Ken Larsen:  Candidates that I will NOT vote for in 2019 Chapel Hill Election

	Tai Huynh website:  https://www.taiforchapelhill.com/ I prefer Amy Ryan over Tai because Amy has a wealth of experience serving Chapel Hill on various boards.  Tai believes that form-based code (FBC) is a good thing and should be expanded beyond Blue Hill.  [Ken's issues with FBC] Tai believes that Chapel Hill is not growing fast enough.  [details]  That's a stance that will exacerbate our town's traffic and flooding problems.
	Michael Parker website: http://www.parker4ch.com/ Michael was a strong advocate for the Durham-Orange Light Rail project (DOLRT).  That project wasted $ 159 million of taxpayer money.  [details]  Supported the decision to provide incentives to entice Wegman's to build in Chapel Hill.  I'm against the Wegman's decision.  [details] Thinks that the Town should help pay for affordable housing.  I think that the onus falls on developers.  They all want to build in Chapel Hill.  If they don't want to provide AH, their proposals should be rejected.  We don't need to provide incentives. Thinks the the Ephesus-Fordham/Blue Hill project was a good project.  I disagree.  [details] Michael supports tall buildings ... with no limit to their height.  [details]
	Sue Hunter website: https://www.hunter4chapelhill.com/ Like Michael, Sue was a strong advocate for the Durham-Orange Light Rail project (DOLRT).  Like Tai, Sue believes that Chapel Hill is not growing fast enough.  [details] Believes that flooding is caused by climate change ... not by building.  She is wrong.  [details] If you like the large luxury apartment buildings (e.g. Berkshire) that have been popping up all over town, then Sue Hunter is your candidate.  Sue's campaign sign has a lovely green background and uses a tree branch icon to suggest that she is pro-tree/pro-environment, but she is actually pro-development as evidenced by her support of the light rail project.

Additionally, all three of these candidates suffer from the following flaws:

1. They believe that "growth is good" - that by attracting more people to our area, that growth can generate revenue which can be used to fund solutions to our existing problems.  I regard that as a Ponzi scheme.  Unabated growth will turn the Triangle area into another Atlanta, Washington DC, or New York City.

2. They believe in tall buildings.  See https://orangepolitics.org/chapel-hill-town-council-2019-candidate-scorecard  In this same scorecard, Sue Hunter and Tai Huynh say that our community is not growing fast enough!

3. They believe that we can reduce traffic by pouring money into public transit.  This is a myth that the light rail proponents want the public to believe.  Public transit will work only if it serves low income people, but gentrification will push those people further and further away from the center of Town.  Slowing growth is where our focus should be placed. 

4. They believe that we need to "get people out of their cars" and our Town would be better if a significant number of people abandoned their cars.  To me, that would turn Chapel Hill into a very sad place to live.  If you don't agree with me, try going a week without a car.  In my neighborhood, the nearest bus stop is almost a mile away.  I took it one time to get downtown, and it took an hour.  It was a frustrating experience. 

5. They don't understand climate change.  They wrongly believe that climate change can be fixed at the local level.  The real cause is world population growth.  [details]  It can only be solved at the world level.

6. All three were endorsed by the local Sierra Club, but I don't place any credibility on that endorsement, because the local Sierra Club endorsed DOLRT (the light rail project).  DOLRT would have been an environmental disaster because of the numerous at-grade crossings and the massive development it would have triggered.  [details]  In my opinion, the local Sierra Club has been brainwashed by the Urban Growth machine.  I would like to see the Sierra Club be transparent and publicly divulge the details behind their endorsement process (questions asked; responses given by candidates), but they refuse to do so.  CHALT, on the other hand, has been transparent.