I think it's clear that the public officials and community leaders involved in the now-delayed trip to DC saw no evil in the use of developer Roy Carroll's private plane. After all, the story broke when Mayor Johnson told me, unprompted and proudly, that they were getting a free ride. And Carroll is a CFGG boardmember, so there's nothing hinky about him looking to support the organization's president and his ambitious plans.

But I can't see how anyone can remain "baffled" over the controversy. The lawyers have said the freebie was questionable at best. And Carroll's lack of involvement in the specific project at hand doesn't change the fact that he is a politically-active business leader who has received tax breaks from the City, is involved in deals that may come before City and County boards, and is at this minute up to his knees in the debate over the City's downtown development plan.

Some good things have happened in terms of transparency in local government: the Mayor took it upon herself to get on the phone with a blogger to share some news; readers reacted quickly to the airplane plan; the newspaper read the blog and moved the story forward; the trip got postponed, and the ethics of developer/politician relationships -- surely one of the more important issues in this town -- got some fresh scrutiny.

Good intentions can lead to less-good outcomes, and processes that lead to good outcomes can be messy along the way. Nothing baffling about that.

Comments

[glenwoodobserver]

I appreciated the follow up on the story that both the Business Journal and N&R did and I think cancelling the trip was the right thing to do. It is hard to argue with the sincerity with which all involved believed they were doing the right thing, but the trip and its relationship to Carroll caught most of us by surprise. Transparency could have been helped here by earlier releases from the City or CFGG announcing the intent to take a trip to Washington to secure money for the redevelopment (which I am anxious for too). I think, it speaks more to a level of distrust of developer Roy Carroll than of City leaders or CFGG. I don't know him personally, but from the outside in, it appears that he is wielding a disproportionate amount of influence on downtown at the moment. As I had mentioned previously, I don't think a single citizen or store owner and got the City to postpone the implementation of the downtown design guidelines. Sometimes we learn the hard way that perception is as important as reality.

[Fec the Terrible]

I happen to know the local media is failing to give attribution to several bloggers. If they keep it up, we will declare war. I'm perfectly capable of waging pitched battles on several fronts.

[Ed Cone]

I gave them some grief when they reported that the original story about the trip had been "confirmed," without saying where it come from, but that was pretty much just trash talk over a small thing.

What strikes me as a more significant omission is reporting that the planners reacted to public feedback, without mentioning the nature of that feedback ("Local officials caught flak from residents after it was revealed that they would accept a free ride from the Community Foundation via Carroll.") Maybe this flak included more than the comments at this blog and others in reaction to the news reported here, but if so, the paper could be clear on that as well.

[triadwatch]

ed,
do you dare link to several post on this issue from triadwatch?

[Ed Cone]

I'm unaware of the risks of such linkage, so send 'em along, and I'll see how they strike me.

I'm not too much of a stickler for citations, although a nod seems like the nice thing to do from time to time. In the example above, I think omitting the role of the blogs actually diminishes the reporting of the story.

[triadwatch]

the blogs is what got this story going and also bringing up the ethical aspect as well.

[Ed Cone]

Right.

It's the role of the blogs as conduit back to the power structure that's interesting to me. I think it's an important detail of the story.

That news of the trip broke here seems relatively less important. The facts is the facts, they have a way of coming to light. And it's not like I did some feat of investigation, the mayor was on the phone with me about something else and brought up the trip on her own accord.

But the story, as reported, involves public feedback as one of its central aspects.

What form did this feedback take? I'm aware of blog comments and blog posts. Was there other feedback as well? If so, what role did it play, and how important was it relative to the importance of the blog feedback?

If the near-instantaneous feedback on the web really changed the plans of our mayor and other community leaders, that seems worth a sentence or at least a clause in any serious telling of the story.

[Fec the Terrible]

If I'm correct, info was given to local media over telephone. I'm not aware blogs were even involved. They've probably been treating people this way for years, so no biggie. The diff is bloggers can document the conversations.

I understand tomorrow's paper may offer more of the same with an embarrassing twist.

[Cyndy Hayworth]

Ed:

Did you notice in The Business Journal that the "plan" for this development would involve the Guilford County Schools selling 16 acres of downtown property, where their administration now sits, to LOCAL DEVELOPERS?

Could one of those "local developers" be ANY developer?

Just asking.

[Ed Cone]

Fec, the news of the trip and the planned use of Carroll's plane broke at this blog, and the public outcry I'm aware of came in the comments here and in posts and comments at other blogs. So I'd say blogs were pretty heavily involved.

Cyndy -- great point. This morning's editorial does cite Keith Brown as one of the online voices, but it ignores both the downtown development guidelines and the possible Fisher Park site as potential conflicts of interest for Carroll.

[triadwatch]

ed as i have said before dare you link to my blog on this issue? even with your new post on the editorial with a quote from a local blogger "me" no link whatsoever.

[jw]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBy8LG4p9BU

[Ed Cone]

And as I said when you wrote that before, "I'm unaware of the risks of such linkage, so send 'em along, and I'll see how they strike me."

Spare us the drama, just let me know what you think I should be linking on this subject.

[triadwatch]

"spare us the drama", oh please ed give me a break

[Ed Cone]

Sorry, TW, but "do you dare link me" seems a little dramatic, considering our long history of working together, and given my repeated request that you just let me know what it is you'd like me to link.

[triadwatch]

3 out of the four post on triadwatch had links to your post and how this got started

[Ed Cone]

TW, you know I love you, and if I was going to hatch an evil plan to deny you due credit I probably wouldn't do it in a thread about...due credit. I'm a bit at loose ends just now, but I should be back on a stable wifi connection later in the evening and will spend some time at your site then.

Unless of course you want to just send me a couple of links, although I'm sensing that this does not appeal to you for whatever reason.