The average SCAD proponent owns 11.8 properties in Durham with a tax value of $2,103,840 and the average SCAD opponent owns 0.9 properties with a tax value of $277,228.
Thanks for researching and putting together this highly pertinent and informative article. This is just another example of those with means trying to manipulate a situation for the purpose of serving their own interests, rather than to "solve a problem" as they so claim. It was just posted on the Morehead Hill Neighborhood list serve. As I commented, Hennessey exemplifies the phenomena that's the subject of a "how to" book titled: "Long Distance Real Estate Investing: How to Buy, Rehab, and Manage Out-of-State Rental Properties" by David Greene. These are folks whose only roots lie in profit with no authentic ties to community or social equity.
I really like seeing this kind of thing, but what is the source of data for "proponent" or "opponent"? This is the type of analysis that's easy to spoof in either direction without a clear understanding of what data is used and how it was gathered. The links just generally point you to a list of tax records and then pins on a map. How specifically were the "proponent" and "opponent" determined and who are they?
Good question, Anthony. Our methodology to "identify" SCAD proponents and opponents was very structured. On December 13, 2022, the first public hearing on SCAD took place before the Planning Commission. We documented every person who spoke in support of or opposition to SCAD in that meeting. We then added anyone who signed up to speak at the March 20 City Council meeting, which was supposed to be the first SCAD public hearing before the Council. That discussion never officially took place, and the Mayor later mailed letters to every proponent and opponent, listing those who had signed up on both sides and encouraging all of them to continue a discourse before the next public hearing. Anyone whose name was on that list was added to their respective group (with the exception of one individual who signed up as "Both" a proponent and opponent, we did not include that individual in either group). The most recent public hearing on August 21 was cut short because the applicant requested a continuance. There was only one new opponent who had spoken for his first time publicly about SCAD at the August 21 public hearing (before it was closed), so we added his name to the opponent list. The only individual whom we had debate about adding to the analysis was Thomas Hennessey, who resides in New Jersey, but nonetheless identified himself as being "public with my SCAD support" when asked directly by BCPI via email. Because Thomas Hennessey identifies himself as a public SCAD supporter and had made multiple public engagements with neighborhood listservs as a SCAD proponent, extolling its perceived benefits for the City, we decided to include him. Obviously, his real estate portfolio is quite large, and we felt it was still fair to include him because his pro-SCAD comments likely reached as many people via the neighborhood listserv as the comments others made before the Planning Commission. We weighed the fact that other people have obviously expressed their SCAD comments on other neighborhood listservs, but Mr. Hennessey's comments, coupled with his vast real estate portfolio and his lack of residence in the neighborhood which he was injecting his comments, warranted, in our opinion, his inclusion in the analysis because his advocacy behavior went far beyond neighbors dialoguing about their own opinions.
So the shorter answer is: proponent and opponent lists were compiled as those who spoke at the December 13 Planning Commission, signed up to speak at the March 20 City Council public hearing, delivered comments at the August 21 City Council public hearing, or were out-of-state residents using neighborhood listservs to promote/oppose SCAD while self-identifying as public SCAD supporters/opponents (which by survey of at least five listservs, we believe is limited to Mr. Hennessey). We felt like these limits made to our analysis were the most rational, fair, justifiable, defensible and reasonable. We are well aware that additional supporters and opponents exist who have made their support or opposition public by one means or another, especially on Twitter or by email to Council.
Thanks for researching and putting together this highly pertinent and informative article. This is just another example of those with means trying to manipulate a situation for the purpose of serving their own interests, rather than to "solve a problem" as they so claim. It was just posted on the Morehead Hill Neighborhood list serve. As I commented, Hennessey exemplifies the phenomena that's the subject of a "how to" book titled: "Long Distance Real Estate Investing: How to Buy, Rehab, and Manage Out-of-State Rental Properties" by David Greene. These are folks whose only roots lie in profit with no authentic ties to community or social equity.
I really like seeing this kind of thing, but what is the source of data for "proponent" or "opponent"? This is the type of analysis that's easy to spoof in either direction without a clear understanding of what data is used and how it was gathered. The links just generally point you to a list of tax records and then pins on a map. How specifically were the "proponent" and "opponent" determined and who are they?
Good question, Anthony. Our methodology to "identify" SCAD proponents and opponents was very structured. On December 13, 2022, the first public hearing on SCAD took place before the Planning Commission. We documented every person who spoke in support of or opposition to SCAD in that meeting. We then added anyone who signed up to speak at the March 20 City Council meeting, which was supposed to be the first SCAD public hearing before the Council. That discussion never officially took place, and the Mayor later mailed letters to every proponent and opponent, listing those who had signed up on both sides and encouraging all of them to continue a discourse before the next public hearing. Anyone whose name was on that list was added to their respective group (with the exception of one individual who signed up as "Both" a proponent and opponent, we did not include that individual in either group). The most recent public hearing on August 21 was cut short because the applicant requested a continuance. There was only one new opponent who had spoken for his first time publicly about SCAD at the August 21 public hearing (before it was closed), so we added his name to the opponent list. The only individual whom we had debate about adding to the analysis was Thomas Hennessey, who resides in New Jersey, but nonetheless identified himself as being "public with my SCAD support" when asked directly by BCPI via email. Because Thomas Hennessey identifies himself as a public SCAD supporter and had made multiple public engagements with neighborhood listservs as a SCAD proponent, extolling its perceived benefits for the City, we decided to include him. Obviously, his real estate portfolio is quite large, and we felt it was still fair to include him because his pro-SCAD comments likely reached as many people via the neighborhood listserv as the comments others made before the Planning Commission. We weighed the fact that other people have obviously expressed their SCAD comments on other neighborhood listservs, but Mr. Hennessey's comments, coupled with his vast real estate portfolio and his lack of residence in the neighborhood which he was injecting his comments, warranted, in our opinion, his inclusion in the analysis because his advocacy behavior went far beyond neighbors dialoguing about their own opinions.
So the shorter answer is: proponent and opponent lists were compiled as those who spoke at the December 13 Planning Commission, signed up to speak at the March 20 City Council public hearing, delivered comments at the August 21 City Council public hearing, or were out-of-state residents using neighborhood listservs to promote/oppose SCAD while self-identifying as public SCAD supporters/opponents (which by survey of at least five listservs, we believe is limited to Mr. Hennessey). We felt like these limits made to our analysis were the most rational, fair, justifiable, defensible and reasonable. We are well aware that additional supporters and opponents exist who have made their support or opposition public by one means or another, especially on Twitter or by email to Council.