Subscribe to RSS/Google Reader
Subscribe to RSS/MyYahoo
Attack ads here? Say it ain’t so
By DAVID BORAKS
It was probably inevitable 
that negative campaigning would eventually creep into local politics in Davidson. Is it here to stay, or is it something unique to the personalities of this year’s mayoral race?
In advertisements 
last Thursday and Sunday in The Charlotte Observer, mayoral candidate William E. Jackson Jr. (photo) went after opponent John Woods, accusing him of “behind the scenes” deals, “mortgaging the future” and other alleged misdeeds.
Mr. Woods said Wednesday said he has “no hard feelings” against Mr. Jackson, but asked his opponent to correct one of the claims in the ad. Mr. Jackson’s response: “Hell no!”
Local political watchers said they cannot remember a Davidson campaign where one candidate attacked another in an advertisement, no less in email messages and press releases, the way Mr. Jackson has challenged Mr. Woods during this campaign.
“Negative campaigning isn’t new, but this is the first time I’ve seen it Davidson,” said Susan Roberts, a political science professor at Davidson College.
Indeed, Davidson campaigns are typically far more civil, Ms. Roberts said. “People used to joke that six people would run for (the five town board seats) and one would campaign a little — and lose,” she said. She said Davidson residents have even complained about campaign yard signs as being unsightly.
Ms. Roberts, who studies campaigns and elections, asked Mr. Jackson a question about negative campaigning during a debate between the mayoral candidates Monday at Davidson College.
Mr. Jackson said Wednesday his campaign is not negative. (In interviews and email messages exchanged in the preparation of this article, Mr. Jackson turned his sights on Ms. Roberts, accusing her of taking sides by asking the question. She told DavidsonNews.net she wasn’t “being anything more than an academic who’s also concerned about how we debate the issues” here in Davidson.)
WOODS SEEKS CORRECTION
Mr. Woods (photo) has taken the high road
throughout the campaign, letting Mr. Jackson’s attacks glance off him at forums, public meetings and other occasions. He did not respond to Mr. Jackson’s ad until Wednesday morning, when he emailed a request asking for a correction on one of Mr. Jackson’s statements.
“You have stated that I am a ‘NO’ regarding ‘implementing impact fees on developers.’ Nothing could be further from the truth,” Mr. Woods wrote to Mr. Jackson. Mr. Woods copied the email to others, including news reporters.
Mr. Jackson responded with an email to Mr. Woods – also copied to reporters and others – repeating his allegations and adding new ones. He insisted that “I am not in error” about the impact fee issue. He taunted Mr. Woods, saying he “must feel threatened by the potential election results of Nov. 6.”
In a back-and-forth series of interviews and emails with the two candidates, we tried to sort out the facts.
WOODS: YES ON IMPACT FEES
Mr. Woods told DavidsonNews.net Wednesday he is on record supporting fees and taxes on new development, both in news reports and in a 2005 Town Board vote.
On July 12, 2005, along with the four other commissioners, Mr. Woods voted to approve a resolution urging the state legislature to impose “growth taxes,” according to the meeting minutes. The resolution said specifically that growth taxes could include “a local tax on the impact of land development” (an impact fee) or other strategies, such as a land-transfer tax.
Mr. Woods also was quoted in a July 26 Charlotte Observer article as agreeing with Mr. Jackson in supporting a legislative bill that would give counties the option of letting voters decided whether to impose a new land transfer tax. Such a tax could help local government pay for new infrastructure to support growth. It’s not an impact fee, but another strategy that Mr. Woods said should be considered as a way of dealing with the effects of growth.
“I support the implementation of an impact fee … and believe we should study a transfer tax,” Mr. Woods said. “After all, these options attack the issue from different directions, both related to development.”
CORRECTION? ‘HELL NO’
Mr. Woods had asked Mr. Jackson to “immediately correct this significant error” in the advertisement.
Mr. Jackson was not ready Wednesday to acknowledge the possibility that the ad was wrong.
After being told about the 2005 vote, he changed gears and insisted that Mr. Woods had come around to his own position. “Since Mr. Woods is now saying in this campaign that he is now for an impact fee … I’m delighted. Then therefore put his name being for it as well as my name,” Mr. Jackson said in an interview.
Asked if he would provide a correction for the ad, Mr. Jackson replied, “Hell no.”
Mr. Jackson’s 600-word reply to Mr. Woods also reiterated other allegations he has made in the campaign: His opposition to the town’s purchase of the former Adelphia cable system, and the $40 million debt Davidson is taking on to fund it; his contention that Town Board member Evan Webster should not have been appointed to the board of the new cable system; and alleged conflicts of interest he sees in the town planning process.
JACKSON’S STRATEGY
Mr. Jackson’s advertisement comes during a campaign in which his strategy has been to attack Mr. Woods and incumbent Town Board members. On Wednesday, he said his newspaper ad was not negative.
“If pointing out an incumbent’s record is negative campaigning, you never throw out an incumbent. Grow up!” he said.
In his “throw ‘em out” crusade, Mr. Jackson has often painted the past decade and a half of Town Board actions as a conspiracy between town officials to help developers.
Some developers might take the opposite view as they try to navigate Davidson’s comparatively strict planning process. And some planning experts say the town’s efforts to tighten regulations and control development make it a model of good planning.
“Davidson has a reputation of having planned well in the past and having a process that could continue that in the future, and continue to be different from the rest of Mecklenburg County,” Bill McCoy, retired director of the Urban Institute at UNC Charlotte, said in an interview after an Oct. 4 candidate forum at St. Alban’s church. Mr. McCoy now lives in Davidson and chairs the planning board.
JACKSON: I WON’T WIN
Wednesday’s email exchange between Mr. Jackson and Mr. Woods produced one other interesting campaign tidbit: Mr. Jackson, a 72-year-old writer on national political issues who has not held local or appointed positions before, acknowledged in his reply to Mr. Woods Wednesday afternoon that he is the underdog.
“There is a wind blowing at your backs – or in your face – out there,” he said of Mr. Woods and incumbent Town Board members. “I do not expect to win the election, incidentally; but there will be some refreshing new blood on the Board.”
LINKS
July 12, 2005, minutes of Town Board meeting, where the board voted on a resolution supporting growth taxes, including impact fees.
July 12, 2005, text of the above resolution (requires Adobe Reader software)
Campaign profiles of John Woods and William E. Jackson Jr. on DavidsonNews.net
Campaign profiles of Town Board candidates on DavidsonNews.net
Filed under: Election 2007, Links
I read with interest the speculation that future races for public office in Davidson might include negative comments and advertising. Certainly incumbents in Davidson have been challenged in the past without negativity. A challenger has every right to disagree with an incumbent’s position on issues and to advertise the differences. He has absolutely no right to print completely incorrect information and, when the challenger and reporters point out the incorrect information and reference the truth, to refuse to amend his incorrect statements. I do not believe that this type of campaigning is likely to occur in Davidson again and I think it will not be rewarded by the voters at the polls.
Cary Johnston is a member of the Town Board. She is not seeking re-election.
The beauty of town government is open, honest debate in which the exchange of ideas strives toward the greater good. Why would anyone vote for a candidate who engages in ad hominem attacks, whose defensiveness sees rational questions as political ambush, and who will not admit an error? It makes little sense to me.
We Davidsonians are lucky to have a local news source that treats our elections as serious matters. Yes, The Charlotte Observer prints information about the election, but it is treated as a quaint little process in a quaint little town. They have spent much more time covering and studying Huntersville and Cornelius. Reading their coverage is like reading campaign fliers: basic information.
Yet, this not just a changing of the guard or a simple little election. There are many important issues on the table and candidates feel passionately about them. DavidsonNews.net has treated these passions with respect and shined a light on the election that otherwise would be snuffed out.
Where else could one read about all the candidate forums and what was discussed at them? Where else have candidates been able to respond to the public directly in posts? Rodney Graham, for one, has used this forum well to answer questions and make some of his views known more publicly.
Few places anymore really have local news that focuses on local issues. We, in Davidson, are lucky to have this opportunity and should support it or resign ourselves to be a quaint page in The Observer.
I fully agree with Carol Higham. Elections are among the most difficult topics for journalists to cover. The issues are often very complicated but rarely discussed in depth. Competing candidates are ready to criticize the slightest misstatement or misquote. An objective or balanced perspective is hard to find. But, the “Attack Ads” story provides just that perspective.
The news media helps us sort through the competing claims and counterclaims, and DavidsonNews.net provides that analysis on a local level and in such detail that no other news outlet comes close to matching. When professional journalists contribute their own free time to providing such detailed election analysis, we should all be thankful!
I am intimately familiar with the ad in question, and this is neither a personal attack on Mr. Woods, nor negative campaigning. It is an elucidation of how two candidates differ on an issue.