During last evening’s City Council meeting, as council members (lamentably minus the absent Mark Seabrook) and a citizen speaker discussed aspects of New Albany’s lean city budget, Dan “Wizard of Westside” Coffey, could remain silent no longer.
In retrospect, that he had said nothing for half an hour was an ominous sign.
Abruptly at 8:02 p.m., Coffey jauntily announced his contempt for the principles of teamwork, piously intoning that he hadn’t bothered attending Tuesday’s city budget work session because unidentified officials refuse to let him have “all the pieces to the puzzle.”
Not that he wouldn’t find them on his own, mind you, and of course he will manage to do so, against all the odds …
You could almost hear the public toilet keys jangling in Coffey’s pocket.
As is customary, Coffey’s bravura performance satisfied all the requirements of his favored brand of reactionary retro chic: Ward heeler, demagogue, and populist savior of the downtrodden suffering at the hands of the (fill in the blank) conspiracy.
Coffey’s council persona is calculated to baffle and intimidate his less experienced legislative brethren, and to play to the folks in Coffey’s home district, who after all is said and done must remain somehow “oppressed” if the Wizard is to retain a viable political pulse.
However, as was convincingly demonstrated in the recent Democratic leadership contest when his bid for party secretary was crushed, Coffey’s citywide appeal is considerably less universal than the adoration within his fiefdom.
Unfortunately for Coffey, this situation is a serious impediment to the aspirations of a small-time neighborhood politico who craves power not because he is capable of offering the slightest glimpse as to the future direction of the city of New Albany, or can truly grasp the Freudian nature of recurring drainage obsessions, but because he seeks to perpetuate each and every discredited local stereotype by sticking it to the uppity book readers, the snotty degree holders, the pie-in-the-sky progressives, and most importantly, those people from all walks of life who are too preoccupied with their lives to pay sufficient attention to the political theater that is Dan Coffey.
Accordingly, to wreak his preferred style of self-aggrandizing havoc outside the boundaries of the 1st District, Coffey needs strategic allies on the council. And, in the time-honored fashion, such allies need not agree on every individual point just so long as they unite on shared central issues, which in the case of the current City Council is that espoused by the faction inhabited by Coffey, which opposes virtually every activity undertaken by City Hall and the person of Mayor James Garner.
Now, in light of NA Confidential’s earlier harsh words about the Mayor’s performance, it is crucially important to understand that experience invariably enhances perception.
It has become obvious that the council “Gang of Four’s” factional opposition to Mayor Garner is predicated on root principles of anti-progressivism that extend far past the incumbent’s record – good, bad or indifferent.
These principles are regressive and reactive in nature, and they are dedicated to the preservation of a dissolving and failed status quo that lacks vision and vitality, and that offers no means whatsoever of nurture or assistance as we contemplate the task of carrying the city into the coming decades.
Replace the current mayor with John F. Kennedy, Mahatma Gandhi or Charlemagne, and the response would be exactly the same.
Yes, the administration of Mayor Garner is flawed, gaffe-ridden and buffeted by fiscal circumstance … and yet possesses a sole and irreplaceable cardinal virtue compared with the Coffey Cabals of our city, in the sense that it harbors at least a willingness to acknowledge the realm of ideas, to consider the demands of the future and to entertain notions of change.
Imperfection in pursuit of progress is better than nothing at all, and nothing at all is precisely what is being offered as the alternative by the “no progress at any price” lobby … and since the absence of progress is, in fact, regress, this brings us to the 3rd council district’s current lack of coherent representation.
This leadership vacuum is proudly occupied by 3rd District councilperson Steve Price, who continues his emergence as Dan Coffey’s most active and fawning sycophant, regularly quoting Coffey during council meetings (“we’ve got to stop the bleeding”) and seemingly unable (or more likely, unwilling) to grasp that Coffey’s vituperative political worldview is designed to bludgeon the very district Price willfully neglects to represent.
(Since Price is so fond of off-the-cuff references to Nazism, NA Confidential will offer its own historical parallel: In the paragraph above, substitute the word “collaborationist” for “sycophant” and see what happens.)
Strong sentiments? Yes, and justified.
“Sometimes it seems that we cram people into too small an area,” said Price last evening in expressing opposition to a controversial plan for patio homes off Kenzig Road.
Undoubtedly true, but Price has yet to be heard applying the same logic to multi-unit apartments crammed into older homes owned by residents of Daytona Beach, a phenomenon sadly common in Price’s own district, but an issue perhaps not worthy of Price’s attention because if might differ with the Coffeyist prerequisite of appeasing slum lords to debase the pretentiousness of the pointy-heads.
The ones in Price’s district, that is.
Last evening, ready to cast his vote on A-05-14 (an additional appropriation) and eager as ever to be seen aligning himself with the voices of regression, Price offered this odd explanation:
“Someone out in the hall told me there might be legal matters, so I have to vote no.”
Out in the hall?
Is this “no” vote more or less bizarre given that Price himself is the one who proposed the ordinance in the first place?
The Tribune’s Amany Ali and the Courier-Journal’s Ben Zion Hershberg both attended last evening’s city council meeting, and offer polar opposite accounts:
Tribune
Courier-Journal (limited shelf life on C-J links)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
As a member of the New Albany Plan Commission, I am astounded at the vote and arguement against the Kenzig Road project during last night's Council meeting.
I can completely understand a resident near the development being against a project like this because they may not want development in their backyard but... To have Council members arguing against engineers and their published studies, saying the engineers "can't be right because, I visited the site and that makes me an expert". GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!
- The Plan Commission heard hours of arguements for and against this project over three meetings. All of the concerns raised by certain Council members last night were addressed in the Plan Commission sitpulations. The Developers were able to provide all information requested which satisfied the Plan Commission. We felt everything was reviewed and in place so we passed the project to the Council with a FAVORABLE recommendation.
- Another point I'd like to make concerning this project. A great deal of time was spent early in the Council meeting last night concerning the budget crisis. One way to help secure the future of the City is to increase the tax base. Projects of this size (75-80 residences) and cost ($250,000-$300,00.00 per unit) would go a long way to start helping increase the base.
In my opinion, instead of impersonating engineers and architects, the Council should have passed the second and third readings of this project with a stipulation of being annexed by the city. (Keep in mind, the first reading of the Kensig Rd. ordnance passed 8 to 1. The second reading failed last night 6 to 2.)
Year after year, tax dollars have been leaving the city for the county. It's time to stop chasing the developers out of New Albany, instead let them know that New Albany is open for business and WANTS your business!
Steve LaDuke
we all are smart enough to know that engineers can and will produce studies that are favorable for their clients, in this case the land developers who wanted to turn an already dangerous hillside, geologically, hydrologically and logistically into a cah boon Steve.
I find it interesting that Bev Crump, a realtor was the champion for this hillside disaster ordinance, wonder if she had designs on selling the homes?
Just because you are a member of the Plan Commission does not automatically mean that you will vote in an environmentally sound manner Steve.
I appluad the City Council members who were looking out for the best interests of the ecosytem called New albany, $$ dont always make the best sense, maybe The Plan Commission will begin to understand that one day.
Steve, you are absolutely right. The multiplier effect, including the income taxes generated by these new homeowners, probably represents a $70 million boost to the city and a $25 million boost to the city's assessed values when annexation naturally ensues.
The use of third-party engineers removes all incentive to please a client, but the council doesn't seem to understand their role and duties.
I'm sick and tired of the "gang of four" bragging about their ignorance..."there's so many things we just don't know!"
Tim, do you honestly think they were voting against it for environmental reasons? I would love for you to interview the Coffey wing of the council about their vision for the future of New Albany and write it up for the Tribune. I'm increasingly baffled as to why they vote the way they do.
I'd like to know when Commissar Coffey's term is up; I have a fresh St Louis Cardinals world series hat I'm ready to throw into the ring.
Brandon, I can't speculate as to the motives for the oppositions' vote, but I like your idea of interviewing them regarding their vision for the city, perhaps you could suggest that to Amani Ali, afetr all she is City editor
All4word, you once again show your ignorance regarding the way things work around here. The bottom line is the Plan commission is merely a puppet to the realtors and land developers who are quickly turning New Albany and Floyd County into an ecologically unsound community.
The City Council is the body of government that is obligated to serve as a check on the executive branch of the city. The Plan Commission and its staff serve the executive branch, that civics 101.
Development isn't necessarily a bad thing but unsound development is.
What we need is smart growth initiatives and environmemtally sound Hillside development ordinances to insure that future development is sustainable and environmemtally sound. Don't worry Randy about what the city council's duties are I think they know that, besides they do have an attorney who can help them in defining and understanding their statutory role.
I couldn't disagree more with the statement that the Plan Commission is a "puppet" for the administration.
The Plan Commission certainly has not been a "Rubber Stamp" of approval for the Linden Meadows project which the administration supports. Nor was the administration 100% in favor of the Kensig Rd. development during the stipulation process.
Puppets, I highly doubt it!
Steve LaDuke
Oh Steve I think you ought to check my statement more carefully, I said puppet to the realtors and land developers. I hope you are more careful in reading statements in your role as a member of the plan commission and the building commission
Best be careful Steve ... you, too, may soon be identified as an architect of Native American genocide based on the irrefutable testimony of mammoth bones beneath Linden Meadows.
gee Roger I dint think there were mammoth bones up there, thanks for pointing that out. You sure you werent drinking too much of that eurpoean beer when you made that statement? I dont know why you are so anti indian unless its your european mind set that seems to mold your persona or the long predilection for european beers
Sorry Tim, you are correct. I forgot you said the Plan Commission "serves" the administration, not is a puppet of the administration. Sorry, big difference there.
...and Roger, why is this the first I've heard of said Mammoth Bones under the Linden Meadows Project. I think I'm going to change my vote on this project!
Steve LaDuke
THE BOTTOM LINE IS NEW ALBANY OVER SPENT.AND LOOK AT THE "GARNER VOTING RECORD..WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE???THE GANGF OF FOUR VOTED SOWN SOMETHINGS THAT DID NOT NEED TO BE APPROVED. ONE WAS THE REQUEST TO BUILD 80 HOUSES ON KENZIG DRIVE ON HILLSIDES OFF STATE STREET. THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC WOULD ADD ABOUT 160 CARS FOR THESE 80 FAMILIES.....ALSO THERE WAS THE MAYOR"S REQUEST TO HIRE A PARA-LEGAL TO ASSIST SHANON GIBSON, AND THIS POSITION WAS NOT APPROVED ON THE ORGINAL 2005 BUDGET.ADD A NEW POSITION AT A TIME WHEN THE STATE HAS CUT THE BUDGET $2.7 MILLION.....CRAZY???????NOW-- GARNER WANTS TO CHANGE THE PROCESS TO ALLOW THEM MORE LEEWAY TO HIRE THE PEOPLE THEY WANT. YES-- THE GANG OF FOUR DID HOLD THE LINE ON THESE THINGS. NOW I ASK YOU-WHY ARE YOU ALL NOT UPSET OVER THE $8,000.00+ DOLLARS A MONTH CITY EMPLOYEES ARE RUNNING UP CELL PHONE BILLS??? WHO IN """"THE HELL ARE THESE PEOPLE"""" TALKING TOO????WE COULD HAVE 2 CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS??? YOU ALL BITCH AND GROAN?WHAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE?THE ANSWER IS THERE IS NO MONEY FOLKS..GIVE ME THE BUDGET AND LET ME MAKE THWE CUTS.. EVEN A BETTER IDEA LETS PICK ""7 TAXPAYERS TO DO THE CUTS TO THE BUDGET"".TIM YOUR RIGHT THE CITY COUNCIL DOES THE CUTS. AND THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD START WITH THE TOP? ."A CONCERN TAXPAYER"
TO START OFF WITH "THE GANG OF FOUR VOTED DOWN SOMETHINGS THAT DID NOT NEED TO BE APPROVED. ONE WAS THE REQUEST TO BUILD 80 HOUSES ON KENZIG DRIVE ON HILLSIDES OFF STATE STREET. THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC WOULD ADD ABOUT 160 CARS FOR THESE 80 FAMILIES. ANOTHER WAS THE "MAYOR'S REQUEST TO HIRE A PARA-LEGAL TO ASSIST SHANE GIBSON,AND THIS POSITION WAS "NOT APPROVED" ON THE ORIGINAL 2005 BUDGET. ADD A NEW POSITION AT A TIME WHEN THE STATE HAS CUT THE BUDGET $2.7 MILLION..CRAZY????? ANOTHER WAS TO CHANGE THE PROCESS OF HIRING FIREMAN? NOW GARNER WANTS TO CHANGE THE PROCESS AND GIVE MORE LEEWAY TO HIRING?YES---THE GANG OF FOUR DID HOLD THE LINE ON THESE THINGS..YOU ALL ARE MISSING ALSO THE BIG PICTURE?FOLKS THE "CITY OF NEW ALBANY IS BROKE??GO TO MARCY OFFICE AND PULL GARNER'S VOTING RECORD? HOW ABOUT KOCHERT RECORD? LET'S LOOK AT WHAT THEY DONE DURING OVERATON"S TIME AS MAYOR? "GARNER VOTED AGAINST SCRIBNER PLACE...."LET'S HOLD THESE PEOPLE ACCOUNTIABLE.AS A TAX PAYER IT BLOWS ME AWAY YOU FOLKS IGNORING THE BIG PROBLEMS? ARE YOU ALL NOT BOTHERED BY "CITY EMPLOYEE'S HAVING OVERV $8,000.00 + CELL PHONE BILLS????I ASK YOU ""WHO IN THE HELL"" ARE THEY TALKING TOO???? AS A TAXPAYER I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THERE LIST OF CALLS MADE TO AND FROM???/IT IS THE JOB OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO MAKE THE CUTS? NOT THE MAYOR OR PART TIME SHANE GIBSON.LET THE COUNCIL CUT FROM THE TOP...I WANT TO SEE AN AUDIT? TURN IN THESE CITY SUV-DRIVE YOUR OWN CAR TO WORK...THE TAXPAYERS WILL BE PAYING IN PROPERTY TAXES FOR SCRIBNER PLACE.YOU ALL ARE MISSING THE BIG PICTURE HERE...JAMES GARNER "YOU LIED TO US" ABOUT SCRIBNER PLACE, TO GET US TO VOTE FOR YOU...YOU AND TONY TORAN ARE NO BETTER THAN "OVERATON"..LET THE COUNCIL DO THERE JOB AND MAKE THE "BIG CUTS"...IF PEOPLE ARE NOT HAPPY WITH THE COUNCILMEN.VOTE THEM OUT.LOOK AT BILL SCHMIDT'S VOTING RECORDED.THERE IS NOT A FINER COUNCILMAN THEN BILL SCHMIDT ..WE NEED CODE ENFORCER..YOU HAVE THE MONEY-MAYOR NOW HIRE SOMEONE..JAMES GARNER YOU ARE NOTHING BUT "SMOKE AND MIRRORS." NOTHING BUT LIES COME OUT OF YOUR MOUTH.. NEW ALBANY DESERVES BETTER...TAXPAYER
Taxpayer,
Your interest is appreciated, but it isn't always easy for us to read your submissions. Please consider these words from the ...
Internet Writing Journal
http://www.writerswrite.com/journal/dec99/pirillo1.htm
"It's okay to use all-caps for headings and/or titles in your messages, or even to EMPHASIZE certain words, but anything beyond that is equivalent to screaming at someone."
I thought there were 84 homes on 30 acres----with streets and easements and traffic---it sounds like a little much---also the lawyer that presented the case did not do himself any good by talking down to the council (not that they may not deserve it). I would have voted no.BTW---don mattingly was active in calling members of the council and asking them to vote no on this issue.
I also thought the vote on the new system for hiring in the fire department was interesting--I believe it failed 4 to 4----Does anyone really believe that seabrook could not attend the meeting? He would have voted against the measure, but since he is postering himself to run for mayor he could not vote against what the fire dept. wants----so he skipped the meeting. That is like a few meetings ago when take home cars for the police were discussed---Seabrook's comment was--I am not against take home cars, but it does need to be looked at.---what a political statement!!!!
knighttrain,
You make very valid points and, keep in mind I'm not disputing them but, if I understand correctly... "By right" development of the property in question would allow for a subdivision of approximately the same size. The only reason this is before the City Council is because it needed PUD approval.
Secondly, I can attest to the fact that Councilman Seabrook was unable to attend the meeting that evening and, his absence was known well ahead of time as he had already scheduled to be out of town for a few days.
Again, just letting you know what I understand. I have certainly been wrong in the past.
Steve LaDuke
Post a Comment