Charlotte-Style Collusion: New Emails show CATS, the Chamber and UNCC Cooked Up "Independent" Study
For over two months, the Charlotte Chamber of Commerce and UNC-Charlotte researchers have been clubbing transit tax repeal supporters over the head with a supposedly "independent" study UNCC did on the vast benefits of mass transit.
After this blog and others reported that the UNCC study wasn't "independent" at all, but a useful prop indirectly paid for with public tax dollars for use in the Charlotte Chamber's campaign to save the half-cent sales tax for mass transit, the Charlotte Observer blew a gasket defending UNCC and the Chamber. The usual suspects were aghast at the allegation.
But a new series of emails shows the extent to which Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) bureaucrats, the Chamber and Professor Edd Hauser, Director of the Center for Transportation Policy Studies at UNC-Charlotte, colluded on the study -- and continue to collude to defeat the transit tax repeal referendum.
In one of the chummy emails, which begin in early April, CATS CEO Ron Tober actually refers to the UNCC study as the one "that the folks at UNCC are doing for the Charlotte Chamber."
"We have an interesting report," Hauser writes in another equally chummy email to Tober. "Thanks to you and your staff."
And while the group SCAT, which is working to repeal the half-cent sales tax for mass transit, didn't get an advanced copy of Hauser's report, or the opportunity to "proof-read" it, it appears that CATS and the Chamber did.
In this email, Hauser tells Tober he's providing "background" information about the study to the Chamber on Tuesday April 10, about 20 days before the April 30 release of the study to the taxpaying general public that pays his salary. SCAT didn't get a background briefing.
In another email exchange, dated April 24, it appears that Hauser and Tober are timing the release of the study.
"Sharing with your staff is fine," Hauser wrote to Tober about draft copies of the study.
"Edd, we'll refrain from distributing the report beyond a few CATS staff members until we hear from you next week," Tober wrote back.
In other emails, like this one, Hauser, the so-called "independent" researcher, almost sounds like he works for Tober.
"Thanks, Ron," Hauser wrote on April 24. "I think you'll appreciate the additional work we're putting in this week."
The email conversation between the two continued on April 25, with this email in which Hauser offered Tober one more chance to review the report before it was released and gave Tober a heads up on his interview schedule on WFAE to promote the report. In another, Hauser again asks for Tober's comments.
Needless to say, the emails cast serious doubt on the academic independence of the university and of Hauser's study.
The Center's study provides a stellar assessment of Charlotte Area Transit System's performance and the performance of light rail everywhere. It was released just as a campaign to repeal the half-cent sales tax that funds light rail and buses in Mecklenburg County was heating up. A group called SCAT collected over 40,000 signatures to put the repeal on the November ballot.
But the collusion doesn't end there.
The Chamber, CATS and even UNCC Chancellor Philip Dubois have been very busy planning how to get folks with pro-transit tax messages before the all right crowds.
In this email, Dubois, Charlotte Chamber President Bob Morgan and various CATS bureaucrats planned who would speak at the Charlotte Chamber's annual transit summit. After trying to book Hauser, the group settled on the equally "independent" Dennis Rash, husband of Betty Chafin Rash, one of the seven members of the Chamber-linked group fighting the repeal of the sales tax. Rash also holds a UNCC academic title as the executive in residence with the university's Center for Transportation Policy Studies.
But just plotting which independent stooge would get the group's pro-tax message out wasn't enough. In a follow-up email, Morgan, Tober and Charlotte City Council member Susan Burgess plot to undermine retired UNCC Professor David Hartgen, who has persistently questioned the feasibility of light rail and CATS' mass transit plans.
Their plan? Put the muscle to the folks hosting an event Hartgen was speaking at to allow the oh-so-independent Hauser to speak there as well.
As I've written before, that anyone, including The Charlotte Observer's editorial board -- which wrote this -- took the UNCC study seriously is laughable. UNCC needs the tax to get the rail line it wants out to its campus. The university has been lobbying for a rail line for years, and losing the tax would likely scuttle it.
So for now, it looks like the collusion rolls on.
That's it Chambergate">http://charlotte.johnlocke.org/blog/?p=1637">Chambergate is in full swing.
This is classic digging out of info and relationships power brokers would prefer to keep hidden.
This is 2007. Can't do that anymore.
Excellent work.
Reply to this
As a journalism school grad I admire your work and generally agree with your political observations, especially those regarding immigration, your troubled school system and the sorry state of the Charlotte judicial system. Yet, I fail to understand why you and others in Charlotte are fighting establishing the light rail endeavor. I travel often to Charlotte and the idea seems to have a great deal of merit.
Reply to this
great deal of merit--name five.
Won't make a significant difference in congestion or pollution. 2% of folks will benefit from the $8 billion plan, and few roads are scheduled for widening. This is place making to increase tax revenuers for GOVCO to spend.
Reply to this
if the 1/2 cent sales tax is soo vital to charlotte why not ask the mayor if the tax is permanent or why not raise it up to 2 cents so we can have more police and fireman proteting us.
Reply to this
What's the big deal? I would assume that Hauser's study needed data from CATS to perform the analysis, no?
Why should SCAT get a briefing? Does SCAT provide copies of their "work" prior to release to the Chamber or the Institute for Transportation Studies? Of course not.
Do you or other anti-rail folks ever question the ties between Dr. Hartgen and his funding agencies? Come on, let's be fair.
Also, I've yet to read criticisms of the study itself. You and others are focusing on the process, not the data and/or conclusions.
I'm curious, who has dug up the emails? Follow that trail as part of your investigative reporting. That would be quite interesting.
Reply to this
Tober et al were deciding what data was best to include and got copies to preview before release. That usually only happens if you are paying for the study and/or you are a coauthor.
SCAT hasn't had any studies done. Why should pro-tax folks get to review and edit an "independent" study while not letting con-tax folks do the same. Either both do or neither do, with the latter being what normally happens.
http://charlotte.johnlocke.org/blog/?p=1574
http://charlotte.johnlocke.org/blog/?p=1586
Blog articles identifying errors and links to reports.
I believe Tara principally used Freedom of Information Requests after Hartgen had requested complete information about the study from UNCC.
But that's just my guess.
Reply to this
And now they get to investigate themselves. Isn't that just so Charlotte!
Reply to this
Matt:
The problem with the CATS rail fetish is that it will rob everyone else to provide benefits for rich bankers. They won't have to provide parking for their workers.
Add to that the cost. NONE of the remaining lines meet federal matching requirements. The only one that was a fit was the south line, and we can all see how CATS has done with their estimates. Originally quoted anywhere from $190 mil to 229 mil for *13* miles, it is now almost a billion for 9 miles. That money would have provided extra lanes all over the city. Add to that the healthy part of a billion they want to spend for the lake Norman line, and 4600 riders per day (or is that total loadings, in which case it is really 2300 peoplel...) - That's statistical NOISE when it comes to the 179,000 cars predicted for I-77 in 2030. Again, money spent poorly.
And that is IF their "estimates" are even close. If they are like the south line, look at 3 billion for the line to the university, 1.5 billion to Lake Norman.. and all to save the bankers $10,000 per parking space uptown.
Distributing a 8 or 16 billion load over the 600K people here, or 125,000 households will place a load on the taxpayer that is beyond reason. Think of spending $8k or so on a $140k house. Every year. Just for taxes. Even as they spend the gas taxes on teapot museums, performing arts centers in remote spots, and so on.
Reply to this
Thanks for the info. If SCATS hasn't done a study, who has? I think an issue of this magnitude requires some analysis. I've read the UNCC study and it's not that big of a deal. It's a compilation of data on several transit systems across the country. Charlotte is neither the best nor the worst. I did not read anywhere in the report where light rail is endorsed. Perhaps I missed that part.
Bill, are there only 125,000 households in the Charlotte region? Regardless, light rail is a political football. You have individuals with axes to grind (see Dale's post), folks who don't want to spend taxes on things they personally wouldn't use (but others might), class envy (those Uptowners and Chamber folks), and bogus predictions (the sky won't fall with the tax or without it). This is a battle of ideology with a sideshow of competing transit scholars. Truth be told, roads or rail won't solve the congestion problem.
Reply to this