Whilden responds to recent AC-T story on Moffitt; calls him ‘bully’

Jane Whilden, the Democratic candidate for Statehouse who’s challenging Republican Tim Moffitt in District 116, sent out the following letter responding to recent prominent coverage of her opponent in the Asheville Citizen-Times. The daily paper published a lengthy cover story on Sunday, July, 22, profiling the controversial freshman legislator. This is the third campaign between Whilden and Moffitt: She beat him in 2008 and served one term in the N.C. House; he beat her in 2010.

Dear Friends,

Sunday the local newspaper profiled my opponent, Tim Moffitt, pointing out his “just-do-it style.” That just-do-it style has done tremendous damage on our education system, local community assets, and economic security.

My opponent said he doesn’t like bullies. What does he consider a bully? He spent two years drafting legislation that attacks our water, airport, and agricultural center. He is putting the water at risk for privatization. He brags that his motivations come from a personal vendetta. That’s not government for the people. That’s special interest politics at its worst.

I am working hard to unseat this bully. However, I can’t do it without your help!

As the paper described, we are up against a machine of outsider special interest funding, money that is coming from way outside our district. But Tim Moffitt is NOT unstoppable. Please contribute today and help us fight for our fair share of media coverage that will get our message out to voters.

Help me canvass door-to-door this Saturday to speak with the people of District 116 about THEIR concerns, not Tim Moffitt’s personal pet projects.

Thank you for your continued support as I work hard to win back District 116 in November!



Read the full Asheville Citizen-Times article here.

About Jake Frankel
Jake Frankel is an award-winning journalist who enjoys covering a wide range of topics, from politics and government to business, education and entertainment.

Before you comment

The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.

0 thoughts on “Whilden responds to recent AC-T story on Moffitt; calls him ‘bully’

  1. “He is putting the water at risk for privatization.”


    “A study committee led by Rep. Tim Moffitt has…recommended transferring the city’s water system to the Metropolitan Sewerage District.” -David Forbes, Mountain Xpress, 07/23/2012

    I’m sorry Democrat Party candidate Whilden does not have a dictionary or a computer. I wish that the water system WAS in fact being privatized.

    I’m also sorry that she must resort to outright falsehoods to garner support for her faltering campaign.

    For the latest legislative news from Rep. Moffitt, see his fabulous new website: http://nc116.com/

    • bsummers

      It’s a risky thing to call someone a liar when you don’t have the facts on your side, Tim. Here are Tim Moffitt’s own words:

      “I think that some of the issues that Barry Summers has brought up are issues that need to be thought through, as far as: do not create a process where an unintended consequence could ultimately lead to privatization. I agree.”


      Jane said: “He is putting the water at risk for privatization.” Under persistent questioning (which hardly ever happens to him), Rep. Moffitt in his own backhanded way had to acknowledge that what Jane said is absolutely true. Privatization is a potential result from what he set in motion.

      Personally, I know that this is exactly what he believes should happen: practically all government services should be handed over to the private sector. And I don’t think he would dispute that.

  2. Dionysis

    “Democrat Party”

    There is no such thing as the “Democrat Party”. Do you have cognitive deficiencies, or are you just parotting Rush Limbaugh?

    • Unaffiliated Voter

      Yes, ‘democrat’ party is the original spelling of this criminal organization. Nothing ‘democratIC’
      about them!

      Some people spell it with 3 Ks on the end to honor and characterize democrat history as Founders of the Ku Klux Klan and as the original party of slavery.

  3. Meiling Dai

    In candidate Jane Whilden’s letter, she says and I quote: “he brags that his motivations come from a personal vendetta.” I didn’t read those words in the Citizen-Times article about Rep. Tim Moffitt. I did read that he has had run-ins with the city of Asheville due to their attempt to annex his property, and also to charge him a huge fine for garbage dumped by a stranger on his city property. For Jane Whilden to take the assumption that Rep. Moffitt is “acting out of revenge” is a stretch of the imagination and quite dangerous, I might add. Did Rep. Moffitt actually say that he was proposing this bill or that bill out of revenge? I didn’t read that in the C-T article.

    Factually, the city of Asheville received $200,000 from the State for the AG Center years ago, but “did not hand over the title.” Consequently, the city still legally owned the AG Center property and acquired expenses in regard to this property. The agreement worked out with the aid of Rep. Moffitt and the city was that the AG Center would go to the State (along with the title) and the city would not be liable for any expenses.

    As far as the Airport is concerned, that was an agreement between the city of Asheville and Henderson County and any other involved party, again with the aid of Rep. Moffitt. Each party will now have equal representation on the regional airport board. The city relinquished its control over the airport willingly.

    As far as Asheville’s water system is concerned, businesses came to Rep. Moffitt, asking him for his help because they had all just received a huge water rate increase from Asheville, after years of no increase. Apparently, the city believed residents were unfairly paying water rates that subsidized businesses. To prevent even higher Asheville water rates from impacting businesses in the future, Rep. Moffitt, after researching the situation, decided that merging Asheville’s water system with the Buncombe Metropolitan Sewer System would be the best solution, as MSD’s raise water rates only once a year.

    The common wisdom of this decision was based on the fact that one day the Sullivan Acts might be overturned and that Asheville would then proceed to charge higher water rates to outsiders as other N.C. cities do, with the caveat that if outsiders agree to be “voluntarily annexed”, their water rates would stay the same as rates paid by city residents. Most County residents do not relish the prospect of being “voluntarily annexed” by Asheville under the threat of higher water rates as the bargaining chip.

  4. I use the term Democrat Party to give you something to talk about instead of having to defend Whilden’s lies.

  5. “practically all government services should be handed over to the private sector.”

    I wish that were true, but it isn’t.

  6. Welcome to the Asheville chapter of Mensa.

    Mr. Summers quotes Mr. Moffitt:

    Moffitt: “do not create a process where an unintended consequence could ultimately lead to privatization. I agree.”

    This means: I agree, we should not create a process that could lead to privatization. And this quote is used to support the falsehood that Moffitt favors privatization.

    I can’t make this stuff up, folks.

  7. bsummers

    Point is, Tim, and I’ll thank you not to call me dumb again, Moffitt acknowledged that the process he had set out could lead to privatization, and since then he has not done anything substantive to prevent that.

    He keeps throwing out his assurances, and those assurances disappear under closer examination. Like when he says, “Folks, the restrictions on the water system’s revenue bonds prohibit transferring those assets to a private company, therefore privatization can’t happen.” He is counting on you not knowing that the most common models of privatization, the ‘public-private-partnerships’, don’t involve a transfer of ownership of the assets. The system can be privatized from top to bottom, including setting rates, determining who gets service, selling water to third parties, everything – but MSD would still technically “own” the system. He knows the difference, since he is Chairman of the dang Privatization committee, but he is counting on you to not be too particular about the facts. Seems like that was a good bet on his part.

    Jane is telling the truth here, and you are falling back into your normal habits of ‘insult first, produce facts – never’.

  8. Dionysis

    “I use the term Democrat Party to give you something to talk about instead of having to defend Whilden’s lies.”

    That’s truly magnanimous of you, but rest assured I have plenty of subjects to focus on without facile chirping from you; moreover, there was no “talking about” anything, just asking if you are impaired or simply supplicating to Lord Rush. And to be honest, no one gives a flip anyway.

  9. Meiling Dai

    I just got off the phone with the Manager of the Buncombe MSD to clarify facts about the possible PRIVATIZATION of the Asheville Water System should it become part of the Buncombe MSD and regarding other concerns commenters have made about the Asheville Water System. The MSD Manager told me that if Asheville’s water system becomes part of the MSD, privatization will not happen because the MSD regional board is against privatization and they make the decisions.

    The Board is made up of 3 Asheville City Council members, 3 Buncombe County Commissioners, Weaverville, etc. HB 1009, the bill under consideration by Governor Perdue, addresses representation on the Buncombe MSD regional board should Cane Creek in northern Henderson County (contracted with MSD for sewer services)become part of the metropolitan sewer district. If that happens, Asheville’s representation will be reduced from 3 to 1 rep; Buncombe County’s representation will be reduced from 3 to 2; and Henderson County’s representation will be 3+. Seems unfair – a 52 year old law that needs updating according to one MSD official.

    HB 1009 restores Asheville’s Board representation from 1 to 3; and Buncombe County’s representation from 1 to 3; and Henderson County gets only 3 reps just like the rest of the Board. HB 1009 also gives the MSD the right to handle water systems. Regarding Asheville water system workers, they will not lose their jobs according to MSD’s manager. Their jobs will be transferred from city to county if the MSD
    takes control of the Asheville water system. Further, the debt that the city of Asheville incurred in good faith to do necessary repairs on its water system – that debt becomes MSD’s responsibility if the water system is incorporated into the metropolitan sewer district. The city incurs no liability. Regarding compensation for the value of the Asheville water system: water customers of the Asheville water system have already paid for that system over the years; if the MSD were to compensate Asheville, water customers would be paying for the system twice which is why compensation probably will not happen.

    Let’s deal with facts, not hyperbole, supposition, or “he said”, “she said.”

  10. bsummers

    “The MSD Manager told me that if Asheville’s water system becomes part of the MSD, privatization will not happen because the MSD regional board is against privatization and they make the decisions.”

    I’d like to see the record of when that discussion was held at MSD, who participated, what aspects of privatization were discussed (for example, is the MSD regional board against public-private-partnerships?), what resolution was proposed, and what was the official vote tally.

    As you say, let’s not deal with ‘he said, she said’. Your comment is meaningless unless it attributable to some named person, or some public record.

  11. Jack

    Hey Barry,

    Remember when Holly Shriner was appointed to the P&Z board?

    Remember how indignant you were when Cecil Bothwell then threatened to dissolve the P&Z board, because I don’t. And that was an actual threat.

  12. bsummers

    Incredibly false comparison:

    “Bothwell is calling for dissolving of the commission and reappointing all members in good standing before Council’s last round of appointments”


    Cecil wasn’t threatening to abolish P&Z as an entity, he was calling for two recent appointments to be rescinded & start the process over. On the other hand, Tim Moffitt would clearly like to see the City of Asheville cease to exist. Apples & oranges.

  13. Jack


    Please point out where Tim said he would like see the City of Asheville cease to exist.

  14. bsummers

    “Please point out where Tim said he would like see the City of Asheville cease to exist.”

    As soon as you acknowledge that your Cecil/P&Z comparison was inaccurate and unfair. Do you want to have a civil discussion or play ‘gotcha’?

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.