This headline reminds us that there are cities and towns in America that are capable of conceiving creative solutions to nagging problems without using poverty and ignorance as excuses not to try and achieve results.
Residents aim radar guns at Carmel streets; Police-backed effort lets residents flag speedy scofflaws in residential areas, By Dan McFeely (The Indianapolis Star).
Speeding cars are the No. 1 complaint made to police in Carmel, home to subdivisions where moms push strollers, dads walk dogs and kids play on streets.
It's a problem that extends far beyond Carmel, though.
Across the nation, communities from Pasadena, Calif., to Scottsdale, Ariz., suburban Atlanta to Appleton, Wis., have turned to citizen patrols to crack down on speeders.
It would be far more entertaining to aim handy army surplus bazookas at New Albany’s many boom cars.
Noise Free America is dedicated to fighting noise pollution, especially from boom cars, car alarms, leaf blowers, and motorcycles. Noise Free America has an extensive legislative agenda to reduce noise, as well as an Action Plan.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
Speaking of guns, I had an idea this weekend while shopping at Dollar Tree (I know, I know, they're as bad as Walmart, etc., etc.)
They have these great, huge Super Soaker water guns. I'll buy 28 of them, one for each plaintiff and council member. We can sell tickets for five bucks each and let each group blast the crap out of each other for a half hour or so. Proceeds could go into the NeighborWorks fund, and a good time would be had by all.
28 -- I imagine you mean that I get the free "press" pass?
By all means, Brandon, please explain your more mature solution.
No free passes for you, Roger. This is one wet T-shirt contest you're not talking your way out of. It's not an error--I think 28 guns will be sufficient.
Now where to hold this blast? The steps of the courthouse? The Loop Island dueling grounds?
I have an idea, Jeff.
Let's take a page out of Romanov history, put on our Sunday best, and present earnest petitions to the Little Fathers on the council to do the right thing according to the law that governs their actions.
There can be incense, chanting and robed, bearded men all about. Some vodka might help the medicine go down.
Yep, that's sure to convince them, just like in 2002 ... well, uh, okay, perhaps there are a few holes in my plan.
What's hilarious about it to me is that the parallels with Russian history don't stop there.
In their eagerness to uphold the law -- just not yet, and not in this particular case, primarily because they didn't think about it first (that's maturity) -- the Gang of Four's defenders are blaming the whole thing on Maury.
The Elders of SOLNA?
Now, that's funny.
Alright, Ann, you have me.
But who is 29? 20 + 9 = 29, right?
Or is Coffey Math (not polymath, mind you) throwing me off stride?
Hey! Maybe we could put vodka in the Super Soakers . . .
We'll revisit the math at a future date.
Annie, your idea such did inject some much needed humor into the issue. LOL smack-down meets the founding fathers...I would pay up to $50 to see this.
Well, there you go! Who said we can't solve our problems ourselves without asking the administration to do it for us?!
If we can pull this off, we've got at least $50 in the till for NeighborWorks.
Brandon referred to "building the kinds of long-term working relationships among people that might actually facilitate progress. But I guess that's the naive approach."
Naive? Perhaps only in a good way, insofar as being naive means trusting others to negotiate from a position of fairness, not malice.
Of course, I can't rule out that there are those pursuing this for the sake of "speculative advantage." However, what I know is that there are those, both on the council and in the community, who are indicating an unwillingness to "facilitate progress."
How, then, does one go about discussing the issues with such? It did about as much good with Joe McCarthy as it would with Dan Coffey.
Just my opinion, donchaknow.
These relationship problems as well as obstacles to progress amongst some seem to run deep in this city, county and the hospital.
Same problems with different faces.
Brandon writes as if the plaintiffs in the lawsuit have given up on relationships, even though he's actively involved in community relationship building with some of them and knows that many of the plaintiffs are actually leading that effort. It's not an either/or proposition. It's both- build relationships when possible and seek redress when necessary.
I don't respect people who lie to me repeatedly (there's a reason I don't trust them) nor do I see personal or city-wide value in expending limited resources in futile attempts to placate those whose only discernable goal is to destroy the relationships, successes, and potential successes that many in the community bust their butts to build.
The lawsuit, at the very least, will force those on the council who normally refuse it to accept a decision made via the application of law to factual information. That alone will be a major victory for this community and fairness in general.
Jeff, thanks for that.
Brandon, please, why is it that you are insistent that a matter of principle constitutes the pursuit of short term political advantage?
Being apolitical in terms of the two-party system, I'm not offended, just puzzled.
HB, I've put my two cents in on that topic at your blog today ...
Do I have this right?
The plaintiffs are sabotaging their own efforts via the lawsuit?
And, my reason for being a plaintiff is the pursuit of short term political advantage?
Just seeking clarity here.
Do I cherish the thought of my sitting uncouncilman returning to the obscurity of private life?
You bet. I wouldn't think of denying it. When it happens, there’ll be a party the likes of which I seldom countenance at my advanced age.
Does this fervent desire on my part preclude objectivity when it comes to the various implications of redistricting?
I think not, but more importantly, would I entertain the notion of involvement with such an action – along with 19 other people who’ve similarly considered their own consciences – from the narrow and purely parochial standpoint of unseating my own councilman?
No, not at all -- if for no other reason (including conscience, conviction, and respect for the law), because neither I nor anyone else has the slightest idea how the districts would be redrawn, and whether the redrawing would prove to be beneficial or harmful to whatever political desires are being entertained. For all I know, redistricting may make Steve Price’s seat easier for him to reclaim.
I believe you are impugning my motives mistakenly by ascribing outcomes that can’t possibly be foreseen, when the outcome that can be foreseen is revamped districts that are fair, irrespective of what this might imply politically.
Furthermore, and with reference to your charge that damage is being done to the neighborhood associations and the forum, how is it that your opprobrium is not directed toward the entities hostile to regeneration? But wait, perhaps these are the same entities with whom gentle networking might be expected to yield bounties, as though an asphalt slab suddenly sprouts daisies.
Bluegill has addressed this already:
I don't respect people who lie to me repeatedly (there's a reason I don't trust them) nor do I see personal or city-wide value in expending limited resources in futile attempts to placate those whose only discernable goal is to destroy the relationships, successes, and potential successes that many in the community bust their butts to build.
Brandon, you wrote:
“ … no one denies that the districts should have been redrawn.”
In private conversations and public utterances, you have consistently and commendably supported rule of law. Here, again, you do … but amend the proviso, “not just yet.”
What gives?
Face it, New Albanian. Understand it, Bluegill. Brandon is not impugning anyone's motives except mine.
And he's wrong.
He's also making his own declaration that he knows what's best and he'll let us know what that is just as soon as he demonstrates what nice guys the Gang of Four are once they sit down with our young counselor.
When districts are so grossly out of balance, there are some obvious remedies. But this is a council prerogative to draw them. They can gerrymander to their heart's content and protect incumbents till the cows come home, but they still have to reapportion. If they won't, perhaps a federal district judge will do it for them.
Brandon wants to establish a line of demarcation. There are the bad people on one side, the bad people on the other...and then there's Brandon.
Brandon is, above all, interested in being liked. And he is, greatly, by almost all who know him. But the piety and self-righteousness do get tiresome.
And Brandon proves that his own view is wrong by arguing with you guys. Believing (knowing) that the council is wrong, what Brandhi should be doing is urging the council to settle the matter forthwith by doing what they should have done years ago.
But that would mean reasoning with them, something that Brandhi knows isn't possible, thereby proving him wrong in his ideas.
Gandhi preached non-violence, not non-confrontation and not abdication of rights in the face of power. Brandhi lectures only his "friends" because he knows they will parlay with him and reinforce his importance. But he WILL NOT speak truth to power.
I constantly analyze the political motivations of those in power, and with a redistricting imminent, I will speculate about the political ramifications of that action. But merely because it will have uncontrollable (at least by me) political ramifications does not make it politically motivated, and I know not what short-term political advantage might be gained by a single one of the plaintiffs.
Redistricting is nothing but a technical matter. Waking the city is something else entirely, and that comes from pounding the pavement, talking with people to find out what concerns and motivates them, and supporting those who are responsive to same.
Hey, if Brandon doesn't think it's cool, tough biscuits. But my message to him would be to take his act to city council and see for himself who's reasonable and who's not.
Residents fought for 18 months to get one lone ordinance enforcement officer, a no-brainer if ever there was one. There is no excuse for that. More energy was expended getting that indubitably progressive measure passed than is conscionable.
For anyone to propose that the technical matter of redistricting requires only a mere request/reminder to this city council is naive and disingenuous to a fault. And I mean anyone.
Instead of 18 months, this might take 18 weeks. It should take 18 days, as a matter of law and as a matter of Constitutional principle.
My vote for council is nearly twice as weighted as that of some of my friends and co-plaintiffs. That's wrong. That is a violation of due process and equal protection under the Constitution and case law.
Like I said before (which usually means this is a good time to end a thread) you'll notice Brandhi isn't reaching out to those in power, but is lecturing those who are working for fairness. And that's because he knows you will listen and consider his points. And that's also because he knows the Gang of Four WILL NOT.
Brandon,
As intelligent and caring as you are, you sometimes miss the point entirely. You came in here swinging a great big accusatory baseball bat and are now seemingly trying to excuse yourself with a bad analogy and a suggestion to end the thread.
You'll either back up your allegations or not. If you do, we can talk about it. If you don't, it all comes across as so much pious drivel. Though what you've written yourself could very easily be (and has been)viewed as paranoid and vicious, you simply haven't provided any evidence that supports your political advantage or relationship sabotage arguments.
What you perceive as strength or some kind of quasi-diplomacy, many totally reasonable people perceive as cowardice and I've yet to find anyone who takes well to being preached at by cowards. One of the other reasons it's difficult to get anything done in this town is because people talk a good game and then bail on you when it's time for action. Have you not considered that? The fact that this same type of situation has happened numerous times with you and you've still yet to figure it out, quite frankly, baffles me.
Don't sweat it, though, man. I'll just continue the relationship building I've been working on. Unfortunately, a part of that process will again include convincing people to not wring your sideline-sitting neck.
All4Word,
As one who came under similar "attack" last week I must respond to at least a few points.
1. I think it was naive NOT to have at least made a request to the council first. Politically naive. Just look at the flak you are taking for not doing it first.
2. It is going to take "reasonable" people to accomplish anything in New Albany. Why is preaching to the choir such a bad thing to you? Let's face it, the choir is not very large. Their knowledge of many things in this city is limited. The blogs are one area where discussion of different ideas can take place and knowledge increased. Some of us do not know it all yet and are here to be recruited, so to speak.
3. I am someone who will probably agree, politically, with you 90%+ of the time. I acknowledge your grasp of the city and your intellectual superiority.(not sarcasm) That said, I should not be expected to ask "how high?" when you say jump. Guess who that makes you sound like?
Well, you have accused me also of wanting everyone to like me. Also of never taking a position. Am I getting "better"?
Brandon, thanks for the discussion.
I believe if you will examine the positions taken on various topics, you'll see that far from being "myopic," the "prog vs. trog tiff" constitutes a long-running exposition of positions and principles that lie at the very heart of the situation in New Albany.
Given such, there can be no doubt as to the strategies and goals that are most likely to make this city a better place. You’ve introduced me to more than a few of them. From the start, it hasn’t mattered to me whether someone is rich or poor, black or white, young or old – just that he or she can exist comfortably within a reality-based world and apply reason – the function that makes us human – to ideas, problems and solutions.
As we've gone back and forth here, it’s obvious that we have a rather fundamental disagreement as to the efficacy of persuasion and negotiation. I certainly believe in networking and building relationships, but as has been noted during this thread, it’s difficult to do that with people who are devoid of willingness to extend the courtesy to you that you’re providing them.
Indeed, there does come a time when one must put heartfelt beliefs and principles to the test, preferably with his or her name attached to the manifesto, and not wearing the masks and hoods that are the refuge of cowards and second raters.
But it hasn’t occurred to me yet that I should disguise myself behind a screen name, or refrain from saying what I think for fear that doing so might compromise my business interests. With me it’s about principles, not politics, and I’ll succeed or fail in such a pursuit.
That's what conscience is all about.
...seriously out of whack."
...which leads to adjustments everywhere in the city until relative equivalence is reached. As the 5th is the smallest, it must grow, right, Brandon? And as the 2nd is the largest, it must shrink, right, Brandon?
And of course I know it is population that counts, and as our suit pleads. That does not make the other inequalities unworthy of discussion, particularly on the blogs.
Tell us, Brandon, what's your projection as to what the court will allow as a standard deviation? I realize you don't believe it is a Constitutional issue, because you and I have discussed this at great length for more than a year.
The spread between the smallest district and the largest is, reportedly, 76 percentage points off the norm (I think it may be closer to 60). What do you think the court will allow? 10%? 5%? 1.5%?
I know you think the court will give great leeway. As a non-party to the suit, you have great leeway to speculate and advise in a way that many of us MAY not and that many of us CAN not. Instead, you preach some impenetrable Rodney King sermon. "Can't we all just get along?"
No. We can't because "WE" aren't trying. Be constructive, why don't you. Elucidate. The turn the other cheek stuff is coming from the editorial board of this blog, not from you.
What? Were you just waiting for me to finally comment on your preachments so you could cry "foul?"
Why don't you offer insight instead of name-calling?
And I'll join my colleagues in asking "what short-term political advantage?"
I like you Brandon.(smile)
You've publicly accused 20 people, most of whom I consider friends and admire for their dedication to the city, of political underhandedness and lying about their motives. You've let one off the hook. That leaves 19.
My question is who conceived this supposed diabolical plot and sold it to the others? Me? Ted? Rick? How about Tabitha? If you're going to make public accusations about a person(s) within a group, clarifying who you're actually talking about and why you're accusing them seems like the decent thing to do. Otherwise, you're painting them all as guilty in the absence of any evidence.
How can you possibly call for relationship building and reason when you derisively sully the integrity of allies while refusing to offer a valid argument in support of your conclusion?
There may very well be people emailing you in support. They'd be a lot like the people I mentioned previously who I've had to talk down from their anger with you. It's not my fault that people have perceived you as letting your fear get the better of you. It's not your fault that people have whatever good or bad perceptions they have about me.
If you're going to get that upset about return fire, maybe you shouldn't be taking shots at people.
Brandon, I like you too! But honestly over the past year or so when it appears its going to get tough, you seem to take off in a different direction. There is nothing wrong standing your ground, but telling us your standing your ground as you back peddle away from the confrontation is not what I would call being upfront with us or yourself.
This lawsuit is not political; there is no political agenda to it. It’s just past time that it be done. The council president talks about how full the plate is for the council this year, this would not have been thrown on their plate had it been done when it should have been.
Even though a few of these council members were not on the council when it was to be done, makes no difference, I too want to know why a certain past councilman pulled it from the table.
This evening while I am writing this, I am sitting in a small town north of Denver, the town of Longmont, Colorado is having very similar problems with politics. There is a call by the citizens for term limits for magistrates, council members, etc. May be what is going in our little town is not as local as we think it is. Just may be all across this nation the common folk, little people, what ever are tired of the same old things year after year in the way their government is handling things! I know when I think about it, when I had my head in the ground and could give a care less about local government my life was a lot more plain and simple. Now that I have become active in local politics I see the problems, and I don’t want my Grandsons generation to inherit them. These same problems have been going on for years. It doesn’t matter who the mayor is, what make up the council has, who the chief of police is, who the fire chief is, you’re getting my drift. It’s always handed on to the next poor soul that comes in with high hopes going to make changes and make a difference, and then something happens, something changes, I think it’s called everyday life!
I truly enjoyed my little run for the roses, and why I didn’t make the final three is very clear to me now. If your not a power player or in the click down at city-county building, and what I mean by that is, not sleeping with, or buying flowers, or paying for someone’s honeymoon then you have a snowballs chance in Hades of winning an election.
Didn’t someone say earlier this thread should be nearing its end? Maybe this post will kill it out right!
Carpe Diem!
While I have problems with some of the posts in this thread and others have problems with my posts, the nice thing is, it has not been deleted. I believe that is important to note.
Something about breaking eggs to make an omelet.
This has been a challenging thread, sometimes pleasing, and sometimes painful.
So much better, in the end, that NAC is a reality-based on-line community that doesn't lurk behind hedge rows and wear masks.
People with real names and identities are right here, in the open, hashing out complexities. It isn't always easy, but it is the best and ultimately most responsible way.
There's an old phrase that says, "If it were easy, anybody could do it." Sometimes it's just plain hard and ugly. But necessary.
It is an old saying that no one should watch sausage or legislation being made...as is true of city government. Enjoyed the thread and the miracle of math will soon deliver us all unto *equitable* configurations.
Post a Comment