From A loophole in real estate law pits families against developers and each other. Some say there’s more than money at stake. A loophole in real estate law pits families against developers and each other. Some say there’s more than money at stake. Source: American Bar Association Journal From http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/in_the_cross-heirs/
From The New Hill Community Association submitted these comments in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the New Hill Sewage Treatment Plant site. The New Hill Community Association submitted these comments in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the New Hill Sewage Treatment Plant site. From /wp-content/uploads/NewHillDEIS.pdf
Half of Apex Town Hall was a sea of red shirts April 14 at the public hearing on Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities, a proposed sewage plant slated for New Hill.
The people in red, representing a New Hill residential association, had a common message: Build it somewhere else.
“Who wants to live near a stinking sewage plant?” asked resident Vickie Gardner.
“I’m embarrassed that our sewage is going to be piped through beautiful countryside to the New Hill community,” said Carl Thor, a Cary resident, one of the 46 speakers who weighed in that night.
As proposed, the $329 million plant will sit between Shearon Harris Road and New Hill Holleman Road. Called “site 14,” it will service the surging sewage needs in Cary, Apex, Holly Springs and Morrisville, towns who have partnered on the project, with Cary funding over half of the cost.
The meeting stretched to three hours, with detailed presentations on the plan’s engineering report, environmental impact statement and certification requirements.
Mayors Keith Weatherly (Apex), Dick Sears (Holly Springs), Harold Weinbrecht (Cary) and a representative for Jan Faulkner (Morrisville) spoke in favor of using New Hill.
“As a mayor personally committed to environmental protection, I am proud to be speaking in favor of this facility,” Weinbrecht said. He left the hearing immediately after his comments, something that didn’t go unnoticed.
“The people who have been very hard to work with has been Apex and Cary. And who’s missing in this room?” asked New Hill resident Bob Kelly.
Weinbrecht responded in an e-mail that he had to meet guests from France and left Cary Town Manager Ben Shivar, Public Information Officer Susan Moran and several utility staff members to brief him on what he’d missed.
The Cary Mayor’s statement at the hearing left no doubt that he supports New Hill as the preferred site for the plant.
“Exhaustive analysis of draft EIS proves without a doubt that [the] project should move forward,” he said. “Move forward without delay and move forward on Partners’ proposed site.”
Residents’ objections included lowered property values, stench, noise and light pollution. They fear leaks in the pipeline, possibly contaminating their well water. They questioned accountability to New Hill, whose people aren’t represented by the towns spearheading the project.
Resident Anne King said that there are 231 people, two churches and historical cemeteries within a half mile of site 14.
“Put the site where there are fewer people,” said John Moore.
Nobody disputed the need for a new facility, which will accommodate ballooning populations and fulfill previous interbasin transfer requirements issued by the state to return water to the Cape Fear River by 2011. The plans also address Holly Springs’ commitment to relocate its waste discharge from Utley Creek.
Chris Brook, an attorney representing New Hill, questioned how the towns intend to make that deadline with a project slated for completion in 2013.
Residents said there are other sites near U.S. 1 that will accomplish these goals without impacting their community. Many urged “site 21/23,” located west of New Hill Holleman Road — land owned by Progress Energy. But town documents favor the New Hill site based on discharge lake logistics, environmental protection and water quality.
New Hill residents countered that they think the decision had more to do with politics. Some cited racism.
“There is an 83 percent minority population within a half mile radius of site 14,” said Edna Horton.
Other comments were more pointed.
“When I get up in the morning and look in the mirror, I know why they chose it,” said Louis Powell, a black resident. “We don’t have the political clout to fight you. We don’t have the money.”
Documents predict a 15 to 35 percent utility bill increase for the towns serviced by the new plant.
See more on the project at westernwakepartners.com. Another public hearing is scheduled for this summer.
email@example.com. or 460-2608.
An interview with Ruby Freeman, one of the members of the Freeman family, about heirs property that her family owns on the North Carolina coast.
Citizens have less than two weeks to comment on a draft Environmental Impact Statement on a controversial wastewater treatment plant proposed for New Hill, a primarily African-American community in unincorporated western Wake County.
“Why did they choose this site? When I get up in the morning and I look at myself in the mirror, I know why they chose it,” said Louis Powell, an African-American resident of New Hill.
The controversial $327 million project has a long history. The towns of Cary, Apex, Morrisville and Holly Springs, and the Wake County portion of Research Triangle Park, have formed an alliance, Western Wake Partners, to determine the best site for a sewage treatment plant. In 2006, they issued an environmental impact statement determining the unincorporated town of New Hill was the best place to flush their waste—despite reasonable alternatives in other underpopulated areas near the Shearon Harris nuclear plant.
However, that EIS elicited massive citizen outcry as well as skepticism from state regulators because of incomplete data and a lack of public input. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources officials wrote that the report should not be considered an “accurate, complete and adequate document” because it “does not appropriately evaluate the population directly impacted” in New Hill.
So in 2007, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers took on the report, so that it would comply fully with state and federal environmental laws.
Yet, the Corps’ draft EIS, written by a team of consultants hired by Western Wake Partners, has arrived at many of the same conclusions as the Partners’ original EIS. Though it does not explicitly argue for locating the plant at New Hill, the report appears to pave the way for the Partners’ intended outcome.
“We believe, very strongly, that the Partners’ preferred site represents the most cost-effective, and environmentally sound, alternative that meets the needs of our local communities—and it’s clearly supported by the draft EIS,” said Apex Mayor Keith Weatherly at an April 14 hearing to receive public comments on the draft report.
The Town of Cary, as the lead agent in the Western Wake Partners, has already used its power of eminent domain to own and control the 237-acre parcel in New Hill.
The project includes a 62-acre plant and a network of pump stations and sewer lines, with an estimated completion date of 2013. The $327 million price tag will be divided among the participating towns, whose financial burden has increased by roughly 70 percent since the project was first proposed. (Original reports estimated that the plant would cost $193 million, and would be ready by the end of 2010.)
Under the new timetable, the project will miss a 2011 deadline, set by the N.C. Environmental Management Commission, for transferring water from the Neuse River basin to the Cape Fear River basin. (The proposed wastewater treatment plant would discharge water back into the Cape Fear basin.) New Hill residents say the deadline should no longer be used as a reason to site the plant in their backyard.
At the April 14 hearing, John Moore, a member of the New Hill Community Association, argued that using the same consultants in the recent evaluation biased the Corps’ finding.
“You would not trust the words of a used car salesman saying that his mechanic checked out the car you’re about to purchase,” he said. “However, for this proposed $327 million expense, the Army Corps of Engineers trusted data, and conclusions, that were paid for by the Western Wake Partners.”
Unlike any of the other alternatives, the New Hill site would be located within a historic preservation district, and in a minority community. According to the New Hill Community Association, the site would impact 230 residents, more than three-quarters of whom are black.
However, the Corps’ draft EIS argues that impacts to this “environmental justice” community can be mitigated. Providing water and sewer services to the community would help “substantially decrease the significance of any potential adverse impacts” to the community, the report states. And, like the original EIS report, the Corps’ draft EIS downplays the minority population in New Hill by relying on census block data for the entire “service area”—not the area immediately surrounding the plant.
At the April 14 hearing, New Hill residents contended they were never involved in the site selection process, yet will shoulder the burden of the Western Wake Partners’ project, without any of the benefits of a wastewater treatment plant. (A water and sewer extension policy, for example, would still require New Hill residents—who rely on wells and septic tanks—to pay hook-up fees, and would only be available to a limited group.)
The New Hill site is the only site in the report that will require costly “mitigation” measures to reduce odor, noise and traffic—since it is the only site to be placed within a town center.
“Gosh, to me, you don’t have to be that smart to say, ‘Let’s take it out of the center of New Hill—where you’ve got hundreds of people—and put it down here beside a nuclear plant, where nobody lives,” said Bob Kelly, a New Hill resident.
WHY DOES THE CENSUS MATTER?
Census counts are directly tied to the federal dollars communities receive for important services, such as education funding, affordable housing support, job training, social services, roads, bridges, and other community development opportunities.
Census counts also directly impact a community’s political voice because the numbers inform voting districts and determine how communities are represented. That’s why it is important to make sure that everyone is counted!
History has taught us that many communities are undercounted, or are at higher risk of not being counted at all.
These communities include:
- People and families that live in rental property
- Transient communities, such as the homeless and migrant workers
- Native Americans and poor, rural communities
- Immigrants (census counts are for everyone, regardless of citizenship status)
- The elderly and people who live in group housing
We are contacting organizations in Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and Louisiana that are a trusted voice in their communities. In the 2000 census, these states had the highest rate of undercount in the South. We are hoping that you will work with us to help ensure that EVERYONE is counted in the 2010 census.
What you can do:
- Schedule 10 minutes to take an organizational phone survey with an SCSJ organizer.
- Sign up for our Census 2010 newsletter.
- Become an official Partner Organization with the US Census Bureau .
- Join or help form a local Complete Count Committee.
- This fall, attend one of our regional meetings for grassroots, policy, and service organizations to discuss strategies and tactics for reducing Census undercount in our communities (Advance RSVP page coming soon!).
- Apply for a Mini Grant from SCSJ to do community organizing and creative media outreach to ensure a full count in communities who are at risk of being undercounted (Application available soon!).
Join Us Today!
New Hill, N.C. — Residents in the southwestern Wake County crossroads of New Hill have alleged environmental racism in their long-running fight to block a planned sewage plant.
Western Wake Partners, which includes Cary, Apex, Morrisville, Holly Springs and part of Research Triangle Park, have proposed building a $327 million wastewater treatment plant on more than 230 acres in New Hill. The plant would sit between U.S. Highway 1, Old U.S. 1, Shearon Harris Road and New Hill-Holleman Road.
State environmental regulators have set a January 2011 deadline for a new plant. The four towns pull water from Jordan Lake, and state officials said wastewater needs to be returned to the Cape Fear River basin and should no longer be discharged into the Neuse River basin.
New Hill residents have fought the plan for several years through public hearings and in the courts. Their latest salvo in the battle is a claim of environmental racism.
“First of all, it is right in the center of New Hill. It also borders a lot of (the) minority community and some low-income, elderly people,” said Paul Barth, president of the New Hill Community Association.
Poor, minority neighbors are less able to fight the plant, Barth said.
“I think the towns felt that it was a spot that was convenient for them to save them some money, and there wouldn’t be much resistance because (residents) didn’t have the financial means to do anything,” he said.
Steve Brown, director of Cary’s Department of Public Works and Utilities, denied the allegation.
“That is not a factor in this decision,” Brown said.
Cary is leading the sewage plant venture and plans to assume 60 percent of the plant’s costs.
Brown said officials reviewed more than 30 possible sites for the plant, and the New Hill site was the best one they found. Three other sites in or near New Hill remain under consideration.
A new plant also would benefit growth in southwestern Wake County, he said.
Barth said he and other New Hill residents would prefer the plant be moved about a mile away from the proposed location.
“There’s a line in the movie ‘Network’ where the guy opens the window (and) says, ‘We are mad as hell, and we are not going to take it anymore.’ That’s where we are,” he said.
Preventing land loss among rural African-Americans
Tuesday, April 14th, 2009
By Rob Schofield
Why are vested interests blocking legal reforms that could help stop the bleeding?
Quick take: Last week at the General Assembly, members of a House committee considered a bill advanced by advocates for rural African American landowners that would have improved the fairness of legal proceedings that often result in the taking of family farms. Unfortunately, as in the proceedings in question, the letter of the law and “efficiency” seem to be trumping actual justice and human decency.
Here’s an important issue that you probably haven’t heard or thought much about lately: the loss of land by rural African Americans of modest income. For decades, the hemorrhaging of farmland has been a plague upon Black families. Here’s how the folks at a North Carolina nonprofit known as the Land Loss Prevention Project describe one of the principal causes of this problem:
“Like many poor people, rural African American farmers often failed to prepare wills before they died. In the absence of a proper will, state laws governed how the farmers’ land was passed on to their heirs upon their death. What this usually meant was that interests in the land were passed on to a large number of people who were classified as “heirs” in the eyes of the courts, and when those heirs died themselves, their ownership interest in the land was passed on to their heirs. The result of this process is that in a relatively short period of time, ownership of small pieces of property have been split amongst hundreds (and sometimes even thousands) of people.
As it stands now, any co-owner can seek the division or sale of a piece of property without regard to how much on an interest they own. What this means is that an individual who has a marginal ownership interest in a small portion of a piece of land, and who does not pay any taxes or contribute to maintaining the land in any way, can force the co-owners who are actually using the land to sell their portion as well.”
The legal process by which some heirs can force the sale of the property in such a situation is referred to as a “partition” and the resulting sale of the land is known as a “partition sale.” Occasionally, partitions can provide a service in cleaning up title to a piece of property. As the description above makes clear, however, there have been hundreds of situations in which the real world impact of the partition and subsequent sale is to end a family’s historic ownership and occupation of land on which they had enjoyed a claim for a century or more.
Such situations can be particularly pernicious when the real driving force behind the partition sale is developer or a lawyer (or a combination thereof) who is the main beneficiary of the whole process. In the most egregious situations, the land is actually scooped up at sale by the very same lawyer who brokered the whole transaction to begin with. In smaller rural counties in which African-Americans have always been relegated to the margins of society, one can only imagine the emotions of alienation for the family displaced from their birthright as it’s snapped up by a local bigwig. Such situations conjure up disturbing images from reconstruction and the Jim Crow era.
As a small, partial solution to the problem, advocates have proposed a package of bills this year at the General Assembly that would address some of the worst conflicts of interest and other major problems in the way partition sales are handled.
One of these bills was heard for a few minutes in a House Committee last week. It deals with the situation in which the same attorney who represents one or more of the parties in the original partition action is subsequently appointed by the local clerk of court as the “commissioner” in the proceeding.
The commissioner is supposed to be an unbiased, impartial person who oversees the actual land sale. As proponents of the legislation explained in the committee hearing last week, however, it’s pretty darned difficult to explain to someone that’s being displaced from their family plot how the same person who brought the action against them to begin with can act in their best interests when it’s time to sell the land.
At best, such a situation presents the appearance of an enormous conflict of interest. At worst, it reeks of the worst kind of an “inside job” – an old-fashioned fix in which simple people of modest means are run over by the local “powers-that-be” in their community.
Conflicts of interest
The proposed legislation make it explicitly clear that attorneys who represent any party in the partition would not be allowed to serve as a commissioner except when all parties (including the landholder) affirmatively agree to allow it.
Unfortunately, although such a solution seems simple and straightforward enough, it has raised the ire of some real estate lawyers who practice in this area. Last week in committee, these attorneys argued that such a change would be “impractical.” They contended that there are so few lawyers in rural counties that it would be hard to scare up a completely untainted commissioner. What they failed to acknowledge, is that there is no requirement in the law that the commissioner be an attorney.
One of the most surprising moments in the meeting occurred when the House Minority Leader, Rep. Paul Stam, showed up at the meeting to address the matter (Stam is not a member of the committee and it is extremely unusual for a non-member to attend and ask to speak on their own at such a meeting.)
Acting as a kind of self-appointed lobbyist and expert, Stam forcefully denounced the bill, echoing the positions of the other real estate lawyers and arguing that such a requirement would make it extremely difficult to effect such partitions.
He then went on to explain that in his law practice, he had “handled 50 partitions.” That this fact, in combination with his own active and vociferous participation in the debate over the bill, might itself have raised a few eyebrows did not seem to occur to the representative.
At the end of the meeting, the bill was not even voted on and was instead sent to an ad hoc subcommittee, where it faces, at best, an extremely uncertain future.
In the end, it seems, the rough treatment meted out to this one, modest little bill is emblematic of the whole subject of land loss by rural African-Americans. Not only are the powers-that-be indifferent to the reality facing these families, they’re remarkably tin-eared when it comes to the perception of how the process (in the courts and the legislature) works.
Let’s hope that at some point, lawmakers come to the realization that, sometimes, there’s more to justice than mere “efficiency” in the application of an old law and whether their individual consciences are clear.
Video of Christina Cowger from NC Stop Torture Now speaking to the Johnston County Commissioners about preventing flights from NC airports under the extraordinary rendition program. Detainees from around the world have been flown from NC airports to overseas prisons for interrogations and many claim they experiences harsh interrogation tactics and torture.
NCWF RESOLUTION 2009
OPPOSITION TO OLF AT SANDBANKS AND HALE’S LAKE
WHEREAS, The United States Navy (Navy) on January 22, 2008 released a new list of proposed sites for a possible Outlying Landing Field (OLF) to accommodate training for F18 Super Hornet Jets; and that this new list follows a retraction by the Navy of its previous preferred sites; and,
WHEREAS, this new list of five potential sites includes two in northeastern North Carolina, one being in Gates and Hertford counties referred to as the Sandbanks site and another in Camden and Currituck counties referred to as the Hale’s Lake site; and,
WHEREAS, the latter site would impact wildlife populations and associated eco-tourism and resource-based recreation at the federally protected and managed Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge and the state protected and managed Merchants Millpond State Park and Dismal Swamp State Park where species include federally protected migratory birds such as snow geese and tundra swan, as well as, bald eagle, black bear, white-tailed deer and cottontail; and,
WHEREAS, this site is a highly flammable peat bog, whereby any crashes and or fuel dumpage could potentially ignite and cause devastating, long-lasting wildfires; and,
WHEREAS, the former site would also impact Merchants Millpond State Park and Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge as well as the Chowan River bottomlands and the Chowan Swamp Gamelands; and,
WHEREAS, the Chowan River bottomlands is distinguishably listed as an Important Bird Area vital for breeding and migrating neotropical birds including prothonotary and Swainson’s warblers; the Chowan Swamp Gamelands, one of the most extensive swamp forest ecosystems in North Carolina comprising 10,996 tax-payer purchased acres, managed by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, that teem with black bear, bobcat, river otter, bald eagle and include federally endangered/threatened flora and fauna such as red-cockaded Woodpecker, Henslow’s sparrow, Rafinesque’s big-eared bat, American alligator, and southeastern myotis, grassleaf arrowhead, pondspice, raven’s boxseed, and Virginia least trillium; and,
WHEREAS, the Chowan River, the cornerstone for the Chowan Gamelands and bottomlands, supplies most of the fresh water to the Albemarle Sound, which is part of the second largest estuary system in the U.S. (the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuary.) In 1979, the Chowan became the first river basin in NC to receive the “nutrient sensitive waters” classification. For the past two decades, concerned citizens and scientists have worked to restore water quality. The State’s Natural Heritage Program considers 100 miles of the Chowan and its tributaries significant aquatic habitat because of diverse, rare and vulnerable populations of freshwater mussels. The Chowan is also a critical and vast commercial and recreational fishery; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed Sandhills site would include 435 acres of the Chowan and 1,629 acres of its watershed wetlands thus the North Carolina Division of Water Quality has recommended it should not be pursued and, in fact, this site was de-listed from considerations previously in 2003 due to federally protected species and potential bird “flight safety” concerns; and,
WHEREAS, construction of an OLF at any site, including the Sandbanks and Hale’s Lake sites, will have immediate impacts on 30,000 acres yet additional impacts to wildlife and habitats extending much further due to contributing noise and air pollution factors; and,
WHEREAS, a constant naval operations of 32,000 cycles per year – day and night – will disrupt wildlife populations within the site contour and entire flight range; and,
WHEREAS, it is documented that F-18s use military fuel designated JP-8 that includes the flame retardant ethylene dipromide, an additive banned by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1993, and that in cases whereby Navy pilots dump fuel to reduce landing heights and speeds would, at these two North Carolina sites, degrade terrestrial and aquatic wildlife and habitat ; and,
WHEREAS, previous Navy proposed sites have cost taxpayers at least $25 million dollars in the vetting process already and it is not clearly documented in full that the Navy even requires an OLF.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the North Carolina Wildlife Federation opposes the proposed OLF sites at Sandbanks and Hale’s Lake due to the negative and potentially irreversible wildlife and environmental damages they would cause; and that these two sites should be immediately removed from any further consideration now or at any time in the future.
Date: ____February 28, 2009___________________
By Jaclyn Asztalos, NBC17, 2 weeks, 5 days ago
Updated: Mar. 25 2:47 pm
APEX, N.C. –
The New Hill community continues to fight against the construction of the Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facility in the historic neighborhood.
Residents gathered at the New Hill Baptist Church Tuesday to prepare statements for the upcoming public hearing. Their statements will focus on the recently released Environmental Impact Statement.
The statement discusses the environmental impact on the site along with three alternative sites. The facility will serve Apex, Cary, Holly Springs and Morrisville.
President Paul Barth of the New Hill Community Association said the group must make a clear and strong argument. Barth said the facility will impact on low-income and elderly residents who live nearby with traffic, odor and the lights from the facility. In addition, the site is in the middle of the community’s historic district.
“We are gathering for a workshop to go through different points we want to go through at the public hearing. We don’t want to be redundant every time someone goes up to speak so we’re going through a lot of different point so we can hit on those,” Barth said.
Chris Brook is with the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, a group supporting the New Hill community.
“There are a lot of human impacts from this site and there are not as many human impacts with the alternatives,” Brook said.
The public hearing will take place on April 14 at the Apex Town Hall.
The battle over where to build a wastewater treatment plant is heating up in western Wake County.
Cary, Apex, Holly Springs, and Morrisville officials want to put the facilities in New Hill, but those living there said it’s a rotten deal.
A toilet in the front yard could be a sign of an incompetent plumber, but Wayne Womble, a New Hill resident, has it there as a show of protest.
“We don’t consider this within reason,” Womble said. “I don’t want yours if you don’t want mine.”
He and many others living in New Hill are protesting a plan to build a wastewater treatment plant less than a mile down from downtown New Hill.
Womble stated, “This is really the only populated spot here and they want to put in right here in the middle of town.”
The plant would be built on a 200 acre site. And the $190 million dollar facility would process waste from Cary, Apex, Morrisville, and Holly Springs.
People in New Hill worry about the smell.
“I’m told by people who live near similar plants that it can be considerable,” Guy Meilleur, a New Hill resident stated.
There’s still another very big reason why they don’t want it. And that’s because most of the people out would have access to the plant because they use septic tanks.
Womble said, “It’s kind of like us going to your place and putting our outhouse in your backyard and taking the key home.”
Town of Cary officials said they’ve studied this issue for years and New Hill is the best fit for a number of reasons.
“A very important criteria to us was to not have to relocate anymore families than we had to,” Kim Fisher, a Cary representative, said.
It’s also one of the few single tracks of land large enough and economically viable.
And officials said the way western Wake is growing, the plant will be desperately need in the near future.
Fisher added, “We’re just trying to be good stewards to our customers.”
Womble isn’t arguing about the need, he said either hook the town up to the plant or put it somewhere else.
Cary officials said they plan to have the wastewater treatment plant up and running in late 2010.
From This map shows the proposed sites for the Western Wake Partners sewage treatment plant. It is clear on the map that site 14, New Hill, has the highest concentration of ethnic minority residents. This map shows the proposed sites for the Western Wake Partners sewage treatment plant. It is clear on the map that […]
From Some photos from the beach. Some photos from the beach. From /wp-content/uploads/FreemanBeach.ppt
SaveFreemanBeach.com is a new website about the history of Freeman Beach in an effort to save this beachfront property from development.
SCSJ co-authored this amicus brief, filed in the U.S. Supreme Court to support the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization. The brief refutes appellants’ argument that private litigation under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act can provide an adequate substitute for the protection offered by Section 5 preclearance. For individual minority voters, the cost and effort required to pursue Section 2 cases are insurmountable barriers to private enforcement, a problem made more acute by the small number of practitioners in covered jurisdictions who are willing and able to take such cases. This creates a perverse incentive – all too often realized – for officials to continue suspect practices because they know most voters cannot challenge them. In contrast, Section 5 deters such practices. Amici have seen Section 2 and Section 5 operate in the complementary fashion that Congress intended. Where minority voters in covered jurisdictions cannot find a lawyer or afford to pay one, Section 5 provides the means to redress new violations of their rights. And where minority voters are able to get their day in court, Section 5 provides the assurance that their hard-won and expensive battles will not be in vain if a jurisdiction repeats similar violations. Thus, Amici’s experience confirms the determination of Congress that there is a persistent need for timely enforcement capable of deterring illegal voting schemes before they are implemented–a task for which case-by-case litigation under Section 2 is ill-suited, but for which Section 5 was designed.
A year from now, the U.S. will conduct its decennial population count. The findings are used to re-apportion congressional districts, disburse federal funding — even decide where new traffic lights go. But the economic crisis threatens to make this daunting task even harder. There is special concern about minority groups, which are traditionally hard to count.
Listen to story by clicking link above.
Amnesty International USA presents
North Carolina State Conference 2009
Sunday, April 19th
North Carolina State University
10am-4pm at Caldwell Lounge
2221 Hillsborough Street, Raleigh
Join Local Activists and Amnesty Members for AIUSA’s Annual State Conference
Featuring a Keynote Address by:
Center for Global Initiatives, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
~Network with other activists and representatives from other organizations~
Learn about key issues and skills such as:
- How to Raise Awareness about Immigrant Rights and the impact of 287G
- TASER Abuse: How to Organize Delegations to Promote TASER Reform
- Failed System: The Death Penalty from a Former Death Row Inmate
- Develop Your Lobbying Skills: End the US Torture Program and Demand Accountability
- Lessons from the Obama Campaign: How to Recruit and Retain Members
- The Gaza Crisis: Understanding the Background
HOW TO REGISTER
Conference begins at 10am, Registration begins at 9am
$10 for non-members, $5 for members/students
Registration for non-members includes a complimentary t-shirt and discounted membership
No one turned away, please alert Mana Kharrazi if the fee presents an obstacle to your attendance
To pre-register, contact Mana Kharrazi: firstname.lastname@example.org