areas north of Scott Mill have already been affected by Fairfield, Lyon's Farm, and Grandale Forest, and a small population of marbled salamanders off Grandale was apparently wiped out, so there can be serious consequences.   Marbled salamanders aren't rare, but they seem to be much less common than local toad species.  It will probably take more than development to totally extirpate any amphibian species in the bottomlands, though.   Light pollution from development will affect nocturnal species, and stargazing for humans.  Maybe light pollution is part of the reason large and beautiful silk moth species seem to be rarer in southern Durham than they seem to be in dark areas in Orange County, despite the forests remaining in Durham. The presence of Game Lands increases the risk of hunting accidents, and development would reduce the area available for deer hunting, and force wildlife to relocate, also contributing to deer being on roads.   I think the creation of Southpoint Mall and its environs might be why a turkey, deer, and foxes have been seen on my street, which is inside a subdivision, though it could be from some other cause, regarding the herd of deer and foxes.    

 

The Creek is already classified as impaired in water quality by the EPA, because of the wastewater treatment plant on Highway 55 and silt and pollutants from development.   Scott Mill would increase the siltiness of the Creek, since it is on a hill.  Silt in large amounts is a pollutant that harms freshwater mussels, native fish, and other animals.    Polluted stormwater runoff would be a problem after a subdivision is built.  If too much silt and pollution reaches Jordan Lake, the reservoir will become shallower, and there could even be algae blooms and fish kills from the excess nutrients.   Careless development will further reduce the diversity of the area and harm many recreational uses of the Creek and Jordan Lake.        

 

South of the site is a high-tension powerline running between RTP and Orange County, which I think would make a good cross-country trail route, connecting the ATT to other trails.   Having a trail will depend on the individual landowners, but if the corridor is built over, the opportunity will be gone.  A gas line also crosses the site, one of the oldest lines in the area, and due for expansion to two lines.   The Tobacco Trail runs close to the site.  A small farm pond and a beaver pond (probably abandoned), along a tributary of the Creek, are also features of the site.  

 

What happened when

 

Below is how this situation arose, as I understand it.  The saga of Scott Mill has been going on since spring 2002, at which point only 1-2 houses per acre were proposed.   The company originally owning the land wanted it reclassified from rural to part of the Urban Growth Area.  In summer 2003 some of the land was clearcut.   A contract for the land was announced the day after the Comprehensive Plan classified that area for suburban instead of rural development in 2005.  The first plan was presented that August, just before the vote to approve the new, more rigorous Unified Development Ordinances.   In January of last year the current rezoning was requested.   The plan was mostly empty, except for a few lots that were alleged to be "typical" of their intentions.  These lots had houses 6'apart and with 8' back setbacks.

 

Daniel Brown, the Operations Manager of Jordan Lake, wrote to the Durham Planning Dept. with concerns about habitat loss, pollution, and hunting accidents, but his suggestions about warnings, stormwater control, preservation of wetlands, and buffers have seemingly been ignored.   Legitimate concerns being ignored has become a pattern in this story.  Brown called the public land "an important natural area with regional significance" He also pointed out that neighboring development "can adversely impact" the uses of the Lake and its protected land "by decreasing the minimum flow from any streams on the property, increasing the volume or rate of flow of storm water discharge from the property, increasing the sediment or nutrient loads leaving the property, and adversely impacting wetlands."  

 

In February 2006 Ripley scheduled a meeting with the community the Thursday before the Tuesday Durham Planning Commission meeting, and did not attend.   The Commission deferred its decision for 60 days so that Ripley could meet with neighbors and produce a plan with more details.  In March two community consultation meetings were held, but Ripley broke off negotiations at the end, and was against most of the community's requests.   He also refused Brown's request for a 100' undisturbed buffer.  At the Commission meeting in April Ripley presented the old, vague plan and cancelled all committed elements (agreements on features of a development).   This included a promise to the Planning Dept. to leave the land south of the powerline as undisturbed open space.  The Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the rezoning request be denied.  

 

For months since then the County Commissioners have delayed voting on the request so Ripley could consult the community and present a clearer plan.   In June the Commissioners requested extensive changes to the plan and mediated community consultation.  At the meeting Ripley verbally offered to only have 73 lots, of slightly larger size.   Working with Ripley's mediator, the opponents gained several good committed elements.  These included restrictions on construction noise, average erosion controls (instead of above average), a tapering 70' undisturbed buffer on the east side (instead of 100'), about 6 acres of permanently undisturbed land south of the powerline (towards the Creek), landscaping along Scott King Rd. (using mainly native plants from what I remember), a prohibition on large-scale grading in wooded areas, 15' between houses, 15' of woods in yards adjacent to the eastern buffer, and no more than 71 houses, with most being on 9000+ sq. ft. lots and some on 7500 sq. ft (instead of a minimum of 10,000 sq. ft.).   The request for the area south of the powerline to be a conservation easement, meaning there would be rules against development, was rejected.  The mediator said a sewage lift station might be placed there by the County, and rejected language creating a buffer.  Other rejected requests were a conservation subdivision design, and prohibition on large scale grading.   The new plan showed 71 lots and a tot lot and small park in the center.  In August the Planning Department said the vote should be delayed because the lot layout plan was filed late.           

 

The opponents were set in September to not oppose the rezoning, but the Friday before the Monday meeting I was told that the committed elements had been watered down on the final plan, and conflicted with this plan, which was basically the same plan from January, with the addition of verbal agreements made with the County Commissioners in June.   Ripley said the July plan was still in effect, but that is not what was filed.  Among other things, the buffers were downgraded (the 70' eastern buffer was reduced to a minimum of 15', and I believe that is about how wide they would make it) and the open space at the south end was made disturbable for general infrastructure (allegedly the developers want to pile extra soil there).    The specifications for the 70' buffer were supposed to be on page 5 of the plan, but there is no 5^th page!  The eastern and southern buffers would belong to the homeowners' association and the tot lot could be placed south of the powerline (by the hunting lands) or at the east, the eastern buffer would be disturbed to access a runoff retention pond, a trail at least 6' wide would be in the southern buffer (instead of being within the agreed to maximum of 6'), and the 15' of wooded lots would potentially be disturbed by infrastructure.   The old lot dimensions and the original 20' Scott King Rd. buffer were restored, and buffer opacity figures were not provided to the community.  The noise restrictions are "confusing and unenforceable" (according to a neighbor) and the company refused to provide a copy of the restrictive covenant alleged to address this issue. The Commissioners referred it back to the Planning Dept. for review last fall.  

 

The company allegedly broke promises to the Durham County government and the community, showing contempt for the rules and the openness and good faith needed for democracy, if this is true.   I've heard objections to calling this undemocratic, because the Supreme Court interprets the 5^th Amendment as limiting what can be done with zoning, and the fact that legally, this is just a market transaction.   I say it is undemocratic to mislead the government and people you are negotiating with, and the neighbors have specific complaints about how the development would affect them, so this isn't a matter of significant private ownership of land or the fact that what people do with land affects everyone else or the fact that land is really not a commodity, though it is treated as such by American capitalism.   I have to point out how the system of property in land is not how land use must or always will be, though I think the opposition is being reasonable under the present rules.  

 

Neighbors have told me that Ripley misled them about not having a developer lined up, and they believe Centex Homes, which I see as having despoiled much of the tall second-growth forest previously existing along Grandale Rd., is waiting in the wings for this rezoning, not a local company, as Ripley had indicated.   The Ripley-mediated Indigo Corners development ignored, for several days, County fines for breaking silt regulations.  Down the road from Scott Mill, another Ripley land deal began last year with the clearcutting of an area beside the ATT, and then the excavation of a large area, allegedly to sell the soil (the developer in this case is Parker Orleans). This must cause massive erosion and creates a hotter microclimate (because the trees are removed), and the more this kind of development occurs, the larger the heat affect, until you have a city with an updraft that can create its own severe summer storms.   Most or all of the silt eroded from the Herndon Rd. development flows through the Scott Mill property.  

 

For these reasons, this is an issue of environmental damage, anti-democratic practices, and rampant development that affects all of us (such as the possibility of accountable government, our taxes, and traffic problems).   Scott Mill is a relatively small project, but it borders one of our last large protected open lands in southern Durham.  If we don't draw a line in the sand somewhere, and regulate development carefully, piecemeal development will soon finish carving up much of Durham, hurting all of us, and our remaining biodiversity.   This is also a battle that could contribute to reversing the control of Durham's government by development interests, interests enriching themselves at the expense of the majority of Durham's residents.   I had the impression that development occurred in a crooked and unaccountable way before I got involved in this, but I didn't realize that developers got away with this much.  I didn't say anything or follow events closely when other developments were being planned, changing the face of the area over the last 15 years, but I will be more engaged from now on.

 

Contacting the County Commissioners (also available at the County's website):

 

Ellen Reckhow

ereckhow at durhamcountync [dot] gov

Telephone: (919) 383-3883

 

Becky Heron

bmheron at durhamcountync [dot] gov

Telephone: (919) 489-4402

 

Lewis Cheek

lcheek at durhamcountync [dot] gov

Telephone: (919) 419-3303

 

Phil Cousin

prcousin at earthlink [dot] net

Telephone: (919) 683-1379 (w)

 

Michael Page

mpage at durhamcountync [dot] gov

Telephone: (919) 361-2146 (h)

 

Email me and I can provide contact information if you want to talk to the residents most involved in the Scott Mill process.  

Socialism? discussion, February 17th

Join the Triangle Socialist Forum for an informal and
nonpartisan discussion about socialism, Saturday,
February 17th at 4:30 in the lower conference room at
the Chapel Hill Public Library.  What is wanted and
required from American socialism?  What is socialism?
Isn't socialism dead?  How can a socialist economy and
society be built?  The group also needs to
plan what topics to discuss in the future, so come and
have your say if you're interested.  For more information,

email southplumb at gmail [dot] com. 

 

The event on Iraq and the resistance will be later, so the

socialism meeting was moved up to this month. 
 

Scott Mill and upcoming project hearings

The Scott Mill rezoning request will be voted upon by the County Commissioners Monday, February 12th. There will be a carpool from the Parkwood Branch Library. 

 

The East End Connector road project could have a large impact on a section of Northeast Creek's headwaters, around the Durham Freeway, and several hearings are coming up over the next two months.  For more information, see:

www.ncdot.org/project/eastendconnector

The Western Wake Turnpike is a proposed toll road (North Carolina once was, or still is, free of toll roads) that also affects NE Creek.  An environmental document was done by April 2004, but another public meeting is coming up early this month.  More info is at:

http://www.ncturnpike.org/projects/Western_Wake/documents.asp
 

Defend liberty, repeal the Military Commissions Act

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 (text online at
thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:4:./temp/~c109IVm4h3:: ),
passed late last year, abolishes habeas corpus for
citizens and non-citizens alike and legalizes torture.

Demand that it be repealed by signing the Durham Bill
of Rights Defense Committee's petition to NC
politicians, online at:

http://www.petitiononline.com/stopMCA/petition.html

There are paper petitions at Internationalist Books,
and soon at The Peoples Channel, the Durham Food
Co-op, and elsewhere.  There will be a Durham BORDC branch
meeting Saturday afternoon (there is also a Chapel
Hill BORDC branch).

The text of the petition is:

We oppose the Military Commissions Act of 2006. This
is an unjust law that violates the basic human rights
of citizens and non-citizens. It does away with habeas
corpus rights (to a prompt court hearing to determine
whether one's imprisonment is legal, to know what
charges have been brought, and to have legal counsel).
It also gives the executive branch power to allow
interrogation techniques that violate the Geneva
Conventions and human decency. No one should be
subject to arbitrary arrest or to detention without a
prompt and fair trial, and no one should, under any
circumstances, be subject to torture.
 

Local vigils today marking 3000th GI death in Iraq

Unfortunately more American (and Iraqi) deaths are ringing in the New Year.  There will be protests January 1st in Raleigh and Chapel Hill.  Below is a message with details posted on the NC Peace and Justice Coalition's listserve.  May the anti-war movement have many successes this year, so that there is peace, or at least improvement, in Iraq and around the world by this time next winter. 

 

Fw: The US military death total in Iraq has reached 3000, according to www.icasualties.org

 

A Raleigh vigil will be held at the United Community Church, corner of Wade Avenue and Dixie

Trail, tomorrow, Monday, January 1, 2007, from 6 to 7 pm.

 

Please bring any old pairs of shoes you may have for the program. We need to be together and

gather strength to fight this illegal occupation and bring our troops home. If  you need to contact

me before the vigil my cell is [ ].

 

A total of 918 US troops died this year so far.

===============================================

Orange County: Let's gather at Peace and Justice Plaza, corner of East Franklin and Henderson

Streets, 5 to 6 PM, January 1, 2007.  Take a candle and/or signs. [ ]

Discussion of national self-determination, nationalism, and solidarity, January 13th

What are nations (as opposed to states, empires, and other social entities)?

Can nationalism be progressive?  How can people in imperialist or multinational countries
stand in solidarity with oppressed minorities and
national liberation movements?  Is internationalism
necessary for our own freedom?  Join the discussion,
Saturday, January 13th, at 4:30pm in the downstairs
conference room at the Chapel Hill Public Library.  A
short background reading is Lenin's 1920 Draft Theses on
the National and Colonial Questions (online at www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/DTNCQ20.html).  

Organized by the Triangle Socialist Forum, which is also
organizing an event on the Iraqi resistance in
February.  

 

I wrote summaries of the readings for the November and
December meetings, which I am including below.

Synopsis of Ch. 1, Class, Society, and the State, of
VI Lenin's The State and Revolution

Lenin wrote The State and Revolution in August 1917,
after the Russian Revolution was well underway and had
overthrown the Tsar.  At the time a bourgeois
democratic coalition Provisional Government was in
officially power, in favor of continuing Russia's
participation in World War I and forming some kind of
democratic republic.  At the same time a parallel
popular government of councils (soviets) existed and
eventually replaced the Provisional Government in the
October Revolution later that year. Lenin was writing
in part to oppose the view of Opportunists who glossed
over the need for a revolution to replace the
institutions of capitalist states, not just replace
the leadership of those states.  Chapters 2 and 3
discuss the lessons of the European Revolutions of
1848 and the Paris Commune in 1871, a short-lived
workers' government created at the end of the
Franco-Prussian War and brutally crushed by the
Versailles government, working with the German
occupiers.

1.  The State as the Product of the Irreconcilability
of Class Antagonisms

"the bourgeoisie and opportunists" "omit, obliterate
and distort the revolutionary side of [Marxism], its
revolutionary soul, and push to the foreground and
extol what it is, or seems, acceptable to the
bourgeoisie," thus the need for the book.

"The State is the product and the manifestation of the
irreconcilability of class antagonisms.  When, where,
and to what extent the State arises, depends directly
on when, where, and to what extent the class
antagonisms of a given society cannot be objectively
reconciled.  And, conversely, the existence of the
State proves that the class antagonisms are
irreconcilable." [Lenin paraphrasing Friedrich Engels]


The State does not reconcile the classes, but enforces
the domination of one class over the others.  "Its aim
is the creation of order which legalizes and
perpetuates this oppression by moderating the
collisions between the classes."

Lenin asserts that "lower middle-class democracy is
never able to understand" this fact.

"liberation of the oppressed class is impossible
without violent revolution, and without the
destruction of the machinery of State power, which has
been created by the governing class and in which this
'separation' [of the State from the society it
regulates] is embodied."

2.  The Special Bodies of Armed Men, Prisons, Etc.

According to Engels' The Origin of the Family, Private
Property, and the State, originally humans lived in
tribal societies, and "the State is distinguished,
first of all, by the grouping of the subjects of the
State according to territorial divisions."

"The second distinguishing feature is the
establishment of a public power which is no longer
identical with the population and which is organized
as an armed force."  This is required "because a
self-acting armed organization of the population has
become impossible with the break up of Society into
classes.

The "public power" generally becomes stronger and more
independent of society over time.

This was a 'theoretical' question for Engels, but a
very practical one for the Bolsheviks -  "the question
of the relations between 'special bodies of armed men'
[the State] and the 'self-acting armed organization of
the population' [the Soviets]"

3.  The State as the Instrument of Exploitation of the
Oppressed Class

As the State becomes more complex it requires taxation
and loans to support itself, and requires law, instead
of the ancient "free, voluntary respect" [Engels] for
moral authority.

"Since the State arose out of the need of keeping in
check the antagonisms of classes; since at that time
it arose as a result of the collisions of those
classes, it is, as a general rule, the State of the
most powerful and economically predominant class,
which by means of the State also becomes the
predominant class politically, thereby obtaining new
means for the oppression and exploitation of the
oppressed class" [Engels]

During times of "equilibrium" the State can appear as
"independent" and a "mediator,"  such as the
government of Napoleon Bonaparte (and Franklin
Roosevelt??).

Note Engels' words (with Lenin's brackets) on our form
of government:  "In a democratic Republic wealth uses
its power indirectly, but so much more effectively,
first, by means of direct bribery [as in America];
second, by means of an alliance between the Government
and the Stock Exchange [as in France and America]."

"Engels quite definitely views universal suffrage as a
means of capitalist domination," even though he saw it
as a valuable tool of the working class, which should
be defended.

The State did not exist at one time and soon it will
be an exhibit in the "museum of antiquities."

4.  The Withering Away of the State and Violent
Revolution

Lenin quotes a long and useful passage by Engels.
Part of it says "The firs act of the [revolutionary]
State, in which it really acts as the representative
of the whole Society, namely, the assumption of
control over the means of production on behalf of
Society, is also its last independent act as a State.
The interference of the authority of the State with
social relations will then become superfluous in one
field after another, and finally will cease of itself.
 The authority of the Government over persons will be
replaced by the administration of things and the
direction of the processes of production.  The State
will not be "abolished" [the Anarchist view]; it will
wither away."

Lenin:  "The capitalist State does not wither away,
according to Engels, but is destroyed by the
proletariat in the course of the revolution.  Only the
proletarian State or semi-State withers away after the
revolution."

Suppression of the "handful" of bourgeoisie by the
"millions of workers" (a reversal of the capitalist
order), the dictatorship of the proletariat, is "the
destruction of the State as such" and the
expropriation "of the means of production by Society."


After the revolution is over the State, "an absolutely
complete democracy" according to Lenin, withers away.
"Democracy is also a State and"…"consequently,
Democracy will also disappear when the State
disappears," it will wither away.  This does not mean
that democratic decisionmaking disappears, only that
the final democratic State will gradually wither away
after the socialist revolution.


Outline of Stalin's The Foundations of Leninism,
sections 7 – 9 (end)
(online at www.marx2mao.org)

The Foundations of Leninism is based on lectures by
J.V. Stalin at the USSR's Sverdlov University,
following Lenin's death earlier that year.  They were
published in the party paper, Pravda, April-May 1924.
To the Marxist school of thought that is pro-Stalin,
Foundations is a classic summary of Lenin's, and the
CPSU's, contributions to Marxist theory and practice.

Section 7 - Strategy and Tactics

1.  "Strategy and tactics as the science of leading
the class struggle of the proletariat"

Contrasting the strategy and tactics of Marxists
during the time of the Second International ("mainly a
period of the formation and training of the
proletarian political armies under conditions of more
or less peaceful development.") with the following,
revolutionary period ("when the question of
overthrowing the bourgeoisie became a question of
immediate practical action").  Stalin asserts that
"The strategy and tactics of Leninism constitute the
science of leading the revolutionary struggle of the
proletariat."

2.  "Strategy and stages of the revolution"

"Strategy is the determination of the direction of the
main blow of the proletariat at a given stage of the
revolution, the elaboration of a corresponding plan
for the disposition of the revolutionary forces (main
and secondary reserves), the fight to carry out this
plan throughout the given stage of revolution."
Stalin illustrates this by analyzing the tasks,
allies, and opponents of the working class in Russia
in three stages of the revolutionary struggle from
1903 to the period after 1917.

3.  "Tactics and the ebb and flow of the movement"

"Tactics are the determination of the line of conduct
of the proletariat in the comparatively short period
of the flow or ebb of the movement, the rise or
decline of the revolution, the fight to carry out this
line by replacing old forms of struggle by new ones,
old slogans by new ones, by combing these forms, etc."
 Stalin illustrates this speaking of the Bolsheviks'
experience.

4.  "Strategic leadership"

The allies of the proletariat in the Soviet
experience:  the closest are "the peasantry and in
general the intermediate strata of the population,"
workers in nearby countries, "the revolutionary
movement in the colonies and dependent countries," and
"the conquests and gains of the dictatorship of the
proletariat – part of which the proletariat may give
up temporarily, while retaining a superiority of
forces, in order to buy off a more powerful enemy and
gain a respite"

"Indirect" aids are the divisions in the classes
besides the proletariat and divisions among the
imperialist states.

The task of strategic leadership is to make proper use
of these reserves for the achievement of the main
object of the revolution at the given stage of its
development."

a.  "concentration of the main forces of the
revolution at the enemy's most vulnerable spot at the
decisive moment,…."when insurrection is knocking at
the door, and when bringing the reserves up to the
vanguard is the decisive condition of success."
Stalin quotes Lenin on further considerations on the
tactics of a revolutionary uprising to seize political
power.

b.  The "decisive blow" must be timed when conditions
are ripe.

c.  "Undeviating pursuit of the course adopted, no
matter what difficulties and complications are
encountered on the road to the goal" to prevent
"'losing one's bearings'" and setting back the
progress of the struggle.

5.  "Tactical leadership"

a.  "The task of tactical leadership is to master all
forms of struggle and organization of the proletariat
and to ensure that they are used properly so as to
achieve, with the given relations of forces, the
maximum results necessary for strategic success."

This means matching the tactics with the situation,
"to enable the vast masses to realize from their own
experience the inevitability of the overthrow of the
old regime" and "to realize from experience the
correctness of the revolutionary slogans."

b.  "To locate, at any given moment, the particular
link in the chain of processes which, if grasped, will
enable us to keep hold of the whole chain and to
prepare the conditions for achieving strategic
success."  What is needed to master our situation, and
what is the most pressing demand or issue at the
moment?

6.  "Reformism and revolutionism"

The difference between reformist and revolutionary
tactics, why reformist tactics uphold the system and
put off revolution, and the use of reforms after the
revolution.

Section 8.  "The Party"

During the time of the Second International,
parliamentary (electoral) tactics were primary and
"under these conditions the Party neither had nor
could have had that great and decisive importance
which it acquired afterwards, under conditions of open
revolutionary clashes."

Stalin asserts that the "new party, a militant party,
a revolutionary party," with boldness, experience, and
enough "flexibility" is a must to end imperialism and
put the working class in charge of society, instead of
the capitalists.  The new type of workers' party, the
Leninist model, has several features.

1.  "The party as the advanced detachment of the
working class"

Stalin argues against 'tailing' the working class and
events, and says that a party is the "General Staff of
the proletariat," and must be "closely bound up with
all the fibers of its being" with the working class.

2.  "The party as the organized detachment of the
working class"

Members of the party should belong to party groups and
the party is a "single system of these organizations,
their formal union into a single whole," with
democratic centralism, so the party can provide
"systematic and organized leadership of the
working-class struggle."

3.  "The party as the highest form of class
organization of the preoletariat"

The party should provide "the general line" and
leadership to the various organizations the working
class creates.  These groups should not be controlled
by the party, but "the members of the Party who belong
to these organizations and are doubtlessly influential
in them should do all they can to persuade these
non-Party organizations to draw nearer to the Party of
the proletariat in their work and voluntarily accept
its political leadership."

4.  "The party as an instrument of the dictatorship of
the proletariat"

The party is not "an end in itself" but "an instrument
in the hands of the proletariat for achieving the
dictatorship,…, and for consolidating and expanding
the dictatorship, when it has already been achieved."

Maintaining and expanding the hegemony of the working
class means providing a center and education for the
working class, which requires a party.

5.  "The party as the unity of will, unity
incompatible with the existence of factions"

Unity is necessary, but this unity is by "conscious
and voluntary submission," "after a conflict of
opinion has been closed, after criticism has been
exhausted and a decision has been arrived at," leading
to "solidarity and iron discipline."

6.  "The party becomes strong by purging itself of
opportunist [unprincipled or wavering] elements"

Stalin says that "The source of factionalism in the
Party is its opportunist elements," who must be
expelled so the party can be effective.

Section 9.  "Style in work"

"Leninism is a school of theory and practice which
trains a special type of Party and state worker,
creates a special Leninist style in work," which
Stalin calls a combination of "Russian revolutionary
sweep" with "American efficiency."

"Russian revolutionary sweep" is a progressive spirit,
but can lose touch with practical implementation and
become "fantastic scheme concocting."  "American
efficiency" is practical organization and efficiency,
but it needs the guidance of a revolutionary spirit,
or "vision," to stay on course.


What does all of this mean for Americans in December
2006, what of Leninism is relevant to the working
class struggle here and how do we put it into
practice?


Triangle Socialist Forum – December 9, 2006

Report from the meeting at Price's office in Durham + Price letter on impeachment

At the meeting with District Liason Tracy Lovett at Rep. Price's Durham office we had two people from the western Triangle and two from Durham.  I think we were all late, and I was last, I think at least partly because I publicized the wrong address for the NC Mutual Building.  I hope the small size was not because of the address error or full visitor parking spaces (another reason why I was late to the meeting).  Basically we were providing comments, since Price was not there.  We discussed the Democrats soon having subpoena power in Congress.  I asked what Price has done (besides the wiretapping letter to Bush), and will do, to implement the suggestions in the Al Gore speech he praised to us when we met with his January 30th in Chapel Hill.  We were not given an answer, but I said that I hope that Price will do more for investigation, and will not be afraid to consider impeachment or censure, if and when Congress 'reveals' the crimes and undercutting of democracy and our liberties by the Bush Administration. 

 

I presented 50 signatures to the DSM petition on paper, 86 from www.petitiononline.com/dsmnc/petition.html (of which I think about 50 are new), and 35 GRIm collected at the Hillsborough town meeting last July, on paper.  I've been circulating the petitions at stores, at a few meetings, and online, rather than more actively circulating it, and it is mostly a one person effort.  We will continue to collect signatures.     

 

Below is an email on impeachment I received from Price's office November 29th.  I don't remember sending an email though.  I think this is not enough, though it could be an improvement, and that the Democrats collectively didn't speak out and vote many times when they should have to oppose Bush's policies.    

 

Dear [southplumb]:

Thank you for contacting me regarding possible grounds for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

I share your concern about the policies of the Bush administration and understand calls for the House to initiate impeachment proceedings against the President and Vice President. I think it is very likely that, among other things, the President exaggerated intelligence findings to strengthen his case for war in Iraq, that he and/or members of his administration authorized the use of torture, and that he violated federal law by authorizing wiretaps on the communications of U.S. citizens without obtaining the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. I have voiced my opposition to these policies as forcefully as I can, and have pushed for investigations into presidential abuses of power. Unfortunately, congressional oversight of the executive branch has been almost totally lacking over the last six years.

When the 110th Congress convenes next January, under new leadership, I am confident that the situation will fundamentally change. We will have aggressive and extensive committee oversight on the broad range of President Bush's policies, and investigations into the many allegations that he and the Vice-President have abused their authority.

As you may know, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who is expected to be elected Speaker of the House in the next Congress, has indicated that the House will not initiate impeachment proceedings against President Bush at this time. She also made very clear that the House will once again be in the business of holding the executive branch accountable for its actions and policies. Rep. John Conyers, the likely chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has similarly indicated his intention to intensely scrutinize Bush Administration policies and the actions of the President and Vice-President.

Thank you again for contacting me. Please continue to stay in touch on this and other issues of concern.

Sincerely,

DAVID PRICE

Member of Congress   

Meeting with Rep. Price's staff about impeachment, December 7th

There will be a meeting with David Price's Durham
stafd to present petitions and discuss impeachment
December 7th at 4pm at the Mutual Life Building (411
West Main St.).  There is visitor parking by the
office.  We should meet outside the office 10 minutes
early.  This meeting is to find out if Price's
position on holding Bush accountable has become more
active now that the Democrats will control Congress
and after further anti-democratic acts by the Bush
Administration. Updates will be posted at
downingstreetactionnc.blogspot.com.  Help
publicizing the meeting is appreciated.

The petition is online at
www.petitiononline.com/dsmnc/petition.html and on
paper at the Durham Food Co-op, The Peoples Channel
studio, and Internationalist Books.

A petition to the Durham City Council is
online at www.petitiononline.com/durimp and one for a

State resolution is at www.petitiononline.com/ncres.

Democrats.com called for impeachment committees to be
set up in all Congressional districts, and there are
now committees in all (?) of the districts in the
Triangle (link from www.impeachbushcheney.net).
Meetup.com impeachment groups are active in Durham

(next meeting November 29th) and Raleigh (soon to ask the

City Council to pass resolutions) and GRIM is planning

events in December and January.  There will be a demonstration

in DC January 27th and there will probably be charter buses from the Triangle.

Discussion: Building a revolutionary workers' party - the Bolshevik experience, Dec. 9th

The meeting on class, government, and current
government attacks on our rights went very well.  I had
hoped that more people would come, but five people
participated.  This might have been the
best discussion the group has had so far, covering
current news, such as the Military Commissions
Act and a local petition campaign, as well as the nature of
revolution, class dictatorship, etc.  We could
have discussed how State and Revolution and civil liberty struggles 

relate more deeply, and the election, but I think
we touched on most of the key issues.  We also watched
most of the Predatory Class War episode of Bill
Manson's Freeing the Mind (I think that is the title),
a program on The Peoples Channel in Chapel Hill.

 

The next meeting will be Saturday, December 9th, 4:30-6pm in

the downstairs conference room of the Chapel Hill Public Library. 

For the next reading I suggest the Strategy and
Tactics, The Party, and Style in Work sections of
Stalin's The Foundations of Leninism (online at
www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/FL24.html).  This should
expain some basics about how a revolutionary working
class party works, at least in the case of the Russian
Revolution.  Foundations of Leninism is a major work by Stalin, 

written in 1924, after Lenin's death, and
before the open struggle of various factions for
leadership of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union began.

As I've said, I think Stalin was a revolutionary
Marxist.  We could discuss any critiques of Stalin at
the meeting also, or the text as a historic document,
though it is not only historical.  If you're skeptical and want to see

where I am coming from, you could look at the introduction to
Bruce Franklin's The Essential Stalin (which probably
also includes the reading, and is available online at

www.btinternet.com/~fountain/stalin/index.html), a basic overview

of the anti-revisionist view of Stalin (harikumar.brinkster.net/paper/march2003/myth&reality.html ),
the true origin of and reason behind the Stalin cult of
personality ( harikumar.brinkster.net/paper/march2003/cultindividual.html),
another article on the USSR under Stalin's leadership,
also discussing the level of democracy ( www.allianceML.com/PAPER/JULY2005/ALLIANCE.htm),
professor Grover Furr's page ( www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/politics.html#STALIN),
and there is a lot at www.plp.org, though with a quick
search I only found the reprint of a relatively well-known defense of Stalin by Ludo Martens.  

 

The March 2003 Alliance! issue should be available at the SURGE
Library in Carrboro, if you want to see a hardcopy,
and the summer 2005 issue is still available at
Internationalist Books.  

 

My plan for the first three meetings of 2007 is to discuss self-determination and

nationalism through the writings of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin in January, war, probably

by having speakers on the Iraq resistance and discussing how Americans should

relate to it, and finally, What is Socialism?, which I want to be interactive, but

I haven't thought of something specific for March yet. 

Bill is hosting a separate discussion, Fascism or Humanism?, in the Chapel Hill library

conference room, December 3rd at 1pm. We should discuss fascism at a future meeting.

Also, two weeks ago was the anniversary of the October
Socialist Revolution led by the Bolsheviks in 1917 (in
October by an old calendar, but in November by the
modern calendar).