The single most relevant element that no one at all -- Jeff, Letty, Irv -- seems to understand is that the elusive "wow" factor comes when the excitement bubbles up from the grassroots as populated by dozens of diverse points of view, rather than being dictated from above, whether "above" means one official city group or another temporary collection of volunteers.
Can we be reality-based for just a moment? The planters in question simply cannot be described as "cosmopolitan" without the use of hallucinogenic chemicals, ever -- and my saying so doesn't imply I agree with their removal, only that offering us yet another two-party "solution" makes a strong case for vacating town, not volunteering.
(The independent mayoral campaign platform writes itself)
The problem here goes way beyond Dale Moss's dogged analysis. It remains a case of either this or that; City Hall vs. Clean and Green in a struggle over which elitists decide what "cleaner" and "prettier" and "attractive" mean. Meanwhile, the city's unforgivably obtuse and dysfunctional infrastructure pushes right back to make everything nastier, 24 hours each day, negating well-meaning efforts even if we agreed on the definition of well-meaning.
Fix the damn streets first -- then argue about flowers afterward. Until the infrastructure is made right, this entire argument is a waste of newsprint and time.
MOSS: A plea for ‘green peace’, by Dale Moss (Ad Express & Daily Iowegian)
Two groups commit to making New Albany cleaner and prettier. Beats having none, for sure.
One group would be better.
That way, everything is shared, not split. There’s only cooperation, not competition. One vision, one budget and one set of volunteers ready to work up a sweat better leads to the one ideal.
I count on a merger/peace treaty/meeting of the dueling green thumbs. Please.