We begin on Twitter, where Michael B finds our endorsements entirely unsurprising. About our comment that we would endorse a reanimated corpse over Lieutenant Governor Dan Forest, he writes: “If a corpse were running anywhere as a Dem, you’d support it.”
Edison McIntyre, on the other hand, objects to our nonendorsement of Democrat Mike Woodard: “Are you people effing nuts? If T. Greg Doucette is so concerned about campaign finance reform, about making the North Carolina’s criminal justice system more fair, about protecting our state’s system of higher education, why is he running as a Republican? As long as he remains in the GOP, he is a marginalized voice in a Republican Party that is not interested in reforming government as much as diminishing it and rendering it impotent. What’s the guarantee that ‘freethinking’ Doucette, if elected, will not decide to kowtow to GOP leaders and consistently vote with the Republicans in the Senate?”
Heather Griswold thinks Woodard has done an excellent job. “Why on earth would the INDY promote T. Greg Doucette over Mike Woodard?” she writes. “Mike serves us well and is in touch with his constituents. He is for the people and has only served North Carolina and Durham in the most upright fashion.”
“Yeah, yeah, we get it: you have to endorse a Republican or two somewhere, lest people think you’re completely in the tank for the Democratic Party,” writes Michael Williams. “Except, have you seen the Republican Party? Given the way elected Republicans have behaved for the last several years, I don’t think we especially need a Republican auditor to keep a Democratic executive branch in line.”
Our nonendorsement of the Orange County affordable housing bond stirred up ire as well (not least of which the several dozen people who showed up outside our Durham office last week to demand we change our minds).
“As noted in the INDY article, which mistakenly does not endorse a yes vote, the bond will contribute $5 million to help create one thousand affordable housing units,” writes Allison De Marco, chairwoman of the Orange County Partnership to End Homelessness Leadership Team. “These are units that are desperately needed for our low- and moderate-income residents and special needs populations, including residents experiencing or at risk of homelessness, residents with disabilities, older adults, and those who have experienced domestic violence. … Our affordable housing providers in Orange County have both the capacity and track record to ensure good stewardship of these funds. Moreover, the Orange County Board of County Commissioners is moving forward in finalizing an affordable housing plan, and the towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro already have plans in place. We encourage INDY readers to vote in favor of the affordable housing bond so that our community can be a place where anyone can choose to live.”
“Your paper got it wrong when you encouraged voters to vote no for the affordable housing bond in Orange County,” writes Susan Levy, chairwoman of the Orange County Affordable Housing Coalition. “A no vote on this bond will hurt working families, it will hurt police officers and teachers and town employees, and it will hurt people experiencing homelessness. We ask you to print a retraction to change your endorsement to yes on the affordable housing bond.
“The INDY states that there is no plan for how to spend the $5 million in bond funds. This is flat-out wrong. Both the towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro have affordable housing plans. Orange County is hip-deep in the process to approve its five-year strategic plan for affordable housing. … We aren’t sure where you got your information from, but it definitely wasn’t by asking the folks who work day in and day out in affordable housing. The harm that has been done by your ill-informed endorsement may be irreversible unless you can retract it now. Members of the coalition have offered to meet with you and share the plans we have in place.”