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!
I think the Linden Meadows issue should already be settled in the local blogosphere.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Erik @ FOS the majority rules no matter what. Reference some recent postings and a 4-01-06 posting in particular. So, NAC and SOLNA both agree on the project. FOS opposes. 2 to 1, Linden Meadows wins and Erik must move out of the USA or go buy an American History book at Destinations.
As most know, I was a Board Member at Floyd when we voted to donate the houses that the hospital purchased and in addition, gave, if I recall, $5000 toward moving each of the houses.
ReplyDeleteWe were extremely disappointed with the city leadership and the ongoing delays. These were nice houses that could and should have offered low income families an opportunity to be first-time home owners.
I have met the mother (or sister?) of one of the applicants who is waiting for one of the Linden Meadows houses. I was told that she is very excited about her new house. She thinks that it is a lovely house and a great opportunity for her.
ReplyDeleteThis is the side of the story that we don't hear about.
From my understanding, the plan is still the same, but it has been nearly 2 or more years. These houses are sitting empty of the most part.
ReplyDeleteThe delays are just frustrating for everyone.
I had occasion recently to speak with a local low-income specialist. She'd been asked to testify by both sides of the Linden lawsuit. Rather than jump in blindly in response to the requests, she took to the streets, knocking on doors and asking questions.
ReplyDeleteAs an observer, I was having difficulty discerning why Linden Lane residents were opposed to a project that would bring appropriately scaled, well-built, historic housing stock to their street. As it turns out, they aren't.
In going door to door, the third-party specialist reportedly found only one household on the entire street that opposed the project. The objections, she said, were coming not from Linden Lane residents themselves but from others near to, but not in, the area directly impacted.
While that bit of knowledge answered my initial question, it raised a whole of others.
The houses will not be able to be sold at as low a price as they would have without the added expenses that result from long delays.
ReplyDeleteWith the Hospital's help in the costs of moving the houses, they could have been rehabed and re-sold for up to $20K below appraisal.
The folks waiting for these homes work their butts off to get themselves eligible and ready to purchase, and the proram makes sure they have the tools for long-term success as a homeowner.
Indeed, the opponents to the project are mostly residents of Captain Frank Rd., which runs along behind the property.
An early attempt to allay fears and make assurances of cooperative designing efforts, was foiled due to an idot named David White.
The former controller, no, make that Redevelopment Director, no, make that...oh yeah, most importantly, a personal friend of James Garner, was the original blunderer.
Another example of how much we are paying for the ineptness of the Mayor.
David White was about as qualified as Eddie Hancock for Building Commissioner.
We're still paying for that one too.