The Evening News relocates portion of staff to New Albany, by Alex Davis (short shelf life for Courier-Journal links).
Facing a decline in circulation, the publisher of The Evening News in Jeffersonville is moving large portions of the paper's advertising and editorial staff to nearby New Albany.
NAC says: Publisher John Tucker's reform process keeps rolling forward. If only there could be similar progress on the Tribune's editorial page ... but we remain supportive and hopeful.
Lawyer: Return property to heirs; New Albany, residents battle in court over land, by Ben Zion Hershberg (short shelf life for Courier-Journal links).
Land given to New Albany 70 years ago for use as a public park or golf course should be returned to the donor's heirs because the deed requires it, a lawyer contended yesterday. The nonprofit Community Housing Development Organization, in cooperation with the city, has proposed using the site for an affordable-housing subdivision.
NAC says: Another worthy, community-based idea sinks slowly into the mire of partisan political wrangling as the outside world looks on in amazement, quite unable to comprehend New Albania's chosen squalor.
Smoking ban gets by Jeff Council; Mayor has reservations about speed of passage, by Larry Thomas (Evening News).
Jeffersonville’s proposed smoking ban passed the City Council by a 4-3 party-line vote during its final reading Monday, but Mayor Rob Waiz said he will need more information before deciding whether to sign the measure …
… “I hope Mayor Waiz will consider the other option,” said Libertarian Kirk Singh. “I would appreciate anything you can do to turn the power back to the people to run their own lives.”
NAC says: Mr. Singh is invited to present any available evidence to indicate that people in general are capable of running their own lives, at which point we’ll be happy to consider the various Libertarian proposals to dismantle the state and institute anarchy. Until such a time, is it humanly possible for there to be a spectacle more deliciously ironic than chain smokers merrily protesting limits on the spread of their disease-wracked addiction?
State closing doors on Silvercrest, by Roni Montgomery (Tribune).
Officials from the Indiana State Department of Health on Monday announced plans to close Silvercrest, a facility which cares for developmentally disabled, school-age children.
NAC says: Once the state has succeeded in evacuating the building, less than ten seconds will elapse before the property is sold to developers. Even exurbians like Gary McCartin might be interested -- which would be a fine reason to exclude them from the Silvercrest lottery out of general principle.
Judge orders historic home to be repaired; Georgetown house damaged by fire, by Ben Zion Hershberg (short shelf life for Courier-Journal links).
By ruling that the fire did not cause "major destruction," Special Judge Daniel Donahue essentially required that its exterior be repaired by owners Lynda Riggle Meyer and Charles Meyer under the terms of the preservation easement.
NAC says: We have obtained a copy of Judge Donahue’s Christmas wish list, and coming in at #1 (with a bullet) is a three-piece, fire-retardant suit, which may have something to do with his unique restraining order requiring all boxed matches and Bic lighters to remain one hundred yards away from the gutted home’s owners.
If the Silvercrest home was located out west, this is what the McMenamin brothers would be pursuing as an investment as a hotel or spa instead of more homes in a subdivision.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mcmenamins.com/index.php?type=hotel
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteFive comments about your 5 news stories:
ReplyDelete1. I am totally confused on your stance of the story about some land deeded for a park to be returned to the owners.
2. Both that story and the one about the house in Georgetown are based on identical principles. Previous owners sold their property in specific ways, tied to specific deed restrictions. The people who bought the house in Georgetown should be held to their contractual obligation to preserve it in any way that is specified in the deed. Same for the land deeded to the city, if they are not using it as the deed restricts, then the sale should be held null and void and go to the heirs.
3. I think coverage of the smoking ban protest was interesting. I bet you only read about it and were not there to see it right? The media sucessfully used photos to make it look like it was all about smokers, but the majority of the protesters were there specifically protesting for the real issue which was private property rights. (And are you saying you are not capable of running your own life?)
4. Almost every government related controversy comes down essentially to property rights.
5. About the papers losing circulation. Now I know why they have been allowing me to write 600 word opinion columns for the last 10 months. They had nothing to lose. :)
(And are you saying you are not capable of running your own life?)
ReplyDeleteNot at all.
As for Deb's attempt to blur the distinction between the judge's requirement of the owners to maintain the historic structure in Georgetown and the Linden Meadows lawsuit, there is a great difference.
ReplyDeleteThe city paid the heirs for any reversionary interest they may have had, thus nullifying any deed restrictions. Furthermore, the city's sale of the land to the state went without challenge, demonstrating that the contemporary heirs knew they had no reversionary interest.
That the city has once again obtained this land does not start the clock running again. Regardless of the public policy aspects, at law the suit is frivolous.
Might NACH actually sue the plaintiffs, most of whom have no connection to the family, to recoup the lost income and legal fees?
Thank your for that information Randy. I have not been keeping up on that story as much as I would have liked. That's very interesting. If everything you have said is true, then I totally agree. I thought the lawyer was basing their argument on the easement sale, so if they already sold that right away, what DO they base that argument on?
ReplyDeleteStories like this are very interesting to me because I like the idea of people working to create ways to ensure land is being used the way someone wants. Yet I also have questions about someone placing restrictions on a property in perpetuity as well. But I never thought about the option of both parties agreeing to sell the property without the restriction.
It still all comes down to property right though, doesn't it?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteDear NA Confidential,
ReplyDeleteI am responding to your crass comments, not because I see any point in reasoning with you, but because your hypocrisy, cynicism and fear mongering should not go unchallenged. Yours is the standard behavior for bullies, and as such, I will not engage you in ongoing debate. However, I now have my own blog and will continue to make the case for a rational, voluntary society...
Continued here -- Of Thee I Singh: Run Your Own Life
Cool.
ReplyDeleteWould you like me to provide a link to your blog?