Apologies for yesterday’s absence, but my brewing company was one of two beer vendors for the first ever Ohio River Valley Folk Festival in Madison, Indiana. I spent the past two days working the riverside beverage tent while Mrs. Confidential strolled through the historic downtown, amassing notes and making comparisons.
It is assumed that most readers have visited Madison, but if not, you are advised to do so. It is a place less than an hour away from New Albany, and one where against all odds – owing to a combination of fortuitous geographical factors, out-of-the-box thinking and plain hard work – wonderful things are happening.
Meanwhile, back in New Albany, the local newspaper just took a mighty swing at a combative topic and sent it for a ride.
TUCKER: New Albany Council is giving city bad reputation; Voting down Bridgewater development is another mistake, by John Tucker, publisher of The Evening News & The Tribune.
After hearing that the council turned away a quality development that could have spurred on economic growth, I am now certain of their strategy – “Let’s wait right here. I’m sure money is going to fall from the sky at any moment and then we can grow.”
… the council once again validated their reputation of stagnation and dysfunction and sent a clear statement to the people of New Albany that if you want more of the same for New Albany while the rest of the area grows, wait right here with them.
Mr. Tucker quite possibly underestimates the staggering weight of “stagnation and dysfunction” that the current council brings to the table. I suggest use of the word “malevolence” as indicative of the condition gripping the right (i.e., wrong) side of the seating arrangement, where the Gang of Four sits in judgment of the city’s future – announcing that we’re in a terrible state, but not so terrible that we’d do anything about it.
Right on, John Tucker.
At long last, New Albany's newspaper is getting it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
KT, I believe that's starting to change.
At 4:57 PM, T.Hickerson said...
Residents voted the Council in, did you even vote?
Yes, assuming that you’re asking me this question.
You act like the city is going to ruin just because this one developement is being turned down. If you dont like what the council is doing I suggest you vote at the next election. That is the way this whole country is run, democratically. If you dont like, leave.
The manner by which the council chose to turn down this development is indicative not so much of citywide ruin as it is a leadership vacuum. The precepts the council deployed in making the decision weren’t those of problem, but of capitulation.
And: “Love it or leave it" has been referred to as “nation's favorite ‘either-or fallacy,’ to use a debating term describing a false dichotomy that argues there are only two possible answers to a given problem.” (creativeloafing.com – Atlanta).
The city's newspaper should report the news and not its politics. There is an opinion section for that but a front page article written by the publisher is ridiculous. No wonder the newspaper's circulation is down. Noone in my whole neighborhood recieves the paper and this kind of one sided reporting is why.
John Tucker’s article (referenced herein) appeared on the editorial/opinion page, not the front page. But, as you note, no one you know reads the paper. However, you might have glanced at a copy before making your errant assertion.
At 5:09 PM, T.Hickerson said...
Do you vote? This country is based on democratic society. No matter who is elected into any office there are ALWAYS those who complain about what they do. The City Council was elected into office to do a job. If we want to allow the developers to build whatever they want whereever they want without any kind of review or decisions made then why do we have a Council? Why do have any elected officials at all? I'm confident that if we got rid of them all, some of you would complain about that too.
Why do we have an interconnected web of planning and zoning laws and authorities when the council can dismiss any and all such expertise in any and all matters on whim (or, in Dan Coffey’s case, over-compensatory hubris)?
Would it be fair or logical if I were to ask, “if you don’t like the planning and zoning laws and authorities, leave”? No, it wouldn’t be fair, but if members of the council show contempt for the legal principles brought before them, then who’s to say that the situation might someday be reversed, and projects that were unanimously rejected are approved by politically motivated councilmen?
Either way, isn’t it better if our planning and zoning decisions and the legal foundation upon which they rest are respected rather than spit on? And, if these principles aren’t sufficient, then perhaps we must all become part of the process and change the principles. At present, the system is a mockery, and rationality too often yields to politics.
As for the so called city newspaper, thats a joke. The tribune reports what it wants to when it wants to and when it serves its polital objectives. No one my whole neighborhood recieves it. The reporters that wanted to work for a credable newspaper have all left. I dont believe that the publisher of our city's newspaper should have published his personal opinion at all. Our city's newspaper should be impartial and report both sides.
In the case of the condo project, the “reporting” was done by Eric Scott Campbell, and the “editorial” was written by John Tucker. It is Campbell’s job to present all the facts. It is the publisher’s right to editorialize.
I, too, would love to see the proposed condo project come downtown in some way, shape or form, but I’m aware of at least a few of the reasons why this notion would have been a risk compared with the project being located in your neighborhood, where you and your neighbors have been encouraged to create value rather than to watching as thirty years of city governments degraded downtown’s value through neglect and cluelessness.
I have nothing whatsoever against you, your neighbors, or anyone else who opposed the project. I abide by the decision made by our elected officials even though I disagree with it. And, in closing, I believe that the neighborhood’s opposition to the project, while utterly sincere, will come back to haunt the very grandchildren it was meant to assist.
Why? Because the way that the council went about killing the project wasn’t something applied to just your case. It’s a philosophy of pandering and anti-intellectualism that helps keep the city – the WHOLE city – down rather than helping for it to be lifted up and improved.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Post a Comment