Hard to believe it has been more than two weeks since we posted here. In some respects, the laxity was generated by statements confided in us that we determined were not fodder for blogging. Although these confidences inform our understanding, we believe it would be imprudent to relate them here.
We told a gathering today that we believed that the end of the world was a provable fact...and that New Albany was simply a test market.
We (by this I mean those masochist idealists who continue to use the bi-monthly city council meetings the way the Polar Bear Society uses Lake Michigan in January) will, assuredly, witness the zeroth degree of shame demonstrated by the council on this coming evening. Enormous energies will be expended, perhaps to no effect, over an amorphous issue that finds an embittered and embattled minority up in arms. And yet, history marches onward.
In our household, we marvel at the passion and the heedless illogic displayed by the opponents of a workplace smoking ban in New Albany. On first reading, a majority of the city council approved a comprehensive ban that would take effect some time shortly after Thanksgiving, given two more affirmative votes on Thursday night.
Admittedly, passage of the ordinance would be an occasion of thanks giving, in our view. For those of us who do not smoke, dining out is a completely positive experience when done in a restaurant where smoking is prohibited.
Yes, I can eat at home. Yes, I can eat at national chain restaurants that, on the issue of smoking, "get it," even if that is an educated and calculated bottom-line decision. But why should I be discouraged from frequenting the independent restaurants and pubs I would prefer to visit and give my custom?
Yes, it's our choice. If we want to eat at Studio's or The New Albanian Pub or Federal Hill Cafe, we may. We must, of course, consume our share of second-hand smoke to do so, but it is our choice.
According to The Tribune, 57% of New Albanians over the age of 18 favor a ban on workplace smoking, as reported by an "unscientific" poll. A more rigorous scientific poll says 68% of New Albanians favor it. We favor it.
But we simply don't understand the passion this "issue" evokes.
We wrote recently at salon.com about how we believe that incalculable damage will be done to our local economy by refraining from passing this ordinance; can you imagine how backward would be the city who was the last in the nation to prohibit smoking in the workplace?
We are puzzled by that this ordinance has become, in essence, a ban on bar and restaurant smoking. But it has. And while we don't discriminate against quality establishments that allow smoking, we prefer, strenuously, those who vigorously prohibit it. And so do most of those who smoke.
At last, we come to the quality of the arguments in opposition to the ordinance.
One prolific blog commenter continues to harp on the "professionalism" (they're paid) of public health advocates, noting that the fact that they are paid to create a healthy environment somehow diminishes the quality of their arguments...that the funding for same comes from tobacco taxes and legitimate judicial settlements...It reminds us of those, like Sen. James Inhofe, who bandy about the idea that global warming is some nefarious conspiracy of ultra-liberal, hate-America cabal.
Facts are facts. Fabricated evidence isn't legitimate. Peer-reviewed studies of epidemiological data make the anti-smoking evidence undebatable. Period. Ad hominem attacks don't make the facts different.
On and on it can go, and assuredly will when the council passes a comprehensive ban on Thursday.
There will be, as there has been, interminable gum-flapping, afterward. It's kinda fun. But we can't summon the passion for the argument. We'd love to visit certain establishments more often without becoming an involuntary smoker. We applaud our representatives for legislating on the issue and would welcome a comprehensive ban.
We guarantee you that we are capable of addressing the many, many "arguments" put forward, but enough is enough. Masturbating doesn't produce progeny. And blogging doesn't produce changed minds.
That doesn't mean we will stop. Blogging, that is.
Why, Friday morning, the debate will be either 1) Why it would be foolish or wise of Mayor Doug England to veto/sign the ordinance, or 2) Why it was foolish of the council to exempt "private" clubs or public bars from the ordinance.
You see, there's plenty of time.
As an aside, we'll note that H.L. Mencken got great mileage out of ridiculing those who debated the demonstrable evidence of science and sought to legislate against it, to, in fact, attempt to hold back the tide of facts. He did not end up on the side of specious, tortured arguments. The curmudgeon did not end up on the wrong side of history.
And as a second aside, no longer does anyone rally to the idea that we may, on our private property, conduct any enterprise we wish without government regulation. It might be lucrative...it might be key to our survival...to use our property for the provision of full-body massage to release. But it ain't allowed, either by law or by zoning ordinance. We can't conduct chemical reclamation of precious metals from computer circuit boards under existing zoning ordinances, either. We can't sell merchandise without providing at least 10 off-street parking spaces.
How is that different from legislating that we can't serve alcoholic beverages or eggs and bacon where workers OR patrons are subjected to second-hand smoke?
Where were all the civil libertarians this year when the state of Indiana decided that they would determine your choice of what books you would buy? We didn't see Steve Price stepping up to challenge that "freedom of choice," which is, inarguably, much more critical to civilization than the "right" to smoke in a bar.
Where were all the civil libertarians over the past six years when the city council intentionally decided that the constitutional principle of equal representation was of no consequence?
Frankly, we say "Felix Unger" to all of you "civil libertarians" who have decided that this is the issue where you will take your stands.
Showing posts with label vogt v. city of new albany. Show all posts
Showing posts with label vogt v. city of new albany. Show all posts
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Hot Bites!
Tiny nuggets of observation from Thursday's New Albany City Council meeting.
ITEM: Mayor Doug England seems determined to establish a clear delineation between the executive and legislative branches of government. Pleading more important obligations, His Honor sent his professional staff to the meeting, but promised to again visit with the council on Feb. 20 to deliver his State of the City address.
ITEM: England was rebuffed in his request to have a sewer board constituted immediately. It is clear that a 3-member board will be created, a motion to suspend the rules and pass a new organizational structure for the utility failed for lack of a second. Sewer business is thus suspended for as many as four more weeks, much to the chagrin of the administration and "new" sewer board attorney Lee Buchanan. The council didn't buy the argument that having no sewer board for the first six weeks of the year is such a critical impediment that it couldn't wait.
ITEM: The previous council had asserted itself with regard to sewer board contracting processes, going so far as to file a lawsuit against the board (Does New Albany v. New Albany qualify as an intra-squad competition?). Thursday night the council instructed its counsel, Jerry Ulrich, to withdraw its suit. It's hard to fault any of the council votes on this one. While we consider the suit to have been ill-advised and marred by rather successful demagoguery, there is some appeal to seeing the court rule on the key question, namely, does a contract to manage operations fall into the category of "professional services," and thus exempt from requirements for competitive bids, or can those professional services be treated as "public works," and thus subject to rigorous (cumbersome?) requirements most often related to time and materials projects. Shadow5 believes the sewer board acted properly, but can't find fault with those who would like a legal ruling. Since you can't just call up Judge Cody and ask him what he thinks, pursuing the lawsuit could be justified.
At-large council member Kevin Zurschmiede made a convincing case in defense of his previous service on the board, but even he claimed to welcome a judicial resolution.
In any case, the suit is dropped. And in several weeks, a sewer board can be so informed.
ITEM: England's tenure is sure to be more productive after council gave final approval to a reorganization of "third floor" functions. The team is now in place and as a local entrepreneur said today, there had better be a quick improvement in performance. A short-lived effort to sever the new code inspector position from the executive reorganization was quashed. An impassioned letter drafted and presented by citizen Jeff Gillenwater on behalf of numerous neighborhood associations made it clear that this enhanced enforcement position was an expected part of the mayor's campaign commitment to further a key progressive aim.
ITEM: We've always maintained that we'll respect disagreement that has a rational basis. Mrs. Benedetti (D5) is prone to using council meetings themselves as the time to educate herself, but showed strong indications that her votes will be based on rationality. As much as we'd like to think that she could be an ally to a progressive vision... (and let's face it, "we" decide what qualifies as progressive, but we do need a label. It can't just be a political party or a geographic zone or a personality. Although "Baylorite" has a nice ring.) ...we'd settle for obvious and apparent cogitation over each recorded vote. On balance, Thursday night was an improvement.
ITEM: Signals. That's the word we were searching for in response to criticisms of this blog from "Ruthanne" last week. Like barometric pressure changes that signal incoming weather, a city council meeting is filled with signals. Ruthanne believed that the only fair report was "not enough data." We saw enough to forecast stormy seas. The predominant mode of civility and reasoned discourse, with predictable lapses from the Wizard of Westendia, signaled good weather ahead. If the climate holds, there is a downside - council meetings will be far less entertaining. The greatest show in town may have moved over to Larry McAllister's County Council. The circus may have changed nights! Now, if McAllister can just declare which party he belongs to...
ITEM: Council demonstrated a measure of parity with the mayor's office this time around. You may recall that the reorganization of the executive offices went unchallenged, even unquestioned in January's first meeting. Without rancor, but with some steel, Mrs. Benedetti demanded at least a cursory explanation from the deputy mayor. And she made it clear that when she requests information that does not issue on a timely basis, she intends to condition her votes accordingly.
ITEM: A truly interesting (and hungry) crowd descended on one downtown nightspot (not Hugh E. Bir's) following the evening's festivities. Civility, if not bonhomie, characterized the night, with Gahang members cohabiting the space with Baylorites and aficionados of the Restoration. Much discussion revolved around the fact that the 2011 1st District campaign fund had ballooned beyond the $9,000 mark. Realtors report a swelling of interest by residents seeking to relocate to the West End sometime in the next two years. Overheard in reference to a certain council member: "Send him back to Birdseye!"
ITEM: Congratulations are in order to Bob Caesar, Pat McLaughlin, Diane Benedetti, John Gonder, Jack Messer, and Kevin Zurschmiede. Those worthies repealed the 2007 ordinance setting district boundaries, the ordinance that Judge Tinder warned would meet with disfavor if returned to his court. Ironically, that restores the horrendously inequitable districts that maintained after the 2000 census. But fear not. Concurrently, the council voted to establish a committee of three disinterested and impartial (at-large) members who will join with three people designated by the plaintiffs in Vogt v. City of New Albany, the redistricting lawsuit, to design a lawful ordinance that presents equal districts based on the only legally relevant census numbers. Yes, sanity has prevailed (well, 66.67% sanity).
One can expect that we'll read a news brief in the local papers soon announcing that a consent decree has been entered that terminates the existing lawsuit in exchange for a binding commitment from the city to abide by the Constitution and its equal protection requirements.
What a long, strange trip. Even in defeat, council member Dan Coffey could not resist restating his slanders of the plaintiffs and his grossly inaccurate history of the case. Perhaps the most repellent piece of his recital was the claim that a unanimous council responded with alacrity to the lawsuit (or, as he put it, "once we were made aware of it"), agreeing that it needed to be fixed. If that were true, wouldn't it have been nice if Mr. Coffey and his recalcitrant colleagues had issued a press release or a legal response acknowledging that. The fact that no such statement ever issued is proof of the lie.
We'll grant that Mr. Coffey may have been so willing to listen to the deposed Karry Ling that he was snookered by the erstwhile D4 council member. But we doubt it.
For the record, Messrs. Gahan, Coffey, and Price rejected the consent decree, preferring to risk the clearly signaled ire of a federal district court judge. How they will defend that position is the first campaign issue for 2011.
ITEM: Some discreet digging revealed that the plaintiffs intend to conduct an exhaustive search for qualified residents willing to serve on the newly authorized committee. Although the right to designate lies with the plaintiffs, the actual appointment will be made by council President Jeff Gahan. Interested applicants should send their submissions to the plaintiffs by e-mail to hlwimp@insightbb.com or to the council president, by e-mail to gahan@insightbb.com or by mail to The Hon. Jeff Gahan, 1122 Eastridge Dr., New Albany, IN 47150. We trust that Mr. Gahan will forward those for approval by the plaintiffs.
ITEM: Mayor Doug England seems determined to establish a clear delineation between the executive and legislative branches of government. Pleading more important obligations, His Honor sent his professional staff to the meeting, but promised to again visit with the council on Feb. 20 to deliver his State of the City address.
ITEM: England was rebuffed in his request to have a sewer board constituted immediately. It is clear that a 3-member board will be created, a motion to suspend the rules and pass a new organizational structure for the utility failed for lack of a second. Sewer business is thus suspended for as many as four more weeks, much to the chagrin of the administration and "new" sewer board attorney Lee Buchanan. The council didn't buy the argument that having no sewer board for the first six weeks of the year is such a critical impediment that it couldn't wait.
ITEM: The previous council had asserted itself with regard to sewer board contracting processes, going so far as to file a lawsuit against the board (Does New Albany v. New Albany qualify as an intra-squad competition?). Thursday night the council instructed its counsel, Jerry Ulrich, to withdraw its suit. It's hard to fault any of the council votes on this one. While we consider the suit to have been ill-advised and marred by rather successful demagoguery, there is some appeal to seeing the court rule on the key question, namely, does a contract to manage operations fall into the category of "professional services," and thus exempt from requirements for competitive bids, or can those professional services be treated as "public works," and thus subject to rigorous (cumbersome?) requirements most often related to time and materials projects. Shadow5 believes the sewer board acted properly, but can't find fault with those who would like a legal ruling. Since you can't just call up Judge Cody and ask him what he thinks, pursuing the lawsuit could be justified.
At-large council member Kevin Zurschmiede made a convincing case in defense of his previous service on the board, but even he claimed to welcome a judicial resolution.
In any case, the suit is dropped. And in several weeks, a sewer board can be so informed.
ITEM: England's tenure is sure to be more productive after council gave final approval to a reorganization of "third floor" functions. The team is now in place and as a local entrepreneur said today, there had better be a quick improvement in performance. A short-lived effort to sever the new code inspector position from the executive reorganization was quashed. An impassioned letter drafted and presented by citizen Jeff Gillenwater on behalf of numerous neighborhood associations made it clear that this enhanced enforcement position was an expected part of the mayor's campaign commitment to further a key progressive aim.
ITEM: We've always maintained that we'll respect disagreement that has a rational basis. Mrs. Benedetti (D5) is prone to using council meetings themselves as the time to educate herself, but showed strong indications that her votes will be based on rationality. As much as we'd like to think that she could be an ally to a progressive vision... (and let's face it, "we" decide what qualifies as progressive, but we do need a label. It can't just be a political party or a geographic zone or a personality. Although "Baylorite" has a nice ring.) ...we'd settle for obvious and apparent cogitation over each recorded vote. On balance, Thursday night was an improvement.
ITEM: Signals. That's the word we were searching for in response to criticisms of this blog from "Ruthanne" last week. Like barometric pressure changes that signal incoming weather, a city council meeting is filled with signals. Ruthanne believed that the only fair report was "not enough data." We saw enough to forecast stormy seas. The predominant mode of civility and reasoned discourse, with predictable lapses from the Wizard of Westendia, signaled good weather ahead. If the climate holds, there is a downside - council meetings will be far less entertaining. The greatest show in town may have moved over to Larry McAllister's County Council. The circus may have changed nights! Now, if McAllister can just declare which party he belongs to...
ITEM: Council demonstrated a measure of parity with the mayor's office this time around. You may recall that the reorganization of the executive offices went unchallenged, even unquestioned in January's first meeting. Without rancor, but with some steel, Mrs. Benedetti demanded at least a cursory explanation from the deputy mayor. And she made it clear that when she requests information that does not issue on a timely basis, she intends to condition her votes accordingly.
ITEM: A truly interesting (and hungry) crowd descended on one downtown nightspot (not Hugh E. Bir's) following the evening's festivities. Civility, if not bonhomie, characterized the night, with Gahang members cohabiting the space with Baylorites and aficionados of the Restoration. Much discussion revolved around the fact that the 2011 1st District campaign fund had ballooned beyond the $9,000 mark. Realtors report a swelling of interest by residents seeking to relocate to the West End sometime in the next two years. Overheard in reference to a certain council member: "Send him back to Birdseye!"
ITEM: Congratulations are in order to Bob Caesar, Pat McLaughlin, Diane Benedetti, John Gonder, Jack Messer, and Kevin Zurschmiede. Those worthies repealed the 2007 ordinance setting district boundaries, the ordinance that Judge Tinder warned would meet with disfavor if returned to his court. Ironically, that restores the horrendously inequitable districts that maintained after the 2000 census. But fear not. Concurrently, the council voted to establish a committee of three disinterested and impartial (at-large) members who will join with three people designated by the plaintiffs in Vogt v. City of New Albany, the redistricting lawsuit, to design a lawful ordinance that presents equal districts based on the only legally relevant census numbers. Yes, sanity has prevailed (well, 66.67% sanity).
One can expect that we'll read a news brief in the local papers soon announcing that a consent decree has been entered that terminates the existing lawsuit in exchange for a binding commitment from the city to abide by the Constitution and its equal protection requirements.
What a long, strange trip. Even in defeat, council member Dan Coffey could not resist restating his slanders of the plaintiffs and his grossly inaccurate history of the case. Perhaps the most repellent piece of his recital was the claim that a unanimous council responded with alacrity to the lawsuit (or, as he put it, "once we were made aware of it"), agreeing that it needed to be fixed. If that were true, wouldn't it have been nice if Mr. Coffey and his recalcitrant colleagues had issued a press release or a legal response acknowledging that. The fact that no such statement ever issued is proof of the lie.
We'll grant that Mr. Coffey may have been so willing to listen to the deposed Karry Ling that he was snookered by the erstwhile D4 council member. But we doubt it.
For the record, Messrs. Gahan, Coffey, and Price rejected the consent decree, preferring to risk the clearly signaled ire of a federal district court judge. How they will defend that position is the first campaign issue for 2011.
ITEM: Some discreet digging revealed that the plaintiffs intend to conduct an exhaustive search for qualified residents willing to serve on the newly authorized committee. Although the right to designate lies with the plaintiffs, the actual appointment will be made by council President Jeff Gahan. Interested applicants should send their submissions to the plaintiffs by e-mail to hlwimp@insightbb.com or to the council president, by e-mail to gahan@insightbb.com or by mail to The Hon. Jeff Gahan, 1122 Eastridge Dr., New Albany, IN 47150. We trust that Mr. Gahan will forward those for approval by the plaintiffs.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Practice Makes Perfect
We'll be doing a trial run tonight in shadowing the legislator from the 5th District. Won't the council president be surprised at how many attendees would be eligible to deliver the invocation tonight?
And Peter Vogt and his pals ought to be pleased at how their case is strengthened this evening.
We'll report what we see and hear in Friday's posting.
And Peter Vogt and his pals ought to be pleased at how their case is strengthened this evening.
We'll report what we see and hear in Friday's posting.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Will they tell it to the judge?
Golly, we hope everyone had a safe and enjoyable time at the New Albany Beer Festival. Sure was nice of all those other folks blocking the access to downtown businesses to offer plenty of alcohol-absorbing breaded foods.
But now comes Harvest Hangover. As the sun rises on Monday, the cry heard in the hollow canyons of New Albany is "here come da judge!"
Yes, ladies and gentlemen. Monday's the day when the federal court opens its doors to accept the settlement of Vogt v. New Albany. You know the case, right? The one where they're arguing over the meaning of "is." Is 9000 equal to 5000? One side says yes, the other says no, and we're all going to pay to have someone from outside our burg explain which side is right. Anybody willing to place a bet?
How are the city council and the people who sued them going to answer when the judge asks "where is the settlement agreement?"
I wouldn't want to be sitting across from that judge today.
But now comes Harvest Hangover. As the sun rises on Monday, the cry heard in the hollow canyons of New Albany is "here come da judge!"
Yes, ladies and gentlemen. Monday's the day when the federal court opens its doors to accept the settlement of Vogt v. New Albany. You know the case, right? The one where they're arguing over the meaning of "is." Is 9000 equal to 5000? One side says yes, the other says no, and we're all going to pay to have someone from outside our burg explain which side is right. Anybody willing to place a bet?
How are the city council and the people who sued them going to answer when the judge asks "where is the settlement agreement?"
I wouldn't want to be sitting across from that judge today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)