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.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
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?
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Five takes a look at Three
It's not my job to "shadow" events in District 3, but I can't quite resist commenting on what I've heard coming out of the "major" party campaigns going on over there.
Though I couldn't make it, friends reported some of the comments made by the candidates at the Muir Manor candidate's forum, moderated by Greg Phipps. From what I am told, all but a handful of the attendees were members of the East Spring Street Neighborhood Association. (what's going on with their acronym, ESNA? Doesn't the name dictate 2 esses?)
Mr. Price showed something by just appearing. The Spring Streeters are almost uniformly fed up with Steve Price. It would be hard to characterize that group as either Democrat or Republican, but for the most part they are progressive in the best sense. They believe in a government that is responsive to its constituents, and they believe that government SHOULD be a vehicle for accomplishing community-shared objectives.
Mr. Price seems to believe that the "opinions," however uninformed, of his friends should have more weight than the informed, well-researched, and strongly expressed opinions of voters who aren't his friends. I know, from their ill-researched and knee-jerk, reactionary opinions as expressed in public, that Price's friends have no allegiance to facts. During the forum (which turned into a debate between the SS folk and the sitting council member) it was again brought up that Price doesn't worry about facts. It seems that he mistrusts facts and according to the newspaper of record's reporting, let's "rumor" control his voting behavior.
One person who was there told me that Price expressed that he was for the "common man." I may be taking a wild guess here, but I think that the third district's representative thinks that anyone who uses big words is trying to fool him. One audience member implored Price to consider that considering the advice, if not the wishes, of people who think beyond one level (and use big words like "accountability") might make him a better councilman.
Another correspondent said that Steve Price convinced her to vote for Scharlow with his repeated emphasis that we shouldn't repeat the mistakes of the past. Like recruiting Your Community Bank and its other tenants by building a municipal parking garage. Like making a leveraged public investment to bring about a YMCA/Aquatic Center in downtown ($130,000 in payments each year for 17 years=$1.91 million in exchange for a $20 million+ facility, albeit one that will not directly generate taxes). Mistake, according to this woman? Electing Price again.
Republican opponent Brenda Scharlow wasn't perfect. In many ways, according to observers, her solutions were as simplistic as Price's. Yet, Price has proved to be unwilling to learn. Maybe Scharlow will be more willing to listen. Experience as a cheerleader is hardly a plus, but in the context of the forum, and as a distinct counterpoint to Mr. Price's ongoing campaign to vilify and slander the city itself, her promise to lead cheers for New Albany might be worth a vote.
Scharlow, in a folksy way that exceeded the typical Price aphorisms, compared her solution as a mother of seemingly dozens to the Price Theorem: The lady said that when faced with a tight budget, she chose to expand the revenue side of the equation. Price would cut the expenditures. The same people, aided by new investment, could eat healthy salads under Scharlow's professed plan. The same people, adopting a bunker mentality, untrusting of new ideas, would, under the Price Theorem, settle for macaroni and cheese, and be destined for cheeseless macaroni in a few years, then sawdust-enhanced macaroni, then...day-old bread?
Let me be clear. Based on his performance, Steve Price should not be returned to office. But he is, as his supporters insist, not a bad guy. It is (remotely) possible that he could someday serve his city. But first, he needs to understand that doing the job of a councilman is not supposed to be easy. There will be ideas that are hard. George Bush complained that his job was hard, but all he did was complain. Price's default reaction is to distrust and vote against any idea he doesn't understand.
It may not be a compliment, but I think Steve Price is smarter than George Bush. His instincts are more compassionate, certainly. His concern for the welfare of his constituents is exceedingly higher than the son of the man "born on third base, thinking he had hit a triple" (Thank you, Molly).
But performance counts, too. Price has failed to perform. He has failed to grow. Rather than assert himself, he has relied on bad advisors (the Schmidts, Dan Coffey, and a few non-public personalities who also deny the facts).
Here's something telling. One phone caller told me that Steve Price said something like "I'm not Dan (Coffey's) drinkin' buddy!" I don't even know if Price "drinks." But Roger Baylor pointed out that Price voted exactly the same way as Coffey on more than 98% of council votes.
Helen Spudich is quoted in the paper to the effect that Price won't listen to the EssEssers. She's right. Perhaps he could have been an effective representative for the growth of this city. But he chose the wrong advisors.
In all fairness, Price presented himself early as someone who could not be talked to. He reacted negatively to ideas he couldn't understand. More critically, he didn't try to understand those ideas. The willingness to take a phone call isn't enough. As Charlie Harshfield is reported to have said, "you didn't hear a word I said." And it is reported that Price replied, "That's a fair statement."
You get no credit for taking calls if your mind is already made up and you can't or won't listen to a constituent.
Scharlow may have flaws, as do all of us. But Price needs to sit out the next four years. If he can understand that MOST people have little interest in hurting the city and that ALL input is valuable, then maybe in 8 or 12 years he can present himself again as a candidate.
It would be dismissive to "endorse" Scharlow's candidacy without advancing some of her campaign planks. And it would be equally unfair to ignore the flaws in her platform.
Shadowna5 leans left, frankly far left, compared to the average New Albanian (not Roger Baylor, but the 38,000 or so others who claim or decline the appelation). "Endorsing" a Republican takes consideration. But Scharlow has demonstrated a clear understanding of the importance of strengthening our city's core. She and her family have invested their fortunes there over the years and continue to do so. It remains to be seen if she is any more capable of understanding nuance than Price. It remains to be seen if she is any more capable of resisting the importations of her party's "Old Guard."
BUT...
Expanding the pie is the only way out of our 30-year slide. And Brenda Scharlow clearly understands that. She can be relied on to seek out the community's benefit over her own. She will not shrink from debate (I know that from personal experience). From the vantage point of Shadowna5, she is not perfect. But she is an improvement.
At Wednesday's forum, according to one reporter, Scharlow boasted that she is impatient. She reportedly said that she was aware of, and dissatisfied with, the fact that things move exceedingly slowly. When asked if that was acceptable, she declaimed that she was not one to remain passive at the prospect of inertia.
From the vantage point of District 5 (as it is currently organized), that's enough to earn an endorsement. We in D5 (or 5D, as "councilman3d" Maury Goldberg would put it), that's enough to gain our endorsement.
Mr. Bliss (R-Approachable) and Mrs. McCartin-Benedetti (D-Unknown) would be well-advised to address that quite-important quality in a candidate.
NEXT UP: D1, the easiest endorsement ever.
Though I couldn't make it, friends reported some of the comments made by the candidates at the Muir Manor candidate's forum, moderated by Greg Phipps. From what I am told, all but a handful of the attendees were members of the East Spring Street Neighborhood Association. (what's going on with their acronym, ESNA? Doesn't the name dictate 2 esses?)
Mr. Price showed something by just appearing. The Spring Streeters are almost uniformly fed up with Steve Price. It would be hard to characterize that group as either Democrat or Republican, but for the most part they are progressive in the best sense. They believe in a government that is responsive to its constituents, and they believe that government SHOULD be a vehicle for accomplishing community-shared objectives.
Mr. Price seems to believe that the "opinions," however uninformed, of his friends should have more weight than the informed, well-researched, and strongly expressed opinions of voters who aren't his friends. I know, from their ill-researched and knee-jerk, reactionary opinions as expressed in public, that Price's friends have no allegiance to facts. During the forum (which turned into a debate between the SS folk and the sitting council member) it was again brought up that Price doesn't worry about facts. It seems that he mistrusts facts and according to the newspaper of record's reporting, let's "rumor" control his voting behavior.
One person who was there told me that Price expressed that he was for the "common man." I may be taking a wild guess here, but I think that the third district's representative thinks that anyone who uses big words is trying to fool him. One audience member implored Price to consider that considering the advice, if not the wishes, of people who think beyond one level (and use big words like "accountability") might make him a better councilman.
Another correspondent said that Steve Price convinced her to vote for Scharlow with his repeated emphasis that we shouldn't repeat the mistakes of the past. Like recruiting Your Community Bank and its other tenants by building a municipal parking garage. Like making a leveraged public investment to bring about a YMCA/Aquatic Center in downtown ($130,000 in payments each year for 17 years=$1.91 million in exchange for a $20 million+ facility, albeit one that will not directly generate taxes). Mistake, according to this woman? Electing Price again.
Republican opponent Brenda Scharlow wasn't perfect. In many ways, according to observers, her solutions were as simplistic as Price's. Yet, Price has proved to be unwilling to learn. Maybe Scharlow will be more willing to listen. Experience as a cheerleader is hardly a plus, but in the context of the forum, and as a distinct counterpoint to Mr. Price's ongoing campaign to vilify and slander the city itself, her promise to lead cheers for New Albany might be worth a vote.
Scharlow, in a folksy way that exceeded the typical Price aphorisms, compared her solution as a mother of seemingly dozens to the Price Theorem: The lady said that when faced with a tight budget, she chose to expand the revenue side of the equation. Price would cut the expenditures. The same people, aided by new investment, could eat healthy salads under Scharlow's professed plan. The same people, adopting a bunker mentality, untrusting of new ideas, would, under the Price Theorem, settle for macaroni and cheese, and be destined for cheeseless macaroni in a few years, then sawdust-enhanced macaroni, then...day-old bread?
Let me be clear. Based on his performance, Steve Price should not be returned to office. But he is, as his supporters insist, not a bad guy. It is (remotely) possible that he could someday serve his city. But first, he needs to understand that doing the job of a councilman is not supposed to be easy. There will be ideas that are hard. George Bush complained that his job was hard, but all he did was complain. Price's default reaction is to distrust and vote against any idea he doesn't understand.
It may not be a compliment, but I think Steve Price is smarter than George Bush. His instincts are more compassionate, certainly. His concern for the welfare of his constituents is exceedingly higher than the son of the man "born on third base, thinking he had hit a triple" (Thank you, Molly).
But performance counts, too. Price has failed to perform. He has failed to grow. Rather than assert himself, he has relied on bad advisors (the Schmidts, Dan Coffey, and a few non-public personalities who also deny the facts).
Here's something telling. One phone caller told me that Steve Price said something like "I'm not Dan (Coffey's) drinkin' buddy!" I don't even know if Price "drinks." But Roger Baylor pointed out that Price voted exactly the same way as Coffey on more than 98% of council votes.
Helen Spudich is quoted in the paper to the effect that Price won't listen to the EssEssers. She's right. Perhaps he could have been an effective representative for the growth of this city. But he chose the wrong advisors.
In all fairness, Price presented himself early as someone who could not be talked to. He reacted negatively to ideas he couldn't understand. More critically, he didn't try to understand those ideas. The willingness to take a phone call isn't enough. As Charlie Harshfield is reported to have said, "you didn't hear a word I said." And it is reported that Price replied, "That's a fair statement."
You get no credit for taking calls if your mind is already made up and you can't or won't listen to a constituent.
Scharlow may have flaws, as do all of us. But Price needs to sit out the next four years. If he can understand that MOST people have little interest in hurting the city and that ALL input is valuable, then maybe in 8 or 12 years he can present himself again as a candidate.
It would be dismissive to "endorse" Scharlow's candidacy without advancing some of her campaign planks. And it would be equally unfair to ignore the flaws in her platform.
Shadowna5 leans left, frankly far left, compared to the average New Albanian (not Roger Baylor, but the 38,000 or so others who claim or decline the appelation). "Endorsing" a Republican takes consideration. But Scharlow has demonstrated a clear understanding of the importance of strengthening our city's core. She and her family have invested their fortunes there over the years and continue to do so. It remains to be seen if she is any more capable of understanding nuance than Price. It remains to be seen if she is any more capable of resisting the importations of her party's "Old Guard."
BUT...
Expanding the pie is the only way out of our 30-year slide. And Brenda Scharlow clearly understands that. She can be relied on to seek out the community's benefit over her own. She will not shrink from debate (I know that from personal experience). From the vantage point of Shadowna5, she is not perfect. But she is an improvement.
At Wednesday's forum, according to one reporter, Scharlow boasted that she is impatient. She reportedly said that she was aware of, and dissatisfied with, the fact that things move exceedingly slowly. When asked if that was acceptable, she declaimed that she was not one to remain passive at the prospect of inertia.
From the vantage point of District 5 (as it is currently organized), that's enough to earn an endorsement. We in D5 (or 5D, as "councilman3d" Maury Goldberg would put it), that's enough to gain our endorsement.
Mr. Bliss (R-Approachable) and Mrs. McCartin-Benedetti (D-Unknown) would be well-advised to address that quite-important quality in a candidate.
NEXT UP: D1, the easiest endorsement ever.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Watchdog Awakes
On January 1, 2008, precisely at noon, a group of individuals, predominantly men, will be sworn in to serve as the legislative body for the residents of New Albany, Indiana. As are most things in this banded burg, exactly none of them will present themselves to be so sworn, as in New Albany it is assumed that the Indiana Code is purely advisory, not compulsory.
Nonetheless, at some point in January, nine individuals will take office as council members on the Common Council for the Civil City of New Albany. A majority of them will be be assuming seats they did not occupy in the prior four-year term. Several will be beginning their first tenures as public servants. A few will be susceptible to the suggestive advice of re-elected representatives. And another few will be returning for yet another term of office.
It is likely that only one will be returning for a third consecutive term. That one, representing a populace of over 6,000 people, will have been returned to office by corraling the votes of a mere 250 members of his political party. More than 5,750 others will have failed to cast a vote to affirm him.
In addition to holding the new 5th District council member accountable, this writer will make it a priority to expose the lies and corruption of that third-termer.
Welcome to the new reality. Be wired or be out of the loop.
NA Shadow Council is the voice of the people. For the next four years, NA Shadow Council will report the facts of each and every piece of legislation that comes before the City Council of New Albany, Indiana. Each vote will be recorded. The expressed opinions of each serving council member will be reported.
In addition, the NA Shadow Council will record for posterity its position on every issue that is presented to the council between 2008 and 2011. The NA Shadow Council, unlike past councils, will endeavor to illuminate rather than obfuscate. Its contributors, while at times remaining anonymous, pledge to "abstain" only when the constituted council chooses to obscure the facts so efficiently that no rational evaluation can be made.
Although the NA Shadow Council is a construct, it will rely on the efficacy of the City Clerk in making agendas and minutes available on a timely basis. Contributors to this Web log will insist that the city clerk, whoever that may be, maintain a readily accessible Web site wherein such records will be maintained. The NA Shadow Council will have representative attendance at every lawful meeting of the City Council. And following every council meeting, you can expect NA Shadow Council to record its "vote."
Is NA Shadow Council political? You betcha! Where your incumbent representatives fail to represent the best interests of this city, you can expect NASC to call them to account. The contributors and commenters on this blog can be expected to contend for office in 2011 if the incumbents fail to serve their constituencies.
Does NASC have an agenda? Count on it! Our agenda is the transformation of New Albany politics and public service from one in which elected office is little more than a jobs program for political hacks. The City Council should be, and will be if we have our way, a body truly representative of the best interests of the residents of this city. Those who are sworn in on Jan. 1 (yeah, right) are on notice that their actions, statements, and votes will be subject to intense scrutiny during the ensuing four years. Those who are found wanting will NOT be allowed to slide by. NASC will be creating a PAC (political action committee) to conduct explicitly political activities to support and oppose individuals contending for election in 2011. Stay tuned for ways in which you can contribute financially.
In the meantime, we invite all contributions of opinion. Our policy will be to allow comments from registered bloggers. Security measures will be instituted to eliminate "spam," but anyone willing to consistently identify themselves as a "Blogger" registered member can contribute comments. We will rely on the community to rebut and refute obviously self-interested and biased comments, but we will not prevent free comment unless and until it becomes non-productive to a rational discourse.
Nonetheless, at some point in January, nine individuals will take office as council members on the Common Council for the Civil City of New Albany. A majority of them will be be assuming seats they did not occupy in the prior four-year term. Several will be beginning their first tenures as public servants. A few will be susceptible to the suggestive advice of re-elected representatives. And another few will be returning for yet another term of office.
It is likely that only one will be returning for a third consecutive term. That one, representing a populace of over 6,000 people, will have been returned to office by corraling the votes of a mere 250 members of his political party. More than 5,750 others will have failed to cast a vote to affirm him.
In addition to holding the new 5th District council member accountable, this writer will make it a priority to expose the lies and corruption of that third-termer.
Welcome to the new reality. Be wired or be out of the loop.
NA Shadow Council is the voice of the people. For the next four years, NA Shadow Council will report the facts of each and every piece of legislation that comes before the City Council of New Albany, Indiana. Each vote will be recorded. The expressed opinions of each serving council member will be reported.
In addition, the NA Shadow Council will record for posterity its position on every issue that is presented to the council between 2008 and 2011. The NA Shadow Council, unlike past councils, will endeavor to illuminate rather than obfuscate. Its contributors, while at times remaining anonymous, pledge to "abstain" only when the constituted council chooses to obscure the facts so efficiently that no rational evaluation can be made.
Although the NA Shadow Council is a construct, it will rely on the efficacy of the City Clerk in making agendas and minutes available on a timely basis. Contributors to this Web log will insist that the city clerk, whoever that may be, maintain a readily accessible Web site wherein such records will be maintained. The NA Shadow Council will have representative attendance at every lawful meeting of the City Council. And following every council meeting, you can expect NA Shadow Council to record its "vote."
Is NA Shadow Council political? You betcha! Where your incumbent representatives fail to represent the best interests of this city, you can expect NASC to call them to account. The contributors and commenters on this blog can be expected to contend for office in 2011 if the incumbents fail to serve their constituencies.
Does NASC have an agenda? Count on it! Our agenda is the transformation of New Albany politics and public service from one in which elected office is little more than a jobs program for political hacks. The City Council should be, and will be if we have our way, a body truly representative of the best interests of the residents of this city. Those who are sworn in on Jan. 1 (yeah, right) are on notice that their actions, statements, and votes will be subject to intense scrutiny during the ensuing four years. Those who are found wanting will NOT be allowed to slide by. NASC will be creating a PAC (political action committee) to conduct explicitly political activities to support and oppose individuals contending for election in 2011. Stay tuned for ways in which you can contribute financially.
In the meantime, we invite all contributions of opinion. Our policy will be to allow comments from registered bloggers. Security measures will be instituted to eliminate "spam," but anyone willing to consistently identify themselves as a "Blogger" registered member can contribute comments. We will rely on the community to rebut and refute obviously self-interested and biased comments, but we will not prevent free comment unless and until it becomes non-productive to a rational discourse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)