Tuesday, May 02, 2017

A few questions our "community" newspaper wasn't there to ask at last evening's city council meeting.


24 hours have passed, and it's safe to assume there'll be no "community" newspaper coverage of last evening's city council meeting, unless a staffer recreates it, like the baseball announcers used to do in the studio with wood blocks and liquor bottles.

Newspaper ads? They're working for Team Gahan, all right.


In reply to my question about the presence (read: absence) of journalists at the council meeting, Mark Cassidy hit the center of the target.

Only one item on agenda so they wouldn't bother. Don't realize that you often "learn" more at those. True again.

Mark cites this case in point, last night.

Scott Blair spent roughly 30 minutes speaking about the sewer department purchasing the QRS property and the city then wanting to put a park on the majority of it. Blair had contacted the state board of accounts and that person told him it did not sound permissible. He received little support from the other council members. Al Knable seems particularly perturbed by Scott’s insistence on looking into this. Shane Gibson stood up and presented a bit of background on the purchase. He disagrees with the state board. Doesn’t understand how the state board could overrule a long term decision of the sewer board, this being the very possible need to expand in the next 10, 15, 20 years.

So many question, so few reporters. I'm just a lowly blogger, but will hazard a handful.

Why did the administration fudge these purchaser details at the time the Horseshoe Foundation fun-money grant was announced, thus perpetuating the notion (now conceded to be incorrect) that the QRS property was part of the foundation package?

Could it be because Team Gahan doesn't want to (a) delve into the state of the city's parks department finances (seen any water park numbers lately, anyone?) and (b) is even less thrilled about explaining to the public why sewer rates are going up even while there's spare thousands to throw at the parks department?

Didn't we decide the sewer utility shouldn't be using money for projects like campgrounds and walking paths?

And, if Gibson is correct (our breaths currently held to bursting), then how much sense does it make to expand the sewage treatment plant into the recreation area?

Who cleans the toilets then, the parks department or the sewer utility?

I hate to stomp all over Bill Hanson's raging self-delusion, primarily because it's too big even for my size 16s, but someone needs to say it: Newspapers exist to ask these questions.

But ya gotta show up to get in the game.

I repeat: You simply cannot convince me that the volume of ad revenue Jeff Gahan sends to Jeffersonville isn't a factor in decisions like this. Once again, I call on Hanson to show us exactly how much his newspaper makes on ads from muncicipalities -- all of them, not just New Albany.

3 comments:

Marcey said...

You cannot use sewer money to pay for a city park. The money in the sewer fund is collected and based on the need of the sewer utility to operate, maintain and improve the sewer system, NOT TO BUILD PARKS.

Randy Smith said...

Literally what Marcey said. The utility is INDEPENDENT Of though OWNED BY the city. It may not use its money for non-enterprise functions, especially with ratepayers money. If I lived outside the city, I'd be in court soon.

The New Albanian said...

But guys, Shane said it was okay -- and he used to play basketball.