Regular readers of my part-time employer, the Chapel Hill Herald, will surely have noticed its editorialists' unflagging support for UNC's growth plans. In a Wednesday editorial titled "Carolina North is coming closer", they wrote that Carolina North is "getting ready to splash across the front pages." They went on to discuss a "new, revised plan" that they said would be presented to the trustees.

This prompted Vice Chancellor Tony Waldrop to write a letter, appearing in today's paper, correcting the editorial and pointing out that what will be presented is only an update and information on a study of potential airport sites.

The irony for me is that I have written repeatedly urging people not to overstate or over-react to events surrounding the proposed Carolina North. Now the university is doing the same!

The encouraging bit in the Herald editorial was their concluding hope that the university has heard concerns already expressed on Carolina North. Given the paper's often disdainful attitude toward those concerned with the impact of UNC's plans, this could be a very positive development.

Speculation about Carrboro's upcoming elections deserves its own thread. The Chapel Hill News today reported that Alderman McDuffee would almost certainly not run again and Gist quite possibly not with Herrera unknown. That leaves at least one open alderman seat and possibly as many as three. We already know that Mike Nelson will step down so there may be a competitive race for mayor as well.

The News speculated about three possible non-incumbent candidates, all fairly well-known: Catherine DeVine, James Carnahan, and Randee Haven-O'Donnell. All three are advisory board veterans, DeVine more associated with the arts, Carnahan and Haven-O'Donnell with planning and the environment.

All three are to some extent status quo candidates within the Carrboro context. The News did not report on any Steve Rose or Jeff Vanke type challengers. Reporter Dave Hart did not indicate whether he beat the bushes and couldn't find any.

I was a bit turned off when I read the Herald-Sun's recent announcement that they would introduce a Faith and Family section to the paper. This smacked of the familiar right-wing conflation that would twist social relations to conform to some conservative religious viewpoint.

Based on today's debut of the section, it turns out to not be so bad. They've wrapped the religion pages around a page with a couple of secular articles on family matters (including a topic big in my household: kindergarten).

There was a bit of a tease presented in the form of a photo of two women embracing, looking as if they might be about to kiss. No it wasn't for an article on girl-on-girl faith&family fun. It was for a discussion of trends in baby showers.

Still, the section's title does not have the inclusive sensibility that I would look for in our local paper. It is offensive to those whose families follow the faith-free path.