What We Owe You

We are too seldom in remembrance that the vast majority of our readers simply do not care about the petty squabbles that distract us from our true purposes.

The editorial board of NA Confidential is made up of a troika that is, without being boastful, able to hold more than one idea, more than one goal in mind at any given time. That is why you, faithful readers, often find yourself mystified at the seemingly byzantine asides and private jokes we are wont to indulge in.

Herewith is our pledge: We will either explain the jibes and darts we employ in our main posts, or we will give up the indulgence. That does not proscribe their use within the subsidiary comments, as that venue is designed for give and take, thrust and parry, challenge and answer. But when it comes to our main postings, we will either make it clear by reference to prior columns, or we will let you in on the joke.

For make no mistake about it, while we are serious in our endeavors, we also like to have fun with the blog. Face it, part of the reason you read these offerings is to be entertained while being informed.

On reflection, the more "in" the jokes are, the more poorly we serve you. Opinionated we will continue to be. Less than charitable to those whose words and actions we deplore we will continue to be.

But as for you, gentle readers, we make this pledge - we will respect the fact that you make an effort to seek us out. Know that we appreciate it more than you can know.

A venerable passage in the Bible reminds us that as iron sharpens iron, so too do men who hold each other to account. Nothing in my faith, education, and upbringing lead me to think that "men" means anything other than "humans." So male or female by birth, join in. We will respect you by applying the same standards to your contributions as we do to each other.

And if you choose to be a "read-only" participant, you are equally welcome and appreciated.

-----------------------------------------

In that vein, we propose to revisit the promise of the Linden Meadows project, stalled these many months by a concerted attempt to make it emblematic of "rights." This conspiracy, made up of parties who share little but a desire to prevent the progression of anyone but themselves and an animus for anyone who is not "one of them," whatever that may be, has stumbled in retreat, but has managed to cost the CHDO project more than $100,000 in delays, interest costs, and legal fees.

Replacing that money means the earnest and hopeful buyers of these historic homes will pay even more than necessary. The city itself suffers from the debilitating image it presents when busybodies claim the mantle of "property rights" to prosecute their mission of persecution of those less fortunate.

Make no mistake. The land on which the former Cottom Avenue houses now sit is NOT under a cloud of title. Neither the city, the state, or CHDO wrongfully took this land from anyone. Do not be distracted by hypotheticals about deed restrictions from the first half of the 20th Century, either.

There are no property rights being threatened. There are no deed restrictions in play. Any rights that may have existed at some time (and even that is a frivolous claim worthy of being sanctioned by the courts) were lawfully extinguished by one simple expedient: greenback dollars.

Despite anything you may have heard to the contrary, all heirs and assigns who may have held reversionary rights have been lawfully and justly relieved of those rights by 1) a judicial ruling that such rights are against the public interest, and 2) most importantly, because they surrendered those phantom rights in exchange for cash.

The local news media has been deficient in making this clear, contributing to a miasma of delay and obfuscation that serves personal interests, not public interests. The Linden Meadows opponents stand today rebuked and rebuffed, if not disgraced. Although this writer is no lawyer, it is a pretty standard precedent that judicial appeals are not the place to challenge findings of fact.

And the fact is, as found by the judge, the suit to stop the CHDO redevelopment project was groundless and without merit.

Although we have addressed this issue before, and drawn fire for our predictions of the fate of the lawsuit, we will, among the three of us, attempt to now explain how the CHDO initiative offers New Albany a figuratively boundless opportunity to revitalize our urban core.

And we'll leave you with this thought: We are mystified as to why anyone would hesitate to endorse this project and do everything in their power to help it along. For all those "anyones" who continue to remain silent, we entreat you to illuminate us. Your comment link awaits!