Just received a heads-up from the events coordinator at Destinations Booksellers. It looks like they are reviving their once well-received public issues gatherings.
On Thursday, January 10, at 6 p.m., the store will be hosting a contingent from the F.O.P., calling the event "A Night With the F.O.P." Store owner Randy Smith will be the moderator (a first I think. Randy was never part of the program during the old symposiums).
The panel will consist of line officers selected by the lodge and its leaders, addressing a "proposition" put forward for the event. Questions from the audience may be permitted during the main event, but a formal Q&A will conclude it.
The proposition, still being drafted, will pose a hypothetical, still being drafted, but based on comments gathered during the past three and one-half years. We'll post the formal proposition later, but we understand that it will challenge the officers to declare what they would be able to do for public safety in New Albany if they got everything they were asking for. I'm sure it will be put more diplomatically than that, but we'll see.
If you've got an interest in government, safety, hygiene, enforcement, streets and traffic, and police/community relations, plan to attend this get-together.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Speaking of Appointments
Does anyone have a unified list of all the positions, paid or volunteer, that the mayor is entitled to appoint? We all have a vague sense that the number of people he can hire or appoint is sizable, but it sure would be nice to see the list in black and white. Or in pixels.
The Man on the Hot Seat
While the sound of tiny brains exploding was heard all over New Albany on Saturday with the news of the England/Malysz/Wilcox triumvirate's ascendancy, there is at least one other appointee that faces a very public challenge and who is most likely to feel the heat first.
That man is Mickey Thompson, the new head of the streets department. Thompson, whose work as the AFSCME local steward can only be described as aggressive and uncompromising, has now successfully climbed the ladder to department head. We have no particular insight into the reasons why Mayor England appointed Thompson, though we'd love to hear them. There is little doubt that Thompson knows the problems in that department. Our doubts arise when contemplating whether he has the necessary skills and competencies to direct the activities of his union brothers.
While we are most assuredly not wishing for failure, we predict that Thompson will come under increasing scrutiny in this most public of city positions. The old ad that talks about "rubber" hitting the road comes to mind, with no pun intended.
How much of our currently dire street flooding problems stems from the evident work slowdown undertaken by streets department employees since the May primary? It seems that under Mr. Simon's management, the workers took the position that with a separate stormwater staff and a drainage department in place, they didn't need to police or report the horrendously overburdened curbs and gutters.
I find fault with the whole lame-duck administration, but the street department certainly hasn't distinguished itself in the last six months. And Thompson was right there, the whole time.
Let's hope that Mickey Thompson will be able to doff his union hat and take on the city's headgear. The interests of the workers and the union shouldn't be in conflict with the interests of the city as a whole. Thompson faces great opportunities to prove that. He also faces great risk.
From what we hear, Mr. England will be demanding accountability from his department heads. That means perform or else. One correspondent reports that Mr. England has no intention of taking the blame for shortcomings within the departments. It is said he believes he has appointed capable people and that he believes his job as mayor is to appoint, and de-appoint, according to performance.
Given that we don't expect the police and fire chiefs, nor the operations director, nor the deputy mayor to be de-appointed, Mr. Thompson is a prime candidate to be the first to be made the sacrificial scapegoat. The Mickey Thompson Watch starts Tuesday.
That man is Mickey Thompson, the new head of the streets department. Thompson, whose work as the AFSCME local steward can only be described as aggressive and uncompromising, has now successfully climbed the ladder to department head. We have no particular insight into the reasons why Mayor England appointed Thompson, though we'd love to hear them. There is little doubt that Thompson knows the problems in that department. Our doubts arise when contemplating whether he has the necessary skills and competencies to direct the activities of his union brothers.
While we are most assuredly not wishing for failure, we predict that Thompson will come under increasing scrutiny in this most public of city positions. The old ad that talks about "rubber" hitting the road comes to mind, with no pun intended.
How much of our currently dire street flooding problems stems from the evident work slowdown undertaken by streets department employees since the May primary? It seems that under Mr. Simon's management, the workers took the position that with a separate stormwater staff and a drainage department in place, they didn't need to police or report the horrendously overburdened curbs and gutters.
I find fault with the whole lame-duck administration, but the street department certainly hasn't distinguished itself in the last six months. And Thompson was right there, the whole time.
Let's hope that Mickey Thompson will be able to doff his union hat and take on the city's headgear. The interests of the workers and the union shouldn't be in conflict with the interests of the city as a whole. Thompson faces great opportunities to prove that. He also faces great risk.
From what we hear, Mr. England will be demanding accountability from his department heads. That means perform or else. One correspondent reports that Mr. England has no intention of taking the blame for shortcomings within the departments. It is said he believes he has appointed capable people and that he believes his job as mayor is to appoint, and de-appoint, according to performance.
Given that we don't expect the police and fire chiefs, nor the operations director, nor the deputy mayor to be de-appointed, Mr. Thompson is a prime candidate to be the first to be made the sacrificial scapegoat. The Mickey Thompson Watch starts Tuesday.
The England Restoration
Although it was far from completely unexpected, the announcement in today's rags that Mr. Carl Malysz will assume the post of deputy mayor provoked immediate and pointed commentary in the community, if the calls, visits, and e-mails that followed have any weight.
Malysz, in absentia since the Overton administration, was able to see his reputation acquire a gloss in the intervening years. To this observer it almost seemed that every mention of the man was preceded with an emphatic, but silent, "the legendary..." As in, "the legendary Carl Malysz."
A few months ago, one wag was heard to ask, "If Carl Malysz was such a miracle worker, how did the city get into this mess?" If not a fair question, it is a good one.
All I can say is that the council had better be ready to hit the ground running because it certainly appears that Mayor England and his cohort are ready to govern. And after 8 years in the wilderness, they're going to be loaded for bear.
By the time the kiddies get out of school, we should have a fairly good measure of the new administration and the dramatically revised council. Initiatives that have been floated by England's operatives may or may not have a reality behind them. I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say that some of those initiatives were a form of disinformation designed to ferret out friends and foes.
But with today's announcement of the recreation of the post of deputy mayor with broad oversight of key city functions, the foes are certainly going to be easy to identify.
Next up: The key appointment most likely to feel the heat.
Malysz, in absentia since the Overton administration, was able to see his reputation acquire a gloss in the intervening years. To this observer it almost seemed that every mention of the man was preceded with an emphatic, but silent, "the legendary..." As in, "the legendary Carl Malysz."
A few months ago, one wag was heard to ask, "If Carl Malysz was such a miracle worker, how did the city get into this mess?" If not a fair question, it is a good one.
All I can say is that the council had better be ready to hit the ground running because it certainly appears that Mayor England and his cohort are ready to govern. And after 8 years in the wilderness, they're going to be loaded for bear.
By the time the kiddies get out of school, we should have a fairly good measure of the new administration and the dramatically revised council. Initiatives that have been floated by England's operatives may or may not have a reality behind them. I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say that some of those initiatives were a form of disinformation designed to ferret out friends and foes.
But with today's announcement of the recreation of the post of deputy mayor with broad oversight of key city functions, the foes are certainly going to be easy to identify.
Next up: The key appointment most likely to feel the heat.
Friday, December 28, 2007
A Blueprint? or Just a List?
At least a "rump" segment of the incoming council has pledged to seek the following goal:
The document making this declaration is making the rounds, at least in the progressive community, and is the result of numerous pre-term discussions among the incumbent and newly elected council members. It comes with a list of concerns to be addressed in the next few months and in the next four years. From what I've been told, it's not intended to be exclusive, but the council members want to start the discussion forthwith and are actively seeking public comment and assistance in addressing them.
Without further ado, here it is:
Accountability
City Beautification
Enforcement/Laws
Education/City Off
Image/City
Sewers
Communication
Re-organization/Dept
Traffic Flow
Environment
Public Involvement
Parks
Service
Size of Gov
Industrial
Leadership
Business
Revenue
Constituents
Spring St. Hill
Housing
Streets
Drugs/Crime
Manpower
Budget
Empty Spac
Railroad
Teamwork
Dept. Heads
Infrastructur
Downtown
City Hall
Rental Prop
The people (your representatives) who generated this list want YOU to rank these concerns and start the conversation. Do it here, do it there, do it anywhere. Call your council member, post on this or another blog, attend the Jan. 7 organizational meeting of the new council. But DO participate in this. I think it's admirable that the council is already at work on a new vision for New Albany.
Over the coming weeks, we'll give you our thoughts. If you find the "concerns" list a little cryptic or if you never knew these were concerns, we'll try to edify you, "to the best of our ability."
To help make New Albany a more productive and progressive city.
The document making this declaration is making the rounds, at least in the progressive community, and is the result of numerous pre-term discussions among the incumbent and newly elected council members. It comes with a list of concerns to be addressed in the next few months and in the next four years. From what I've been told, it's not intended to be exclusive, but the council members want to start the discussion forthwith and are actively seeking public comment and assistance in addressing them.
Without further ado, here it is:
Accountability
City Beautification
Enforcement/Laws
Education/City Off
Image/City
Sewers
Communication
Re-organization/Dept
Traffic Flow
Environment
Public Involvement
Parks
Service
Size of Gov
Industrial
Leadership
Business
Revenue
Constituents
Spring St. Hill
Housing
Streets
Drugs/Crime
Manpower
Budget
Empty Spac
Railroad
Teamwork
Dept. Heads
Infrastructur
Downtown
City Hall
Rental Prop
The people (your representatives) who generated this list want YOU to rank these concerns and start the conversation. Do it here, do it there, do it anywhere. Call your council member, post on this or another blog, attend the Jan. 7 organizational meeting of the new council. But DO participate in this. I think it's admirable that the council is already at work on a new vision for New Albany.
Over the coming weeks, we'll give you our thoughts. If you find the "concerns" list a little cryptic or if you never knew these were concerns, we'll try to edify you, "to the best of our ability."
A Democratic Inaugural
This afternoon, the 10 Democrats elected to serve the city for the next four years took their oaths of office in a ceremony that was emotional and stirring. It was a party function, not particularly a city event, but since the relevant officiants (our judges and magistrate) and the certifying officer (the county clerk) are Democrats too, the event went smoothly and with dignity.
For the record (cut and paste this for future reference), here are the eight Democrats sworn to serve on the city council, effective at midnight, Jan. 1, 2008.
District 1 - Dan Coffey (returning to office)
District 2 - Bob Caesar
District 3 - Steve Price (returning to office)
District 4 - Pat McLaughlin (pronounced Muk-loch-lun, by the way)
District 5 - Diane Benedetti
District 6 - Jeff Gahan (returning to office)
At-Large - Jack Messer (returning to office)
At-Large - John Gonder
This observer can now testify that each of these eight swore or affirmed to support the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of the State of Indiana. One wonders what the consequences are for violating that part of the oath. At least now, no member of the council can call the suit to redraw legislative boundaries "frivolous." Since the Constitution is clear about equal representation, I will expect to see this council move rapidly to settle the pending lawsuit regarding those districts. Anything else would be a violation of that still-echoing oath, now wouldn't it.
Returning City Clerk Marcey Wisman was sworn in following the individual oath-taking.
Mayor-elect Doug England took a solemn oath and affirmation different in scale and scope from the oath taken by the others.
The audience of family members, party regulars, and interested observers like me were enthusiastic in their congratulations and good wishes. Party chairman Randy Stumler was all smiles, and all retired from the court to partake in refreshments which probably still haven't run out.
For the record, Magistrate Daniel Burke joined judges Terrence Cody, Susan Orth, and Glenn Hancock in administering these oaths.
(Ed. Note: We've included the original context of the post which stirred the disagreement that shows up in the comments below. NA Shadow Council concedes the the judge's given name is "Terrence." We always believed that to be correct, but had seen so many official documents containing the alternate (wrong) spelling that we took erroneous note. Our apologies, and thanks to the eagle-eyed reader who noted it.)We'll note that the senior judge, Mr. Cody, had to once again suffer the indignity of seeing his name misspelled in the official program. The lone Republican elected to council, Kevin Zurschmiede, can sympathize with his honor.
Interestingly enough, Mr. Coffey was the only elected official who did not raise his right hand to take the oath. Wonder if that makes the oath invalid?
For the record (cut and paste this for future reference), here are the eight Democrats sworn to serve on the city council, effective at midnight, Jan. 1, 2008.
District 1 - Dan Coffey (returning to office)
District 2 - Bob Caesar
District 3 - Steve Price (returning to office)
District 4 - Pat McLaughlin (pronounced Muk-loch-lun, by the way)
District 5 - Diane Benedetti
District 6 - Jeff Gahan (returning to office)
At-Large - Jack Messer (returning to office)
At-Large - John Gonder
This observer can now testify that each of these eight swore or affirmed to support the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of the State of Indiana. One wonders what the consequences are for violating that part of the oath. At least now, no member of the council can call the suit to redraw legislative boundaries "frivolous." Since the Constitution is clear about equal representation, I will expect to see this council move rapidly to settle the pending lawsuit regarding those districts. Anything else would be a violation of that still-echoing oath, now wouldn't it.
Returning City Clerk Marcey Wisman was sworn in following the individual oath-taking.
Mayor-elect Doug England took a solemn oath and affirmation different in scale and scope from the oath taken by the others.
The audience of family members, party regulars, and interested observers like me were enthusiastic in their congratulations and good wishes. Party chairman Randy Stumler was all smiles, and all retired from the court to partake in refreshments which probably still haven't run out.
For the record, Magistrate Daniel Burke joined judges Terrence Cody, Susan Orth, and Glenn Hancock in administering these oaths.
(Ed. Note: We've included the original context of the post which stirred the disagreement that shows up in the comments below. NA Shadow Council concedes the the judge's given name is "Terrence." We always believed that to be correct, but had seen so many official documents containing the alternate (wrong) spelling that we took erroneous note. Our apologies, and thanks to the eagle-eyed reader who noted it.)We'll note that the senior judge, Mr. Cody, had to once again suffer the indignity of seeing his name misspelled in the official program. The lone Republican elected to council, Kevin Zurschmiede, can sympathize with his honor.
Interestingly enough, Mr. Coffey was the only elected official who did not raise his right hand to take the oath. Wonder if that makes the oath invalid?
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
For the next six months (seven?)
Shadowna5 declares as an "England" supporter.
Gullible? Perhaps. Skeptical? Indeed.
But given the representations given (and I'll admit to an affinity for the higher angels) to this blogger, we'll "sign on" until at least June 1, 2008.
The smackdown handed to D1 council member Daniel (J.) Coffey at Monday's council meeting was classic, with the possible exception of the the inexplicable Gahan-Coffey twinship in creating the remarkably novel sewer jurisdiction. Against all counsel, that pair risk all to rein in an unaccountable sewer board by putting forward an incredibly risky power play. What, we ask, is the hurry? Are lame-duck votes so unattainable in the 2008 iteration of an 8-1 Democratic Party hegemony?
Granted, anyone who opposes King Larry earns, at least, my first-blush approval. But Mr. Gahan's votes and public statements indicate to this writer that a deal has been cut. I've yet to find anyone who can adequately explain the adhesive effect between D1 and D6. Did Gahan cut a deal with the least accomplished member of council?
I'm told that a remarkable victory was achieved in Federal District Court on Tuesday afternoon by the plaintiffs in the litigation to protect the Constitutional rights of NA's residents. I, for one, am eager to see how Eric Scott Campbell (The Tribune) and Dick Kaukus (the Courier-Journal) report this long-running story.
We note with amusement, in this season of NCAA football courtships, the ongoing recruitment of that worthy who styles him/herself as iamhoosier on the "Internets." Yours truly claims first bid in the war to acquire I AM (portentously heretical, if you ask me) as a contributor, but apparently the bidding has escalated, given the traditionally fence-straddling blog denizen's flirtation with blogs of all persuasions - progressive and insane.
May we insist that all who follow the legislative branch of the Scribner Brothers' dream metropolis consult http://highwayview.blogspot.com for coverage of December's "first of many" council meetings. Thanks, Highwayman, for preserving the record of discovery.
And while we're online, whaddayathink about that National Intelligence Estimate that indicates that the Bush-Cheney crime syndicate has been playing us all for suckers?
I'll report that we've been severely diminished by acute, but not chronic, health problems, which I hope explains our recent absence from the blogosphere.
News that emerged from 121 East Spring Street late on Tuesday, December 4th, in the YOOL 2007 is most heartening. Congratulations to the citizens and their counsel who finally petitioned for justice to be done. From all reports, that ideal was achieved in the ruling of the presiding judge for the Southern District of Indiana.
Will the defendants in Vogt v. City of New Albany dare to come back in 60 days with the very same boundary-drawing? Is Anna Schmidt that compelling an authority that the legislative body of this city would risk even more expense in trying to defend a patently unlawful apportionment?
Who, in fact, has made the greatest effort to save the taxpayers of New Albany greater expense? The Coward Karry Ling, or the selfless plaintiffs in the referenced case?
Finally, shadowna5 asks, for the second time in two days, why Mr. Kochert, the ever-diminishing presiding officer of the the "Common Council for the second-class city of New Albany," continues to blame Floyd County Circuit Court Clerk Linda Moeller for the despicably irresponsible stewardship of Mr. Kochert's body during the past six years?
Larry-boy, why do you continue to hide behind Linda's skirts? shadowna5 counts Mrs. Moeller as one of the heroes in this saga. Linda and her closest associates have tried to avoid this showdown since over the past five years. Where were you and your cohort? Why were 20 admirable citizens required to file a suit at law to enforce long-established constitutional principles of equal representation?
In shadowna5's view, LK and his confederates are fully responsible for the unnecessary expenses of the extant lawsuit. No one other than Mr. Kochert is more to blame for the irresponsible squandering of the common purse. Is there any more established principle than equal representaion? Why, then, does Mr. Kochert continue, in his vastly-diminished and diminishing legislative authority continue to perjure himself to protect a discredited regime?
No less an authority than the Federal District Court rejected Mr. Kochert's stance on Tuesday. Equal protection was, again, reaffirmed as a Constitutional principle. Mr. Vogt and his co-plaintiffs deserve our commendation. Discerning readers (like IAH) and contributors (ditto) would be well-advised to expand their approbation and approval to a greater audience (i.e. the readership of The Tribune) and to broadcast their agreement with the principals in Vogt by means of a letter to the editor.
King Larry and your court, quit hiding behind the skirts of Linda Moeller. Shadowna5 counts the estimable Mrs. Moeller among its greatest friends. Mrs. Moeller has, for more than five years, advocated an equitable redistricting within the boundaries of New Albany. There is no more cowardly an act than to pretend that Mrs. Moeller is your supporter. Mrs. Moeller and her associates have tried for more than five years to induce the council to correct its un-Constitutional act. Don't pretend that she is the reason that you continue to express contempt for the Constitution of the United States.
Gullible? Perhaps. Skeptical? Indeed.
But given the representations given (and I'll admit to an affinity for the higher angels) to this blogger, we'll "sign on" until at least June 1, 2008.
The smackdown handed to D1 council member Daniel (J.) Coffey at Monday's council meeting was classic, with the possible exception of the the inexplicable Gahan-Coffey twinship in creating the remarkably novel sewer jurisdiction. Against all counsel, that pair risk all to rein in an unaccountable sewer board by putting forward an incredibly risky power play. What, we ask, is the hurry? Are lame-duck votes so unattainable in the 2008 iteration of an 8-1 Democratic Party hegemony?
Granted, anyone who opposes King Larry earns, at least, my first-blush approval. But Mr. Gahan's votes and public statements indicate to this writer that a deal has been cut. I've yet to find anyone who can adequately explain the adhesive effect between D1 and D6. Did Gahan cut a deal with the least accomplished member of council?
I'm told that a remarkable victory was achieved in Federal District Court on Tuesday afternoon by the plaintiffs in the litigation to protect the Constitutional rights of NA's residents. I, for one, am eager to see how Eric Scott Campbell (The Tribune) and Dick Kaukus (the Courier-Journal) report this long-running story.
We note with amusement, in this season of NCAA football courtships, the ongoing recruitment of that worthy who styles him/herself as iamhoosier on the "Internets." Yours truly claims first bid in the war to acquire I AM (portentously heretical, if you ask me) as a contributor, but apparently the bidding has escalated, given the traditionally fence-straddling blog denizen's flirtation with blogs of all persuasions - progressive and insane.
May we insist that all who follow the legislative branch of the Scribner Brothers' dream metropolis consult http://highwayview.blogspot.com for coverage of December's "first of many" council meetings. Thanks, Highwayman, for preserving the record of discovery.
And while we're online, whaddayathink about that National Intelligence Estimate that indicates that the Bush-Cheney crime syndicate has been playing us all for suckers?
I'll report that we've been severely diminished by acute, but not chronic, health problems, which I hope explains our recent absence from the blogosphere.
News that emerged from 121 East Spring Street late on Tuesday, December 4th, in the YOOL 2007 is most heartening. Congratulations to the citizens and their counsel who finally petitioned for justice to be done. From all reports, that ideal was achieved in the ruling of the presiding judge for the Southern District of Indiana.
Will the defendants in Vogt v. City of New Albany dare to come back in 60 days with the very same boundary-drawing? Is Anna Schmidt that compelling an authority that the legislative body of this city would risk even more expense in trying to defend a patently unlawful apportionment?
Who, in fact, has made the greatest effort to save the taxpayers of New Albany greater expense? The Coward Karry Ling, or the selfless plaintiffs in the referenced case?
Finally, shadowna5 asks, for the second time in two days, why Mr. Kochert, the ever-diminishing presiding officer of the the "Common Council for the second-class city of New Albany," continues to blame Floyd County Circuit Court Clerk Linda Moeller for the despicably irresponsible stewardship of Mr. Kochert's body during the past six years?
Larry-boy, why do you continue to hide behind Linda's skirts? shadowna5 counts Mrs. Moeller as one of the heroes in this saga. Linda and her closest associates have tried to avoid this showdown since over the past five years. Where were you and your cohort? Why were 20 admirable citizens required to file a suit at law to enforce long-established constitutional principles of equal representation?
In shadowna5's view, LK and his confederates are fully responsible for the unnecessary expenses of the extant lawsuit. No one other than Mr. Kochert is more to blame for the irresponsible squandering of the common purse. Is there any more established principle than equal representaion? Why, then, does Mr. Kochert continue, in his vastly-diminished and diminishing legislative authority continue to perjure himself to protect a discredited regime?
No less an authority than the Federal District Court rejected Mr. Kochert's stance on Tuesday. Equal protection was, again, reaffirmed as a Constitutional principle. Mr. Vogt and his co-plaintiffs deserve our commendation. Discerning readers (like IAH) and contributors (ditto) would be well-advised to expand their approbation and approval to a greater audience (i.e. the readership of The Tribune) and to broadcast their agreement with the principals in Vogt by means of a letter to the editor.
King Larry and your court, quit hiding behind the skirts of Linda Moeller. Shadowna5 counts the estimable Mrs. Moeller among its greatest friends. Mrs. Moeller has, for more than five years, advocated an equitable redistricting within the boundaries of New Albany. There is no more cowardly an act than to pretend that Mrs. Moeller is your supporter. Mrs. Moeller and her associates have tried for more than five years to induce the council to correct its un-Constitutional act. Don't pretend that she is the reason that you continue to express contempt for the Constitution of the United States.
Monday, November 12, 2007
One Nation, Under Guard...
What are the chances that President George W. Bush is coming to bring democracy to the 1st District of New Albany?
Friday, November 9, 2007
It Ain't That Tough
Remember. Dan Coffey only costs $500 a year. Anybody got $501 to buy his vote? Are there 100 of you willing to buy him for $5.01 per year?
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Doctor, to the Spreadsheet, STAT!
BONUS: Eric Scott Campbell provides this useful analysis in Thursday's editions of The Tribune. I'm still not sure why Campbell believes that newly drawn council districts for the next election have any impact on voting or representation. It is possible that someone like Mr. Price would be less inclined to listen to people who can't vote for him in the next election, but I doubt it. He represents those precincts that elected him. His successor will represent those who elect him or her. What's the problem? Yes, tampering by the city council during an election year may have depressed turnout, but maybe that's what the council wanted all along. As I understand it, the plaintiffs were unable to get a court date prior to this election and unless the court overturns this one on Constitutional or statutory grounds, any new districts, whether drawn this month or imposed by a judge, will only affect the 2011 races.
Enormous props to the 202 wise souls in council District 1 who elected to follow the advice of Tribune publisher John Tucker and leave the ballot blank when faced with the choice of Dan Coffey or no representation at all. As much as Mr. Coffey may believe he acts in the best interests of his constituents, the evidence shows otherwise.
Ironically, the Republicans had a quite respectable candidate on Tuesday's ballot who met all the requirements to take on the incumbent: He lives in the First District, has the ability to reason, and had demonstrated a certain amount of discernment. As for life experience, he was well-traveled, educated, and familiar with the concept of learning. He was neither afraid to confront the future nor unwilling to consider ideas generated later than the administration of U.S. Grant. Alas, he chose to run for council at-large and went down to defeat.
Now, it's difficult to know how many of the "undervotes" recorded in Coffey's re-election were actually write-in votes for the beloved Skittles. But we do know that the undervotes in the District 1 council race (incumbent unopposed) dwarf the total of undervotes in all five of the other districts.
The First District, suffering under its last election day in its present configuration, is not irredeemable. It clearly is NOT "similar" to the Third District, as goes the theory put forward by Democrat Steve Price when challenged about his 98% plus voting lockstep with Mr. Coffey during the past four years. But it is demonstrably not without a certain number of informed voters.
It also, unfortunately, recorded the lowest turnout by percentage - 20.91%.
John Gonder, newly elected as one of three at-large council members, topped all his competitors in capturing the highest vote totals in 14 of the 34 city districts. Kevin Zurschmeide, incumbent but being elected also for the first time, was tops in 11 other districts and failed to demonstrate quite so much geographic strength. And Jack Messer returns to the council with the highest council vote, edging Gonder by one vote overall. Messer inherits a much-deserved position of leadership as a consequence of his first term excellence, outreach, and willingness to obtain consensus.
Speaking of consensus, the next four years will call for plenty of that if New Albany is to progress. And that goes for the whole citizenry, not just the elected representatives.
Randy Hubbard, the losing Republican offering for mayor, showed strength in about 1/3 of the city, but didn't have coattails at all. Jeff Gahan (D-6, Incumbent) lost two precincts of six. Rookie Diane McCartin Benedetti (D-5, Rookie) lost one precinct of five. No other Democrat lost a single precinct.
We'll be parsing the numbers again later. For those of you looking to 2011, we encourage you to stay logged in for more numbers.
The serious numbers aren't who got how many votes, but rather which precincts contain the richest veins of disillusioned voters - those registered but finding no compelling reason to cast a vote. Some say its the only way to send a message. The other way is to organize, advocate, and serve those who don't believe city government is relevant to their lives.
Imagine a 2011 election where twice as many people vote. Not because they are mad or sad, but because they believe that government can be effective. No vote total measured in 2007 will be at all relevant if 16,000 New Albanians turn out that November.
Coming soon: What to expect from the England administration and what to expect from the new council.
Enormous props to the 202 wise souls in council District 1 who elected to follow the advice of Tribune publisher John Tucker and leave the ballot blank when faced with the choice of Dan Coffey or no representation at all. As much as Mr. Coffey may believe he acts in the best interests of his constituents, the evidence shows otherwise.
Ironically, the Republicans had a quite respectable candidate on Tuesday's ballot who met all the requirements to take on the incumbent: He lives in the First District, has the ability to reason, and had demonstrated a certain amount of discernment. As for life experience, he was well-traveled, educated, and familiar with the concept of learning. He was neither afraid to confront the future nor unwilling to consider ideas generated later than the administration of U.S. Grant. Alas, he chose to run for council at-large and went down to defeat.
Now, it's difficult to know how many of the "undervotes" recorded in Coffey's re-election were actually write-in votes for the beloved Skittles. But we do know that the undervotes in the District 1 council race (incumbent unopposed) dwarf the total of undervotes in all five of the other districts.
The First District, suffering under its last election day in its present configuration, is not irredeemable. It clearly is NOT "similar" to the Third District, as goes the theory put forward by Democrat Steve Price when challenged about his 98% plus voting lockstep with Mr. Coffey during the past four years. But it is demonstrably not without a certain number of informed voters.
It also, unfortunately, recorded the lowest turnout by percentage - 20.91%.
John Gonder, newly elected as one of three at-large council members, topped all his competitors in capturing the highest vote totals in 14 of the 34 city districts. Kevin Zurschmeide, incumbent but being elected also for the first time, was tops in 11 other districts and failed to demonstrate quite so much geographic strength. And Jack Messer returns to the council with the highest council vote, edging Gonder by one vote overall. Messer inherits a much-deserved position of leadership as a consequence of his first term excellence, outreach, and willingness to obtain consensus.
Speaking of consensus, the next four years will call for plenty of that if New Albany is to progress. And that goes for the whole citizenry, not just the elected representatives.
Randy Hubbard, the losing Republican offering for mayor, showed strength in about 1/3 of the city, but didn't have coattails at all. Jeff Gahan (D-6, Incumbent) lost two precincts of six. Rookie Diane McCartin Benedetti (D-5, Rookie) lost one precinct of five. No other Democrat lost a single precinct.
We'll be parsing the numbers again later. For those of you looking to 2011, we encourage you to stay logged in for more numbers.
The serious numbers aren't who got how many votes, but rather which precincts contain the richest veins of disillusioned voters - those registered but finding no compelling reason to cast a vote. Some say its the only way to send a message. The other way is to organize, advocate, and serve those who don't believe city government is relevant to their lives.
Imagine a 2011 election where twice as many people vote. Not because they are mad or sad, but because they believe that government can be effective. No vote total measured in 2007 will be at all relevant if 16,000 New Albanians turn out that November.
Coming soon: What to expect from the England administration and what to expect from the new council.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Democrats Earn First At-Bat
Hi, Randy Smith here. All4word for those of you who are long-time blog readers, contributors, and commenters.
Thank you to shadowna5 for allowing me to contribute tonight. Let me thank Linda Moeller, Bill Lohmeyer, Terry Ginkins, and Jimmy Hancock for granting me press access to the election board. I hope that we lived up to the practical standards of good journalism.
Journalism is, at root, journaling, and I believe that so long as you reveal your biases it is perfectly acceptable to editorialize while reporting. I hope, for my sake and for shadow5's, that the point of view wasn't too annoying to blog readers.
As it turned out, and as best as we can determine, NA Shadow Council provided the first and most accurate online results of the New Albany municipal elections.
An unexpected technical glitch almost prevented us from providing this service to the public. An unexpected technical glitch delayed the County Clerk's official site from providing preliminary numbers, too. Fortunately, everything came together and for those who simply had to know the results as they came in, NA Shadow Council was able to provide them.
As I told a number of people, I haven't enjoyed myself as much in 30 years. I hope our reporting was useful to you. I look forward to working with NA Shadow Council over the next four years to provide you with timely news and opinion on city council issues.
Thank you again to Linda Moeller and the Floyd County Election Board. You could not have been more gracious to us and to the other members of the press who relied on your outstanding accommodation of the media on election night.
Congratulations to Doug England, our next mayor. Congratulations to Jack Messer, John Gonder, and Kevin Zurschmeide, our returning and new at-large council members. Kevin and John are elected for the first time and Jack's leadership over the past four years was amply rewarded. Maybe someday I'll relate a neat story about the 4,106-4,105 margin for top vote-getter. In a third class city, that would make Jack the mayor.
We extend our personal congratulations to Bob Caesar, who will represent the 2nd District beginning in January. A massive improvement, to our way of thinking. Pat McLaughlin's victory is even sweeter. Pat lost by a narrow margin to incumbent Larry Kochert in 2003 and despite Kochert's attempts to screw Pat this year, McLaughlin won handily. We're equally pleased and happy to extend congratulations to Jeff Gahan, who, despite an inexplicable single-issue stance, has proved to be a true representative of all that is best for New Albany.
We're less enthused, but not totally dismayed by the victory of Diane McCartin Benedetti, or Diane McCartin-Benedetti, depending on who you consult for naming conventions. Undisclosed but adequately confirmed expressions by that council member-elect raise serious questions, but we look forward to seeing whether the new actual5 can live up to the standard set by shadow5's set of issues.
We've been made aware of a serious effort to help the returning 3rd District council member become a true champion of his constituents' interests. Let's hope Mr. Price can mature into an admirable representative for the true interests of those he represents. His victory met expectations.
Mr. Coffey, unopposed this election, remains an embarrassment to his district, his party, and to humanity. Should he evade indictment and conviction for despicable crimes, he will serve for the next four years and can be expected to vote consistently against the interest of his constituents.
Marcey, you did everything and more that anyone could expect in serving this community and navigating the dangerous waters of city government. Congratulations, Ms. Wisman, for your victory and reelection to the important office of City Clerk. Let us know how we can help you.
This will be the first of many requests this blog will make of the new council: Increase the budget, including the salaries, for the office of the City Clerk.
The Democratic victory, the second in two elections, lays the groundwork for a singular opportunity. Fail to achieve progress, and you won't have a shot at a third near-sweep. Republicans have lots of lessons to learn from this election and they will assuredly be trying to discern them.
Take full advantage of the opportunity, Dems, and start to work now. Don't wait until January. Now is the time to seize the reins and develop the program for the future. This time, there won't be any lectures from Uncle Dan, at least none that anyone will listen to. Gahan and Messer, in particular, won't waste a minute on taking advice from the increasingly isolated and irrelevant Mr. Coffey. I doubt that Mr. Gonder and Mrs. Benedetti will waste any time mining the "Bazooka Joe(r)" insights of the last-term council member from the former 1st District.
That leaves you, Mr. McLaughlin. With whom will you align yourself? The Coffey Clatch or the future? If even Mr. Price is prepared to abandon the failed policies of "Councilman Cappucino," mightn't you see the advantage of aligning yourself with the 21st Century instead of the 19th?
Thank you to shadowna5 for allowing me to contribute tonight. Let me thank Linda Moeller, Bill Lohmeyer, Terry Ginkins, and Jimmy Hancock for granting me press access to the election board. I hope that we lived up to the practical standards of good journalism.
Journalism is, at root, journaling, and I believe that so long as you reveal your biases it is perfectly acceptable to editorialize while reporting. I hope, for my sake and for shadow5's, that the point of view wasn't too annoying to blog readers.
As it turned out, and as best as we can determine, NA Shadow Council provided the first and most accurate online results of the New Albany municipal elections.
An unexpected technical glitch almost prevented us from providing this service to the public. An unexpected technical glitch delayed the County Clerk's official site from providing preliminary numbers, too. Fortunately, everything came together and for those who simply had to know the results as they came in, NA Shadow Council was able to provide them.
As I told a number of people, I haven't enjoyed myself as much in 30 years. I hope our reporting was useful to you. I look forward to working with NA Shadow Council over the next four years to provide you with timely news and opinion on city council issues.
Thank you again to Linda Moeller and the Floyd County Election Board. You could not have been more gracious to us and to the other members of the press who relied on your outstanding accommodation of the media on election night.
Congratulations to Doug England, our next mayor. Congratulations to Jack Messer, John Gonder, and Kevin Zurschmeide, our returning and new at-large council members. Kevin and John are elected for the first time and Jack's leadership over the past four years was amply rewarded. Maybe someday I'll relate a neat story about the 4,106-4,105 margin for top vote-getter. In a third class city, that would make Jack the mayor.
We extend our personal congratulations to Bob Caesar, who will represent the 2nd District beginning in January. A massive improvement, to our way of thinking. Pat McLaughlin's victory is even sweeter. Pat lost by a narrow margin to incumbent Larry Kochert in 2003 and despite Kochert's attempts to screw Pat this year, McLaughlin won handily. We're equally pleased and happy to extend congratulations to Jeff Gahan, who, despite an inexplicable single-issue stance, has proved to be a true representative of all that is best for New Albany.
We're less enthused, but not totally dismayed by the victory of Diane McCartin Benedetti, or Diane McCartin-Benedetti, depending on who you consult for naming conventions. Undisclosed but adequately confirmed expressions by that council member-elect raise serious questions, but we look forward to seeing whether the new actual5 can live up to the standard set by shadow5's set of issues.
We've been made aware of a serious effort to help the returning 3rd District council member become a true champion of his constituents' interests. Let's hope Mr. Price can mature into an admirable representative for the true interests of those he represents. His victory met expectations.
Mr. Coffey, unopposed this election, remains an embarrassment to his district, his party, and to humanity. Should he evade indictment and conviction for despicable crimes, he will serve for the next four years and can be expected to vote consistently against the interest of his constituents.
Marcey, you did everything and more that anyone could expect in serving this community and navigating the dangerous waters of city government. Congratulations, Ms. Wisman, for your victory and reelection to the important office of City Clerk. Let us know how we can help you.
This will be the first of many requests this blog will make of the new council: Increase the budget, including the salaries, for the office of the City Clerk.
The Democratic victory, the second in two elections, lays the groundwork for a singular opportunity. Fail to achieve progress, and you won't have a shot at a third near-sweep. Republicans have lots of lessons to learn from this election and they will assuredly be trying to discern them.
Take full advantage of the opportunity, Dems, and start to work now. Don't wait until January. Now is the time to seize the reins and develop the program for the future. This time, there won't be any lectures from Uncle Dan, at least none that anyone will listen to. Gahan and Messer, in particular, won't waste a minute on taking advice from the increasingly isolated and irrelevant Mr. Coffey. I doubt that Mr. Gonder and Mrs. Benedetti will waste any time mining the "Bazooka Joe(r)" insights of the last-term council member from the former 1st District.
That leaves you, Mr. McLaughlin. With whom will you align yourself? The Coffey Clatch or the future? If even Mr. Price is prepared to abandon the failed policies of "Councilman Cappucino," mightn't you see the advantage of aligning yourself with the 21st Century instead of the 19th?
Live From the Election Board
Incumbent Jack Messer earned the highest total of votes in Tuesday's election for council member at-large with 4,106 votes tallied. Fellow Democrat John Gonder recorded one fewer nods, with 4,105. Republican Kevin Zurschmeide will join the pair on the nine-member council.
Three Democratic Party incumbents were returned to office along with newcomers Pat McLaughlin, Bob Caesar, and Diane Benedetti. Jeff Gahan, Steve Price, and Dan Coffey, all Democrats, return to office.
Doug England made easy work of his opponent and will be sworn in this January to a third term as Mayor of New Albany.
Eight Democrats will join incumbent Republican Kevin Zurschmeide on New Albany's City Council after edging Democrat James Hollis for the final at-large seat. Zurschmeide took 3,772 votes to Hollis's 3,632.
BULLETIN: The City Council lineup is set with incumbents Dan Coffey (D-1), Steve Price (D-3), Jeff Gahan (D-6), and Jack Messer (D-At-large) returned to office. Joining them will be John Gonder, the leading vote-getter in the at-large race, Diane McCartin Benedetti (D-5), and Bob Caesar (D-2). We await the cliffhanger between Zurschmeide (R-At-large) and Hollis (D-At-large). WNAS reports Zurschmeide edged Hollis.
The judge at Ekin Avenue is having problems closing the voting, so District 5 is still up in the air with precincts 9 and 10 still to report. Bliss is hanging in there.
Doug England (D) is the mayor-elect. Marcey Wisman (D) is returned as city clerk.
7:02 Italics means the counting is over in that race. As of the moment, Steve Price, Dan Coffey, and Bob Caesar are elected. The smell of a Democratic sweep is in the air...Mr. Gahan is in a fight, but safer than incumbent Republican Kevin Zurschmeide, who trail the third Democrat in the at-large race with only four precincts to go.
With 34 of 34 precincts reporting 100% of precincts
County Clerk Linda Moeller provides the preliminary but not quite "official" numbers, by precinct, for your analysis, at http://www.floydcounty.in.gov/2007electionprecinct.htm.
Our apologies for leaving "bad" numbers up for more than four hours. The "facts" were provided, but the margins were incomplete.
6:36 p.m. First "official" results are in, with 7 precincts reporting. WNAS reports that Doug England will return to the mayor's office by a 200-vote margin. But here are the early official numbers.
England with 56.86% of the vote out of 1,261 votes.
Gonder leads in the at-large race, followed by Messer and Hollis, all Democrats.
Coffey has 372 votes in D1
No votes yet for D2
Price 48.92%, Scharlow 47.84% with a margin of 4 votes.
Benedetti leads Bliss in D5 by 54.64% of the vote.
No reports in D4 or D6
Wisman leads with 63.86% of the vote.
This is with 18% of the precincts reporting.
6:28 p.m. We are waiting for the very first reports. Bob Snook says he expected to have all the results by now. Mr. Snook is here reporting to the Calumet Club for the Republicans...we had met before and he reminds me that John Gonder and Ruthanne Wolfe credit (blame?) him for their having met.
Great story being told as we wait. Chairman Lohmeyer is telling war stories from four decades ago.
In the context of close elections (the recent sheriff race, and perhaps tonight's races), Bill told us how he has personal experience with it all. Seems that 40 years ago this week Bill went on the radio to declare victory in the race for city judge, having defeated the late Basil (Bud) Lorch by 397 votes. Yet, on the way home in the car he hears that Mr. Lorch has been declared the winner.
We won't go into the details tonight, but the case of Lorch v. Lohmeyer went all the way to the Indiana Supreme Court where, by a 3-2 party line vote, Al Gore...oops, Bill Lohmeyer was denied a victory and Mr. Lorch assumed the office.
Linda Moeller, County Court Clerk, is the big cheese over this operation, along with the Election Board. That board consists of 2 Democrats and 1 Republican who, with the clerk run the election. Bill Lohmeyer is chairman, Terry Ginkins is the other Democrat, and Jimmy Hancock serves to keep things kosher for the GOP.
That board's composition is determined by how Floyd County voted in the latest election for Secretary of State. Last time out, Floyd voted for the Democrat and even though the Democrat did not win statewide, that sets the makeup of the local board. The last few elections were "run" by a majority-Republican board of election.
Linda, as could be expected, has been very good about welcoming the media into the fray. Although none of the accredited media nor this blogger are permitted into the inner sanctum, we have been made welcome.
Mrs. Moeller, of necessity, is not on the second floor, but rather in the lobby of the building to assist in the "recovery" of the ballots, etc.
We're counting down with the Election Board at the City-County Building. We'll again post from newest to oldest. One longtime observer of the election scene says the numbers are small enough to be different from the regular municipal race with an incumbent. Those are usually high numbers, by tradition to vote out the "bums" (his word, not mine).
Another expert who ought to know has indicated that our earlier prediction of 8,800 total voters may not be very far off.
In any case, it's no longer time for predictions. It's time for the counting.
Here's how it's going to work. First, the election board will direct its technical people to post partial results as they come in. Only later will we have precinct-by-precinct totals.
To join the party live, log on to http://www.floydcounty.in.gov/ for real-time results.
Three Democratic Party incumbents were returned to office along with newcomers Pat McLaughlin, Bob Caesar, and Diane Benedetti. Jeff Gahan, Steve Price, and Dan Coffey, all Democrats, return to office.
Doug England made easy work of his opponent and will be sworn in this January to a third term as Mayor of New Albany.
Eight Democrats will join incumbent Republican Kevin Zurschmeide on New Albany's City Council after edging Democrat James Hollis for the final at-large seat. Zurschmeide took 3,772 votes to Hollis's 3,632.
BULLETIN: The City Council lineup is set with incumbents Dan Coffey (D-1), Steve Price (D-3), Jeff Gahan (D-6), and Jack Messer (D-At-large) returned to office. Joining them will be John Gonder, the leading vote-getter in the at-large race, Diane McCartin Benedetti (D-5), and Bob Caesar (D-2). We await the cliffhanger between Zurschmeide (R-At-large) and Hollis (D-At-large). WNAS reports Zurschmeide edged Hollis.
The judge at Ekin Avenue is having problems closing the voting, so District 5 is still up in the air with precincts 9 and 10 still to report. Bliss is hanging in there.
Doug England (D) is the mayor-elect. Marcey Wisman (D) is returned as city clerk.
7:02 Italics means the counting is over in that race. As of the moment, Steve Price, Dan Coffey, and Bob Caesar are elected. The smell of a Democratic sweep is in the air...Mr. Gahan is in a fight, but safer than incumbent Republican Kevin Zurschmeide, who trail the third Democrat in the at-large race with only four precincts to go.
With 34 of 34 precincts reporting 100% of precincts
County Clerk Linda Moeller provides the preliminary but not quite "official" numbers, by precinct, for your analysis, at http://www.floydcounty.in.gov/2007electionprecinct.htm.
Our apologies for leaving "bad" numbers up for more than four hours. The "facts" were provided, but the margins were incomplete.
6:36 p.m. First "official" results are in, with 7 precincts reporting. WNAS reports that Doug England will return to the mayor's office by a 200-vote margin. But here are the early official numbers.
England with 56.86% of the vote out of 1,261 votes.
Gonder leads in the at-large race, followed by Messer and Hollis, all Democrats.
Coffey has 372 votes in D1
No votes yet for D2
Price 48.92%, Scharlow 47.84% with a margin of 4 votes.
Benedetti leads Bliss in D5 by 54.64% of the vote.
No reports in D4 or D6
Wisman leads with 63.86% of the vote.
This is with 18% of the precincts reporting.
6:28 p.m. We are waiting for the very first reports. Bob Snook says he expected to have all the results by now. Mr. Snook is here reporting to the Calumet Club for the Republicans...we had met before and he reminds me that John Gonder and Ruthanne Wolfe credit (blame?) him for their having met.
Great story being told as we wait. Chairman Lohmeyer is telling war stories from four decades ago.
In the context of close elections (the recent sheriff race, and perhaps tonight's races), Bill told us how he has personal experience with it all. Seems that 40 years ago this week Bill went on the radio to declare victory in the race for city judge, having defeated the late Basil (Bud) Lorch by 397 votes. Yet, on the way home in the car he hears that Mr. Lorch has been declared the winner.
We won't go into the details tonight, but the case of Lorch v. Lohmeyer went all the way to the Indiana Supreme Court where, by a 3-2 party line vote, Al Gore...oops, Bill Lohmeyer was denied a victory and Mr. Lorch assumed the office.
Linda Moeller, County Court Clerk, is the big cheese over this operation, along with the Election Board. That board consists of 2 Democrats and 1 Republican who, with the clerk run the election. Bill Lohmeyer is chairman, Terry Ginkins is the other Democrat, and Jimmy Hancock serves to keep things kosher for the GOP.
That board's composition is determined by how Floyd County voted in the latest election for Secretary of State. Last time out, Floyd voted for the Democrat and even though the Democrat did not win statewide, that sets the makeup of the local board. The last few elections were "run" by a majority-Republican board of election.
Linda, as could be expected, has been very good about welcoming the media into the fray. Although none of the accredited media nor this blogger are permitted into the inner sanctum, we have been made welcome.
Mrs. Moeller, of necessity, is not on the second floor, but rather in the lobby of the building to assist in the "recovery" of the ballots, etc.
We're counting down with the Election Board at the City-County Building. We'll again post from newest to oldest. One longtime observer of the election scene says the numbers are small enough to be different from the regular municipal race with an incumbent. Those are usually high numbers, by tradition to vote out the "bums" (his word, not mine).
Another expert who ought to know has indicated that our earlier prediction of 8,800 total voters may not be very far off.
In any case, it's no longer time for predictions. It's time for the counting.
Here's how it's going to work. First, the election board will direct its technical people to post partial results as they come in. Only later will we have precinct-by-precinct totals.
To join the party live, log on to http://www.floydcounty.in.gov/ for real-time results.
Live All Day Election Reporting
Late report: Precincts 5 and 6 (council District 3) vote at S. Ellen Jones School and are reporting a combined total of about 270 voters. Precincts 9 and 10 (council District 5) vote at Ekin Avenue Recreation Center and are reporting 335 voters combined. Each of these precincts contains about 1,000 residents.
We'll be shutting down at about 5:15 to prepare for rapid election returns. Not that it's a race, but The Tribune is promising a 6:30 report that will probably only give you the winners. I guess that's what counts, but we want the precinct numbers, too, for analysis.
4:13 p.m. These hour-old reports seem to confirm our expectations on raw vote totals and on trends vis-a-vis who is voting and who is not. A combined vote total, including absentee and early voting for 19A and 19B, which vote at the 4-H center, is 775 voters. That corresponds pretty well with our projections. Precinct 2 (Scribner Middle School) reports 104 voters, again in line with our overall vote total projection.
For the record, here are shadow5's endorsements, issued earlier this week.
For Mayor and City Council
For City Clerk
3:10 p.m. We'll be happy to eat our words later, but here's your T-3 hours prediction. It's based on statistical modeling and a surely faulty data set, but what should have been a blowout is turning into an extremely tight race for mayor. That won't help vulnerable incumbents like Jeff Gahan in District 6, either. The incumbent city clerk and the Democrats running at-large will be affected, too. As of this hour, we're predicting a victory by Republican Randy Hubbard by fewer than 100 votes. Unless the weekend anti-Hubbard literature dump demoralized natural Hubbard voters (or anti-England voters), GOP turnout should be "normal" and Democratic turnout severely depressed. We're eager for more information to refine this prediction, but we see it as 4,425 for Hubbard, 4,375 for England. That's 50.28% Red, 49.72% Blue. Getting out the vote in the next two hours is now a Democratic Party imperative.
3:05 p.m. Although it's just a stab in the dark, we're projecting a total vote in the neighborhood of 7,950 [Ed. that's live voting. Add 850 for early voting and absentees for a total of 8,800]. Not as bad as indicated a few moments ago, but still remarkably low. The voters are really turned off is the consensus opinion. Many people sitting this one out.
3 p.m. It's purely anecdotal, but it's starting to look like a record low turnout. That's a recipe for the bad guys to win. That's not to cast aspersions on anyone who wins, but the city is not served well by low turnouts. As we parse the numbers here at election central, it's starting to seem that the raw number of general election voters will be pretty close to the number of voters in the primaries. If that's true, the final tally is going to be embarrassingly low. In District 3, that bodes ill for the incumbent, who would ordinarily rely on straight-party voters to put him over the top. With a competitive race at the top of the ticket, a the barest beginnings of a Scharlow upset are in the making. That same low turnout works against Doug England and the other Democrats running citywide. The core Democratic precincts are staying home while the suburb-style parts of New Albany are voting at about twice the level. Could we be seeing a major restructuring of the party landscape?
2:36 p.m. Less than four hours of voting left and this just in: Precinct 6 (in the District 3 race between Scharlow and Price (and Keister)), a 1:30 report says 118 had voted. That precinct contains just under a thousand people, pegging the voting in the mid teens, by our guess. Again, you would think that a low turnout would favor the incumbent Democrat.
In related news from Jeffersonville, council members in that third class city (that's a legal designation) voted to raise the pay of elected officials just before election day. Here's an excerpt from Larry Thomas's report from the Evening News. "If ultimately enacted, the ordinance would up the mayor’s annual salary from $62,481 to $84,000, an increase of $21,519, or 34.4 percent. The clerk-treasurer’s salary would increase $8,956, or 15.4 percent, from $58,244 to $67,200. The City Court judge’s salary would increase 10.4 percent, or $5,674, from $54,326 to $60,000. Council salaries would increase from $9,762 to $13,350, an increase of $3,588, or 26.9 percent." Hmmmm.
1:05 p.m. With much more reliable reporting by this time of day, one of today's contributors was able to predict the total Democratic vote for mayor in the spring primary within just a couple of votes. It doesn't look like we'll have that kind of reliability today without a formal canvass of the voting places. Keep sending those reports in.
1 p.m. The Tribune reported online at http://www.newsandtribune.com/ that 42 votes had been recorded at precint 28A in District 6 (Jeff Gahan defends his seat against late entry Sam Anderson). And that was at 7:30 a.m. On that sketchy evidence, let's assume a heavy turnout at the margins of the city; I believe that is Gahan's home precinct, but also home to a slightly more affluent crowd that by conventional wisdom would be expected to vote for Republicans.
12:30 p.m. The Ekin Avenue Recreation Center is the polling place for precincts 9 and 10. Both were in District 5, where Dick Bliss contends with Diane McCartin-Benedetti for the open seat. P10 has been moved into District 3, however, if the recent city council ordinance is valid. Canvassing and campaigning is prohibited within 50 feet of the polling place, but the interpretation of the county clerk of that prohibition is that the measurement starts from the actual polling booth, permitting campaigners to work the steps and doorway. At least one reporter says that this exercise of free speech was harassing and intimidating and that the McCartin-Benedetti poll workers were aggressively hawking their candidate.
Noon
Report of light voting in precinct 5. At 11:30, 50 voters had passed through the polling place at S. Ellen Jones Elementary School. P5 is loaded with Scharlow voters, but the interesting thing is that we can probably personally name 50 people who will definitely vote and will definitely vote for Scharlow. It's counterintuitive, of course, but the low turnout might just mean that Price voters are staying home this time around. P5 contains 1,049 residents, so let's call it a 10% turnout so far.
11:42 a.m.
P16 - heavy turnout in District 2 (Caesar v. Harbison)
P3 - light turnout in District 3 (Price v. Scharlow v. Keister)
11:41 a.m. Call 'em in when you vote. or e-mail us your reports.
11:40 a.m. Since we don't have the registered voter numbers, we'll be going with residential population numbers from the 2000 census.
11:30 a.m. Harvesting from various sources, precinct 3 had recorded at least 56 voters by 10 a.m. P3 contains 1,500 residents. That's a light turnout in one of the Price v. Scharlow key precincts, the largest in District 3 and heavily Democratic. Light turnout would presumably favor Price.
9:45 a.m. Early indications are that turnout will be heavy in the New Albany Municipal elections today. We'll be passing on the tidbits of news we receive here at election central throughout the day and are planning to report election returns and commentary throughout the evening.
Send us your precinct voting totals during the day as you vote. Also, please feel free to report election irregularities to the precinct judge, the county clerk, and to us.
Precinct 16 reports more than 100 voters through the polling place as of 9:30. That indicates a surprisingly heavy turnout. According to the 2000 census, there are 1,184 residents in 16. We don't have the registered voter count, but let's assume it's 600 voters. That would mean that with more than 8 hours of voting time remaining, 16% of registered voters have turned out. That would not count early and absentee votes. Pretty impressive. Congratulations to the residents of precinct 16.
We'll be shutting down at about 5:15 to prepare for rapid election returns. Not that it's a race, but The Tribune is promising a 6:30 report that will probably only give you the winners. I guess that's what counts, but we want the precinct numbers, too, for analysis.
4:13 p.m. These hour-old reports seem to confirm our expectations on raw vote totals and on trends vis-a-vis who is voting and who is not. A combined vote total, including absentee and early voting for 19A and 19B, which vote at the 4-H center, is 775 voters. That corresponds pretty well with our projections. Precinct 2 (Scribner Middle School) reports 104 voters, again in line with our overall vote total projection.
For the record, here are shadow5's endorsements, issued earlier this week.
For Mayor and City Council
For City Clerk
3:10 p.m. We'll be happy to eat our words later, but here's your T-3 hours prediction. It's based on statistical modeling and a surely faulty data set, but what should have been a blowout is turning into an extremely tight race for mayor. That won't help vulnerable incumbents like Jeff Gahan in District 6, either. The incumbent city clerk and the Democrats running at-large will be affected, too. As of this hour, we're predicting a victory by Republican Randy Hubbard by fewer than 100 votes. Unless the weekend anti-Hubbard literature dump demoralized natural Hubbard voters (or anti-England voters), GOP turnout should be "normal" and Democratic turnout severely depressed. We're eager for more information to refine this prediction, but we see it as 4,425 for Hubbard, 4,375 for England. That's 50.28% Red, 49.72% Blue. Getting out the vote in the next two hours is now a Democratic Party imperative.
3:05 p.m. Although it's just a stab in the dark, we're projecting a total vote in the neighborhood of 7,950 [Ed. that's live voting. Add 850 for early voting and absentees for a total of 8,800]. Not as bad as indicated a few moments ago, but still remarkably low. The voters are really turned off is the consensus opinion. Many people sitting this one out.
3 p.m. It's purely anecdotal, but it's starting to look like a record low turnout. That's a recipe for the bad guys to win. That's not to cast aspersions on anyone who wins, but the city is not served well by low turnouts. As we parse the numbers here at election central, it's starting to seem that the raw number of general election voters will be pretty close to the number of voters in the primaries. If that's true, the final tally is going to be embarrassingly low. In District 3, that bodes ill for the incumbent, who would ordinarily rely on straight-party voters to put him over the top. With a competitive race at the top of the ticket, a the barest beginnings of a Scharlow upset are in the making. That same low turnout works against Doug England and the other Democrats running citywide. The core Democratic precincts are staying home while the suburb-style parts of New Albany are voting at about twice the level. Could we be seeing a major restructuring of the party landscape?
2:36 p.m. Less than four hours of voting left and this just in: Precinct 6 (in the District 3 race between Scharlow and Price (and Keister)), a 1:30 report says 118 had voted. That precinct contains just under a thousand people, pegging the voting in the mid teens, by our guess. Again, you would think that a low turnout would favor the incumbent Democrat.
In related news from Jeffersonville, council members in that third class city (that's a legal designation) voted to raise the pay of elected officials just before election day. Here's an excerpt from Larry Thomas's report from the Evening News. "If ultimately enacted, the ordinance would up the mayor’s annual salary from $62,481 to $84,000, an increase of $21,519, or 34.4 percent. The clerk-treasurer’s salary would increase $8,956, or 15.4 percent, from $58,244 to $67,200. The City Court judge’s salary would increase 10.4 percent, or $5,674, from $54,326 to $60,000. Council salaries would increase from $9,762 to $13,350, an increase of $3,588, or 26.9 percent." Hmmmm.
1:05 p.m. With much more reliable reporting by this time of day, one of today's contributors was able to predict the total Democratic vote for mayor in the spring primary within just a couple of votes. It doesn't look like we'll have that kind of reliability today without a formal canvass of the voting places. Keep sending those reports in.
1 p.m. The Tribune reported online at http://www.newsandtribune.com/ that 42 votes had been recorded at precint 28A in District 6 (Jeff Gahan defends his seat against late entry Sam Anderson). And that was at 7:30 a.m. On that sketchy evidence, let's assume a heavy turnout at the margins of the city; I believe that is Gahan's home precinct, but also home to a slightly more affluent crowd that by conventional wisdom would be expected to vote for Republicans.
12:30 p.m. The Ekin Avenue Recreation Center is the polling place for precincts 9 and 10. Both were in District 5, where Dick Bliss contends with Diane McCartin-Benedetti for the open seat. P10 has been moved into District 3, however, if the recent city council ordinance is valid. Canvassing and campaigning is prohibited within 50 feet of the polling place, but the interpretation of the county clerk of that prohibition is that the measurement starts from the actual polling booth, permitting campaigners to work the steps and doorway. At least one reporter says that this exercise of free speech was harassing and intimidating and that the McCartin-Benedetti poll workers were aggressively hawking their candidate.
Noon
Report of light voting in precinct 5. At 11:30, 50 voters had passed through the polling place at S. Ellen Jones Elementary School. P5 is loaded with Scharlow voters, but the interesting thing is that we can probably personally name 50 people who will definitely vote and will definitely vote for Scharlow. It's counterintuitive, of course, but the low turnout might just mean that Price voters are staying home this time around. P5 contains 1,049 residents, so let's call it a 10% turnout so far.
11:42 a.m.
P16 - heavy turnout in District 2 (Caesar v. Harbison)
P3 - light turnout in District 3 (Price v. Scharlow v. Keister)
11:41 a.m. Call 'em in when you vote. or e-mail us your reports.
11:40 a.m. Since we don't have the registered voter numbers, we'll be going with residential population numbers from the 2000 census.
11:30 a.m. Harvesting from various sources, precinct 3 had recorded at least 56 voters by 10 a.m. P3 contains 1,500 residents. That's a light turnout in one of the Price v. Scharlow key precincts, the largest in District 3 and heavily Democratic. Light turnout would presumably favor Price.
9:45 a.m. Early indications are that turnout will be heavy in the New Albany Municipal elections today. We'll be passing on the tidbits of news we receive here at election central throughout the day and are planning to report election returns and commentary throughout the evening.
Send us your precinct voting totals during the day as you vote. Also, please feel free to report election irregularities to the precinct judge, the county clerk, and to us.
Precinct 16 reports more than 100 voters through the polling place as of 9:30. That indicates a surprisingly heavy turnout. According to the 2000 census, there are 1,184 residents in 16. We don't have the registered voter count, but let's assume it's 600 voters. That would mean that with more than 8 hours of voting time remaining, 16% of registered voters have turned out. That would not count early and absentee votes. Pretty impressive. Congratulations to the residents of precinct 16.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Wisman a Shining Light
While shadow5 has struggled with a few of the council races and required months to reach a conclusion regarding the mayoral race, the decision for city clerk was easy.
We're proud to issue an unequivocal endorsement of Marcey Wisman and we encourage you in the strongest terms to return her to office for another four years.
Wisman understands the role of her office and has been able to negotiate the piranha-infested waters that swirl the tiles of the third floor. The incredible demands on her time are hardly compensated by the salary this council will commit to the office. And faced with a woefully small budget, Wisman has upgraded the delivery of services, edged the office nearer to technological parity, and maintained dignity and admirable neutrality in her personal conduct.
Marcey's a mature but still relatively youthful public servant and we look forward to seeing what she can do if the new council comes to recognize the importance of her office. If readers have gained any confidence in this blogger's reliability over the past weeks, take this endorsement under advisement as you go to the polls.
Our strongest support in the 2007 elections goes to at-large council candidate John Gonder, a man who will be an essential part-time component in the public-private mix that will be required to move this city toward civic health. Wisman's full-time work will be equally essential. In those two races, we have no doubt whatsoever about our vote.
We're proud to issue an unequivocal endorsement of Marcey Wisman and we encourage you in the strongest terms to return her to office for another four years.
Wisman understands the role of her office and has been able to negotiate the piranha-infested waters that swirl the tiles of the third floor. The incredible demands on her time are hardly compensated by the salary this council will commit to the office. And faced with a woefully small budget, Wisman has upgraded the delivery of services, edged the office nearer to technological parity, and maintained dignity and admirable neutrality in her personal conduct.
Marcey's a mature but still relatively youthful public servant and we look forward to seeing what she can do if the new council comes to recognize the importance of her office. If readers have gained any confidence in this blogger's reliability over the past weeks, take this endorsement under advisement as you go to the polls.
Our strongest support in the 2007 elections goes to at-large council candidate John Gonder, a man who will be an essential part-time component in the public-private mix that will be required to move this city toward civic health. Wisman's full-time work will be equally essential. In those two races, we have no doubt whatsoever about our vote.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Endorsements 2007 - Like Anybody Cares
District 1 - vote, but leave the district race blank, firing for effect
District 2 - Bob Caesar (D)
District 3 - Brenda Scharlow (R)
District 4 - Pat McLaughlin (D)
District 5 - Dick Bliss (R)
District 6 - Sam Anderson (R)
At-Large - John Gonder (D), Jack Messer (D), Kevin Zurschmeide (R), in that order.
Mayor...
Mayor... ... ...
Mayor - Doug England (D)
President - Al Gore (D, Nobel Peace Prize winner, elected commander-in-chief in 2000)
But then, I hear the district race winners' seats will be declared vacant on constitutional grounds and new elections will be held in 2008...so only mayor and at-large endorsements have any meaning.
As a lifelong Democrat and a democrat, I would never have imagined endorsing 4 Republicans (and it would have been 5 if the GOP had the cojones to put someone up in D1), I can hardly fathom this slate. But that's the way it is when Democrats aren't democrats.
Pending further developments...see ya Wednesday with a post-mortem. Aaaghh. Isn't a post-mortem what you do to a corpse?
District 2 - Bob Caesar (D)
District 3 - Brenda Scharlow (R)
District 4 - Pat McLaughlin (D)
District 5 - Dick Bliss (R)
District 6 - Sam Anderson (R)
At-Large - John Gonder (D), Jack Messer (D), Kevin Zurschmeide (R), in that order.
Mayor...
Mayor... ... ...
Mayor - Doug England (D)
President - Al Gore (D, Nobel Peace Prize winner, elected commander-in-chief in 2000)
But then, I hear the district race winners' seats will be declared vacant on constitutional grounds and new elections will be held in 2008...so only mayor and at-large endorsements have any meaning.
As a lifelong Democrat and a democrat, I would never have imagined endorsing 4 Republicans (and it would have been 5 if the GOP had the cojones to put someone up in D1), I can hardly fathom this slate. But that's the way it is when Democrats aren't democrats.
Pending further developments...see ya Wednesday with a post-mortem. Aaaghh. Isn't a post-mortem what you do to a corpse?
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Break Me Off a Piece of That. bup,bup,bup
As promised, I'll be providing a brief recap of Thursday's council meeting. The dominant topic for the evening was the animal control ordinance, which passed on first reading. Mr. Coffey, the designated "sponsor" for the ordinance, sought unanimous approval to proceed through three readings but failed to persuade all of his fellow council members that the ordinance was so cut-and-dried that it needed no study or deliberation.
One suspects that a final approval AFTER the elections fit the desires of the council in any event. After much muddled discussion of drugs, pit bulls, rottweilers, feral and other uncorraled cats, and carp (expensive and delicately beautiful carp, mind you, but carp nonetheless), plus a tutorial in dog-fighting "conventions," spillover from Metro Jefferson County's dramatic animal control ordinance, and "corner fights," the ordinance passed 9-0 on first reading.
In many respects it was a night of education, admittedly a rarity in the third floor assembly room, a room whose city occupants show regular disdain for the "E" word. Ominous, secret, expert knowledge was conveyed by Professor Coffey about where you can lay bets on dog fights and how failing to pass an animal control ordinance will invite slumlords, meth labs, and blissed out minorities bent on ruining our neighborhoods. Funny, Coffey has never seemed concerned about other initiatives that might stop the ruin of our neighborhoods, but he did have to demonstrate his superior knowledge of all things "thug." But we already knew that.
Anyway, the ordinance will pass, but two weeks from now instead of immediately. Those seeking protection from angry "pet" owners can claim, prior to the election, that no final ordinance has been passed, while those seeking protection from animal-rights folk and other good government types can say they voted "for" the ordinance. My own cat animus has no champion...except for the koi kommandos.
Seriously, that last was just for entertainment. I (shadow5), like Beverly Crump (real5), favor the ordinance. I just don't care for the theatrics. Really, I love koi. I just never realized that a koi pond might cause my property tax assessment to rise by five figures.
Oh, the council voted 7-2 to pass the Schmidt plan for newly drawn districts. Crump voted in favor of the flawed DOA plan. She also voted (along with Messer and Zurschmeide) to settle the lawsuit with the plaintiffs. I have to admit that were I in her seat, I would have done the same thing.
Please remember the names of Coffey, Price, Schmidt, Crump, Gahan, Blevins, and Kochert when the city has to come up with as much as $200,000 to take care of the mess they created. Only Coffey will be an elected official for sure, and only Price and Gahan might be in office, but all 7 are responsible for this irresponsible act and breach of their fiduciary duty.
Bev, who exclaimed "just don't call ME after December 31st," has a better excuse than 6th District council member Jeff Gahan, who inexplicably rejected a settlement of the case.
I spent the post-meeting hours at a venue that included among its attendees two of the plaintiffs in the district boundaries lawsuit. Some speculated that Gahan, genuinely concerned that the Republican nominee in Tuesday's election might have real horsepower, cast his vote to ensure that there would be no additional anti-Gahan party treason generated by his Democratic colleagues.
It's a bad bargain, Jeff. They will betray you, anyway. And you've lost any respect I might have held for your integrity. Count this as an endorsement of Sam Anderson, whoever he might be. Anything beats the hypocrisy shown by Mr. Gahan over the last 18 months in the equal protection lawsuit. Mr. Gahan's platform is clearly "Constitution, Schmonstitution." I believe Gahan is a smart man. I had believed he was an honorable man. But I cannot support his reelection.
Mr. Gahan, you might remember, was the council president who said "We have more important things to deal with" than the clearly unconstitutional inequity and inequality of voting districts. I guess that's still his stance.
But, you will ask, what does the header on this entry have to do with any of that? Well, beyond the fact that the council "broke it off" in the dorsal canal of the taxpayers Thursday night, the title refers to a piece of campaign literature that found its way into the old mailbox today.
A killer, nay, devastating flyer, destined to be the final nail in the Hubbard coffin, compares Randy Hubbard to a "cheese-eating surrender monkey." Mr. England's supporters fired a mortal blow with this piece of mail that positively kills the Hubbard campaign. Game, set, match. "Don't mess with our troops and hope to get elected" is the clear message, and the Hubbard cohort is helpless to defend at this late date.
Ironically, today was the day that new evidence of Mr. England's naked lust for votes was revealed, making it even harder to rationalize casting a vote for the English Restoration. Still, it seems inevitable that Doug England will be our next mayor. May as well get used to it.
One suspects that a final approval AFTER the elections fit the desires of the council in any event. After much muddled discussion of drugs, pit bulls, rottweilers, feral and other uncorraled cats, and carp (expensive and delicately beautiful carp, mind you, but carp nonetheless), plus a tutorial in dog-fighting "conventions," spillover from Metro Jefferson County's dramatic animal control ordinance, and "corner fights," the ordinance passed 9-0 on first reading.
In many respects it was a night of education, admittedly a rarity in the third floor assembly room, a room whose city occupants show regular disdain for the "E" word. Ominous, secret, expert knowledge was conveyed by Professor Coffey about where you can lay bets on dog fights and how failing to pass an animal control ordinance will invite slumlords, meth labs, and blissed out minorities bent on ruining our neighborhoods. Funny, Coffey has never seemed concerned about other initiatives that might stop the ruin of our neighborhoods, but he did have to demonstrate his superior knowledge of all things "thug." But we already knew that.
Anyway, the ordinance will pass, but two weeks from now instead of immediately. Those seeking protection from angry "pet" owners can claim, prior to the election, that no final ordinance has been passed, while those seeking protection from animal-rights folk and other good government types can say they voted "for" the ordinance. My own cat animus has no champion...except for the koi kommandos.
Seriously, that last was just for entertainment. I (shadow5), like Beverly Crump (real5), favor the ordinance. I just don't care for the theatrics. Really, I love koi. I just never realized that a koi pond might cause my property tax assessment to rise by five figures.
Oh, the council voted 7-2 to pass the Schmidt plan for newly drawn districts. Crump voted in favor of the flawed DOA plan. She also voted (along with Messer and Zurschmeide) to settle the lawsuit with the plaintiffs. I have to admit that were I in her seat, I would have done the same thing.
Please remember the names of Coffey, Price, Schmidt, Crump, Gahan, Blevins, and Kochert when the city has to come up with as much as $200,000 to take care of the mess they created. Only Coffey will be an elected official for sure, and only Price and Gahan might be in office, but all 7 are responsible for this irresponsible act and breach of their fiduciary duty.
Bev, who exclaimed "just don't call ME after December 31st," has a better excuse than 6th District council member Jeff Gahan, who inexplicably rejected a settlement of the case.
I spent the post-meeting hours at a venue that included among its attendees two of the plaintiffs in the district boundaries lawsuit. Some speculated that Gahan, genuinely concerned that the Republican nominee in Tuesday's election might have real horsepower, cast his vote to ensure that there would be no additional anti-Gahan party treason generated by his Democratic colleagues.
It's a bad bargain, Jeff. They will betray you, anyway. And you've lost any respect I might have held for your integrity. Count this as an endorsement of Sam Anderson, whoever he might be. Anything beats the hypocrisy shown by Mr. Gahan over the last 18 months in the equal protection lawsuit. Mr. Gahan's platform is clearly "Constitution, Schmonstitution." I believe Gahan is a smart man. I had believed he was an honorable man. But I cannot support his reelection.
Mr. Gahan, you might remember, was the council president who said "We have more important things to deal with" than the clearly unconstitutional inequity and inequality of voting districts. I guess that's still his stance.
But, you will ask, what does the header on this entry have to do with any of that? Well, beyond the fact that the council "broke it off" in the dorsal canal of the taxpayers Thursday night, the title refers to a piece of campaign literature that found its way into the old mailbox today.
A killer, nay, devastating flyer, destined to be the final nail in the Hubbard coffin, compares Randy Hubbard to a "cheese-eating surrender monkey." Mr. England's supporters fired a mortal blow with this piece of mail that positively kills the Hubbard campaign. Game, set, match. "Don't mess with our troops and hope to get elected" is the clear message, and the Hubbard cohort is helpless to defend at this late date.
Ironically, today was the day that new evidence of Mr. England's naked lust for votes was revealed, making it even harder to rationalize casting a vote for the English Restoration. Still, it seems inevitable that Doug England will be our next mayor. May as well get used to it.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Practice Makes Perfect
We'll be doing a trial run tonight in shadowing the legislator from the 5th District. Won't the council president be surprised at how many attendees would be eligible to deliver the invocation tonight?
And Peter Vogt and his pals ought to be pleased at how their case is strengthened this evening.
We'll report what we see and hear in Friday's posting.
And Peter Vogt and his pals ought to be pleased at how their case is strengthened this evening.
We'll report what we see and hear in Friday's posting.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Do you realize it has been 39 1/2 years since Robert Kennedy visited New Albany?
Shortly after his visit to Southern Indiana, Kennedy was killed in a hotel kitchen in Los Angeles. A lot of dreams died that night...dreams that were inspired by Bobby.
Bobby Kennedy was no saint. He was a tortured man, a complex man. But despite his flaws, he consistently articulated a vision of an America where the future was something to look forward to and not something to be dreaded.
I note that NA Confidential's "senior" editor issued his endorsement in the mayoral campaign today. Not unexpectedly, The New Albanian encouraged his readers to cast a vote for the Democratic candidate, Doug England.
One might ask, who cares?
Granted, it takes no small amount of ego to believe that others might care to know who you think they should vote for. But Mr. Baylor has, through his persistent reporting and commentary, earned the right to declare his endorsement.
This blogger, for one, will take that endorsement under serious consideration. It now appears to be a given that the traditional medium of journalism, The Tribune, will not be offering endorsements of any kind. This qualifies as a betrayal, in my point of view. Setting aside the fact that endorsements were promised, it is an abdication of responsibility for the principal organ of news reporting to decline to endorse a candidate.
Bobby Kennedy, love him or hate him, took a position. I believe Mr. Baylor harks back to a time when candidates were unafraid to express real opinions. In Mr. England, Mr. Baylor has found a champion who espouses many of his opinions, making the NAC endorsement completely understandable.
Shortly after his visit to Southern Indiana, Kennedy was killed in a hotel kitchen in Los Angeles. A lot of dreams died that night...dreams that were inspired by Bobby.
Bobby Kennedy was no saint. He was a tortured man, a complex man. But despite his flaws, he consistently articulated a vision of an America where the future was something to look forward to and not something to be dreaded.
I note that NA Confidential's "senior" editor issued his endorsement in the mayoral campaign today. Not unexpectedly, The New Albanian encouraged his readers to cast a vote for the Democratic candidate, Doug England.
One might ask, who cares?
Granted, it takes no small amount of ego to believe that others might care to know who you think they should vote for. But Mr. Baylor has, through his persistent reporting and commentary, earned the right to declare his endorsement.
This blogger, for one, will take that endorsement under serious consideration. It now appears to be a given that the traditional medium of journalism, The Tribune, will not be offering endorsements of any kind. This qualifies as a betrayal, in my point of view. Setting aside the fact that endorsements were promised, it is an abdication of responsibility for the principal organ of news reporting to decline to endorse a candidate.
Bobby Kennedy, love him or hate him, took a position. I believe Mr. Baylor harks back to a time when candidates were unafraid to express real opinions. In Mr. England, Mr. Baylor has found a champion who espouses many of his opinions, making the NAC endorsement completely understandable.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Who's Looking Out For Whom?
First of all, a hearty thanks to the folks at the library who hosted the mayoral candidates forums on Wednesday. A very healthy crowd turned out on the occasion of serial appearances by Republican Randy Hubbard and Democrat Doug England.
The forums provided sufficient material to report for days, and I don't envy the mainstream press who must pick and choose for tomorrow's editions.
Greg Sekula of the Indiana Historic Landmarks Foundation regional office was the question-reader. I put it that way because the forums were not moderated ones. Sekula clearly had a hand in the speech-like questions he read, but when the candidates failed to answer the questions, the reader failed to follow up and seek clarification.
The room was set up as if it were a television studio, with the questioner in a comfortable chair to the audience's left and the candidate under a spotlight to the audience's right. Neither candidate appeared to be comfortable with the setup. In such an obviously conversational setting, it was jarring to hear scripted questions, sometimes followed by scripted answers.
Hubbard raced through the questions in about 12 minutes (8 minutes of questions made his total time on "stage" about 20 minutes. England, of course, used the entire allotment of 45 minutes, and then some, but no one seemed to be bothered by that, since the Democrat never failed to have something interesting to say.
Truly, we could go on for hours with a play-by-play, and perhaps we'll revisit our notes at some future date. But for tonight, we'll try to drop a few tidbits. The forums were taped for posterity and perhaps someday before the election you'll be able to see them for yourselves, online.
Malaprops were at a minimum. Hubbard advocated "plagiarizing the Scribner Place model," but I think most people understood his meaning. England pointed out that "Veterans Parkway...gets all the foreplay in the papers." Again, no harm, no foul, and it is not our purpose to poke fun...unless it's really worth it.
Both candidates expressed a willingness to export our economic development tax dollars to the behemoth regional One Southern Indiana, and both promised the DNA members present that they would give them a handout, too.
England seemed to stumble (or maybe it just grated on my ears) when he said the perception in the region was that downtown (New Albany) is not doing anything right.
Hubbard walked a carefully noncommital line on all but a few issues, basically saying nothing of consequence, and if he veered close to making a commitment, he always came back with a caveat. In pledging his support to the Historic Preservation Commission, he backed quickly away from the pledge by introducing the idea that the HPC had perhaps not been reasonable in its decisions to date. On what Sekula called "rental licensing," Hubbard turned in his GOP credentials and proudly displayed his Mugwumpery. My favorite historian, Richard Amory, described mugwumps as politicians with their mugs on one side of the fence and their wumps on the other.
Where did the candidates differ?
England came out foursquare for a city court, part-time to begin with and possibly staffed by Circuit Court Judge Glenn Hancock until it begins to pay for itself. He rejected the idea of a full-time city attorney. Hubbard took the exact opposite tack, promising a full-time city attorney and rejecting the idea of a municipal court.
On traffic calming and reconfiguration of the notorious one-way traffic patterns in the city's core, Hubbard repeated his pledge to ask the people and asked for a feasibility study that has already been done...twice! In fact, he didn't actually answer the question because Sekula phrased it as "downtown" streets, giving Hubbard the opportunity to define downtown as from East 4th to West 4th.
England fully supported a return to 2-way streets and eloquently explained why it was critical to the rejuvenation of downtown.
England was articulate in explaining that investment property owners must be willing to accept regulation that includes inspections. Hubbard hemmed and hawed, bowing to the pleas of the much put-upon landlord class.
Neither candidate grasped the question about sprawl and tax preferences for building out and both jumped straight into the rental property problem. And neither candidate adequately understood the phrase "alternative means" of public transport. I believe what was meant by that was pedestrian- and cyclist-friendly concourses, local buses, etc. Hubbard seemed baffled by the mere idea (suggesting that cabs might be available to take people to and from Louisville, but it would be awfully expensive), but England didn't address the question, either.
A nice spreadsheet comparing the two's answers to Sekula's 18 questions could be created. I have the notes if anyone would like to make one. I'll be glad to post it here.
The forums provided sufficient material to report for days, and I don't envy the mainstream press who must pick and choose for tomorrow's editions.
Greg Sekula of the Indiana Historic Landmarks Foundation regional office was the question-reader. I put it that way because the forums were not moderated ones. Sekula clearly had a hand in the speech-like questions he read, but when the candidates failed to answer the questions, the reader failed to follow up and seek clarification.
The room was set up as if it were a television studio, with the questioner in a comfortable chair to the audience's left and the candidate under a spotlight to the audience's right. Neither candidate appeared to be comfortable with the setup. In such an obviously conversational setting, it was jarring to hear scripted questions, sometimes followed by scripted answers.
Hubbard raced through the questions in about 12 minutes (8 minutes of questions made his total time on "stage" about 20 minutes. England, of course, used the entire allotment of 45 minutes, and then some, but no one seemed to be bothered by that, since the Democrat never failed to have something interesting to say.
Truly, we could go on for hours with a play-by-play, and perhaps we'll revisit our notes at some future date. But for tonight, we'll try to drop a few tidbits. The forums were taped for posterity and perhaps someday before the election you'll be able to see them for yourselves, online.
Malaprops were at a minimum. Hubbard advocated "plagiarizing the Scribner Place model," but I think most people understood his meaning. England pointed out that "Veterans Parkway...gets all the foreplay in the papers." Again, no harm, no foul, and it is not our purpose to poke fun...unless it's really worth it.
Both candidates expressed a willingness to export our economic development tax dollars to the behemoth regional One Southern Indiana, and both promised the DNA members present that they would give them a handout, too.
England seemed to stumble (or maybe it just grated on my ears) when he said the perception in the region was that downtown (New Albany) is not doing anything right.
Hubbard walked a carefully noncommital line on all but a few issues, basically saying nothing of consequence, and if he veered close to making a commitment, he always came back with a caveat. In pledging his support to the Historic Preservation Commission, he backed quickly away from the pledge by introducing the idea that the HPC had perhaps not been reasonable in its decisions to date. On what Sekula called "rental licensing," Hubbard turned in his GOP credentials and proudly displayed his Mugwumpery. My favorite historian, Richard Amory, described mugwumps as politicians with their mugs on one side of the fence and their wumps on the other.
Where did the candidates differ?
England came out foursquare for a city court, part-time to begin with and possibly staffed by Circuit Court Judge Glenn Hancock until it begins to pay for itself. He rejected the idea of a full-time city attorney. Hubbard took the exact opposite tack, promising a full-time city attorney and rejecting the idea of a municipal court.
On traffic calming and reconfiguration of the notorious one-way traffic patterns in the city's core, Hubbard repeated his pledge to ask the people and asked for a feasibility study that has already been done...twice! In fact, he didn't actually answer the question because Sekula phrased it as "downtown" streets, giving Hubbard the opportunity to define downtown as from East 4th to West 4th.
England fully supported a return to 2-way streets and eloquently explained why it was critical to the rejuvenation of downtown.
England was articulate in explaining that investment property owners must be willing to accept regulation that includes inspections. Hubbard hemmed and hawed, bowing to the pleas of the much put-upon landlord class.
Neither candidate grasped the question about sprawl and tax preferences for building out and both jumped straight into the rental property problem. And neither candidate adequately understood the phrase "alternative means" of public transport. I believe what was meant by that was pedestrian- and cyclist-friendly concourses, local buses, etc. Hubbard seemed baffled by the mere idea (suggesting that cabs might be available to take people to and from Louisville, but it would be awfully expensive), but England didn't address the question, either.
A nice spreadsheet comparing the two's answers to Sekula's 18 questions could be created. I have the notes if anyone would like to make one. I'll be glad to post it here.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Tribune Twists the Knife?
Eric Scott Campbell, the intrepid reporter for The Tribune, couldn't resist twisting the knife in today's news report on city business. And he wasn't the first to make a comment to me about the remarkable coincidence of Wednesday evening's schedule of events.
It seems that the city council discovered that tonight was the only night they could possibly hold their rescheduled meeting. Is it just a coincidence that the mayoral forum being hosted by Develop New Albany will be taking place just across the street at the same time? Could council president Larry Kochert have taken into consideration that most of the same people who attend and monitor council meetings would be interested, if not obligated, to attend the candidates forum?
But that's not the only news impacting local government this a.m. Gov. Mitch Daniels revealed his master plan for "property tax 'relief'" on Tuesday, and it's a doozy.
Now, I'm usually pretty perceptive. With a little study, I usually "get" it. So the Daniels plan seems to be an overreaction of the greatest magnitude.
There is so much to say. While it is a statewide issue, it will have tremendous ramifications for local government and the provision of services. But what's the truth underlying this move?
As I understand it (and please correct me if I'm wrong), local government revenues cannot rise more than 4% per year - check that - property tax revenues (general fund) cannot rise more than 4.4% per year. Yet, The Tribune wrote today that the average property tax bill rose by 24% this year, attributing that number to the Associated Press.
NOTE TO TRIBUNE EDITORS: Are you sure you didn't get that number from an anti-tax advocacy group that is making New Albany its Southern Indiana home? Isn't 24% a cooked-up number? How is it possible for the average property tax bill to go up by that much while total revenues are under a Proposition 13-like cap? I've tried to do the math. Theoretically, if 50% of the people saw their tax bills rise 100%, while the remaining populace saw their taxes go up zero percent, you could get that "average." But tax collections (local government revenues) would then have to rise by 24%. So which is it? Did taxes go up 24% or 4.4%? I think I know the answer, but I'd love to hear The Tribune's answer.
So here's Mitch's plan.
Cap owner-occupied residential property taxes at 1% of value (no exemptions? no credits?). Residential properties not occupied by the owner would have a tax cap of 2% of value. Business and commercial properties' taxes would be capped at 3%.
As a matter of basic equity, I'm down with the idea of a 1% cap on property taxes for homes where the owners live. I'd actually be OK with a cap of 2%, provided that a commensurate level of service were provided, but a constitutional amendment would prevent any local government from using property taxes to create a superior city or county.
For the next two categories, I'm attracted to the idea of treating rental properties as the businesses they are. We have no public interest in promoting or subsidizing investment in rental properties over job-creating businesses. We certainly don't have that interest in New Albany. Why would rental properties be subsidized? What greater value do such businesses bring to a community that justifies giving them a tax abatement? Is the fact that Daniels' political supporters are more likely to OWN rental properties a factor in the governor's proposal?
But that's not the end of the Daniels plan. By 2009, he proposes to raise the already regressive sales tax by another penny on the dollar, to 7%. I'm not inalterably opposed to tax increases, but the idea of imposing them on sales is, in the final analysis, a way to take a larger share of tax revenues from those least able to pay them.
In the interests of protecting the assets of those who have accumulated wealth, the governor proposes to increase taxes on the poor. For that reason alone I oppose his plan.
Now, I understand that the consumer who elects to spend her money on a flat-panel HDTV will be paying 7% sales tax. But so will the single mom buying milk to feed her children. And the "benefits" are far outweighed by the costs. We shouldn't be imposing the costs on those least able to pay, and the Daniels plan does that, all in the name of a false emergency.
Now that wealth-holders are seeing their wealth accurately taxed, they are marshaling their political forces to panic officeholders into passing emergency measures. In reality, property taxes can't have risen. There is literally no place for those revenues to go.
Indiana is a state with many borders. Here in Southern Indiana, consumers have a ready alternative to paying 7% sales tax - shop in Kentucky. I guess it would only be fair, since we are milking the Bluegrass state's gambling dollars with our casinos, but if ever there was a measure designed to drive retailers out of the state, especially merchants on the border of Kentucky, this is it.
One would expect Sipes, Stemler, Cochran, et al, to be leading the charge against this ill-conceived plan. Yet, to read the literature put out by Sipes and Cochran, they are being stampeded into the "property tax relief" herd. Joining with the city's own Steve Price and mayoral candidate Doug England, our representatives are panicking, pandering, or punishing the poor. And trying to drive business away.
And that's the view of Shadow5.
P.S. Didn't the legislature just give local governments the "freedom" to impose local sales taxes or local income taxes to make up for declining revenues? Doesn't this new "relief" effectively cripple the cities and counties who might have considered a local option sales tax?
It seems that the city council discovered that tonight was the only night they could possibly hold their rescheduled meeting. Is it just a coincidence that the mayoral forum being hosted by Develop New Albany will be taking place just across the street at the same time? Could council president Larry Kochert have taken into consideration that most of the same people who attend and monitor council meetings would be interested, if not obligated, to attend the candidates forum?
But that's not the only news impacting local government this a.m. Gov. Mitch Daniels revealed his master plan for "property tax 'relief'" on Tuesday, and it's a doozy.
Now, I'm usually pretty perceptive. With a little study, I usually "get" it. So the Daniels plan seems to be an overreaction of the greatest magnitude.
There is so much to say. While it is a statewide issue, it will have tremendous ramifications for local government and the provision of services. But what's the truth underlying this move?
As I understand it (and please correct me if I'm wrong), local government revenues cannot rise more than 4% per year - check that - property tax revenues (general fund) cannot rise more than 4.4% per year. Yet, The Tribune wrote today that the average property tax bill rose by 24% this year, attributing that number to the Associated Press.
NOTE TO TRIBUNE EDITORS: Are you sure you didn't get that number from an anti-tax advocacy group that is making New Albany its Southern Indiana home? Isn't 24% a cooked-up number? How is it possible for the average property tax bill to go up by that much while total revenues are under a Proposition 13-like cap? I've tried to do the math. Theoretically, if 50% of the people saw their tax bills rise 100%, while the remaining populace saw their taxes go up zero percent, you could get that "average." But tax collections (local government revenues) would then have to rise by 24%. So which is it? Did taxes go up 24% or 4.4%? I think I know the answer, but I'd love to hear The Tribune's answer.
So here's Mitch's plan.
Cap owner-occupied residential property taxes at 1% of value (no exemptions? no credits?). Residential properties not occupied by the owner would have a tax cap of 2% of value. Business and commercial properties' taxes would be capped at 3%.
As a matter of basic equity, I'm down with the idea of a 1% cap on property taxes for homes where the owners live. I'd actually be OK with a cap of 2%, provided that a commensurate level of service were provided, but a constitutional amendment would prevent any local government from using property taxes to create a superior city or county.
For the next two categories, I'm attracted to the idea of treating rental properties as the businesses they are. We have no public interest in promoting or subsidizing investment in rental properties over job-creating businesses. We certainly don't have that interest in New Albany. Why would rental properties be subsidized? What greater value do such businesses bring to a community that justifies giving them a tax abatement? Is the fact that Daniels' political supporters are more likely to OWN rental properties a factor in the governor's proposal?
But that's not the end of the Daniels plan. By 2009, he proposes to raise the already regressive sales tax by another penny on the dollar, to 7%. I'm not inalterably opposed to tax increases, but the idea of imposing them on sales is, in the final analysis, a way to take a larger share of tax revenues from those least able to pay them.
In the interests of protecting the assets of those who have accumulated wealth, the governor proposes to increase taxes on the poor. For that reason alone I oppose his plan.
Now, I understand that the consumer who elects to spend her money on a flat-panel HDTV will be paying 7% sales tax. But so will the single mom buying milk to feed her children. And the "benefits" are far outweighed by the costs. We shouldn't be imposing the costs on those least able to pay, and the Daniels plan does that, all in the name of a false emergency.
Now that wealth-holders are seeing their wealth accurately taxed, they are marshaling their political forces to panic officeholders into passing emergency measures. In reality, property taxes can't have risen. There is literally no place for those revenues to go.
Indiana is a state with many borders. Here in Southern Indiana, consumers have a ready alternative to paying 7% sales tax - shop in Kentucky. I guess it would only be fair, since we are milking the Bluegrass state's gambling dollars with our casinos, but if ever there was a measure designed to drive retailers out of the state, especially merchants on the border of Kentucky, this is it.
One would expect Sipes, Stemler, Cochran, et al, to be leading the charge against this ill-conceived plan. Yet, to read the literature put out by Sipes and Cochran, they are being stampeded into the "property tax relief" herd. Joining with the city's own Steve Price and mayoral candidate Doug England, our representatives are panicking, pandering, or punishing the poor. And trying to drive business away.
And that's the view of Shadow5.
P.S. Didn't the legislature just give local governments the "freedom" to impose local sales taxes or local income taxes to make up for declining revenues? Doesn't this new "relief" effectively cripple the cities and counties who might have considered a local option sales tax?
Monday, October 22, 2007
The Future is Now
It has apparently become acceptable to treat politics as trivia, or its equivalent, sports. What a revolting development.
In sports it is reasonable to think that each team is giving its best, and that all the competitors are working toward a singular goal - victory. While we might be critical of a team's performance, or a single player's ability to execute the play, we never question their intention and desire to win.
In politics, it is a mistake to think that when issues and personalities clash, everyone is acting with the same basic set of good intentions.
And when a neighbor or relative tells us they simply don't care about sports, we rarely make an issue of it. As much as we might enjoy playing or watching amateur, college, or professional sports, we would never demand or expect that everyone share our enthusiasms.
Far too many of us treat government in the same way we treat sports. Too many of us consider politics and government as irrelevant to our lives in much the same way that curling or rugby are to the vast majority on this planet.
A friend of mine insists that a refusal to get involved in "politics" is both immoral and illogical. He says it's immoral to sit on the sidelines and watch while harm is done and illogical to blissfully pay taxes without demanding accountability and responsible government.
Cattle farmers rarely give money to PETA. 21st Century conservatives rarely donate to the ACLU. Jews don't support the Klan, and Tony Stewart fans don't buy Jeff Gordon merchandise.
So why do ordinarily sensible people abdicate their rights to self-government out of boredom or disgust while still sending in their tax payments?
The mission of this blog is to assert the lunacy of such a stance. Government, in particular city government, is not sports. It is not trivia. It is not a TV show. It is important and it is critical that we each become involved.
We are about to experience a city election that is shaping up to have the lowest level of participation in history. A good argument can be made that this is hunky-dory with the candidates. It certainly makes it easier to keep the good old boys club closed when most of the people couldn't care less who gets elected.
Over the next few years, in whatever small way we can rid New Albany of the attitude that politics is for "sleazy people," we will. By shadowing the votes of the incoming city council, we hope to demonstrate how "who" we elect affects our lives.
At a time when buffoons range all around us declaring that our property tax levies are too high - when those buffoons know that there is no objective reality to their claim - it is more important than ever to speak the truth. For so long as the buffoons believe they can get away with their diversionary and divisive untruths, we're in the drink. An educated voting public won't fall for such flim-flammery. It's our job to educate that voting public in time for the 2011 elections.
Don't give up on 2007. It will be important to elect the best in order to offset the damage we are sure to suffer during the next four years. We surely don't want to spend the better part of the next decade repairing that damage. Think of the few bright lights running for city council this year as our preventive maintenance. It will take a strong majority in 2011 to right the ship, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't recruit (elect) some people to keep bailing.
In sports it is reasonable to think that each team is giving its best, and that all the competitors are working toward a singular goal - victory. While we might be critical of a team's performance, or a single player's ability to execute the play, we never question their intention and desire to win.
In politics, it is a mistake to think that when issues and personalities clash, everyone is acting with the same basic set of good intentions.
And when a neighbor or relative tells us they simply don't care about sports, we rarely make an issue of it. As much as we might enjoy playing or watching amateur, college, or professional sports, we would never demand or expect that everyone share our enthusiasms.
Far too many of us treat government in the same way we treat sports. Too many of us consider politics and government as irrelevant to our lives in much the same way that curling or rugby are to the vast majority on this planet.
A friend of mine insists that a refusal to get involved in "politics" is both immoral and illogical. He says it's immoral to sit on the sidelines and watch while harm is done and illogical to blissfully pay taxes without demanding accountability and responsible government.
Cattle farmers rarely give money to PETA. 21st Century conservatives rarely donate to the ACLU. Jews don't support the Klan, and Tony Stewart fans don't buy Jeff Gordon merchandise.
So why do ordinarily sensible people abdicate their rights to self-government out of boredom or disgust while still sending in their tax payments?
The mission of this blog is to assert the lunacy of such a stance. Government, in particular city government, is not sports. It is not trivia. It is not a TV show. It is important and it is critical that we each become involved.
We are about to experience a city election that is shaping up to have the lowest level of participation in history. A good argument can be made that this is hunky-dory with the candidates. It certainly makes it easier to keep the good old boys club closed when most of the people couldn't care less who gets elected.
Over the next few years, in whatever small way we can rid New Albany of the attitude that politics is for "sleazy people," we will. By shadowing the votes of the incoming city council, we hope to demonstrate how "who" we elect affects our lives.
At a time when buffoons range all around us declaring that our property tax levies are too high - when those buffoons know that there is no objective reality to their claim - it is more important than ever to speak the truth. For so long as the buffoons believe they can get away with their diversionary and divisive untruths, we're in the drink. An educated voting public won't fall for such flim-flammery. It's our job to educate that voting public in time for the 2011 elections.
Don't give up on 2007. It will be important to elect the best in order to offset the damage we are sure to suffer during the next four years. We surely don't want to spend the better part of the next decade repairing that damage. Think of the few bright lights running for city council this year as our preventive maintenance. It will take a strong majority in 2011 to right the ship, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't recruit (elect) some people to keep bailing.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Leadership, Not Management????
Steve Burks, the Assemblies of God minister who's standing for election at-large as a Republican, has been a bit of a cipher in this campaign so far. Still, he could be representing us soon after the New Year.
So could someone please explain to me the significance of his campaign slogan: Leadership, Not Management?
I have my preconceptions about how the presence of a Pentecostal preacher on the council could change the dynamics of the city council, but my speculations fail me when I try to wrap my head around that slogan. Leadership toward what?
Here's what Burks told The Tribune:
“I do not have a personal agenda. It is time for leadership not management. Management “maintains” status while leadership cast vision and dreams to make one city a place where people want to live and raise their families.”
I still am clueless. Anyone? Anyone?
So could someone please explain to me the significance of his campaign slogan: Leadership, Not Management?
I have my preconceptions about how the presence of a Pentecostal preacher on the council could change the dynamics of the city council, but my speculations fail me when I try to wrap my head around that slogan. Leadership toward what?
Here's what Burks told The Tribune:
“I do not have a personal agenda. It is time for leadership not management. Management “maintains” status while leadership cast vision and dreams to make one city a place where people want to live and raise their families.”
I still am clueless. Anyone? Anyone?
Striving for Mediocrity, or Worse
Read a bit and you'll come across all kinds of interesting tidbits that can reveal.
Today, we'll cast our eyes away from the Common Council for the City of New Albany, Indiana, to a statewide perspective. I'm sure adroit readers will be able to draw parellels to our own city's self-inflicted plight.
We're just ten weeks away from the first of the presidential primaries. Candidates for county office are maneuvering and Sodrel for Congress signs are sprouting in anticipation of "Round 4" in 2008.
A race for governor and a presumably contested Democratic Party primary may bring out a few voters in May, but Indiana will have absolutely nothing to do with who becomes President of the United States. Evan Bayh and Pat Bauer, arguably the leading Democrats in the Hoosier State, have cast their lots with Hillary Clinton, but the voters of Indiana don't mean spit when it comes to who the parties choose as their nominees.
But did you know that in 1916, Indiana was, in fact, the first in the nation primary? Can you imagine how Indiana, with its concentrations of Catholics, reasonably sizable minority populations, and broad mix of urban and rural voters would be treated by the White House hopefuls? We'd be hosting Mitt and Rudy, Oback and Hillary in our very homes and national attention would be focused like a laser back home in Indiana.
But no. Ignoring any possible significance of the date, Indiana moved its primaries to May, and New Hampshire has been in the spotlight for most of the last century. Would Evan Bayh have sat this one out if Indiana were still in the first slot?
As for the fast-approaching city elections, the die is cast. I need to get me some of those rose-colored glasses. We're in for more of the same, if you ask me, and the next four years are going to be a test of our resolve. Will we continue to ignore the actions of city government in the belief that it doesn't have anything to do with our lives? Will we continue to send in our taxes twice a year to subsidize a government we disagree with?
Oh, Willie, where are you when we need you? We need someone to sound the cry "Nail 'em up!"
Today, we'll cast our eyes away from the Common Council for the City of New Albany, Indiana, to a statewide perspective. I'm sure adroit readers will be able to draw parellels to our own city's self-inflicted plight.
We're just ten weeks away from the first of the presidential primaries. Candidates for county office are maneuvering and Sodrel for Congress signs are sprouting in anticipation of "Round 4" in 2008.
A race for governor and a presumably contested Democratic Party primary may bring out a few voters in May, but Indiana will have absolutely nothing to do with who becomes President of the United States. Evan Bayh and Pat Bauer, arguably the leading Democrats in the Hoosier State, have cast their lots with Hillary Clinton, but the voters of Indiana don't mean spit when it comes to who the parties choose as their nominees.
But did you know that in 1916, Indiana was, in fact, the first in the nation primary? Can you imagine how Indiana, with its concentrations of Catholics, reasonably sizable minority populations, and broad mix of urban and rural voters would be treated by the White House hopefuls? We'd be hosting Mitt and Rudy, Oback and Hillary in our very homes and national attention would be focused like a laser back home in Indiana.
But no. Ignoring any possible significance of the date, Indiana moved its primaries to May, and New Hampshire has been in the spotlight for most of the last century. Would Evan Bayh have sat this one out if Indiana were still in the first slot?
As for the fast-approaching city elections, the die is cast. I need to get me some of those rose-colored glasses. We're in for more of the same, if you ask me, and the next four years are going to be a test of our resolve. Will we continue to ignore the actions of city government in the belief that it doesn't have anything to do with our lives? Will we continue to send in our taxes twice a year to subsidize a government we disagree with?
Oh, Willie, where are you when we need you? We need someone to sound the cry "Nail 'em up!"
Friday, October 19, 2007
"Let the judge decide"
As told to me, that's what Donnie Blevins had to say at Thursday's city council work session.
My spouse's sister-in-law's grandson's favorite uncle's buddy reports that council attorney Jerry Ulrich did everything but arm wrestle his clients in trying to persuade them their best course of action would be to settle the case over council districts. Mother Nature apparently expressed her displeasure with the council's chosen path, too.
That case is over. The citizens suing for a fair election have won. Unless there is a settlement, the judge is going to hand the whole mess over to the winning party and allow them to submit their own plan. Just as long as that plan meets the law's requirements, the judge will approve it, order it, and the council will be forced to pass it.
Why would the council give up that chance to avoid a trial defeat? The newspaper said Bill Schmidt complained that the plaintiffs keep modifying their terms for settlement. Isn't that what's supposed to happen in a negotiation?
My spouse's sister-in-law's grandson's favorite uncle's buddy reports that council attorney Jerry Ulrich did everything but arm wrestle his clients in trying to persuade them their best course of action would be to settle the case over council districts. Mother Nature apparently expressed her displeasure with the council's chosen path, too.
That case is over. The citizens suing for a fair election have won. Unless there is a settlement, the judge is going to hand the whole mess over to the winning party and allow them to submit their own plan. Just as long as that plan meets the law's requirements, the judge will approve it, order it, and the council will be forced to pass it.
Why would the council give up that chance to avoid a trial defeat? The newspaper said Bill Schmidt complained that the plaintiffs keep modifying their terms for settlement. Isn't that what's supposed to happen in a negotiation?
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Four Years of Fear?
Nineteen more days before we learn our fates.
For the vast majority of New Albanians, there is nothing significant about Nov. 6. Assuredly, most won't vote. Most don't think it has anything to do with them.
Shadow5, this writer, hopes to "meet" others willing to shadow the council destined to be sworn in after New Year's Eve. NA Shadow Council is intended to be a log for nine men and women, good and true, who will study the issues and figuratively cast votes on the agenda over the next few years.
But in reality, we will be, for four years, at the mercy of nine men and women and a new mayor and his administration.
Will New Albany's destiny be for sale to the highest bidder? Blogger Supreme, Roger Baylor, seems to embrace the possibility of a restoration of the England style of municipal government. There is speculation that the incoming council will, in distinction to the past four years, be compliant and complacent about Doug England's initiatives.
NA Confidential, among others, has advocated strongly for ordinance enforcement and the institution of a rental inspection program. Presumably, Baylor is satisfied that England is the best hope for such initiatives.
But what if he is wrong? What if, instead, Doug England, with literal or figurative palm outstretched, governs for those who "back" him, with cash or other valuable consideration? Worse, what if England chooses to use the estimable powers at his disposal to punish or otherwise extort those who don't?
Whichever of the two men triumphs on Nov. 6, this blogger promises to remain independent. Willing to be convinced, but independent and wary.
For the vast majority of New Albanians, there is nothing significant about Nov. 6. Assuredly, most won't vote. Most don't think it has anything to do with them.
Shadow5, this writer, hopes to "meet" others willing to shadow the council destined to be sworn in after New Year's Eve. NA Shadow Council is intended to be a log for nine men and women, good and true, who will study the issues and figuratively cast votes on the agenda over the next few years.
But in reality, we will be, for four years, at the mercy of nine men and women and a new mayor and his administration.
Will New Albany's destiny be for sale to the highest bidder? Blogger Supreme, Roger Baylor, seems to embrace the possibility of a restoration of the England style of municipal government. There is speculation that the incoming council will, in distinction to the past four years, be compliant and complacent about Doug England's initiatives.
NA Confidential, among others, has advocated strongly for ordinance enforcement and the institution of a rental inspection program. Presumably, Baylor is satisfied that England is the best hope for such initiatives.
But what if he is wrong? What if, instead, Doug England, with literal or figurative palm outstretched, governs for those who "back" him, with cash or other valuable consideration? Worse, what if England chooses to use the estimable powers at his disposal to punish or otherwise extort those who don't?
Whichever of the two men triumphs on Nov. 6, this blogger promises to remain independent. Willing to be convinced, but independent and wary.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Little Fish
It's a pleasure to be a little fish, but while evading the sharks and barracudas, this "Nemo" can't help but wonder at the machine-like nature of New Albany politics.
Anyone paying attention will certainly have noticed that a remarkable number of "resignations" have been handed in, swamped by the self-proclaimed inevitability of a new England regime.
Let's call it the "English Restoration."
(From WikiEverything) The English Restoration, or simply The Restoration, was an episode in the history of Britain beginning in 1660 when the English monarchy, Scottish monarchy and Irish monarchy were restored under King Charles II after the English Civil War. The term Restoration may apply both to the actual event by which the monarchy was restored, and to the period immediately following the accession of Charles II.
The Protectorate, which had preceded the Restoration and followed the Commonwealth, might have continued if Oliver Cromwell's son Richard, who was made Lord Protector on his father's death, had been capable of carrying on his father's policies. Richard Cromwell's main weakness was that he did not have the confidence of the army. After seven months the army removed him and on 6 May 1659 it reinstalled the Rump Parliament. Charles Fleetwood was appointed a member of the Committee of Safety and of the Council of State, and one of the seven commissioners for the army. On 9 June 1659 he was nominated lord-general (commander-in-chief) of the army. However, his power was undermined in parliament, which chose to disregard the army's authority in a similar fashion to the pre-Civil War parliament. The Commons on 12 October 1659, cashiered General John Lambert and other officers, and installed Fleetwood as chief of a military council under the authority of the speaker. The next day Lambert ordered that the doors of the House be shut and the members kept out. On 26 October a "Committee of Safety" was appointed, of which Fleetwood and Lambert were members. Lambert was appointed major-general of all the forces in England and Scotland, Fleetwood being general. Lambert was now sent, by the Committee of Safety, with a large force to meet George Monck, who was in command of the English forces in Scotland, and either negotiate with him or force him to come to terms.
It was into this atmosphere that Monck, the governor of Scotland under the Cromwells, marched south with his army from Scotland. Lambert's army began to desert him, and he returned to London almost alone. Monck marched to London unopposed. The Presbyterian members, excluded in Pride's Purge of 1648, were recalled and on 24 December the army restored the Long Parliament. Fleetwood was deprived of his command and ordered to appear before parliament to answer for his conduct. Lambert was sent to the Tower of London on 3 March 1660, from which he escaped a month later. Lambert tried to rekindle the civil war in favour of the Commonwealth by issuing a proclamation calling on all supporters of the "Good Old Cause" to rally on the battlefield of Edgehill. But he was recaptured by Colonel Richard Ingoldsby, a regicide who hoped to win a pardon by handing Lambert over to the new regime. Lambert was incarcerated and died in custody on Drake's Island in 1684.
On April 4, 1660, Charles II issued the Declaration of Breda, which made known the conditions of his acceptance of the crown of England. Monck organised the Convention Parliament, which met for the first time on April 25. On May 8 it proclaimed that King Charles II had been the lawful monarch since the execution of Charles I in January 1649.[1] Charles returned from exile, leaving The Hague on May 23 and landing at Dover on May 25.[2] He entered London on May 29, his birthday. To celebrate "his Majesty's Return to his Parliament" May 29 was made a public holiday, popularly known as Oak Apple Day.[3] He was crowned at Westminster Abbey on 23 April 1661.[2]
The Cavalier Parliament convened for the first time on May 8, 1661, and it would endure for over 17 years until its dissolution on January 24, 1679. Like its predecessor, it was overwhelmingly Royalist and is also known as the Pensionary Parliament for the many pensions it granted to adherents of the King.
OK. Enough.
Who are the Cavaliers who expect to prosper under an England restoration?
What promises have been made to those who can "deliver" a bloc of votes? What have Doug and his courtiers promised to Danny Coffey? How about party turncoat Bill Schmidt, who can reliably deliver "absentee" votes with a sacramental blessing?
Or Glenn Hancock, judiciary luminary but previously an England confidante? Or Bill (and Steve) Lohmeyer, the senior of which presides over the Election Board? The Freiberger/Mills entente?
Don't get me wrong. Randy Hubbard has shown nothing in this campaign. It is pretty well established that he has no realistic desire to serve the city as its chief executive, and he's done everything possible to demonstrate that. His lack of enthusiasm has even given rise to speculation as to who might actually take office in the unlikely event of a GOP mayoral victory.
But Mr. England's clear confidence can't be completely unfounded. Imagine that both Ted Heavrin and Tom Pickett have pledged allegiance to the crown. What kind of promise brings that kind of synergy into play?
It's pretty ballsy to go around "firing" people before you've even won the election. But the England campaign seems to be doing so.
I understand party loyalty. Once incumbent Garner was ousted, it could be expected that the party elders would rally around the nominee.
But what do Warren Nash (past), Randy Stumler (present), and Dan Coffey (future) Democratic Party Chairmen have in common? Is support for England the only commonality?
In exchange for what? What promises have been made? And which will be kept? And most importantly, at what cost to the integrity of government?
This won't be a Regency. It's hard to believe it will be a Reformation. Is the Restoration an improvement, or the final throes of a corrupt machine?
Anyone paying attention will certainly have noticed that a remarkable number of "resignations" have been handed in, swamped by the self-proclaimed inevitability of a new England regime.
Let's call it the "English Restoration."
(From WikiEverything) The English Restoration, or simply The Restoration, was an episode in the history of Britain beginning in 1660 when the English monarchy, Scottish monarchy and Irish monarchy were restored under King Charles II after the English Civil War. The term Restoration may apply both to the actual event by which the monarchy was restored, and to the period immediately following the accession of Charles II.
The Protectorate, which had preceded the Restoration and followed the Commonwealth, might have continued if Oliver Cromwell's son Richard, who was made Lord Protector on his father's death, had been capable of carrying on his father's policies. Richard Cromwell's main weakness was that he did not have the confidence of the army. After seven months the army removed him and on 6 May 1659 it reinstalled the Rump Parliament. Charles Fleetwood was appointed a member of the Committee of Safety and of the Council of State, and one of the seven commissioners for the army. On 9 June 1659 he was nominated lord-general (commander-in-chief) of the army. However, his power was undermined in parliament, which chose to disregard the army's authority in a similar fashion to the pre-Civil War parliament. The Commons on 12 October 1659, cashiered General John Lambert and other officers, and installed Fleetwood as chief of a military council under the authority of the speaker. The next day Lambert ordered that the doors of the House be shut and the members kept out. On 26 October a "Committee of Safety" was appointed, of which Fleetwood and Lambert were members. Lambert was appointed major-general of all the forces in England and Scotland, Fleetwood being general. Lambert was now sent, by the Committee of Safety, with a large force to meet George Monck, who was in command of the English forces in Scotland, and either negotiate with him or force him to come to terms.
It was into this atmosphere that Monck, the governor of Scotland under the Cromwells, marched south with his army from Scotland. Lambert's army began to desert him, and he returned to London almost alone. Monck marched to London unopposed. The Presbyterian members, excluded in Pride's Purge of 1648, were recalled and on 24 December the army restored the Long Parliament. Fleetwood was deprived of his command and ordered to appear before parliament to answer for his conduct. Lambert was sent to the Tower of London on 3 March 1660, from which he escaped a month later. Lambert tried to rekindle the civil war in favour of the Commonwealth by issuing a proclamation calling on all supporters of the "Good Old Cause" to rally on the battlefield of Edgehill. But he was recaptured by Colonel Richard Ingoldsby, a regicide who hoped to win a pardon by handing Lambert over to the new regime. Lambert was incarcerated and died in custody on Drake's Island in 1684.
On April 4, 1660, Charles II issued the Declaration of Breda, which made known the conditions of his acceptance of the crown of England. Monck organised the Convention Parliament, which met for the first time on April 25. On May 8 it proclaimed that King Charles II had been the lawful monarch since the execution of Charles I in January 1649.[1] Charles returned from exile, leaving The Hague on May 23 and landing at Dover on May 25.[2] He entered London on May 29, his birthday. To celebrate "his Majesty's Return to his Parliament" May 29 was made a public holiday, popularly known as Oak Apple Day.[3] He was crowned at Westminster Abbey on 23 April 1661.[2]
The Cavalier Parliament convened for the first time on May 8, 1661, and it would endure for over 17 years until its dissolution on January 24, 1679. Like its predecessor, it was overwhelmingly Royalist and is also known as the Pensionary Parliament for the many pensions it granted to adherents of the King.
OK. Enough.
Who are the Cavaliers who expect to prosper under an England restoration?
What promises have been made to those who can "deliver" a bloc of votes? What have Doug and his courtiers promised to Danny Coffey? How about party turncoat Bill Schmidt, who can reliably deliver "absentee" votes with a sacramental blessing?
Or Glenn Hancock, judiciary luminary but previously an England confidante? Or Bill (and Steve) Lohmeyer, the senior of which presides over the Election Board? The Freiberger/Mills entente?
Don't get me wrong. Randy Hubbard has shown nothing in this campaign. It is pretty well established that he has no realistic desire to serve the city as its chief executive, and he's done everything possible to demonstrate that. His lack of enthusiasm has even given rise to speculation as to who might actually take office in the unlikely event of a GOP mayoral victory.
But Mr. England's clear confidence can't be completely unfounded. Imagine that both Ted Heavrin and Tom Pickett have pledged allegiance to the crown. What kind of promise brings that kind of synergy into play?
It's pretty ballsy to go around "firing" people before you've even won the election. But the England campaign seems to be doing so.
I understand party loyalty. Once incumbent Garner was ousted, it could be expected that the party elders would rally around the nominee.
But what do Warren Nash (past), Randy Stumler (present), and Dan Coffey (future) Democratic Party Chairmen have in common? Is support for England the only commonality?
In exchange for what? What promises have been made? And which will be kept? And most importantly, at what cost to the integrity of government?
This won't be a Regency. It's hard to believe it will be a Reformation. Is the Restoration an improvement, or the final throes of a corrupt machine?
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Pander Bear?
The title's not original, but it is apropos.
Got home rather late to find that my spouse had received a mailing from the "Indiana Democratic State Committee, Daniel Parker, Chair."
Seems the staties want Doug England returned to office.
Point one in the flyer is telling. It reads:
Doug England knows property taxes are too high, and hea has a plan to make them fair and affordable.
Really, Doug? Property taxes are too high? Property tax collections cannot rise more than 4.4% per year under DLGF guidelines. A decently growing economy ought to provide an natural inflation of 3% and new investment ought to generate the remaining 1.4%. Perhaps there has been no new investment in New Albany over the past year. Perhaps property values aren't rising at least at the level of the CPI or the Social Security cost-of-living bump.
But all of that is unlikely. It's a safe assumption that property taxes did not rise over the past year. So who is Doug England trying to cuddle up to?
The fact is that all those who are howling about "property taxes [being] too high" are the ones who have been underpaying for years. "Trending" has finally caught up to them and now they are paying their fair share. You don't hear howls from people whose taxes went down because of trending. You don't hear howls from people who have, logically speaking, been overpaying for years to make up for the underpaying segment of the population. Only those WHO CAN AFFORD IT because their property VALUE has risen are complaining.
In other words, the lucky are screaming because they have been relying on the luckless to pay for them. Now that the tables have turned, they scream that property taxes are too high. And Doug England wants them to know he sympathizes with the lucky, not the luckless.
Or is he merely posturing and pandering to avoid discussing reality? Republican opponent Randy Hubbard mouths similar sentiments, but his campaign literature didn't assault me at home tonight. So Doug England gets the dart tonight.
Got home rather late to find that my spouse had received a mailing from the "Indiana Democratic State Committee, Daniel Parker, Chair."
Seems the staties want Doug England returned to office.
Point one in the flyer is telling. It reads:
Doug England knows property taxes are too high, and hea has a plan to make them fair and affordable.
Really, Doug? Property taxes are too high? Property tax collections cannot rise more than 4.4% per year under DLGF guidelines. A decently growing economy ought to provide an natural inflation of 3% and new investment ought to generate the remaining 1.4%. Perhaps there has been no new investment in New Albany over the past year. Perhaps property values aren't rising at least at the level of the CPI or the Social Security cost-of-living bump.
But all of that is unlikely. It's a safe assumption that property taxes did not rise over the past year. So who is Doug England trying to cuddle up to?
The fact is that all those who are howling about "property taxes [being] too high" are the ones who have been underpaying for years. "Trending" has finally caught up to them and now they are paying their fair share. You don't hear howls from people whose taxes went down because of trending. You don't hear howls from people who have, logically speaking, been overpaying for years to make up for the underpaying segment of the population. Only those WHO CAN AFFORD IT because their property VALUE has risen are complaining.
In other words, the lucky are screaming because they have been relying on the luckless to pay for them. Now that the tables have turned, they scream that property taxes are too high. And Doug England wants them to know he sympathizes with the lucky, not the luckless.
Or is he merely posturing and pandering to avoid discussing reality? Republican opponent Randy Hubbard mouths similar sentiments, but his campaign literature didn't assault me at home tonight. So Doug England gets the dart tonight.
Monday, October 15, 2007
District 5: Is This a Tough Choice, or Not?
The Fifth District, by all accounts, is the smallest of the six City Council districts. It is also, perhaps, the single most stable district in the city. You can't say that people have moved out. And the city has not grown over the past 20 years.
That means that the small size of the Fifth is part of a design. Is (was) its size part of an incumbent-protection racket? An objective observer would have to say yes.
At the relevant times (1992 and 2002), who were the incumbents in that geographical area? We know Larry Kochert (nominally a Democrat) was one of them. A Republican represented District 5 until 2004, and the man who represented it when it came time to redraw those districts was Dick Bliss, the Republican nominee this year.
Bliss, who lost his seat to the dynamic Beverly Crump in 2003, has questions to answer. What deal was cut to protect Kochert from the natural consequences of moving him into the Fifth? And what protection was offered in exchange? Bliss's failure to insist on fair districts is a failure that requires a defense.
Bliss, as a businessman and investor, has added greatly to the community. His family's travel agency and the recently acquired and renovated Calumet Club are small treasures for New Albany.
As a man, Bliss remains approachable and resolute in his opinions. He is thoughtful and if not progressive, at least in favor of progress (and there is a difference). It is important for Bliss to tell us his philosophical views regarding the role of government in achieving that progress. It's easy to suspect that Mr. Bliss thinks that government should step aside and let businesses do what it is they do and government do what it is they do.
That's pretty simplistic. It leads to unregulated commercial properties, lenient zoning, and the demolition of buildings that "get in the way." Conversely, it restricts government to building jails and paying cops. Under Bliss's watch, a lot of money was spent, but little of it was targeted to improving the prospects of the city. Yes, a jail was built. Yes, police and fire payrolls grew as a percentage of the city budget. What we want to know is if Dick Bliss "gets it." Will he support public investment over public spending (and there is a difference)?
On first blush, Bliss seems to be a nice guy who is rational and reasonable. His political philosophy may well be inconsistent with rejuvenating New Albany, or even with preserving what we have. On the other hand, he has put his money into the city and chosen to live and invest in its core communities. His personal integrity has not been questioned.
So a decision on Bliss comes down to politics. Are his politics something New Albany can live with? Does he represent his district? Can he represent the best interests of the city as a whole? Has the contribution made by his generation of public servants created confidence, or has it disqualified all who served in the 90s?
In short, the answer to the title question is "yes." D5 is a tough choice.
In that the writer is "shadowna5," I ought to have a decision made already.
Yet, I don't.
So what is the alternative to Dick Bliss? First-time candidate Diane McCartin Benedetti ran unopposed for the Democratic Party nomination. Friends tell me she is a nice woman, a soccer mom. Others tell me she, rightfully, loves and admires her brother, Gary "The Gary" McCartin, and relies on his advice and judgment.
While people I admire also appreciate the "contributions" the McCartin family has made to our community, the recent evidence is that the developer and his family, both as public servants and as supplicants to government, just don't get it. It would be difficult to expect Benedetti to renounce "the devil and all his works," and yet I'm not yet ready to write her off.
Fortunately, both Bliss and Benedetti have opportunities remaining to sway voters. Public forums remain. There is still time to ask and answer questions.
Here will be the defining question:
Mrs. Benedetti, do you agree with your brother that investing in downtown is a sucker's game? Do you believe that "hoping" for private investment in the city's urban core is nutso and that downtown is dead?
Mr. Bliss, do you agree with your party chairman, who said publicly that the Democrats have "saddled" us with Scribner Place? Is the only proper role of government the demolition of existing buildings so that existing businesses can have more parking?
Right now, I think I know the answers. I pray that what I think is untrue. While it can be argued that abstaining is foolish, and while a write-in vote at this late date is the same as abstaining, every voter has to live with herself.
Give me someone to vote for. Please.
That means that the small size of the Fifth is part of a design. Is (was) its size part of an incumbent-protection racket? An objective observer would have to say yes.
At the relevant times (1992 and 2002), who were the incumbents in that geographical area? We know Larry Kochert (nominally a Democrat) was one of them. A Republican represented District 5 until 2004, and the man who represented it when it came time to redraw those districts was Dick Bliss, the Republican nominee this year.
Bliss, who lost his seat to the dynamic Beverly Crump in 2003, has questions to answer. What deal was cut to protect Kochert from the natural consequences of moving him into the Fifth? And what protection was offered in exchange? Bliss's failure to insist on fair districts is a failure that requires a defense.
Bliss, as a businessman and investor, has added greatly to the community. His family's travel agency and the recently acquired and renovated Calumet Club are small treasures for New Albany.
As a man, Bliss remains approachable and resolute in his opinions. He is thoughtful and if not progressive, at least in favor of progress (and there is a difference). It is important for Bliss to tell us his philosophical views regarding the role of government in achieving that progress. It's easy to suspect that Mr. Bliss thinks that government should step aside and let businesses do what it is they do and government do what it is they do.
That's pretty simplistic. It leads to unregulated commercial properties, lenient zoning, and the demolition of buildings that "get in the way." Conversely, it restricts government to building jails and paying cops. Under Bliss's watch, a lot of money was spent, but little of it was targeted to improving the prospects of the city. Yes, a jail was built. Yes, police and fire payrolls grew as a percentage of the city budget. What we want to know is if Dick Bliss "gets it." Will he support public investment over public spending (and there is a difference)?
On first blush, Bliss seems to be a nice guy who is rational and reasonable. His political philosophy may well be inconsistent with rejuvenating New Albany, or even with preserving what we have. On the other hand, he has put his money into the city and chosen to live and invest in its core communities. His personal integrity has not been questioned.
So a decision on Bliss comes down to politics. Are his politics something New Albany can live with? Does he represent his district? Can he represent the best interests of the city as a whole? Has the contribution made by his generation of public servants created confidence, or has it disqualified all who served in the 90s?
In short, the answer to the title question is "yes." D5 is a tough choice.
In that the writer is "shadowna5," I ought to have a decision made already.
Yet, I don't.
So what is the alternative to Dick Bliss? First-time candidate Diane McCartin Benedetti ran unopposed for the Democratic Party nomination. Friends tell me she is a nice woman, a soccer mom. Others tell me she, rightfully, loves and admires her brother, Gary "The Gary" McCartin, and relies on his advice and judgment.
While people I admire also appreciate the "contributions" the McCartin family has made to our community, the recent evidence is that the developer and his family, both as public servants and as supplicants to government, just don't get it. It would be difficult to expect Benedetti to renounce "the devil and all his works," and yet I'm not yet ready to write her off.
Fortunately, both Bliss and Benedetti have opportunities remaining to sway voters. Public forums remain. There is still time to ask and answer questions.
Here will be the defining question:
Mrs. Benedetti, do you agree with your brother that investing in downtown is a sucker's game? Do you believe that "hoping" for private investment in the city's urban core is nutso and that downtown is dead?
Mr. Bliss, do you agree with your party chairman, who said publicly that the Democrats have "saddled" us with Scribner Place? Is the only proper role of government the demolition of existing buildings so that existing businesses can have more parking?
Right now, I think I know the answers. I pray that what I think is untrue. While it can be argued that abstaining is foolish, and while a write-in vote at this late date is the same as abstaining, every voter has to live with herself.
Give me someone to vote for. Please.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Will they tell it to the judge?
Golly, we hope everyone had a safe and enjoyable time at the New Albany Beer Festival. Sure was nice of all those other folks blocking the access to downtown businesses to offer plenty of alcohol-absorbing breaded foods.
But now comes Harvest Hangover. As the sun rises on Monday, the cry heard in the hollow canyons of New Albany is "here come da judge!"
Yes, ladies and gentlemen. Monday's the day when the federal court opens its doors to accept the settlement of Vogt v. New Albany. You know the case, right? The one where they're arguing over the meaning of "is." Is 9000 equal to 5000? One side says yes, the other says no, and we're all going to pay to have someone from outside our burg explain which side is right. Anybody willing to place a bet?
How are the city council and the people who sued them going to answer when the judge asks "where is the settlement agreement?"
I wouldn't want to be sitting across from that judge today.
But now comes Harvest Hangover. As the sun rises on Monday, the cry heard in the hollow canyons of New Albany is "here come da judge!"
Yes, ladies and gentlemen. Monday's the day when the federal court opens its doors to accept the settlement of Vogt v. New Albany. You know the case, right? The one where they're arguing over the meaning of "is." Is 9000 equal to 5000? One side says yes, the other says no, and we're all going to pay to have someone from outside our burg explain which side is right. Anybody willing to place a bet?
How are the city council and the people who sued them going to answer when the judge asks "where is the settlement agreement?"
I wouldn't want to be sitting across from that judge today.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Weekend fun
It's the weekend (and what a weekend -- a massive Harvest Homecoming turnout that does little or nothing to rejuvenate the year-round merchants, but that does enrich the coffers of the [now] two national beer purveyors, plus numerous gypsy festival vendors. Yes, a Boy Scout troop or two and a varied mix of churches pick up a buck or two, but it seems as if the permanent residents of the business district have to write off the weekend...well, not the swill-bars, but then that is further enrichment of the mega-corp brewers, isn't it?)
I chuckled when reading the illogic exposed over at NA Confidential this week. "Self-proclaimed" blog tsar Roger Baylor was taken to task by someone who self-proclaims him/herself "HoosierPundit" and by FC Repub chairman Matthews. The "HP" shows his ignorance first by using the term web blog. A first-year newspaperperson will tell you that it's always "Web," with a capital "W." And the term "web blog" is pretty much a redundancy. "Blog" is the shortened form of Weblog, or 'blog. You simply can't write a log on the Web without being a 'blog. But I digress.
Baylor, more than any other commentator (including, notably, the local newspaper of record), has accurately reported the reality of the local political situation. Considering the fact that "The New Albanian" obtains absolutely no benefits from his efforts, his critics show infantile tendencies in their feeble attacks on his commentaries. Rather than engage Mr. Baylor, they resort to the "so's your mother!" caliber of retort.
I've met the senior editor of NAC and spent a considerable amount of time conversing with him and enjoying his fine craft beers. I would venture to guess that if the reluctant mayoral candidate put forward by the Republican Party had presented a platform that indicated any kind of understanding of the the needs of this city (no, Steve, they aren't "wants," they are crying needs.), Mr. Baylor may have swallowed his instinctive repulsion to the GOP creed and lent his voice to support a Republican candidacy for the office of mayor.
By all accounts, Mr. Hubbard not only doesn't want to be mayor, he doesn't even intend to serve as mayor. Already, rumors circulate that he will resign for "health reasons" and step aside for his party to appoint his successor. His nominal campaign manager, a man who calls himself a Democrat, is superceded by the county party chairman, who campaigns against the city's brilliant investment in Scribner Place. Hubbard himself blithely boasts about his ignorance of the issues important to New Albany and promises to "let the people decide."
Let the people decide??? That quote came in response to a question about reverting the city's downtown traffic patterns to two-way traffic, something that would immediately revitalize the business district, calm traffic, and make our core neighborhoods eminently safer. Can we expect drivers to take the decision into their own hands as to whether to turn left or right at the corner of Bank and Spring? Would some moron driving east from Bank Street on Spring Street be able to cite "Mayor Hubbard's" inanity as a defense for driving east on "East" Spring?
Like The New Albanian and many others, it is irrelevant to shadowna5 what high school a candidate may have graduated from. I don't care how many children a candidate has or how many years he or she has been married to the same spouse. And I most assuredly don't care to hear what church the candidate attends. The mere fact that a candidate feels like it's relevant to tell me he or she attends a particular church offends me. That's about as relevant as what make of car the candidate drives or which NASCAR driver is his or her favorite. UK, U of L, IU? Coke or Pepsi? Latin Mass or vernacular? Who cares?
[In the interest of full disclosure, shadowna5 lives and dies with Tony Stewart. Go "Smoke!" And to provide T.M.I., this blogger cannot fathom the "Tsar's" adoration of the NBA. I do like "Elector," though.]
Weekends should be fun. And the manufactured attack on NAC and its senior editor is nothing but frivolity. It insults the intelligence. Had it not been for Roger Baylor's entry into the fray, readers of The Tribune would not have been entertained OR informed.
And speaking of the much-improved local press organ, where are those promised endorsements and issue editorials? Your Indiucky Pride slogan is cool, but even the Courier-Journal expresses an opinion from time to time. Doesn't The Tribune have the balls to take a stand?
I chuckled when reading the illogic exposed over at NA Confidential this week. "Self-proclaimed" blog tsar Roger Baylor was taken to task by someone who self-proclaims him/herself "HoosierPundit" and by FC Repub chairman Matthews. The "HP" shows his ignorance first by using the term web blog. A first-year newspaperperson will tell you that it's always "Web," with a capital "W." And the term "web blog" is pretty much a redundancy. "Blog" is the shortened form of Weblog, or 'blog. You simply can't write a log on the Web without being a 'blog. But I digress.
Baylor, more than any other commentator (including, notably, the local newspaper of record), has accurately reported the reality of the local political situation. Considering the fact that "The New Albanian" obtains absolutely no benefits from his efforts, his critics show infantile tendencies in their feeble attacks on his commentaries. Rather than engage Mr. Baylor, they resort to the "so's your mother!" caliber of retort.
I've met the senior editor of NAC and spent a considerable amount of time conversing with him and enjoying his fine craft beers. I would venture to guess that if the reluctant mayoral candidate put forward by the Republican Party had presented a platform that indicated any kind of understanding of the the needs of this city (no, Steve, they aren't "wants," they are crying needs.), Mr. Baylor may have swallowed his instinctive repulsion to the GOP creed and lent his voice to support a Republican candidacy for the office of mayor.
By all accounts, Mr. Hubbard not only doesn't want to be mayor, he doesn't even intend to serve as mayor. Already, rumors circulate that he will resign for "health reasons" and step aside for his party to appoint his successor. His nominal campaign manager, a man who calls himself a Democrat, is superceded by the county party chairman, who campaigns against the city's brilliant investment in Scribner Place. Hubbard himself blithely boasts about his ignorance of the issues important to New Albany and promises to "let the people decide."
Let the people decide??? That quote came in response to a question about reverting the city's downtown traffic patterns to two-way traffic, something that would immediately revitalize the business district, calm traffic, and make our core neighborhoods eminently safer. Can we expect drivers to take the decision into their own hands as to whether to turn left or right at the corner of Bank and Spring? Would some moron driving east from Bank Street on Spring Street be able to cite "Mayor Hubbard's" inanity as a defense for driving east on "East" Spring?
Like The New Albanian and many others, it is irrelevant to shadowna5 what high school a candidate may have graduated from. I don't care how many children a candidate has or how many years he or she has been married to the same spouse. And I most assuredly don't care to hear what church the candidate attends. The mere fact that a candidate feels like it's relevant to tell me he or she attends a particular church offends me. That's about as relevant as what make of car the candidate drives or which NASCAR driver is his or her favorite. UK, U of L, IU? Coke or Pepsi? Latin Mass or vernacular? Who cares?
[In the interest of full disclosure, shadowna5 lives and dies with Tony Stewart. Go "Smoke!" And to provide T.M.I., this blogger cannot fathom the "Tsar's" adoration of the NBA. I do like "Elector," though.]
Weekends should be fun. And the manufactured attack on NAC and its senior editor is nothing but frivolity. It insults the intelligence. Had it not been for Roger Baylor's entry into the fray, readers of The Tribune would not have been entertained OR informed.
And speaking of the much-improved local press organ, where are those promised endorsements and issue editorials? Your Indiucky Pride slogan is cool, but even the Courier-Journal expresses an opinion from time to time. Doesn't The Tribune have the balls to take a stand?
Friday, October 12, 2007
District 1: It's Simple
We should be discussing the the impending ascension of Theresa Timberlake. At this point, there is no question but that the margin of the incumbent's "victory" in the Democratic Party primary (or as even self-professed D's might phrase it, "Democrat" party) consisted of fraudulent voters and others coerced or defrauded into casting their votes under the compulsion of the corrupt D1/D2 "machine."
Instead, we gaze into a grotesquely gerrymandered Westendia district where no one steps up to challenge the "grease-my-palm" incumbent, Dan Coffey. Not a write-in, not a Republican...no one steps up to challenge.
Considering that Mr. Coffey has never topped 1,000 votes in his two previous elections, why wouldn't someone challenge him? There is a palpable vulnerability and evident fear that emanates from the man, and yet, his re-election is a foregone conclusion. Were Coffey in any way formidable, it might be explainable. But he is palpably weak.
So, again overstepping the stated charge, shadowna5 opines on the election in another district.
Our recommendation: Abstain! It's a treasured tactic of the cowardly "Gang of Four" mentality. Why shouldn't the electors in District 1 adopt it? For those Republicans and Democrats completely dissatisfied with the choice, vote for the mayoral and at-large candidates of your choice, but leave the ballot blank on District 1. It's a foregone conclusion that Coffey will be the next councilman. A pending felony investigation may prevent him from taking office, but the only way for the voters to send a message is to suppress the vote totals for Coffey.
We'll be watching closely to see how many D1 voters leave that slot blank. As a man with no shame, Coffey can be counted on to ignore the clear import of the sum of those who reject him (after all, even one vote puts him back into office). A write-in is ineffective in that no one has stepped forward to file for acceptance of a write-in election. Coffey WILL be back. But the city will know that his only legitimacy comes from a tainted primary and a gerrymandered district.
If Coffey can avoid a felony conviction by pleading out to a lesser charge, he will have "earned" a state pension when he completes his tenth year as a councilman. That gives Keith Henderson two years to deprive him of it, and nothing we can do can make Henderson do his job. But, in all honesty, if the city, at the cost of a nominal pension, can rid itself of the stench of Coffey, it will be worth it.
Remember, ladies and gentlemen, this is the guy who promised to file suit against citizens seeking to enforce YOUR constitutional rights to equal protection. D1 voters, express your disgust with such intimidation tactics, such efforts to suppress the constitutional rights of all New Albanians. Leave your ballot blank when it comes to the District 1 race.
BONUS QUESTION: Did Brenda Scharlow (R), the GOP candidate for the District 3 seat, really say she supports a Greenway that despoils Silver Creek, rapes the Loop Island wetlands, and requires 4-wheel vehicular passage along the Floyd County portions of the federally-funded Greenway? Did no one ask her about the GOP platform that insists that the city remain in the city-county building, paying rent, when it is clear that a "City Hall" would be more cost-effective? And are my lying ears deceiving me when I hear that no one at the recent forum challenged Scharlow on the Republican platform plank that "Democrats have 'saddled' us with public investment in Scribner Place?" Aren't those pretty important issues that Mrs. Scharlow has failed to address?
BONUS QUESTION 2: Can any readers verify that Mr. Coffey abused his position to disrupt the community event put on by Destinations Booksellers on Thursday? Rumor has it that Coffey caused the C-SPAN bus visit to be "rousted" by city officials, even though all proper permits had been issued. Was this a retaliation against one of the owners of the store because he is a plaintiff in the redistricting lawsuit?
Instead, we gaze into a grotesquely gerrymandered Westendia district where no one steps up to challenge the "grease-my-palm" incumbent, Dan Coffey. Not a write-in, not a Republican...no one steps up to challenge.
Considering that Mr. Coffey has never topped 1,000 votes in his two previous elections, why wouldn't someone challenge him? There is a palpable vulnerability and evident fear that emanates from the man, and yet, his re-election is a foregone conclusion. Were Coffey in any way formidable, it might be explainable. But he is palpably weak.
So, again overstepping the stated charge, shadowna5 opines on the election in another district.
Our recommendation: Abstain! It's a treasured tactic of the cowardly "Gang of Four" mentality. Why shouldn't the electors in District 1 adopt it? For those Republicans and Democrats completely dissatisfied with the choice, vote for the mayoral and at-large candidates of your choice, but leave the ballot blank on District 1. It's a foregone conclusion that Coffey will be the next councilman. A pending felony investigation may prevent him from taking office, but the only way for the voters to send a message is to suppress the vote totals for Coffey.
We'll be watching closely to see how many D1 voters leave that slot blank. As a man with no shame, Coffey can be counted on to ignore the clear import of the sum of those who reject him (after all, even one vote puts him back into office). A write-in is ineffective in that no one has stepped forward to file for acceptance of a write-in election. Coffey WILL be back. But the city will know that his only legitimacy comes from a tainted primary and a gerrymandered district.
If Coffey can avoid a felony conviction by pleading out to a lesser charge, he will have "earned" a state pension when he completes his tenth year as a councilman. That gives Keith Henderson two years to deprive him of it, and nothing we can do can make Henderson do his job. But, in all honesty, if the city, at the cost of a nominal pension, can rid itself of the stench of Coffey, it will be worth it.
Remember, ladies and gentlemen, this is the guy who promised to file suit against citizens seeking to enforce YOUR constitutional rights to equal protection. D1 voters, express your disgust with such intimidation tactics, such efforts to suppress the constitutional rights of all New Albanians. Leave your ballot blank when it comes to the District 1 race.
BONUS QUESTION: Did Brenda Scharlow (R), the GOP candidate for the District 3 seat, really say she supports a Greenway that despoils Silver Creek, rapes the Loop Island wetlands, and requires 4-wheel vehicular passage along the Floyd County portions of the federally-funded Greenway? Did no one ask her about the GOP platform that insists that the city remain in the city-county building, paying rent, when it is clear that a "City Hall" would be more cost-effective? And are my lying ears deceiving me when I hear that no one at the recent forum challenged Scharlow on the Republican platform plank that "Democrats have 'saddled' us with public investment in Scribner Place?" Aren't those pretty important issues that Mrs. Scharlow has failed to address?
BONUS QUESTION 2: Can any readers verify that Mr. Coffey abused his position to disrupt the community event put on by Destinations Booksellers on Thursday? Rumor has it that Coffey caused the C-SPAN bus visit to be "rousted" by city officials, even though all proper permits had been issued. Was this a retaliation against one of the owners of the store because he is a plaintiff in the redistricting lawsuit?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)