One who intends to leave others better off for his having existed.

4/14/13

I believe the Rhino Times' John Hammer doesn't give a rat's ass about anything that doesn't have to do with the best interests of John Hammer


Before the 2011 mayoral forum began, I gave John Hammer a packet with information about  incentives voted on by Guilford's County Commissioners for Robbie Perkins, which I spoke of when Skip Alston received an extension on a loan from the City of Greensboro the week before, which John Hammer never reported.

"Perkins got asked a question about land he sold
and the buyer got economic incentives to develop it.

Should John have mentioned the buyer was Chester Brown of Brown Investment Properties
who represented Robbie's LLC for the grant three days before acquiring Robbie's property?

Didn't Chester speak at Robbie's mayoral bid kickoff

Should John have informed the public that the property was under contract (per Robbie at the forum)
to be sold to Chester as Chester made the presentation to Guilford County for Robbie?

He noted that he sold the land
and didn't benefit from the economic incentives from Guilford County..."
 

How could Robbie not have benefited from the incentive if the property was suddenly worth another $124,504 after the grant was approved?

Is John too financially illiterate to figure out Robbie's benefit, or did he not question the statement because it was in his own best interests to support the status quo, regardless of the best interests of his readers?

Should John have informed the public that Mr. Perkins didn't tell his constituents about his incentive request hidden in an LLC?

Should John have reported that the incentives were supposed to be for "small businesses"?

Should John have informed the public that the project was already underway,
therefore possibly violating NCGS 158 -7.1 (a) because the increase to taxable property was already established?

Should John have informed the public that the request may have violated Guilford County's Commercial Investment Policy which I gave him with highlighted excerpts at the forum,
which says among other things, that "The applicant must be the record owner of the subject real property"?

Should John have reported why the grant was withdrawn in 2011, which he was informed of at the forum?

.
Greensboro's Political Races have been relatively rigged on multiples of different occations.

Every interview tape from 2009's race is available from Greensboro News & Record except the one with Zack and I.

The Greensboro News & Record Editorial Board does some of the same thing Hammer does, only different.

The political contributions go to the candidates, and then into John Hammer's pockets for advertising.

As long as the local media in Greensboro is batting for the incumbents and well connected business interests, we are not going to get any where near positive jobs growth in our community.

2 comments:

Hugh said...

I'm sure the paid ads for the real estate section of the Rhino have nothing to do with editorial decisions.

Anonymous said...

I liked the Rhino Times when it first came out but towards the end it seem they wouldn't dig into a lot of stories that most familiar with this city would be curious about..especially with so much money being passed around through bonds and projects..and tax dollars being funneled to certain groups.

I wondered if advertising dollars might have played a part in the selection of what gets covered also.

Nothing illegal going on but it does make a publication questionable when their ad dollars represent the same sources that in question that need investigating as they did in the old days of the Rhino.