It Is My Opinion

North Carolina has a law banning the use of “groins” (often known as jetties), man-made devices that reach out into the ocean from the beach. These are often used to prevent erosion of beach sand. However, they are very destructive to beaches “down drift”, that is, further down the beach in the direction of the prevailing current.

Because of the destructive nature of groins the General Assembly prohibited their use (G.S 113A-115.1). However, Ocean Isle Beach and Figure Eight Island homeowners are trying to change the law that would allow exceptions to be made. They claim the exception would be experimental and would establish a “pilot project” to study the use of groins.

A bill (SB 599) has passed the NC Senate to allow exceptions to be made by the Coastal Resources Commission to the anti-groin rule. This would allow, with conditions, groins to be built to protect some beach areas from erosion. The bill will be considered by the House in this year’s “short session”.

A report recently issued by a scientific study group argues against the change. According to the report, there is nothing experimental about groins. The proposed change would require that groins be monitored and removed if damage results from the groin. The report points out that it may take many years for groin impacts to become apparent. By the time they become apparent, removal of the groin will be too late to prevent damage to other areas.

The report, signed by 43 academic and other scientists, can be found at:
http://psds.wcu.edu/WebFiles/PDFs/Coastal_Scientist_Groin_Statement.pdf

John Shaw
Cary

Paul Stam, a Republican NC House member from Wake County, and Republican leader in the NC House, had the following comment about the naming of a new NC State library for former Governor Jim Hunt”

“Normally to get your name on a government building, you have to be dead.  But I’m not on a crusade about this.”

But he must have forgotten about the Holshouser building at the state fair, named for the still alive former Republican governor and the Reagan National Airport, renamed for the former Republican president before his death.

The above is from Gary Pearce in the Talking About Politics blog.
www.talkingaboutpolitics.com/Home/tabid/36/ctl/ArticleView/mid/364/articleId/992/NoClass-Paul-Stam.aspx

There is also the George H. W. Bush Intercontinental airport in Houston and the ironically named George Bush Center for Intelligence (CIA HQ), appropriately near the Turkey Run park on the Virginia side of the Potomac river.

According to a recent Business Week article, North Carolina’s progressive protection laws for borrowers may become a nationwide model.

Looking over a past issue of Business Week today, an article about North Carolina and our attorney general, Roy Cooper, and the tough lending laws adopted by the state. Cooper introduced the1999 law when he was a state senator.

According to the article, critics of the 1999 law argued that it would harm the housing market in the state. However, studies have found that it did not. The recent economic problems have not affected North Carolina as much as other states. The foreclosure rate has not risen as much as in the rest of the nation while the median home prices rose much faster than in the rest of the nation.

For more, read the article:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_45/b4057078.htm?chan=search

John Shaw

Cary, NC

From 12/5/07 Raleigh (NC) News and Observer:
Ban Possible on new water tie-ins
“With water supplies drying up in Raleigh and Durham [NC], elected leaders in the Triangle’s two biggest cities are considering tough new restrictions that could include a ban on new water customers.

“Development in Raleigh and Durham effectively could be frozen until the region’s severe drought lifts, because new homes and businesses wouldn’t be allowed to tap into city water.”

http://www.newsobserver.com/weather/drought/story/811889.html

On November 9 I posted a poll on Blue NC asking “What is the most urgent environment problem facing North Carolina?” I promised to give my opinion later. It is now later.

The choices in the poll were:
Global warming and lack of water,
Water pollution,
Loss of farm land, and
Air pollution.

The results were very close (they can be seen, and you can vote, using the link on the bottom of the left column). All four of these environmental problems are very serious and must be addressed by members of the public and by elected officials.

It is my opinion that the most significant environment problem is the loss of natural land-farm land and forest-to development. The significance is that this cannot be reversed. If we pollute the air or water, and then stop the pollution, the air and water eventually will be cleaned up. However, once a farm or forest is destroyed to build a shopping center or subdivision, the natural land is lost.

it is my opinion
John Shaw

The Chatham County N.C. Board of Commissioners has addressed the need for more money for schools by increasing the school impact fees from $2,900 to $3,500, the maximum amount allowed. The Board also approved a new impact fee study, which will be underway within the next few weeks. The new study will likely result in a maximum level well above the present $3,500 limit.

According to Board Vice Chairman George Lucier, it is the commissions’ responsibility to “put fees and regulations in place to assure that the county is not overwhelmed by growth.” He also stated that the board has very limited options to pay for schools. According to a press release, “an increase in annual property taxes is the only other option currently available to county commissioners.”

http://www.chathamnc.org/index.aspx?recordid=265&page=19

John Shaw
11/25/07

Last week the voters in 16 NC counties rejected the proposed 0.4% property transfer tax.

Are these voters saying that they would prefer to increase the property tax (the tax that the county commissioners can raise) instead?

The stated purpose of the transfer tax was to pay for the cost of growth. Could this rejection indicate that North Carolina voters are against growth and therefore see no need for a tax to pay for it?

George Bush tonight announced his intention to send more troops to Iraq, against the clear wishes of the majority of the American people, the Congress, and even his own generals.

Bush intends to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq at the costs of billions. However, at this time, according to a recent Gallop poll, 61% of the public oppose the planned “surge”.

It is not clear what, if anything, Congress can do to stop the escalation. Congress controls the budget, but to eliminate funding might just result in reduction of equipment and protection for the men and women in Iraq. He might also reduce necessary expenses in the US, such as support for military families.

A showdown between Congress and the President is not likely. We will see what happens over the coming weeks.

The US House of Representatives today (Wed. 1/10/07) passed and sent to the Senate a bill to increase the minimum wage from the current $5.15/hr to $7.25/hr by a vote of 315-116. All Democrats and some Republicans voted in favor of the bill; the majority of Republicans voted against it.

Earlier the House defeated a Republican motion to send the bill back to committee for the purpose of amending it to exempt small businesses that provide health insurance to employees. This provision could have allowed the exemption even if minimal cost high deductible insurance was provided.

Admittedly this increase in minimum wage will cause some businesses, particularly restaurants and hotels, to pass along the increase to their customers. However, because only a few employees would be affected and only part of the cost of business is wage related, the increase should be small. And what is wrong with those who can afford to eat in restaurants and travel to hotels paying a small amount more so that the working poor will be able to have a significantly higher income?

See Robert Reich’s comments here.

There have been too many recent reports of Social Security numbers being stolen and possibility falling into the hands of identity thieves. While most of the Social Security numbers that have been stolen have not been used by identity thieves to open fraudulent accounts, that possibility is always present.

See Washington Post story 7/8/12

Given the number of people who have access to our Social Security numbers, there is always the possibility that someone will gain access to the number and use it fraudulently. I doubt if it is really possible to completely protect the numbers if they can be used by criminals to open accounts and borrow money in other people’s names.

The Social Security number was originally intended to be an identification used to keep social security accounts and income tax accounts. It was to be the same as a name, only without duplications. However, the social security number has become an identifier for many purposes, including credit reporting and credit accounts. Some businesses even use the social security number as a form of a password–if you know a person’s “social” you must be that person.

Attempts to keep fraudsters from learning of people’s Social Security number are probably futile. The number of cases of fraudulent uses may be reduced, but not eliminated.

Apparently it is now possible to apply for and receive a credit card account on-line or by phone with only a name, address, and Social Security number. With the SSN and other publicly available information one person can obtain credit in another person’s name. The victim is then left with a bad credit record and difficulty obtaining loans or even jobs.

Perhaps a better approach would be to eliminate the use of the Social Security number as a confidential identifier for credit applications. If this is done, there would not be a need to keep the SSN confidential. We could carry social security cards in our billfolds, and we could stop worrying about theft of the numbers.

A credit application may still require the SSN to allow the credit of the applicant to be checked, but it would be no different from the applicant’s name, address, phone number, and other non-confidential information. There should be no assumption that knowledge of this number is proof that a person is the person he says he is.

If a credit granter wanted to protect against fraudsters pretending to be other persons, then he could keep photographs, fingerprints, or even DNA to assist in the arrest of the applicant if the application later turned out to be fraudulent.

If a lender is liable to the victim for the cost resulting from credit card fraud, certainly the lender will be more careful to be sure that a borrower is who he says he is.