DC Voting Rights Update

The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 is moving quickly through Congress. The Senate passed the bill late on February 26. NC Senator Burr voted against the bill. NC Senator Hagan voted for the bill.

Click here to see how all Senators voted.

Despite this victory, the fight is not over yet. In fact, it has only just begun! The House of Representatives is slated to begin debate on the bill and a vote is expected to be scheduled as soon as possible.

More Info



Citizens of the District of Columbia pay U.S. taxes, fight and die for the U.S. during wartime, and are governed by the laws that Congress passes. And yet they have no voting representation in Congress. We must right this wrong!

DC has an elected representative in the US House, but the DC Representative doesn't have a vote. Please call your Senators and ask them to support S 160, that gives DC a voting representative in Congress.

Senators are poised for a critical vote on Tuesday, February 24 -- a cloture motion -- which requires the support of 60 Senators. If cloture fails, the Senate will not even be able to consider this vital voting rights measure.

Make your voice heard with those of other activists around the country. Ask your friends, family and others to call as well. No US Citizen should have taxation without representation.

A LITTLE HISTORY: On Friday, September 21, 2007, The United States Senate failed to invoke cloture on the DC Voting Rights Act. Further action was blocked.

The final tally was 57-42. That’s a clear majority of the Senate but THREE VOTES SHORT OF THE SIXTY VOTES NEEDED on this procedural motion. Sen. Burr and Sen. Dole of North Carolina voted NO.

NC Senators in 2009 are:

Sen. Richard Burr
217 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-3154

Sen. Kay Hagan

B40A Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-6342

More information on DC Voting Rights

Bad News for Mountain Tops

Looks like the Coal Industry wins again. It is hard for me to understand the logic of destroying beautiful mountains and polluting water from mountain springs when there are other, better ways to provide energy to Americans.

See article published in The Charleston Gazette

Published on Friday, February 13, 2009 by the Charleston Gazette (West Virginia)
Appeals Court Overturns Mountaintop Removal Ruling
by Ken Ward Jr.
CHARLESTON, W.Va. - A federal appeals court today overturned a judge's 2007 decision to require more thorough permit reviews of mountaintop removal mining operations.


I read somewhere that the so-called stimulus package (recently passed by the US Senate and US House of Rep.) contains money to fund research on clean-burning coal technology, but nothing to regulate where or how the coal is mined. In the meantime, how many mountains will be destroyed? How much will the environment be hurt? How many coal burning power plants will be built (some right here in NC) using dirty, mercury spewing, water polluting methods?

I don't know the status of a bill in the NC House that would try to stop mountain-top removal coal from being used in NC. It is a start and I hope our legislators will pass it.

Negotiation Backlash

Thoughts on Zoning Protest Petition

I find the statement by Marlene Sanford, president of the Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition who acts as TREBIC Representative to Greensboro City Council insincere.

According to the New-Record Feb. 14, Ms Sanford said: “The City Council asked us to work on a compromise,” . . . .“TREBIC came to the table to negotiate in good faith.”

When has TREBIC negotiated a real COMPROMISE in good faith?

Negotiation is defined as "try to reach an agreement or compromise by discussion with others."
Compromise is defined as "an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions."

Is TREBIC getting a taste of it's own brand of negotiating?

I find that most, if not always, the development industry in Greensboro only talks to those adversely affected by their policies to convince them that TREBIC is always right and negotiations are usually based on making minor changes to some development plans and do very little to change their "real plans."

Highly paid lawyers hired by developers with very little respect for good development and who are not people friendly, make a show of trying to work with residents adversely affected by their plans.

TREBIC, maybe the joke's on you this time.