Maybe you don't care. So be it. But if you do...
We were present at the premier campaign event of the 2007 mayoral campaign, the serial debate between the mayoral candidates of each primary party. Other witnesses will attest in affirmation that our current mayor voluntarily expressed his intention to make two-way streets in the downtown area his No. 1 priority.
We take campaign promises seriously here at NA Shadow Council.
With the exception of the prescient purchase of the Baptist Tabernacle on 4th Street, and the possible survival of the workplace smoking ban, we can't identify an appreciable accomplishment by this administration from January to date. Forgive us...the intensive yard-waste cleanup of July-August is appreciated. Thanks, Mickey.
In the meantime, with global warming intensifying, we have streets that need mowing, God forbid. The code enforcement officer is barred from enforcing city ordinances at commercial properties, leading to at least one "Felix Unger" to community standards and basic health standards.
We're waiting. Is this England incarnation "more of the same," or is it truly an administration that seeks to make us proud?
Showing posts with label doug england. Show all posts
Showing posts with label doug england. Show all posts
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Friday, June 27, 2008
What a Week!
Our favorite books blog posted this today and we thought we’d share it with you.
(partial) Quote of the day:
…Ayn Rand, who is to traditionally female attributes like empathy and interpersonal relationships what Grover Norquist is to functioning government…Salon Magazine
(Rand was the author of Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, Anthem, We the Living, and The Virtues of Selfishness. Her philosophy of “objectivism” preached that self-interest was the only virtue and that altruism was both non-productive and a sham. Alan Greenspan, former head of the Federal Reserve Bank, is probably her most famous acolyte.)
If you've been paying attention, you knew that this week would be, if not pivotal, at least seminal in fulfilling the aspirations of our city's residents (including, by the way, them people).
There is so much happening on both sides of the struggle for New Albany's future that it could be a full-time job chronicling it. In the public, private, artistic, commercial, and philanthropic worlds, the last week of June 2008 may be remembered as "the little bang" from which our future evolved.
Marcia Nedland and Eileen Flanagan, nationally recognized experts in the resuscitation of cities, made a deep impression on more than 100 avid believers in progress. Apparently, New Albany stacks up pretty well when compared to other American cities...in its potential and in the spirit of those who are its stakeholders.
The urban core has seen a flare, and it's not an emergency flare, but a beacon that hope is on the way. The business community downtown experienced its expected two steps forward, one step back brand of progress. But it is progress, and measurable at that.
The Carnegie Center for Art and History heard very good news about the extent of its community support and its endowment campaign. The YMCA announced the launch of its membership drive, pounding the nail into the coffin of those who continue to treat its impending debut as if it were the eruption of Mount St. Helens, sending residents fleeing toward Birdseye and other points where progress is a "furrin" word.
Dramatic developments in the fight for electoral fairness should come to light in the next fortnight. The Redevelopment Commission authorized the sale of $2 million in bonds, partially to support the match for $983K in federal largesse toward the Ohio River Greenway project. And there even may be news on changes in the lineup of the City of New Albany's payroll.
For now, let us leave you with this query regarding headliner B.J. Thomas and the advertisements for the Independence Day Eve celebration, brought to you by Doug England and others...well, mostly by you, who probably didn't know that $35,000 in tax money was being expended to entertain us. When we read the item about Mr. Thomas (performer of Raindrops Keep Fallin' on My Head), we also read that he was known for having recorded I Can't Stop Believing and Hooked on a Feeling.
Are we addled, or are those last two the same song, or not?
Speaking of the July 3 cityfest, will you be there on site? We've heard rumors that it will be covered live by an emerging media organization. Could Cary Stemle, formerly of LEO, have built an organization already? If anyone has more information about this, please share it with us, won't you?
July 3 is, for those of you who slept through class, actually Independents Day, which makes it somewhat ironic that the Democrats will conduct the exercises. July 4 is Independence Day, which commemorates the Declaration of Independence promulgated 232 years ago next week.
(partial) Quote of the day:
…Ayn Rand, who is to traditionally female attributes like empathy and interpersonal relationships what Grover Norquist is to functioning government…Salon Magazine
(Rand was the author of Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, Anthem, We the Living, and The Virtues of Selfishness. Her philosophy of “objectivism” preached that self-interest was the only virtue and that altruism was both non-productive and a sham. Alan Greenspan, former head of the Federal Reserve Bank, is probably her most famous acolyte.)
If you've been paying attention, you knew that this week would be, if not pivotal, at least seminal in fulfilling the aspirations of our city's residents (including, by the way, them people).
There is so much happening on both sides of the struggle for New Albany's future that it could be a full-time job chronicling it. In the public, private, artistic, commercial, and philanthropic worlds, the last week of June 2008 may be remembered as "the little bang" from which our future evolved.
Marcia Nedland and Eileen Flanagan, nationally recognized experts in the resuscitation of cities, made a deep impression on more than 100 avid believers in progress. Apparently, New Albany stacks up pretty well when compared to other American cities...in its potential and in the spirit of those who are its stakeholders.
The urban core has seen a flare, and it's not an emergency flare, but a beacon that hope is on the way. The business community downtown experienced its expected two steps forward, one step back brand of progress. But it is progress, and measurable at that.
The Carnegie Center for Art and History heard very good news about the extent of its community support and its endowment campaign. The YMCA announced the launch of its membership drive, pounding the nail into the coffin of those who continue to treat its impending debut as if it were the eruption of Mount St. Helens, sending residents fleeing toward Birdseye and other points where progress is a "furrin" word.
Dramatic developments in the fight for electoral fairness should come to light in the next fortnight. The Redevelopment Commission authorized the sale of $2 million in bonds, partially to support the match for $983K in federal largesse toward the Ohio River Greenway project. And there even may be news on changes in the lineup of the City of New Albany's payroll.
For now, let us leave you with this query regarding headliner B.J. Thomas and the advertisements for the Independence Day Eve celebration, brought to you by Doug England and others...well, mostly by you, who probably didn't know that $35,000 in tax money was being expended to entertain us. When we read the item about Mr. Thomas (performer of Raindrops Keep Fallin' on My Head), we also read that he was known for having recorded I Can't Stop Believing and Hooked on a Feeling.
Are we addled, or are those last two the same song, or not?
Speaking of the July 3 cityfest, will you be there on site? We've heard rumors that it will be covered live by an emerging media organization. Could Cary Stemle, formerly of LEO, have built an organization already? If anyone has more information about this, please share it with us, won't you?
July 3 is, for those of you who slept through class, actually Independents Day, which makes it somewhat ironic that the Democrats will conduct the exercises. July 4 is Independence Day, which commemorates the Declaration of Independence promulgated 232 years ago next week.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
At Root, This is Our Goal
Your host here at NA Shadow Council will admit to having a deep sense of foreboding about impending public policy decisions in New Albany. By the time you read this, you will undoubtedly have heard about how the "English Restoration" is in full retreat with the barbarians hot on their heels. Nothing less than the future solvency of the city is at stake this month. This city's ability to grab onto the tow-rope of progress now appears to be thwarted by naked appeals to ignorance.
The council members who will tonight sound the death knell for New Albany's near-term future would not prevail if the residents of New Albany could pause long enough to think about the consequences. It is not unreasonable to believe that even this council might, if they would just pause, recognize the insanity of their actions.
The England administration does not escape blame here, either. Faced with resistance and sabotage, the mayor and his minions have elected to hoard their political capital. We are sure they will claim that discretion is the better part of valor or wisdom or some other such self-serving nonsense. Instead of marshaling support and fighting for what is right, the England administration caved. Instead of taking their message to the people, they cowered. Instead of expending their political capital on an issue it was banked for, they huddle and count their coin.
Those who hail the virtues of "comity" and "cooperation" only abdicate when they let a desire for "comity" prevent them from using their best judgment on behalf of their constituents. Leadership is not the result of elections. It is the result of actions. The character of leaders is revealed by their actions, not their positions.
A correspondent sent us a missive alerting us to an October book titled Becoming Good Ancestors. We won't tell you about the book. But the title motivated us to take keyboard in hand with this last-minute plea.
Remember June 19, 2008. Tell your friends, your family, and your neighbors. Witness the carnage yourself at tonight's city council meeting, if you will.
As a matter of fact, by stripping New Albany's income tax revenues to "save" ratepayers from a sewer rate increase, a council majority is handing your tax dollars to businesses and outsiders who don't even pay taxes. Why, we ask, should that be treated as some type of "salvation?"
In a rational world, that would be labeled as corruption of the most heinous degree. For a council member to, without explanation, vote to hand over city tax revenues to pay the operating expenses (not even the investment, but the operating expenses) of the city's largest industrial concerns, to pay the household expenses of Floyd Countians who don't live in or pay taxes to New Albany, provokes only two possible explanations - absolute drooling imbecility, or felony solicitation of bribery.
Absolute drooling imbecility is not a bar to retaining (or attaining, apparently) public office in this city. But conviction of a felony is grounds for removal and incarceration. If Republican prosecutor Keith Henderson won't convene a grand jury to gather evidence (and he won't), would someone please tell me what number to call to motivate a political corruption investigation?
The citizens of the Iroquois Confederacy, among other Native American tribes, aspired to conduct all their public policy with an eye to the seventh generation; that would be their sons' sons' sons' sons' sons' sons and likewise so on down the matrilineal line of daughters.
The tribe of New Albanians (at least their elected representatives) seems to have trouble looking as far forward as the seventh generation of a fruit fly. And the responsibility, ultimately, lies on the tribe, not the representatives. Unless and until the tribe renounces the short-sightedness of the people they elect, then it will be their legacy that is besmirched and their memories cursed by future generations.
At root, then, this is our goal...to become better ancestors.
The council members who will tonight sound the death knell for New Albany's near-term future would not prevail if the residents of New Albany could pause long enough to think about the consequences. It is not unreasonable to believe that even this council might, if they would just pause, recognize the insanity of their actions.
The England administration does not escape blame here, either. Faced with resistance and sabotage, the mayor and his minions have elected to hoard their political capital. We are sure they will claim that discretion is the better part of valor or wisdom or some other such self-serving nonsense. Instead of marshaling support and fighting for what is right, the England administration caved. Instead of taking their message to the people, they cowered. Instead of expending their political capital on an issue it was banked for, they huddle and count their coin.
Those who hail the virtues of "comity" and "cooperation" only abdicate when they let a desire for "comity" prevent them from using their best judgment on behalf of their constituents. Leadership is not the result of elections. It is the result of actions. The character of leaders is revealed by their actions, not their positions.
A correspondent sent us a missive alerting us to an October book titled Becoming Good Ancestors. We won't tell you about the book. But the title motivated us to take keyboard in hand with this last-minute plea.
Remember June 19, 2008. Tell your friends, your family, and your neighbors. Witness the carnage yourself at tonight's city council meeting, if you will.
As a matter of fact, by stripping New Albany's income tax revenues to "save" ratepayers from a sewer rate increase, a council majority is handing your tax dollars to businesses and outsiders who don't even pay taxes. Why, we ask, should that be treated as some type of "salvation?"
In a rational world, that would be labeled as corruption of the most heinous degree. For a council member to, without explanation, vote to hand over city tax revenues to pay the operating expenses (not even the investment, but the operating expenses) of the city's largest industrial concerns, to pay the household expenses of Floyd Countians who don't live in or pay taxes to New Albany, provokes only two possible explanations - absolute drooling imbecility, or felony solicitation of bribery.
Absolute drooling imbecility is not a bar to retaining (or attaining, apparently) public office in this city. But conviction of a felony is grounds for removal and incarceration. If Republican prosecutor Keith Henderson won't convene a grand jury to gather evidence (and he won't), would someone please tell me what number to call to motivate a political corruption investigation?
The citizens of the Iroquois Confederacy, among other Native American tribes, aspired to conduct all their public policy with an eye to the seventh generation; that would be their sons' sons' sons' sons' sons' sons and likewise so on down the matrilineal line of daughters.
The tribe of New Albanians (at least their elected representatives) seems to have trouble looking as far forward as the seventh generation of a fruit fly. And the responsibility, ultimately, lies on the tribe, not the representatives. Unless and until the tribe renounces the short-sightedness of the people they elect, then it will be their legacy that is besmirched and their memories cursed by future generations.
At root, then, this is our goal...to become better ancestors.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
A June Week of Consequence
Almost no one will take notice of it, but the June and July convocations (canonical prayer and religious pledge included) of the Common Council for the City of New Albany are destined to be determinative ones.
Tomorrow, we hope to bring you our very best arguments for a progressive future (and one that seems doomed, based on today's report by Daniel Suddeath in The Tribune).
But today, we want to merely set the stage.
Stealing from a book promotion, we found this snippet:
Global warming.
50 million Americans uninsured.
Massive budget deficits.
Failing public schools.
A tarnished national image.
These are not policy failures.
Actually, these crises are the inevitable result of the policies we've chosen. Today's policies were designed to treat our dependence on oil as a given, our basic health as a luxury, an inadequate education as a privilege, and our children's wealth as our own.
A "donut" economy with regard to downtown commerce.
Streets that exact an enormous financial toll on New Albany drivers.
A confusing array of nonsensical traffic patterns that encourage speedway behavior and that discourage commercial traffic.
A diminishing commitment to community and, in particular, community schools.
A dependent and debilitated sewer utility inadequate to meet the community's needs and unable to support itself from its own revenues.
Policies that encourage criminal enterprises to migrate into New Albany.
Policies that discourage home ownership and allow irresponsible absentee house owners to prosper.
A defensive, insular, survival response on the part of residents whereby they "hunker down" and try to survive all of the above.
We know it's a revolutionary proposition, but we would propose that ALL of the above abominable results are the inevitable result of the policies we've chosen.
This IS the challenge we face. This IS our defining moment.
When 2011 rolls around, we must be ready to replace those who endorse the policies that are designed to destroy our common weal. When 2011 rolls around, we must have rallied a majority who reject both the policies and the inevitable results those policies have created.
One thing we do know. D5 is not part of the solution.
Check back tomorrow.
Our illustrious Sewer Board, purportedly not under the direction of our current chief executive, is prepared to continue a policy designed to further degrade New Albany, and by extension, the prosperity of all New Albanians. Quelle horror!
Tomorrow, we hope to bring you our very best arguments for a progressive future (and one that seems doomed, based on today's report by Daniel Suddeath in The Tribune).
But today, we want to merely set the stage.
Stealing from a book promotion, we found this snippet:
Global warming.
50 million Americans uninsured.
Massive budget deficits.
Failing public schools.
A tarnished national image.
These are not policy failures.
Actually, these crises are the inevitable result of the policies we've chosen. Today's policies were designed to treat our dependence on oil as a given, our basic health as a luxury, an inadequate education as a privilege, and our children's wealth as our own.
A "donut" economy with regard to downtown commerce.
Streets that exact an enormous financial toll on New Albany drivers.
A confusing array of nonsensical traffic patterns that encourage speedway behavior and that discourage commercial traffic.
A diminishing commitment to community and, in particular, community schools.
A dependent and debilitated sewer utility inadequate to meet the community's needs and unable to support itself from its own revenues.
Policies that encourage criminal enterprises to migrate into New Albany.
Policies that discourage home ownership and allow irresponsible absentee house owners to prosper.
A defensive, insular, survival response on the part of residents whereby they "hunker down" and try to survive all of the above.
We know it's a revolutionary proposition, but we would propose that ALL of the above abominable results are the inevitable result of the policies we've chosen.
This IS the challenge we face. This IS our defining moment.
When 2011 rolls around, we must be ready to replace those who endorse the policies that are designed to destroy our common weal. When 2011 rolls around, we must have rallied a majority who reject both the policies and the inevitable results those policies have created.
One thing we do know. D5 is not part of the solution.
Check back tomorrow.
Our illustrious Sewer Board, purportedly not under the direction of our current chief executive, is prepared to continue a policy designed to further degrade New Albany, and by extension, the prosperity of all New Albanians. Quelle horror!
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Mayor 54 Where Aaaaare You?
Our spouse contends it's inappropriate to call him "Mayor 54," especially when you have no idea what number he is (do you?), but then the boomer pop-cultural reference doesn't play as well when you title your blog post "Mayor 36 where are you?"
Regardless, the point is made. It is time for the Hon. Douglas B. England to shed his imperial mayoralty once and for all.
During his current term, England has been conspicuously absent from the meetings of New Albany's legislative body. In and of itself, that's not completely inappropriate. The mayor's job is unique. So is the council's. In ordinary circumstances, there's no particular reason for the mayor to intrude himself or his personality into the nine-member mix of council business.
But these are not ordinary circumstances.
One could make the case that shadow5 shouldn't even be making comments in the bloody aftermath of Thursday's city council meeting. After all, corporeal5, Diane McCartin Benedetti (memorably called Mrs. McCartin at last evening's convocation) was not in attendance. Her shadow, then, should just shut up, right?
Sorry, the shadow don't swing that way. We kept our traps shut after last week's signal meeting. We can't skip a whole month - not with all the drama afoot on the third floor.
So...tonight's dilemma is whether to report on what happened or to analyze what it means.
(30 minutes elapse)
Can't separate them. There's an inclination to say to our readers "Come to the meetings if you want to know what's going on," but we weren't raised that way. So, what the hey (an expression our friends used, and one our dear mother abhorred as "trashy).
At the end of May's first council meeting, we told one attendee that they had just sat through the most important meeting ever. It wasn't so much the actions of the council that Monday night, but the portents, the mood, and what could be inferred from it.
Last night's meeting proved, irrevocably, that the honeymoon is over. The always polite but ever passive aggressive Mr. Gahan presided over what could only be called an attempted coup, led, of course, by Sir Dan, but concurred in by all eight of the knights of the squared tables.
Those reading the tea leaves saw confirmation that the mayor-council honeymoon had ended when deputy mayor Carl Malysz was instructed to address any remarks to the council during the period designated as communication from city officials.
Heretofore, Mr. Malysz had been accorded last innings, during the period designated as communications from the mayor. Meticulously, Malysz always prefaced his remarks as being on behalf of the mayor, often including a diplomatic reason why the mayor could not be bothered to attend the meeting.
Assertiveness is often a trait to be praised, but when that assertiveness is so bare-faced, and yet put forward disingenuously and as if we were to believe it were organic, and not calculated, it can be judged as either ludicrous or nauseating. We chose chuckles and muted gasps. Others might reasonably have retched. Nonetheless, the entertainment is back at Hauss Square.
"Mayor 54" needs to know the jig is up. He can no longer send functionaries to do his bidding. He can no longer keep his lapels clean unless he's willing to see an independent council running amok. These few months of amity have come to an end and the illusion of a well-oiled (too well, for our tastes) machine has gone "poof."
Good for corporeal5. She picked a great night to absent herself. Not to paint the whole council with the same brush, but with what took place Thursday, it might be convenient for C5 to say "I wasn't there."
The admirable Mr. Caesar, representative of the old 2nd District, launched the first fireworks of the evening obliquely, making one of this week's notable events his cause celebre.
Observant readers of Tuesday's Tribune will have noted that New Albany's Board of Public Works and Safety experienced a change of rider in midrace. Deputy director of operations Matt Dennison was deposed as chairman of the board. In the two days following, speculation was rampant about the reasons. The deposed Dennison was not in attendance Thursday, but the council was in high dudgeon about his dismissal from the post.
Mr. Caesar praised Dennison for the way he had been conducting himself in the post and for his accessibility and helpfulness, and urged the council toward an informal resolution of commendation for young Matt. Other members concurred.
Who replaced Dennison? Why, Mr. Malysz, of course, the same Mr. Malysz who was next up in the line of speakers. Speaking, of course, on behalf of the mayor, but without his previously preferred place on the agenda, the deputy mayor acknowledged the sentiment of the council and promised to pass that on to His Honor. He assured the council that the change was perfectly innocuous, that the mayor had asked him to assume the responsibility, that he and Matt had discussed it, and that the changeover had been accomplished amicably. He told the assembly that it was in no way a "purge." To which the courtly Sir Dan replied, "We never said it was (a purge). Maybe it was in your mind, but we didn't say that."
Now, we know we are supposed to believe that Mr. Malysz took no offense. The man is nothing if not diplomatic, and his ability to press on in the face of insult and hostility is remarkable. Of course, we are also supposed to believe that Mr. Dennison's replacement was routine and without any hint of controversy. The hubbub around town over the last 48 hours was supposed to be ignored.
Mr. Malysz knew nothing (we are meant to believe) of what was coming next.
As the mayor was (again) absent, in the tradition of laissez faire, the next item on the agenda was the purely ministerial council function of confirming that New Albany desires to participate in the nation's revenue-sharing program known as CDBG, or CBGB, or whatever, whereby federal taxes are returned to cities for targeted improvements. This no-brainer resolution, which requires only the council's assent and confirmation that New Albany wants its piece of the pie, was tabled by Sir Dan.
(Note: Mr. Malysz's legend and reputation in Indiana is as the master of garnering grants and other federal monies.)
(Note 2: 3D Steve Price is the only council member on recent record as having voted "no" on accepting CDBG block grants for community development. After the most recent elections, Mr. Price is no longer the "Dopey" of the council's dwarfs, but he firmly held that title in his previous term.)
Mr. Coffey, who with corporeal5 serves on the Redevelopment Commission and is and was fully conversant with every particular of the participation letter and its accompanying wish list, decided that this would be the night he threw a wrench into the works.
After months of commission meetings and two public hearings, and after the council had a full weekend and four weekdays to review the wish list and participation letter, Coffey decided that May 15 would be the day he made his "stand" against the mayor, his deputy, and the administration. Not to mention "common sense."
Understand, please, that the "wish list" that accompanies the letter to federal officials contains no priorities and no commitments. If we were to go to the public hearing and advocate for, say, community gardens, that would go on the list of projects that might be funded by CDBG money. It's not particularly complicated. Actual expenditures are prospective. The RC must vote to expend the money. The letter (and council affirmation resolution) merely define the parameters of what the money might be spent on in the coming fiscal year 2009.
Sir Dan, the knight currently representing the old 1st District, decided this would be his "slapdown" moment, his moment to wield his sword in defense of...something.
By tabling the resolution (and be assured, Mr. Gahan made it clear he joined heartily in the slapdown, and be further assured that no other council member was motivated to exercise parliamentary prerogatives to move the measure), Mr. Coffey forces the administration to write a Friday letter explaining precisely why New Albany will not be complying with federal requirements to affirm its participation in the Community Development Block Grant Program.
Now, Malysz concedes that New Albany will not be given the death penalty for failing to meet the deadline (Friday, May 16) for submitting its "letter of intent." But who is to say, given the lamentable state of the U.S. dollar and the gargantuan budget deficit, that New Albany will now be last in line for disbursements. After all, all that was needed was a routine confession that New Albany, through its legislative body, wished to partake of the federal revenue sharing.
Why would Sir Dan do this? To make a point, to take a stand, to, in his own words, "draw the line." Hey, Dougie Boy, quit playing us for suckahs! We (and remember, this wasn't just Sir Dan, but the whole council being passive aggressive) won't stand for being presented with continuous "must-pass" legislation.
To be sure, this blogger has cogitated furiously over the remarkably rushed agenda of the 2008 council. 2008 has seen about a dozen furiously rushed votes that simply had to be passed in one meeting, with little discussion. The administration has discouraged deliberation and the council has been, for the most part, acquiescent in rushing forward legislation that the administration insisted must be passed "tonight."
(Note: Mr. Price's extortionate "giveback" fee for tax abatements was rushed through last night, without discussion, public notice, or any particulars [and illegally, in this observer's opinion], accompanied by Mr. Gahan's plaudits for the "quick" turnaround. Can anyone tell us what the giveback is? Not once in public has the council delineated what the fee might be.)
But last night's showdown was the worst possible occasion to assert the council's power. It was a frivolous gesture that may well be noted as this council's lowest moment. In a puerile attempt to embarrass Mr. Malysz, and by extension, Mr. England, Sir Dan may have forfeited hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal largesse.
Mr. Coffey, sensing an opportunity to grab the spotlight, purported to be solicitous of the council's prerogatives to deliberate over the multitude of possible projects that might be funded by CDBG money. In spite of the fact that the council had multitudinous opportunities to study and participate in this annual venture, in spite of the fact that this council had six days to review a long process and final document, Coffey successfully squelched approval. In fact, the requested formal assent to the letter had zero substantive effect on which projects might be funded with this federal money. Coffey decided that May 15 was the appropriate time to punch Doug England in the snout. Mr. Mayor: Lay down with dogs, wake up with fleas!
Mr. Mayor: If you wish to accomplish your stated goals and if you are sincere, you must abandon your imperial mayoralty. You need to break a sweat, attend the council meetings, and advocate personally for your initiatives. As a respected, but unelected functionary, Mr. Malysz can no longer wield your scepter. The council has spoken, as they are entitled to. Whether their actions are wise or frivolous, your disconnection from council cannot continue if you hope to be an effective mayor.
Shadow5 has little idea what personal and private advocacy you are engaged in. But in the sunshine of public meetings, your strategy has run its course. This council, for better or worse, has cast down the gauntlet and is calling you out. The England administration can no longer treat the council as a rubber stamp. The honeymoon is over. Weeks before we predicted it, Sir Dan has reverted to demagogic form, and King Jeffrey is backing his play.
Oh. And the Mount Tabor Road pawnshop rezoning was rejected. Next!
Regardless, the point is made. It is time for the Hon. Douglas B. England to shed his imperial mayoralty once and for all.
During his current term, England has been conspicuously absent from the meetings of New Albany's legislative body. In and of itself, that's not completely inappropriate. The mayor's job is unique. So is the council's. In ordinary circumstances, there's no particular reason for the mayor to intrude himself or his personality into the nine-member mix of council business.
But these are not ordinary circumstances.
One could make the case that shadow5 shouldn't even be making comments in the bloody aftermath of Thursday's city council meeting. After all, corporeal5, Diane McCartin Benedetti (memorably called Mrs. McCartin at last evening's convocation) was not in attendance. Her shadow, then, should just shut up, right?
Sorry, the shadow don't swing that way. We kept our traps shut after last week's signal meeting. We can't skip a whole month - not with all the drama afoot on the third floor.
So...tonight's dilemma is whether to report on what happened or to analyze what it means.
(30 minutes elapse)
Can't separate them. There's an inclination to say to our readers "Come to the meetings if you want to know what's going on," but we weren't raised that way. So, what the hey (an expression our friends used, and one our dear mother abhorred as "trashy).
At the end of May's first council meeting, we told one attendee that they had just sat through the most important meeting ever. It wasn't so much the actions of the council that Monday night, but the portents, the mood, and what could be inferred from it.
Last night's meeting proved, irrevocably, that the honeymoon is over. The always polite but ever passive aggressive Mr. Gahan presided over what could only be called an attempted coup, led, of course, by Sir Dan, but concurred in by all eight of the knights of the squared tables.
Those reading the tea leaves saw confirmation that the mayor-council honeymoon had ended when deputy mayor Carl Malysz was instructed to address any remarks to the council during the period designated as communication from city officials.
Heretofore, Mr. Malysz had been accorded last innings, during the period designated as communications from the mayor. Meticulously, Malysz always prefaced his remarks as being on behalf of the mayor, often including a diplomatic reason why the mayor could not be bothered to attend the meeting.
Assertiveness is often a trait to be praised, but when that assertiveness is so bare-faced, and yet put forward disingenuously and as if we were to believe it were organic, and not calculated, it can be judged as either ludicrous or nauseating. We chose chuckles and muted gasps. Others might reasonably have retched. Nonetheless, the entertainment is back at Hauss Square.
"Mayor 54" needs to know the jig is up. He can no longer send functionaries to do his bidding. He can no longer keep his lapels clean unless he's willing to see an independent council running amok. These few months of amity have come to an end and the illusion of a well-oiled (too well, for our tastes) machine has gone "poof."
Good for corporeal5. She picked a great night to absent herself. Not to paint the whole council with the same brush, but with what took place Thursday, it might be convenient for C5 to say "I wasn't there."
The admirable Mr. Caesar, representative of the old 2nd District, launched the first fireworks of the evening obliquely, making one of this week's notable events his cause celebre.
Observant readers of Tuesday's Tribune will have noted that New Albany's Board of Public Works and Safety experienced a change of rider in midrace. Deputy director of operations Matt Dennison was deposed as chairman of the board. In the two days following, speculation was rampant about the reasons. The deposed Dennison was not in attendance Thursday, but the council was in high dudgeon about his dismissal from the post.
Mr. Caesar praised Dennison for the way he had been conducting himself in the post and for his accessibility and helpfulness, and urged the council toward an informal resolution of commendation for young Matt. Other members concurred.
Who replaced Dennison? Why, Mr. Malysz, of course, the same Mr. Malysz who was next up in the line of speakers. Speaking, of course, on behalf of the mayor, but without his previously preferred place on the agenda, the deputy mayor acknowledged the sentiment of the council and promised to pass that on to His Honor. He assured the council that the change was perfectly innocuous, that the mayor had asked him to assume the responsibility, that he and Matt had discussed it, and that the changeover had been accomplished amicably. He told the assembly that it was in no way a "purge." To which the courtly Sir Dan replied, "We never said it was (a purge). Maybe it was in your mind, but we didn't say that."
Now, we know we are supposed to believe that Mr. Malysz took no offense. The man is nothing if not diplomatic, and his ability to press on in the face of insult and hostility is remarkable. Of course, we are also supposed to believe that Mr. Dennison's replacement was routine and without any hint of controversy. The hubbub around town over the last 48 hours was supposed to be ignored.
Mr. Malysz knew nothing (we are meant to believe) of what was coming next.
As the mayor was (again) absent, in the tradition of laissez faire, the next item on the agenda was the purely ministerial council function of confirming that New Albany desires to participate in the nation's revenue-sharing program known as CDBG, or CBGB, or whatever, whereby federal taxes are returned to cities for targeted improvements. This no-brainer resolution, which requires only the council's assent and confirmation that New Albany wants its piece of the pie, was tabled by Sir Dan.
(Note: Mr. Malysz's legend and reputation in Indiana is as the master of garnering grants and other federal monies.)
(Note 2: 3D Steve Price is the only council member on recent record as having voted "no" on accepting CDBG block grants for community development. After the most recent elections, Mr. Price is no longer the "Dopey" of the council's dwarfs, but he firmly held that title in his previous term.)
Mr. Coffey, who with corporeal5 serves on the Redevelopment Commission and is and was fully conversant with every particular of the participation letter and its accompanying wish list, decided that this would be the night he threw a wrench into the works.
After months of commission meetings and two public hearings, and after the council had a full weekend and four weekdays to review the wish list and participation letter, Coffey decided that May 15 would be the day he made his "stand" against the mayor, his deputy, and the administration. Not to mention "common sense."
Understand, please, that the "wish list" that accompanies the letter to federal officials contains no priorities and no commitments. If we were to go to the public hearing and advocate for, say, community gardens, that would go on the list of projects that might be funded by CDBG money. It's not particularly complicated. Actual expenditures are prospective. The RC must vote to expend the money. The letter (and council affirmation resolution) merely define the parameters of what the money might be spent on in the coming fiscal year 2009.
Sir Dan, the knight currently representing the old 1st District, decided this would be his "slapdown" moment, his moment to wield his sword in defense of...something.
By tabling the resolution (and be assured, Mr. Gahan made it clear he joined heartily in the slapdown, and be further assured that no other council member was motivated to exercise parliamentary prerogatives to move the measure), Mr. Coffey forces the administration to write a Friday letter explaining precisely why New Albany will not be complying with federal requirements to affirm its participation in the Community Development Block Grant Program.
Now, Malysz concedes that New Albany will not be given the death penalty for failing to meet the deadline (Friday, May 16) for submitting its "letter of intent." But who is to say, given the lamentable state of the U.S. dollar and the gargantuan budget deficit, that New Albany will now be last in line for disbursements. After all, all that was needed was a routine confession that New Albany, through its legislative body, wished to partake of the federal revenue sharing.
Why would Sir Dan do this? To make a point, to take a stand, to, in his own words, "draw the line." Hey, Dougie Boy, quit playing us for suckahs! We (and remember, this wasn't just Sir Dan, but the whole council being passive aggressive) won't stand for being presented with continuous "must-pass" legislation.
To be sure, this blogger has cogitated furiously over the remarkably rushed agenda of the 2008 council. 2008 has seen about a dozen furiously rushed votes that simply had to be passed in one meeting, with little discussion. The administration has discouraged deliberation and the council has been, for the most part, acquiescent in rushing forward legislation that the administration insisted must be passed "tonight."
(Note: Mr. Price's extortionate "giveback" fee for tax abatements was rushed through last night, without discussion, public notice, or any particulars [and illegally, in this observer's opinion], accompanied by Mr. Gahan's plaudits for the "quick" turnaround. Can anyone tell us what the giveback is? Not once in public has the council delineated what the fee might be.)
But last night's showdown was the worst possible occasion to assert the council's power. It was a frivolous gesture that may well be noted as this council's lowest moment. In a puerile attempt to embarrass Mr. Malysz, and by extension, Mr. England, Sir Dan may have forfeited hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal largesse.
Mr. Coffey, sensing an opportunity to grab the spotlight, purported to be solicitous of the council's prerogatives to deliberate over the multitude of possible projects that might be funded by CDBG money. In spite of the fact that the council had multitudinous opportunities to study and participate in this annual venture, in spite of the fact that this council had six days to review a long process and final document, Coffey successfully squelched approval. In fact, the requested formal assent to the letter had zero substantive effect on which projects might be funded with this federal money. Coffey decided that May 15 was the appropriate time to punch Doug England in the snout. Mr. Mayor: Lay down with dogs, wake up with fleas!
Mr. Mayor: If you wish to accomplish your stated goals and if you are sincere, you must abandon your imperial mayoralty. You need to break a sweat, attend the council meetings, and advocate personally for your initiatives. As a respected, but unelected functionary, Mr. Malysz can no longer wield your scepter. The council has spoken, as they are entitled to. Whether their actions are wise or frivolous, your disconnection from council cannot continue if you hope to be an effective mayor.
Shadow5 has little idea what personal and private advocacy you are engaged in. But in the sunshine of public meetings, your strategy has run its course. This council, for better or worse, has cast down the gauntlet and is calling you out. The England administration can no longer treat the council as a rubber stamp. The honeymoon is over. Weeks before we predicted it, Sir Dan has reverted to demagogic form, and King Jeffrey is backing his play.
Oh. And the Mount Tabor Road pawnshop rezoning was rejected. Next!
Thursday, March 20, 2008
A Bright Night Follows a Rare Sunny Day
The seventh meeting of the New Albany City Council, 2008-2011 edition, was geeky and clunky, but altogether satisfying. The crowd draw was the long-awaited "State of the City" address by Mayor England, but those who sat through "tax abatement school" at an earlier council work session did not go unrewarded.
For the most part, this council is taking its job very seriously, which is making some of the slow kids frustrated as they try to keep up. It reminds me of the time I tried to join a midsummer bike caravan. For the first three miles, I held my own, but the first time I had to "up my game" it became apparent I didn't belong in the same pack.
The mayor's address to the assembled council, well-wishers, staff, and others was strained, but still effective. Frankly, the city council meeting is not the place for such an ambitious speech, but the mayor recognized that it would have been crass not to deliver his message in the most convenient forum.
It was well-received and we continue to pinch ourselves when we hear the "new" Doug England speak. He continues to advocate for progressive management of the city while preaching an ambitious brand of vision and leadership.
Fortunately for all of us, Hizzoner put it all down in writing, and you can read what he would have delivered if the forum had been completely his own.
Best for all of us if we could have watched a Webcast, broadcast, or cablecast of tonight's speech - live or in the weeks ahead. The promise of open government is not fulfilled when such important matters are restricted to those few who can arrange their schedules to view it live.
We are promised that the speech will be posted online. The mayor is taking off for a Spring Break vacation before his working trip to Japan next month, so he won't be doing a reprise.
Thus, as a custodian of hard copy, we feel obligated to give up sleep to share a few quotes from the document.
But the hard copy isn't all that quotable, and it doesn't begin to capture what the mayor actually said. England does not deliver a speech from a prepared text anywhere near as well as he does when he removes his glasses and speaks from his gut.
If you read the papers, you don't need a news recap. And if you don't, any analysis from this quarter will be redundant.
In sum, it was a good speech and a great message that deserved a bigger, better audience and the absence of a ticking clock and a waiting council agenda. We urge the mayor to find a better venue for his next such address, if he can find a way to do so without ruffling council's collective feathers.
P.S. We all got a good chuckle out of a mayoral slip. Seems a certain renowned blogger's investments in New Albany had drawn the attention of the mayor, who reminded those of us who knew and informed those who didn't the precise measure of one of those. Doesn't read funny, but it was. You had to be there. Alas, our beloved blogvestor was one of those who was forced to absent himself from the evening's proceedings. Ah, the rigors of high finance in the teeth of a recessionary hurricane.
For the most part, this council is taking its job very seriously, which is making some of the slow kids frustrated as they try to keep up. It reminds me of the time I tried to join a midsummer bike caravan. For the first three miles, I held my own, but the first time I had to "up my game" it became apparent I didn't belong in the same pack.
The mayor's address to the assembled council, well-wishers, staff, and others was strained, but still effective. Frankly, the city council meeting is not the place for such an ambitious speech, but the mayor recognized that it would have been crass not to deliver his message in the most convenient forum.
It was well-received and we continue to pinch ourselves when we hear the "new" Doug England speak. He continues to advocate for progressive management of the city while preaching an ambitious brand of vision and leadership.
Fortunately for all of us, Hizzoner put it all down in writing, and you can read what he would have delivered if the forum had been completely his own.
Best for all of us if we could have watched a Webcast, broadcast, or cablecast of tonight's speech - live or in the weeks ahead. The promise of open government is not fulfilled when such important matters are restricted to those few who can arrange their schedules to view it live.
We are promised that the speech will be posted online. The mayor is taking off for a Spring Break vacation before his working trip to Japan next month, so he won't be doing a reprise.
Thus, as a custodian of hard copy, we feel obligated to give up sleep to share a few quotes from the document.
But the hard copy isn't all that quotable, and it doesn't begin to capture what the mayor actually said. England does not deliver a speech from a prepared text anywhere near as well as he does when he removes his glasses and speaks from his gut.
If you read the papers, you don't need a news recap. And if you don't, any analysis from this quarter will be redundant.
In sum, it was a good speech and a great message that deserved a bigger, better audience and the absence of a ticking clock and a waiting council agenda. We urge the mayor to find a better venue for his next such address, if he can find a way to do so without ruffling council's collective feathers.
P.S. We all got a good chuckle out of a mayoral slip. Seems a certain renowned blogger's investments in New Albany had drawn the attention of the mayor, who reminded those of us who knew and informed those who didn't the precise measure of one of those. Doesn't read funny, but it was. You had to be there. Alas, our beloved blogvestor was one of those who was forced to absent himself from the evening's proceedings. Ah, the rigors of high finance in the teeth of a recessionary hurricane.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
With Reservations: Yes
People I honor, people I respect, have given their provisional allegiance to the New Albany power that is.
Shadow5 has, with great consideration, tried to maintain an independence from that power. We continue to be skeptical that the current administration is to be invested in.
However, it is irrational to lay down a series of markers to which one might seek adherence, watch an individual adhere to those markers, and to then withhold support.
There are a score of inititatives that this blog seeks to see accomplished. Much to our surprise, the newly elected administration of the City of New Albany has pledged allegiance to most of those inititiatives.
With reservations, then, Shadow5 signs on to the 2008 program of the England administration. We look forward to the late March "State of the City" address.
The England administration, while operating with processes to which we object, seems to have proceeded in 2008 toward goals with which we enthusiastically agree.
Count us, then, as cheerleaders for the "England" program. We believe in the powers of redemption. We believe that the aspirations of a program's supporters can be achieved, particularly when the locus of those aspirations can be influenced by its own supporters.
Shadow5 is oriented toward policy objectives. So far, the England administration seems to be dedicated to those objectives. Accordingly, we "sign on" to the England agenda.
We are happy to do so. We had always hoped to be able to do so. And we hope that we can continue to do so.
One City, One Destiny.
Shadow5 has, with great consideration, tried to maintain an independence from that power. We continue to be skeptical that the current administration is to be invested in.
However, it is irrational to lay down a series of markers to which one might seek adherence, watch an individual adhere to those markers, and to then withhold support.
There are a score of inititatives that this blog seeks to see accomplished. Much to our surprise, the newly elected administration of the City of New Albany has pledged allegiance to most of those inititiatives.
With reservations, then, Shadow5 signs on to the 2008 program of the England administration. We look forward to the late March "State of the City" address.
The England administration, while operating with processes to which we object, seems to have proceeded in 2008 toward goals with which we enthusiastically agree.
Count us, then, as cheerleaders for the "England" program. We believe in the powers of redemption. We believe that the aspirations of a program's supporters can be achieved, particularly when the locus of those aspirations can be influenced by its own supporters.
Shadow5 is oriented toward policy objectives. So far, the England administration seems to be dedicated to those objectives. Accordingly, we "sign on" to the England agenda.
We are happy to do so. We had always hoped to be able to do so. And we hope that we can continue to do so.
One City, One Destiny.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
SOC, SOS, SOP
OK, no messing around. This is the week of the long-touted "State of the City" address, which against all hopes is destined to be, in most respects, an S.O.S. Which, unfortunately, is Standard Operating Procedure.
Mayor England would surely have hoped to make this much more than a cry for help, but frankly, things are looking grim. With the possible exceptions of our local legislators, both of whom are up for reelection, the weak-willed legislature is almost certain to succumb to the vocal pressures of the ideologically driven "repeal the property tax" loons. In one form or another, Mitch's cabal is determined to put the screws to local government. Superannuated timeservers like Larry McAllister will hide in the bushes while claiming they aren't affected by such draconian and unjustified measures as a cap on property taxes.
The "starve the government" types won't take any responsibility for the anarchy destined to ensue. And afterward? The odds are against rationality, putting courage at a premium.
If our information is correct, readers should marshal all their resources to support Mrs. Sipes re-election. Legislators like her are our only hope for the future.
But back to this week. ONE event will dominate the week. The mayor's S.O.C. Thursday, sometime after 7:30, the mayor will mount the podium at the city council meeting and lay out his vision for the next year. Campaign promises may or may not reappear.
This blogger hasn't started the clock on the mayor and his administration. It does start Thursday night, however.
We hope that Doug England will not be preoccupied with the negative ramifications of the General Assembly's incipient lunacy. This is an opportunity to outline a vision, not an occasion to complain about the limits of government.
We don't expect to see the mayor make any new bold announcements. We'll be satisfied if he renews his commitment to his previously documented promises. We don't expect to see any solutions, given the dynamic nature of pending legislation.
We've said it before. Mr. England has it in his hands to save the city and be remembered for decades. He also has the opportunity to surrender to the death-spiral that is the current political mood of New Albany.
The city council has not distinguished itself so far. It is then up to the mayor to lead. We pray that he will take the chance to establish a legacy that our children will honor.
See you Thursday at Hauss Square.
Mayor England would surely have hoped to make this much more than a cry for help, but frankly, things are looking grim. With the possible exceptions of our local legislators, both of whom are up for reelection, the weak-willed legislature is almost certain to succumb to the vocal pressures of the ideologically driven "repeal the property tax" loons. In one form or another, Mitch's cabal is determined to put the screws to local government. Superannuated timeservers like Larry McAllister will hide in the bushes while claiming they aren't affected by such draconian and unjustified measures as a cap on property taxes.
The "starve the government" types won't take any responsibility for the anarchy destined to ensue. And afterward? The odds are against rationality, putting courage at a premium.
If our information is correct, readers should marshal all their resources to support Mrs. Sipes re-election. Legislators like her are our only hope for the future.
But back to this week. ONE event will dominate the week. The mayor's S.O.C. Thursday, sometime after 7:30, the mayor will mount the podium at the city council meeting and lay out his vision for the next year. Campaign promises may or may not reappear.
This blogger hasn't started the clock on the mayor and his administration. It does start Thursday night, however.
We hope that Doug England will not be preoccupied with the negative ramifications of the General Assembly's incipient lunacy. This is an opportunity to outline a vision, not an occasion to complain about the limits of government.
We don't expect to see the mayor make any new bold announcements. We'll be satisfied if he renews his commitment to his previously documented promises. We don't expect to see any solutions, given the dynamic nature of pending legislation.
We've said it before. Mr. England has it in his hands to save the city and be remembered for decades. He also has the opportunity to surrender to the death-spiral that is the current political mood of New Albany.
The city council has not distinguished itself so far. It is then up to the mayor to lead. We pray that he will take the chance to establish a legacy that our children will honor.
See you Thursday at Hauss Square.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Respect
Left unsaid until the end of the week is this thought from Monday's City Council meeting. Learning from frequent contributor iamhoosier, shadow5 decided to see if the initial impression lingered for more than a day or two...you know, "on the other hand."
Mayor England, who has promised his State of the City address for next month, waxed eloquently about the relationship he seeks with council and with his constituents.
Much as a civil libertarian feels a shiver up his spine when he hears of extra-legal means of law enforcement, this observer couldn't avoid an eye-squint at certain moments of the mayoral address.
Mr. England promised an open door policy - with the proviso that he be treated with respect. Offering with one hand to treat all comers with respect, he unintentionally (?) signaled that anyone unwilling to treat him with respect might face not only a closed, but a locked door.
It was subtle. But it sounded like a warning more than an invitation. Should a mayor seeking to rehabilitate a prior image as an officeholder who rewarded friends and punished foes be quite so blunt about stating whom he will serve. Whether a petitioner did, or ever will vote for England shouldn't be a prerequisite for receiving constituent service from the mayor's office.
It marred an otherwise flawless presentation that got the mayor's tenure off to a great start. Perhaps His Honor would have been better served by asking for "civility" rather than respect. I'm sure that's what he meant.
It's just that respect should be commanded, not demanded. That is a subtlety, granted, but an important one. It is by this mayor's initiatives that he can command respect. Demanding respect is something altogether different.
On the other hand...
Mayor England, who has promised his State of the City address for next month, waxed eloquently about the relationship he seeks with council and with his constituents.
Much as a civil libertarian feels a shiver up his spine when he hears of extra-legal means of law enforcement, this observer couldn't avoid an eye-squint at certain moments of the mayoral address.
Mr. England promised an open door policy - with the proviso that he be treated with respect. Offering with one hand to treat all comers with respect, he unintentionally (?) signaled that anyone unwilling to treat him with respect might face not only a closed, but a locked door.
It was subtle. But it sounded like a warning more than an invitation. Should a mayor seeking to rehabilitate a prior image as an officeholder who rewarded friends and punished foes be quite so blunt about stating whom he will serve. Whether a petitioner did, or ever will vote for England shouldn't be a prerequisite for receiving constituent service from the mayor's office.
It marred an otherwise flawless presentation that got the mayor's tenure off to a great start. Perhaps His Honor would have been better served by asking for "civility" rather than respect. I'm sure that's what he meant.
It's just that respect should be commanded, not demanded. That is a subtlety, granted, but an important one. It is by this mayor's initiatives that he can command respect. Demanding respect is something altogether different.
On the other hand...
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Shinin' and Snubbin'
It became obvious who was "in" and who was "out" at Monday's council meeting. Those sufficiently loyal to the new mayor were greeted with effusions of praise and adoration. Anyone less than fully sold out to the England Restoration risked frostbite.
England is fortunate to have a large professional staff, so while A can be aloof, B can be warm, and C can be conciliatory. And England himself was firing on all cylinders Monday night, missing not a beat in his optimistic and velvet-gloved peroration to the crowd (oops, I mean to the council).
England promised his State of the City address next month, but his agenda became more transparent Monday. He still continues to espouse progressive ideals.
As a semi-professional skeptic, Shadow5 still wonders whether Doug England is being genuinely responsive to the undercurrent of the city - or whether he is adroitly co-opting the most vocal and intelligent segments of the city. In some respects, either analysis leads to progress. If England can bring progressives on board with his program, the average acceleration toward a brighter day will increase.
The alternative is horrible. Let's assume for just a moment that England is not a natural progressive. Just assume it, for the sake of argument. Yet, he responds viscerally to progressive ideas. He sees the progressives as natural allies to be courted. By harnessing their creative energies, he can only improve the prospects for his four-year term. Like iron sharpens iron, perhaps.
But...what if the progressives seek and ask and demand, but give nothing in return? England is too shrewd to cater to an element that will, in the end, treat his power as a free spigot to be turned on and off on a whim.
We don't suggest a "corrupt bargain." But surely wisdom lies in recognizing and utilizing the skills, talents, ideas, and abilities of an energized electorate still silly enough to hope for something better. And surely wisdom dictates that if an administration champions "your" ideas, you really can't ask for much more.
England is fortunate to have a large professional staff, so while A can be aloof, B can be warm, and C can be conciliatory. And England himself was firing on all cylinders Monday night, missing not a beat in his optimistic and velvet-gloved peroration to the crowd (oops, I mean to the council).
England promised his State of the City address next month, but his agenda became more transparent Monday. He still continues to espouse progressive ideals.
As a semi-professional skeptic, Shadow5 still wonders whether Doug England is being genuinely responsive to the undercurrent of the city - or whether he is adroitly co-opting the most vocal and intelligent segments of the city. In some respects, either analysis leads to progress. If England can bring progressives on board with his program, the average acceleration toward a brighter day will increase.
The alternative is horrible. Let's assume for just a moment that England is not a natural progressive. Just assume it, for the sake of argument. Yet, he responds viscerally to progressive ideas. He sees the progressives as natural allies to be courted. By harnessing their creative energies, he can only improve the prospects for his four-year term. Like iron sharpens iron, perhaps.
But...what if the progressives seek and ask and demand, but give nothing in return? England is too shrewd to cater to an element that will, in the end, treat his power as a free spigot to be turned on and off on a whim.
We don't suggest a "corrupt bargain." But surely wisdom lies in recognizing and utilizing the skills, talents, ideas, and abilities of an energized electorate still silly enough to hope for something better. And surely wisdom dictates that if an administration champions "your" ideas, you really can't ask for much more.
Sleight of Hand
I wouldn't go so far as to call it disturbing, but the England administration slid easily into the saddle Monday night with ease when the council approved a "transfer of funds" to accommodate Doug England's management objectives.
Having turned out every change purse in the City-County Building (and a few outside it), England and his team created a new reality in New Albany.
Converting this "contractual" dollar, that legislative revision, another dollop of federal money there, the administration recreated city government in one swell foop.
We now have two deputy mayors. DM Carl Malysz heads up community development and executive functions. DM John Wilcox captains city operations. Matt Denison will be deputy director of operations. That's three men stepping into the shoes of the departed Anthony B. Toran, former city director of operations.
With Adam Dickey and Paul Wheatley long-departed to, respectively, federal and construction interest posts, that freed up a dollar or two. A nip into permissible CDBG funds created another new position, designated as a "concentrated codes enforcement officer."
But what was bemusing was the ease with which the controller and the taller of the two DM's translated John Rosenbarger's "new" post. Now permitted to use TIF money to pay salaries, the city will now fund the redevelopment public works coordinator with incremental tax funds outside the general fund.
But wait. The Malysz/Wilcox/Denison/CCEO-to-be-named quartet are the new positions. The newfound money wasn't found to pay John Rosenbarger. It was found in order to pay the two deputy mayors et al. Yet not a word of protest was heard. D5's Benedetti asked innocently who would fill this new post and whether it had a job description.
So John Rosenbarger, career city employee, is now the "new" hire. The England campaign team gets paid with John R's salary, while John R gets paid with "new" money.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. George and Aldous would have applauded.
Having turned out every change purse in the City-County Building (and a few outside it), England and his team created a new reality in New Albany.
Converting this "contractual" dollar, that legislative revision, another dollop of federal money there, the administration recreated city government in one swell foop.
We now have two deputy mayors. DM Carl Malysz heads up community development and executive functions. DM John Wilcox captains city operations. Matt Denison will be deputy director of operations. That's three men stepping into the shoes of the departed Anthony B. Toran, former city director of operations.
With Adam Dickey and Paul Wheatley long-departed to, respectively, federal and construction interest posts, that freed up a dollar or two. A nip into permissible CDBG funds created another new position, designated as a "concentrated codes enforcement officer."
But what was bemusing was the ease with which the controller and the taller of the two DM's translated John Rosenbarger's "new" post. Now permitted to use TIF money to pay salaries, the city will now fund the redevelopment public works coordinator with incremental tax funds outside the general fund.
But wait. The Malysz/Wilcox/Denison/CCEO-to-be-named quartet are the new positions. The newfound money wasn't found to pay John Rosenbarger. It was found in order to pay the two deputy mayors et al. Yet not a word of protest was heard. D5's Benedetti asked innocently who would fill this new post and whether it had a job description.
So John Rosenbarger, career city employee, is now the "new" hire. The England campaign team gets paid with John R's salary, while John R gets paid with "new" money.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. George and Aldous would have applauded.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
MTW: Mickey Thompson Watch, Day One, Hour One
Granted, today is a holiday, a non-working day for city employees. But it is the same set of city employees who were on the payroll yesterday, a day on which they all were presumably required to work.
So please explain to me why a felled "city" tree has continued to rest, unmolested, on the sidewalk of Spring Street east of Vincennes since before Christmas? That's Mickey Thompson's job, starting today, and if it's still there when I pass on Wednesday morning, I'll want to know why Mayor England finds that satisfactory.
This New Year's morning saw yet another deluge and yet another spate of street flooding caused solely by the inattention and neglect of the streets department and the stormwater and drainage departments. Mr. Thompson, if it is your contention that the streets department is not responsible for clogged stormwater drains, please say so. We'll ask Mr. England if that's his view, too.
We're fortunate that the flooding was limited. Next time, though, it will be Mr. Thompson's fault.
So please explain to me why a felled "city" tree has continued to rest, unmolested, on the sidewalk of Spring Street east of Vincennes since before Christmas? That's Mickey Thompson's job, starting today, and if it's still there when I pass on Wednesday morning, I'll want to know why Mayor England finds that satisfactory.
This New Year's morning saw yet another deluge and yet another spate of street flooding caused solely by the inattention and neglect of the streets department and the stormwater and drainage departments. Mr. Thompson, if it is your contention that the streets department is not responsible for clogged stormwater drains, please say so. We'll ask Mr. England if that's his view, too.
We're fortunate that the flooding was limited. Next time, though, it will be Mr. Thompson's fault.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
The England Restoration
Although it was far from completely unexpected, the announcement in today's rags that Mr. Carl Malysz will assume the post of deputy mayor provoked immediate and pointed commentary in the community, if the calls, visits, and e-mails that followed have any weight.
Malysz, in absentia since the Overton administration, was able to see his reputation acquire a gloss in the intervening years. To this observer it almost seemed that every mention of the man was preceded with an emphatic, but silent, "the legendary..." As in, "the legendary Carl Malysz."
A few months ago, one wag was heard to ask, "If Carl Malysz was such a miracle worker, how did the city get into this mess?" If not a fair question, it is a good one.
All I can say is that the council had better be ready to hit the ground running because it certainly appears that Mayor England and his cohort are ready to govern. And after 8 years in the wilderness, they're going to be loaded for bear.
By the time the kiddies get out of school, we should have a fairly good measure of the new administration and the dramatically revised council. Initiatives that have been floated by England's operatives may or may not have a reality behind them. I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say that some of those initiatives were a form of disinformation designed to ferret out friends and foes.
But with today's announcement of the recreation of the post of deputy mayor with broad oversight of key city functions, the foes are certainly going to be easy to identify.
Next up: The key appointment most likely to feel the heat.
Malysz, in absentia since the Overton administration, was able to see his reputation acquire a gloss in the intervening years. To this observer it almost seemed that every mention of the man was preceded with an emphatic, but silent, "the legendary..." As in, "the legendary Carl Malysz."
A few months ago, one wag was heard to ask, "If Carl Malysz was such a miracle worker, how did the city get into this mess?" If not a fair question, it is a good one.
All I can say is that the council had better be ready to hit the ground running because it certainly appears that Mayor England and his cohort are ready to govern. And after 8 years in the wilderness, they're going to be loaded for bear.
By the time the kiddies get out of school, we should have a fairly good measure of the new administration and the dramatically revised council. Initiatives that have been floated by England's operatives may or may not have a reality behind them. I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say that some of those initiatives were a form of disinformation designed to ferret out friends and foes.
But with today's announcement of the recreation of the post of deputy mayor with broad oversight of key city functions, the foes are certainly going to be easy to identify.
Next up: The key appointment most likely to feel the heat.
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?
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)