WHQR's Sunday Edition is a free weekly newsletter delivered every Sunday morning. You can sign up for Sunday Edition here.
A Greenspace Race?
On Friday, the City of Wilmington posted the agenda documents for its upcoming meeting. Those documents finally confirmed the location of the property that local leaders have been eyeing for a potential public park since last fall — 25 or so acres on Greenville Loop Road right next to Bradley Creek Elementary School.
The day before, The Endowment announced it would conditionally grant nearly $8 million towards the land purchase, as long as the city and New Hanover County both contribute $1 million.
The property had remained unidentified for four months, leading to plenty of speculation. Republican Bill Rivenbark, chairman of the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, suggested during a meeting that it was a large swath of land adjacent to Mayfaire that then-City Councilman Luke Waddell had posted about on social media. Rivenbark, understandably, predicted pushback — “it’ll be the end of the world” — but that didn’t end up being the location. StarNews guessed it was a much larger spot off of MLK Jr. Parkway, but that wasn’t it, either.
I had heard from several sources that the Greenville Loop site might be the one – although I couldn’t confirm it. I was less concerned with the guessing game than I was with concerns that there were some low-income families living in mobile homes on the site. I’ve heard now that they aren’t on the property in question, although they might still get displaced if the area is developed (such has been the fate of several other mobile home parks, including those that were removed to make way for the Gallery and The Avenue, major mixed-use projects near Eastwood and Military Cutoff).
I am curious to hear more about the ‘urgency’ cited by the city back in October. “Time is of the essence,” the initial documentation said, noting the land could be sold for development. It’s true that there is not much land left inside city limits, and so it’s totally plausible that the city needed to move fast — and whip up support from the county and, more so, The Endowment — but it would be nice to have details. Trust, but verify, you know?
It’s also interesting how quickly The Endowment was able to move on this issue. According to previously unreleased documentation included in the city’s agenda packet, The Endowment granted conditional approval of up to $7,780,000 to the city just three weeks after the city first publicly floated the idea. The Endowment has managed some quick-turnaround grants before, including picking up the $1.6 million tab for the county’s nonprofit funding during last year’s budget process. This grant, which is roughly five times larger, came together almost as quickly.
I’m not sure it will be “the end of the world,” but I think there will be some public disagreement with The Endowment’s investment here. I’ve already heard from folks who pointed to pre-K waitlists, homeless resources that are falling short, and a host of other pressing social issues that they feel could also use a rapid seven-figure funding infusion. Others might disagree with the location or have questions about traffic.
The counterargument is that this investment is not a one-year appropriation but a park that will serve the region for generations (although someone, probably the city, will have to maintain it).
That investment, at least for me, continues to blur the boundaries between what local government ‘traditionally’ does and what The Endowment feels it is authorized to do, and where ‘supplementing’ crosses over into ‘supplanting.’ The Endowment is, after all, supposed to play a supporting role, not taking on things for which local government is usually responsible. I do think you could argue that The Endowment is not taking on the recurring expenses of maintenance and staffing, and that’s fair, but I think some will see this and say, ‘if The Endowment can buy a park, why not a fire station, or a school?’ I think those conversations are healthy — and they certainly aren’t going away.
On balance, it’s worth remembering that we’ve seen, more than once now, that when The Endowment is properly motivated, it can deliver significant funding without months of ponderous deliberation and strategizing. Maybe that could be their new motto: Move fast and fix stuff.
Accountability vs. cancel culture:
Last weekend, we got a bunch of messages about Brian Kromke, an attorney who represents New Hanover County Schools as part of the district’s contract with Crossley McIntosh Collier Hanley & Edes, P.L.L.C.
Kromke had posted an offensive meme in response to a Facebook statement from former Democratic Governor and current Senate candidate Roy Cooper, who was condemning the shooting of two people by federal immigration enforcement agents in Minneapolis. The meme, which I had seen going around for the past week, was a jarringly sick twist on the ‘marked safe’ icons rolled out by Facebook years ago in the wake of shootings and natural disasters. It read, “Marked Safe From Being shot by ice because I’m not fucking retarded [erroneous capitalization in the original].”
Kromke deleted the meme and apologized, but the damage was done. I heard from people across the political spectrum who were shocked and disgusted at the post, some noting that Kromke has a background in special education, others pointing to the irony that he helped craft the board’s social media policy. Some took issue with his language, the political implications, or his online apology, in which he said it was not his intention to offend anyone (another poster responded, ‘what was your intention?’).
By Monday, we’d heard from the superintendent and several board members, from both parties, that (a) they were livid, and (b) they wanted Kromke gone. On Tuesday, Democratic board member Tim Merrick announced they were ‘cutting ties’ with Kromke.
I’ll pause here to note that it wasn’t clear how they were cutting those ties. No vote was taken concerning Kromke, and while board members agreed to consider looking for a new law firm (in a split 4-3 vote), nothing has been settled. Republican board member David Perry accused Merrick of wanting to penalize Crossley for Kromke’s actions, but Merrick suggested he was also concerned about the firm’s admitted lack of experience with education law. My best guess is that board members contacted the law firm and requested Kromke not bill any work for the district — more of a handshake deal than an official contractual change.
In any case, while the initial reaction to Kromke’s post seemed uniformly negative, in the days that followed, daylight emerged between the board members. Perry later told the media he thought the board had not cut ties with Kromke but instead effectively put him in a ‘time out.' We sought clarification from Republican Board Chair Pete Wildeboer, who didn’t respond. Hopefully, the board clears this up at its meeting on Tuesday, preferably with a vote so people can see where the board members stand.
I’ll note that there were, depressingly, plenty of people who fully cosigned Kromke’s meme, many going further to mock the deaths of Renée Good and Alex Pretti, anti-ICE protestors, and the left in general. (Kromke’s meme, while offensive, paled in comparison to some of the comments we saw.)
Others said this was simply a joke and accused the board (and the media) of overreacting. And, I think it’s fair to say the Internet is home to some pretty sick humor. There are a lot of memes that get shared, not because people are giving their full-throated endorsement to violence, bigotry, and other horrors, but because they’re in an arms race to post the newest, most shocking thing. Or, worse, because they’ve adopted a black-pilled nihilism, where nothing matters and moralizing about decency or appropriateness is just a cringeworthy relic of a past age to which we can never return.
And, of course, we’re talking about memes, which can be shared with a few taps of the thumb — requiring almost no thought (‘thoughtless’ is probably the most charitable possible defense for Kromke, but I doubt the court of public opinion is willing to accept that plea).
I’ve also heard complaints that the hammer has not come down equally on everyone when it comes to posting online. Conservative commentator Nick Craig made this point on our most recent podcast, pointing to things that Merrick and fellow Democrat Judy Justice had posted after the assassination attempt on then-candidate Donald Trump and the murder of Charlie Kirk. I’ll say that there is a nuanced point here, which is that Kromke was effectively an employee, who can and should be held accountable by the superintendent and board, while Justice and Merrick are elected officials, who are accountable to voters.
In general, I get that not every sin on social media gets adjudicated the same way. The outrage can be selective, partisan, and sometimes seemingly random. Sometimes, a truly gross comment goes by unnoticed; other times, a stupid choice of words results in immediate defenestration.
And there’s a final thing to think about here, whether we’re calling it accountability or cancel culture: what happens after our initial reaction.
In a court of law, the magnitude of your crime matters; we don’t give life sentences for every crime. It also matters whether you’re remorseful or recalcitrant. And, for all its flaws, the criminal justice system tries to hold out hope that, after someone has served their time, they can return to society. That’s why, in principle, we reduce sentences for good behavior.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying there are no repercussions — even protected speech doesn’t protect you from the consequences of your actions. There has to be accountability, especially for public employees and elected officials.
Touching on this issue, Republican school board member Pat Bradford, who directly condemned Kromke's post, also noted he had owned up to his actions and apologized. She cited scripture, suggesting that her colleagues were not in a sinless position to cast the first stone at Kromke. Some would say Bradford might have a beam in her own eye, but I take her point.
In my personal opinion, there also has to be a way back to the fold for those who transgress. That’s going to look different for every individual situation; it’s hard to offer something like structured sentencing, a uniform guideline on how we punish and when we forgive. But atonement, and even a little grace, should at least be a possibility. Because if there’s no way back, why try? For folks who feel that way, there’s nothing left but sharing sick jokes and hateful memes online — and we have plenty of that already.
