Yo Greensboro, 816 S Elm Street, Greensboro, NC (2025)

11/22/2025

I'M SORRY MS. ABUZUAITER...WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY?
A Yo! Greensboro Translation

Less than a month after being elected to lead our city, most incoming council members are going through a challenging compressed tutorial on all things city hall.

Mayor-Elect Marikay Abuzuaiter felt it was the right time to send them all what can only be described as a "How to Become My Backup Dancer" memo.

The core message was stunningly simple:
I obeyed Nancy Vaughan without question for 12 years. So you'll obey me now.

Yo! Greensboro has already broken down some gems earlier this week in the previous article extracted from Marikay’s “Rules of Engagement.”

Here was The Piece de Resistance…

REAL QUOTE: "As Mayor Pro Tem and as an At-large councilmember, I always requested the Mayor's approval before moving forward with initiatives, events and plans."

Translation: I was Nancy Vaughan's good little soldier for 12 years. I asked permission for everything. Now it's your turn to ask mine.

The letter ends with: "My goal and duty is to guide and help us all reach goals that we can all be proud of in moving Greensboro forward as a team."

Translation: I’m the captain now!

Three incoming council members quickly responded…you know, actual adults elected by actual voters, responded with the collective energy of people responding to a confused aunt at a Thanksgiving dinner.

Crystal Black -D1- came in with diplomatic precision:
REAL QUOTE: "I'd like more clarification around paragraphs two and three, specifically about 'meetings, panels, and speaking engagements.' Are you stating that we must garner your approval for all? Even within our perspective districts?"

Translation: "I'm sorry, are you saying I need your permission to attend a neighborhood meeting in MY OWN DISTRICT?"

She continues: "And the last paragraph leans toward your practice in governance. I'd just like clarity on if this is protocol or preference."
Translation: "Is this an actual rule, or just something you made up?"

Cecile Crawford -D2- brought the polite exhaustion:
REAL QUOTE: "Could you clarify whether the expectations you outlined reflect established city policy or past practice? For example, should district-level meetings or community events within my district also be routed through your office for approval?"

Translation: "I was elected by my district. Are you seriously suggesting I need to call you before attending a block party?"

She adds: "Understanding the distinction between protocol and preference will help ensure that I'm aligned with the expectations of the Mayor's office while also staying responsive to the communities I serve."

Translation: "I work for my constituents, not you. But I'm being nice about it."

Adam Marshall -D4- also asked another well-mannered question:
REAL QUOTE: "What is the protocol when asked to attend an event in a district? Not make a statement, but just to attend. For example, I just got an invitation to attend Blue, Gold & Grateful event by the UNCG Board of Trustees... is there protocol for that?"

Translation: "Do I... do I need your permission to go to a thank-you party at the university? Is that what we're doing now?"

Here's what makes this whole exchange completely innapropriate: most of the upcoming council members aren't nervous rookies asking for guidance... Most of them are true community leaders and professionals who won competitive elections. They do not need a hall pass or a grace period….they are ready to go.

Crystal is asking if she needs permission to represent her own district.
Cecile is asking whether these are actual rules or just Marikay's personal preferences.
Adam is asking if attending a university reception requires mayoral approval.

Marikay spent 12 years as Nancy Vaughan's "Valet de Chambre", and now she's written a memo that reads like "The Rules I Followed and Now You Will Too."

The responding council members elect were polite. They asked clarifying questions.
They used phrases like "I appreciate your guidance" and "Thank you for clarifying."

But make no mistake, what they were really saying was:
"I'm sorry... what ?"

Three incoming council members have now learned what Abuzuaiter apparently didn't in her 12 years on council: elected officials don't need permission to govern.

11/20/2025

Never heard $191,000 speakers before. This was one cool event.

11/20/2025

This is one cool event organized by one of Greensboro ‘s best…Katei Cranford. Thanks for the invite and moment. Definitely never heard a sound system like this before

11/20/2025

Greensboro’s incoming council members got an email this week from Mayor Elect Abuzuaiter.

Attached is the original email and below is Yo! Greensboro’s translation.

We did it out of necessity. There’s already enough bleak, infuriating nonsense coming out of City Hall that injecting a little humor felt like a public service.

Welcome to the Council!

Before you even pick up your city badge, please remember: I am Michael and you are all Titos.

Actually since the majority of the upcoming council will be women, it may be more like" I am Beyonce and you are all Michelles and Kellys"

Marikay opens by gently reminding everyone that the Mayor and council only have two employees, the City Manager and the City Attorney .

She then clarifies that the Mayor sets the agenda, selects what the Council sees, what gets voted on, and basically who gets to speak at any given moment:

“If you have an idea or a resolution that would make a great city initiative, just remember: Beyoncé approves the setlist.”

Then she really leans into it:

“I am the face and only spokesperson for the City.
If I’m not there, my Pro Tem is the face.
If she’s not there, another At-Large is the face.
But it’s still my face.”

Everyone else, apparently, is just a backup dancer waiting to be assigned choreography.

Then she slips in this gem... “As Mayor Pro Tem, I always asked the Mayor’s permission for everything. And so should you.”

This is the political equivalent of Michael Jackson pulling Tito aside and saying:

“I know you’re excited, little man. But your mic stays off until I say so.”

She insists it’s not about control, which is, of course, how you know it’s absolutely about control.

GO TEAM... but don't ask who runs the world...I DO!

11/19/2025

Last night, Greensboro City Council voted 9–0 to approve $789,500 for interior renovations to the Tanger Center’s Founders Room.

During the discussion, a defiant Mayor Vaughan, most likely referring to yesterday's Yo! Greensboro article, insisted the money “was not taxpayer money” but merely funds “Tanger has made” and that Council was simply giving “permission for Tanger to spend money they’ve made.”

There’s only one problem: none of that is true.

The Steven Tanger Center is owned by the City of Greensboro, built with public/private financing, and managed on behalf of the City by the Oak View Group, under contract with the publicly funded Coliseum Complex. All of its revenues flow through city-managed accounts.

Even its debt service and capital obligations tie directly into taxpayer-backed structures including hotel/motel tax revenue and city-backed financing.

If the money were truly “not public money,” the Council wouldn’t need to vote at all.

Yet here we are... again...a 9–0 vote on whether a publicly owned facility can spend roughly $800,000 of publicly controlled funds on a renovation project for a VIP room for a select few.

The Mayor’s claim that this is simply “money Tanger has made”, as if it were some private business checking account, ignores every financial document, budget entry, and governance structure tied to the venue.

She knows the Tanger Center is a public asset. She knows Council approval is required because the money is public.

In a city that fines and displaces the poor, criminalizes poverty, offers no public restrooms, and forces residents to stand in the rain or swelter under the sun waiting for an elusive bus, spending nearly $800,000 on a VIP room for the already-privileged is simply indecent.

11/18/2025

ATTENTION GREENSBORO SERFS…

TONIGHT’S $789,500 TAXPAYER-FUNDED LUXURY PROJECT EXPLAINED

Tonight, on their last night in power, this outgoing City Council is trying to push through a $789,500 renovation for a private Founders lounge at the Tanger Center... a space used by maybe a hundred elites and nobody else.

Here’s the part they hope you never connect:

Some of the same people voting on this tonight are the same people who sat in the Founders Room last year planning the upgrade.

According to the official Tanger Board minutes, the Mayor, a Councilmember, the City Manager, the Deputy City Attorney, the Community Foundation, downtown developers, and DGI networks were all in the room together, literally inside the Founders Room, discussing how to upgrade the Founders Room using PUBLIC MONEY.

Now, right before they walk out the door, they want taxpayers to cover their private VIP lounge upgrade...a taxpayer-funded refuge where the city’s insiders can relax without ever having to encounter the very people financing their sanctuary.

As George Hartzman of "Public Integrity Watch" perfectly stated:
“A new bar and lounge for the Founders… let the Founders pay for it.”

Meanwhile:
-Bingham Park is contaminated and closed
-There are no public restrooms downtown
-There are no bus shelters
-People are hungry
-People are unhoused…

But somehow there’s nearly $800,000 for a luxury retreat for the already powerful and comfortable.

Let’s see if the newly elected council ( soon to be welcomed into that same Founders Room) will honor their campaign promises and redirect this money where it’s actually needed…

Thank you to George Hartzman of https://www.publicintegrity.watch for the documents and the heads-up.

11/17/2025

Well... I Guess she doesn’t need Walker Sanders anymore...his clout, his checkbook, or his ability to make the city’s elite look respectable by association.

That’s how it goes with Nancy Vaughan: useful until you’re not, praised until you’re expendable.

We are activating our own network to find out what was said ... we will keep you posted.

11/17/2025

CITY CONFIRMS: NO PAYOUT IN CURTIN SETTLEMENT... BUT THE BILLS AND THE QUESTIONS KEEP PILING UP

Disclosure: The author is plaintiff in ongoing Superior Court litigation (25CV013887-400) challenging a legal opinion issued by former City Attorney Chuck Watts.

After days of silence, Greensboro officials have finally addressed the City's quiet settlement in the federal lawsuit that named the City of Greensboro as a defendant alongside former City Attorney Chuck Watts.

According to correspondence from current City Attorney Lora Cubbage, the matter ended with no direct financial payout, but that doesn't mean taxpayers got off clean.

Cubbage's statement reads:
"The City agreed to forego filing against Mr. Curtin for sanctions, costs and fees… and he agreed to dismiss with prejudice. There was no exchange of money."

Translation: The City threatened to go after Curtin for legal fees, he backed down, and both sides walked away.

But here's what Cubbage's carefully worded statement doesn't mention: how much taxpayers spent defending the City in the first place.

James Curtin's amended complaint, filed in August 2025, named the City of Greensboro as a defendant alongside Chuck Watts (individually and in his capacity as City Attorney), Watts Law PLLC, Cyberlux Corporation, and defense contractor HII Mission Technologies.

The allegations were serious: that Watts used his position as City Attorney to enable retaliation, intimidation, and professional sabotage against Curtin after he exposed misconduct involving Cyberlux, a company for which Watts simultaneously served as Special Counsel while drawing a City paycheck.

Curtin's complaint further alleged that the City of Greensboro made substantial payments to outside law firms for legal services that benefited Cyberlux rather than the City itself.

Getting dismissed from the lawsuit may have spared the City a settlement check, but it didn't spare taxpayers the cost of outside legal defense, internal staff time, and the reputational damage of being named in a federal lawsuit alleging public corruption and misuse of office.

So no, City Attorney Cubbage, the City didn't pay Curtin directly, but we're definitely still paying for Chuck Watts' mess.

While the City has exited the case, Chuck Watts, Watts Law PLLC, and the other defendants remain in active litigation.

MEANWHILE, THE STEVENS CASE WAITS IN THE WINGS

If City leadership thinks the Curtin dismissal closes the book on the Chuck Watts era, they're mistaken.

Shannon D. Stevens, a former City paralegal, has her own pending federal civil rights lawsuit (Case 1:25-cv-00931) filed in October 2025. Her complaint names the City of Greensboro, current City Attorney Lora Cubbage, City Manager Nathaniel "Trey" Davis, and other officials.

Stevens alleges she was terminated after performing work at Watts's direction, then denied a constitutionally required public hearing to clear her name, a violation of her Fourteenth Amendment due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Unlike Curtin, Stevens is seeking compensatory damages, back pay, front pay, punitive damages, and attorney's fees.

The City is unlikely to walk away from that one with a handshake and a mutual release.

THE RUNNING TAB FOR WATTS’ TENURE

Here’s what Chuck Watts’ time as City Attorney has already cost Greensboro:

Two federal lawsuits filed in 2025 alone.

One Superior Court case filed by this author challenging Watts’s opinion that Councilmember Zack Matheny could vote on funding for Downtown Greensboro Inc. — despite a direct financial interest in City contracts with that same organization — an opinion that stretched conflict-of-interest law past recognition under N.C.G.S. § 14-234.

Ongoing litigation in the Stevens case, with real financial exposure.

Outside legal fees to defend the Curtin dismissal (amount undisclosed).

Reputational damage from being named in a federal complaint alleging corruption and misuse of office.

A chilling effect on employees who might otherwise report misconduct — now seeing exactly what happens to those who do.

And through it all...the complaints, the public records requests, the growing pile of evidence that something was deeply wrong in the City Attorney's Office, Mayor Nancy Vaughan and the City Council did nothing.

Not one public hearing. Not one demand for accountability. Not one acknowledgment that maybe, just maybe, allowing your City Attorney to moonlight as private counsel to a company under federal scrutiny while using City resources was a problem.

The Curtin settlement may have ended quietly, but the reckoning for what happened under Chuck Watts' watch, and what didn't happen under Nancy Vaughan's, is just getting started.

And if you notice a foul stench drifting out of City Hall, it’s probably not the plumbing...it’s the lingering scent of Chuck Watts.

11/15/2025

UPDATED...
November 16, 2025: When asked by Jason Hicks to comment on the recently settled federal lawsuit Curtin v. City of Greensboro (Case 1:25-cv-00782-TDS-JLW), plaintiff James Curtin (who has also used the name Jackson Holt) responded by email:

“I have no comment on the matter while litigation and negotiations are still ongoing with other defendants. Once the case(s) is resolved I will consider revisiting your questions. I would encourage you to give Greensboro the same consideration for the time being so as not to create new legal issues.”

The exchange suggests that while the City has reached a settlement and dismissal was filed on November 14, related claims and negotiations with other named parties, including Chuck Watts, Watts Law PLC, Cyberlux Corporation, and HII Mission Technologies Corp. may remain active.

Request for comments from City manager Trey Davis remain unanswered....so we still do not know what happened for sure....but, the public deserves answers!

DID GREENSBORO PAY UNKNOWN SUM TO SETTLE FEDERAL LAWSUIT OVER FORMER CITY ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT... AND WON'T SAY HOW MUCH ?

The City of Greensboro has quietly reached a federal settlement with James Curtin, ending months of litigation that raised serious questions about the City's handling of contracts, insider dealings, and public accountability.

What it cost US? That's apparently none of our business.

Court records show a filing in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina — Case 1:25-cv-00782-TDS-JLW, Document 42, submitted on November 14, 2025, and signed by attorney Patrick M. Kane confirming that the matter has been resolved and dismissed.

What remains unresolved is the public's right to know what that settlement cost taxpayers and why it was reached in the first place.

Under North Carolina General Statute § 132-1, all agreements involving public funds are public records. Even when a "confidentiality" clause is included, the courts (notably in News & Observer v. Poole 1992) have made clear that the amount, purpose, and terms of any publicly funded settlement must be disclosed.

If this settlement involves City money , OUR MONEY, extracted from working families through property taxes and utility fees , and there's reason to believe it does, Greensboro's leadership has a legal and ethical obligation to disclose:

How much was paid?
Who authorized the payment? and
What conditions were attached?

THE ALLEGATIONS WERE SERIOUS AND NOW THEY'RE PAID OFF
The Curtin lawsuit itself painted a troubling picture.

James Curtin, a defense industry strategic advisor and business owner, filed his complaint in July 2025 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

The suit alleged that former City Attorney Chuck Watts and City Officials engaged in retaliatory and unethical conduct, including the misuse of public resources, interference in private business dealings, and the mishandling of intellectual property tied to a defense-technology partnership.

Curtin's allegations went further: he claimed that while serving as Greensboro's City Attorney, Watts simultaneously acted as Special Counsel to Cyberlux Corporation, and that the City of Greensboro may have made substantial payments to outside law firms for legal services that benefited Cyberlux rather than the City itself.

Curtin accused Watts of tortious interference with his business relationships, civil conspiracy, and breach of fiduciary duty, alleging that Watts misused his position as a public official to enable retaliation and harassment against someone who had exposed misconduct.

These are serious allegations of abuse of public office and unethical conduct by people sworn to uphold the law.
And rather than continue defending those actions in open court, the City chose to settle, writing a check and walking away.

A PATTERN OF SECRECY AND SETTLEMENT
This case follows a familiar pattern inside City Hall and it's not an isolated incident.

Just weeks before the Curtin settlement, another former City employee, Shannon D. Stevens, filed a separate federal civil rights lawsuit (Case 1:25-cv-00931) in October 2025, raising eerily similar allegations of retaliation, misuse of resources, and violations of due process.

Her complaint also names former City Attorney Chuck Watts, along with current City Attorney Lora Cubbage, City Manager Nathaniel "Trey" Davis, and other officials.

The Stevens case alleges that she was terminated after performing work at Watts's direction, and that the City denied her a proper public hearing to clear her name ... another Section 1983 constitutional violation.

Two separate federal lawsuits. Two sets of allegations involving the same former City Attorney. Both claiming serious misconduct and misuse of City resources. Both filed within months of each other in 2025.

More troubling still: now that the City has settled the Curtin case, others with similar grievances may come out of the woodwork to sue Greensboro, emboldened by what could be seen as an admission that something was wrong enough to pay to make it go away.

And when pressed for answers, Mayor Nancy Vaughan did what she always does: deny, deflect, and shrug.

The same response she's given to questions about Downtown Greensboro Inc., about City Attorney Chuck Watts, about conflict-of-interest complaints and ethics filings that citizens have been raising for years.

TAXPAYERS WARNED THEM... REPEATEDLY
Public dollars shouldn't vanish behind nondisclosure agreements, and taxpayers shouldn't have to file public-records requests just to learn what their own government spent to make a problem go away, especially when citizens have warned City leadership over and over about these very issues.

The warnings delivered in public comment sessions, in formal complaints, and in media reports were ignored by elected officials and, as always, we are left to pay the bill.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT
Questions that must be answered:
How much did this settlement cost? Was it five figures? Six? Seven?

Did it come from the City's general fund or insurance? If it's taxpayer dollars, the public has an absolute right to know.
Who authorized this payment? Was it City Council? The City Manager? The Mayor?

What were the terms? What did the City admit to, if anything?

How many other settlements has Greensboro quietly reached in the past five years?

The City Council has a choice: Release the settlement terms voluntarily within the next 10 days, or wait for citizens to assume the worst and demand a full audit of every settlement reached under this administration.

11/13/2025

ATTENTION GREENSBORO RESIDENTS...

Word on the street is that the city may be moving to acquire, or has already made an offer on, the property at 201 E Gate City Blvd: a 0.58-acre commercial parcel with prime frontage in a key downtown corridor.

At this point it is unclear what the city could use such a small parcel for, but parking has been a recurring issue in this area for some...so, if the city were to buy this property and turn it into a parking lot, let's talk about what that would actually look like.

What 0.58 acres actually gets you:
After accounting for required drive aisles, ADA spaces, setbacks, stormwater management, and landscaping requirements, you're looking at 50-60 parking spaces.?

Now let's do the real math:
The property is listed at $525,000. Add in the cost of actually making it usable:

-Grading and utilities: $50k-$100k
-Stormwater management systems: $75k-$150k
-Paving and striping: $100k-$200k
-Lighting and landscaping: $50k-$100k

Total project cost: $800k-$1,075k+ to create 50 to 60 parking spaces.
That's $13,000-$18,000 per parking space.

That’s nearly a million dollars for 50–60 parking spots on premium downtown land that could otherwise generate real tax revenue or serve a real public use.

HERE IS WHAT MAKES THIS ESPECIALLY ABSURD:
The city and Redevelopment Commission already own several large parcels on Elm and Eugene that currently sit vacant.

These are bigger properties with far more development potential that we've already paid for and aren't using.

In other words... We own empty land. We're not developing it.

But we're buying MORE land to create expensive parking which may or may not be available to all and may or may not be priced at current market rate.

So the questions write themselves:

If the city is to purchase this property and if the city is to turn it into a parking lot, then:

-Why spend $13k-$18k per parking space on a tiny parcel when that money could fund housing or actual infrastructure?
-Why buy new land when we own larger vacant parcels that are sitting empty?
-What's so special about this exact location that justifies this cost?
-Who benefits from having parking in this specific spot?
-Will the spaces be available to all downtown dwellers or just a select few?
-If the city is buying land to help private interests, then maybe those private interests should be the ones writing the check?

The only thing that makes sense for 0.58 acres is parking. And spending this kind of public money for 50-60 parking spaces isn't "smart growth." It's reactionary, it's a band aid, and quite honestly it is stupid...yet, somehow, it feels on brand, another half-baked fix that costs too much and solves nothing.

Meanwhile, still no public restrooms or bus shelters...

https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/201-E-Gate-City-Blvd-Greensboro-NC/38236911/?siteid=7049

Yo Greensboro

11/22/2025

11/20/2025

11/20/2025

11/20/2025

11/19/2025

11/18/2025

11/17/2025

11/17/2025

11/15/2025

11/13/2025

Address

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share

Category