Thursday, June 25, 2009

Open thread: Dan Coffey, CCE, shredded tires and barbecued bologna.

Coffey done with New Albany plan, redevelopment commission; City official at odds with boards over business relocation, by Daniel Suddeath (News and Tribune).

In the past two weeks, New Albany City Council President Dan Coffey resigned from two posts on city boards mainly over the relocation of a tire shredding business.

CCE Inc. could soon be moving to 1706 Ind. 111, if the New Albany Plan Commission approves a zone change for the business, which has been in property negotiations with the city’s redevelopment commission.

There are two separate issues here.

First, the merits and demerits of CCE, both at its Silver Street location and the projected new site on Ind. 111. We're fully accustomed to there being two sides of a story, but when it comes to CCE's environmental record on Silver, the stories are nowhere close to reconcilable.

Second, the circumstances that result in an utterly unqualified political personage like Dan Coffey ever coming to serve on boards or commissions that have to do with planning and redevelopment.

CM Coffey says that it's a result of a conspiracy -- Redevelopment's role in CCE's move, not his deleterious presence on planning and redevelopment. I believe it's a boost for the city that he's removed himself from those entities. Meanwhile, very little of a positive nature has been offered to support CCE as a good neighbor. In the best tradition of New Albany's stopped clock, might Coffey be right, though for the usual wrong reasons?

Any clues?

24 comments:

Jeff Gillenwater said...

Third issue: Coffey is still issuing unsubstantiated, defamatory claims about numerous government officials.

The proposed PUD classification for a CCE site makes little sense, however, regardless of where it's located. Based on PUD guidelines, the Plan Commission and the Council should turn the request down.

If property is going to be rezoned to accommodate CCE (and I think the City has a reasonable argument), it should be designated properly as the industrial site that it will be.

PUDs should be used for the specific purposes intended, not as a catch-all.

Daniel S said...

Council won't have a chance, pickup today's paper, it's going to the BZA.

Jeff Gillenwater said...

Thanks, Daniel.

BZA shouldn't approve, either.

Daniel S said...

The BZA request, from what I'm told, will be for a variance instead of a PUDD. The developer has the choice to either pursue a PUDD or go after a variance from the BZA. I really don't know the answer to this and haven't had the chance to ask, but it seems like every developer would just go for a variance since it would only have to be approved by one body.

Christopher D said...

I know I am the broken record king, but my question is why is the city even considering being in negotiations with this company when #1 there is supposed to be a lawsuit the city filed against Eastridge and CCE for habitual code and safety violations (2045 silver is zoned light industrial I1A, violaiton of those zoning laws have been constant for 8 years nad ony getting worse)
CCE has pissed off every resident and surrounding business, the NAHA, IDEM, the EPA. But yet here we go, lets just let him pack up and move this mess to a place where the company is all ready reportedly illegally dumping tires, then we will give him a big fat check for the porperty on Silver, let him make a profit off of his thumbing his nose at the city, state, and federal authorities. And I am sure we wil continue to award CCE contracts for the removal of demolished houses when the city tears them down so he can illegally dump those on the properties as well.
2 years ago the company and its owners said they are through with New Albany and are moving out (search Jeff Eastridge on the tribunes website)
Hold CCE, inc. to their word, since the city cant seem to keep its word on this.

Jeff Gillenwater said...

Daniel,

A variance could make sense while a PUD would not, according to guidelines.

A PUD, however, gives the approving body more room to negotiate site requirements for approval than does a variance. That's one reason they tend to overlook the actual PUD guidelines - they gain more personal authority as part of the deal.

I think those seeking approval have learned that and see a PUD as having a better chance of being approved based on that willingness to ignore guidelines in exchange for whatever else can be negotiated.

In that sense, it's become the catch-all I mentioned.

Jeff Gillenwater said...

If the regulatory agencies that Chris mentions have already been involved and have for whatever reason not chosen to pursue enforcement, what tools does local government have its disposal to implement a remedy?

G Coyle said...

"...what tools does local government have its disposal to implement a remedy?"

Local gov't can not issue them permits to operate, period.

But, NA's recent history would suggest that an extraction business like CCE would be a fun place to "follow the money".

"Extraction Economy" - one where the costs of doing business are not borne by the business, rather by the community, for instance in ecological damage.

I dare say one solid piece of real investigative journalism regarding CCE and it's dealing with the city would yield a motherlode of information on how things have been done in NA, for at least long enough to turn it into an ecological disaster and a ghetto.

But then if the Southern Indiana region had a functioning press, none of this would have gone on in the first place.

Jeff Gillenwater said...

What permits do they need to keep operating at their current location?

ecology warrior said...

I find it highly questionable that the firm, Specialty Earth sciences, who got a recent tax abatement at Carl Malyzs' urging performed the environmental analysis and gave a clean bill of health to the hoosier panel property, perhaps the EPA should have a look at this.

Neither the England administration nor specialty earth sciences followed due diligence protocols and I question the scientific soundness of the study as well as their ethics in this case.

Daniel S said...

Functioning press?
In 5 minutes I found multiple stories on the trib's web site and some on the cj site about the cce deal. Perhaps it's not the "motherlode" Ms. Coyle would like to see, but hey, we can't all be perfect. Of course she's right, the press approves and denies permits and decides who gets elected, so we've caused all the problems in the world. Dang liberal media.

greedygus1 said...

mThis travesty called a business that goes by any number of names, depending on which way the wind blows, I guess, ex. (Eastridge Inc., CCE Inc., CCE LLC, Silver Street Property LLC, and now CBE Property LLC) has been in violation of either city and/or state codes, ordinances, rules, statues, or law in one form or another since they moved to the old Hoosier Panel site and no action has to date, June 26, 2009, been required of this business and been followed through on by the City or State. And now to add insult to injury we find the property is contaminated but we cannot get a copy of the report because the City is in negotiations to buy this property per John Rosenbarger,
but we are to believe the City, when they state, it is contained to that property and that property only. Give ne a break!

My question is why are they, both the city and the state, allowing this business to continue in violation of the Codes, Statues, Ordinances and Laws?? I know of no other business that has been allowed to violate on a continual basis as they are!

And my next question is, why is the City in such a need for this valuable property, as it sat vacant for several years before being purchased by Eastridge and listed in the Comprehensive Plan Year 2020 as a possible "Brown-
field". Why now is it so valuable and who will pay for the clean-up even if the cost is deducted from the price? Who do you think, dah?

G Coyle said...

Daniel, I didn't say the local press was incapable of reporting the press releases and public meetings, I said the local press has not preformed investigative journalism.

If actual journalists were employed locally, they would be motivated to uncover corruption, 'cause hey, that's how you win a Pulitzer, etc. Admit it, Daniel, you "report" for a glorified advertising circular. You "news"paper would fire you the minute you annoyed some local advertiser.

Back a month ago similar postings went up re. CCE and the mysterious and extremely smelly deal the city was trying to pull-off to pay the polluter for his ecological damage. One would assume persons in gov't receive bribes for such overtly corrupt dealings.

As discussed before citizens can sue the polluter, or the city for not stopping the polluter, or ... in my experience there aren't any local attorney's who do public interest and/or environmental law. Someone noted a non-profit group in Indy that might help. Can't remember the name.

Bottom Line, if local gov't is corrupt, ie there is no transparency or accountability for decades, you will not change things fighting city hall. City Hall has been pretty clear who's side they're on. You will need to either file suit in Federal Court, use the F.B.I. or maybe a state commission. From what little I've seen of IN state gov't, it's about as bad as local gov't. Both systems largely function as jobs programs and defenders of the Status Quo.

Maybe some day local lawyers will tire of chasing down ghetto insurance cases and realize businesses that pollute also have insurance. And generally much deeper pockets.

B.W. Smith said...

G., I can tell you why the lawsuits haven't happend - in this area, few plaintiff-oriented lawyers have the complex environmental law/insurance expertise to go after a business and it's insurance money. Plus, it is very expensive to bring and prove such a claim (think cost of experts + small plaintiffs' firm versus gargantuan defense firm), and neither the plaintiff citizen activists or the plaintiff firms usually have that kind of cash to risk.

It sucks, but that's the reality.

Jeff Gillenwater said...

Making accusations without evidence is corrupt.

G Coyle said...

Yes, B.W., add a legal system that exists to perpetuate the status quo, to my aforementioned lack of transparency and accountability, as "red flags for corruption". I don't think I'm the only one that is curious about the CCE deal. If the city is about to spend tax money on a brownfield, hell yeah I'm curious. I'm also curious why all the documents relating to the city's dealing with the Hoosier Panel Property aren't public records as another comment here suggested?

How can environmental reports that the city paid for not be public records available if not voluntarily then certainly under a "freedom of Information Act" request?

Bluegill, your now perfect record of immediately and viciously defending the city administration whenever I think we need some brighter lights on at city hall is most interesting.

Jeff Gillenwater said...

That you think it has anything to do with defending any particular administration is funny.

Predictable, disappointing and stupid, but funny.

ecology warrior said...

The hoosier Environmental Council is the advocacy group you have in mind G Coyle and I agree with you this whole situation seems corrupt.

G Coyle said...

"If property is going to be rezoned to accommodate CCE (and I think the City has a reasonable argument)"

Bluegill, can you elaborate on the "reasonable argument" you see the city having regarding allowing CCE to open shop at new site?

Haven't heard any "reasonable arguments" yet.

Daniel S said...

I guess to me, the biggest public safety concern is the amount of flooding in this county. It just seems strange to me that the mayor would be trying to move an alleged toxic waste dump to his own backyard if it were really that. But I can understand why people would be frustrated with a buamsiness with many fines against it.
And for the record, I have never been pressured because of advertising, I couldn't tell you who half our advertisers are. Like it or not Ms.. Coyle, not everything is a conspiracy.

Daniel S said...

Supposed to be business, dang phone

ecology warrior said...

why not let the EPA take a look at it instead of trusting the Mayor's handpicked environmental consultants, who received a tax abatement.

If the hoosier panel site is clean as The Mayor and his consultants say then they should welcome an EPA review with open arms and put any questions to rest.

G Coyle said...

Ditto Eco-Warrior. If the site is NOT a brownfield, show us the papers. if the assessment was biased, get an unbiased one. Doesn't Al Goodman owe the wetlands near there? I believe he is an environmental engineer. No doubt there are a number of firms in the Kentuctiana region who are qualified to preform a basic environmental assessment. Also the comment about the county is a floodplain, and the mention of a historical industrial reference. For 200 years industry has been dumping without control anything and everything into this floodplain. The clean-up costs have not begun to be calculated. The CCE project should be the tip of the iceberg in moving once and for all to make polluters and extractors pay the real costs of their business. They are cut of the same cloth as slumlords who prosper for the same reason, they past half their costs onto the community. Ghetto's don't just accidentally happen.

ecology warrior said...

contact the hoosier environmental council they would love to examine this one. Doug England is the same old Doug from the 1990's, the environment be damned all because he cowtows to the developers.

He said he was a changed man during his last campaign for mayor, he's changed all right, only this time for the worst.

Al Goodman owns the loop island wetland that is not near the hoosier panel site, but yes Al is the most ethical environmental engineer I had the pleasure to know and serve with as chairman of the stormwater board, unfortunately the firm he works for would most likely not be available to provide the environmental review, Doug's consultants, Specialty Earth sciences, who recently got a tax abatement performed it,however I believe the city council would be within their legal authority to seek a second opinion.