Sunday, December 24, 2006

Why were neighborhood concerns omitted from the Mayor's "state of the city" address on Thursday?

NA Confidential’s bi-monthly feature, “Our City's Most Recent Embarrassing Steve Price Moment (Vol. 72)” has been delayed until later. We'll be taking a day off, and will return some time Tuesday afternoon.

Now, for something somewhat different …

At Thursday’s final city council meeting of 2006, Mayor James Garner offered his “state of the city” address, which surveyed the past year’s developments in finance, sewers, storm water, sanitation, Scribner Place redevelopment, Greenway Phase One and local road construction, and offered brief capsule summaries of the year to come.

In summary: Money’s tight, it will remain tight, we’ve done what we could, and we’ll continue to soldier on to do what we can.

Fair enough. There have been victories, failures and rain-outs, just as in all like situations.

However, and significantly, Mayor Garner said absolutely nothing about neighborhood “clean up” issues pertaining to ordinance enforcement, winked-at substandard housing, slumlord enablement, crime, or other pressing inner city matters of daily life that have been addressed throughout the year by neighborhood associations and various progressive advocates therein.

Perhaps it is the case that such commentary fell outside the scope of the mayor’s speech, or there may be other reasons for the startling omission, numerous possible explanations for which are readily available around town in the form of quizzical wonderment, emanating from sincere people who are increasingly frustrated not just at inexplicable local government inaction, but at its ongoing inability to communicate, to express its hopes and dreams, or to behave in a pro-active way about these or virtually any other issue.

Day by day, this strange detachment begins to resemble the Bush Administration’s crazily delusional view of the disaster in Iraq, except that here in New Albany, City Hall doesn’t even make an effort to spin or fabricate its interpretation of central, persisting neighborhood concerns – if, in fact, there is an interpretation on call.

Rather, it merely reacts – well, sometimes it reacts – when prodded by blog photos, citizen petitions or perhaps even the stray pang of guilt, but through it all there appears to be no overall program of recognition or response, and if there is one, there certifiably has been no discernable effort to explain the program’s planks to those who continue to ask questions in the reasonable expectation of receiving a coherent answer short of something actually being done.

As before, NA Confidential is prepared to respect the mayor’s reasoning, with the firm and sadly necessary caveat that before we can do so, some evidence of a position on these matters must be presented and elucidated, and until it is, the unmistakable appearance is that there exists a widening and harmful disconnect between those potential actions and policies that an ever increasing percentage of residents see as absolutely necessary for New Albany to recover from decades of institutional neglect, and City Hall’s ability to survey this reality with an eye toward causes, effects and comprehensive solutions, and not mere bandages to suffice until the next election.

This situation is all the more bizarre because make no mistake, it isn’t happening because Mayor Garner lacks the requisite gray matter.

While he struggles at times like Thursday night’s address, when he must read from prepared materials, to speak with him close up and personal is to come away routinely impressed with his amazingly comprehensive grasp of facts, laws and procedures pertaining to every imaginable aspect of municipal governance. He is a veritable encyclopedia of often arcane and impenetrable knowledge applicable to his job.

Furthermore, Mayor Garner obviously stands for personal moral principles, possesses a core set of beliefs, and has displayed the determination and stubbornness to tackle daunting fiscal challenges and make tough decisions during his term. Speaking personally, I’ve come to like him. Some of you remember how unlikely that once seemed.

But in the end, there is a huge and mystifying gap, and if it isn’t closed soon, the outlook isn’t promising.

That's because there can there be a more damning indicator of our city’s prospects to resolve preexisting 19th-century problems and successfully chart a 21st century course than the colossal and repetitive failure of its public officials – mayor, councilmen, elected, appointed – to perceive that if we don’t join together to enforce the most basic societal regulations that comprise the superstructure of the community, nothing of permanence can be built, nothing lasting achieved, and no heights attained.

It is the polar opposite of the "can do" spirit of the city's founders. "No can do" would have been unacceptable to them, and it should be equally unacceptable to us. But, this admission of impotence has become standard operating procedure in New Albany.

As for the mayor himself, where is the leadership?

Or, as an NAC reader recently commented, "who’ll be the one to grab this tiger by the tail?"

We know conclusively that leadership won’t be forthcoming from the council’s Gang of Four obstructionists and their Coup d'Geriatrique allies in the business-as-usual segment of the community, although certain other council members certainly seem to get it. And, although many seem to be doing their earnest best, transformational leadership can’t really come from officials who are appointed, unless they’re following orders from higher up the chain of command, which is to imply those coming from above … and here, that’s City Hall, period.

That’s the mayor’s job, isn’t it?

On the other hand, leadership is breaking out all over at the grassroots level, and although we all can be more organized at these efforts, what the grassroots needs most of all for it to take root is some semblance of consistent, principled, public support from public officials, and with the council divided into armed and hostile camps, this support must come from City Hall.

Period.

Earlier this week, my NAC colleague Bluegll proposed these principled planks to begin addressing the city’s neighborhood needs:


  • A rental inspection/licensing program.
  • Legal staff whose sole purpose is ordinance enforcement.
  • A total revamping of the building commissioner's office, including all new employees.
  • A fine structure that's of high enough scale to actually act as a deterrent.
  • A city court to expedite the prosecution of offenders and to keep fine revenue in the city.
  • Local dollars budgeted for redevelopment. That amount is currently zero.
  • Much more than the measly $7,000 dollars a year total the city currently spends on historic preservation.
  • A scientific study of land use and value in the city in order to objectively strategize where to implement resources first.
None were deemed worthy of comment during the mayor’s address on Thursday – and that’s profoundly disturbing.

Earlier, referring to the “hung” firefighter hiring ordinance currently before the council, Chief Ron Toran made yet another impassioned request of the city's legislative body:

Vote it up, vote it down – just do something.

We ask the same of Mayor Garner. The positive achievements of his administration will be of no consequence if we do not begin to secure the neighborhood perimeters and to provide the prerequisites for future progress in revitalization. These steps cannot wait, because the future won’t.

Say you’re with us, or say you’re against – just say something.

8 comments:

Ann said...

The whole point of city ordinances is to provide a common set of minimum community standards, and the point of city government is to maintain and enforce the standards. That isn't happening, and I think there are a number of reasons why.

Think of the people who spent hours, weeks, months, initially writing our ordinance code, setting up the rules that we are all expected to follow--with the intent that they'd be enforced. And why? Because left to their own devices, many people will not keep to a common acceptable standard, so there have to be rules that we all play by.

If this administration does not take a positive, proactive position on the issue of code enforcement, it will be their undoing, period. There are too many outspoken voters who are fed up with the condition of New Albany.

Highwayman said...

Very eloquently and accurately stated Roger.

My hope is that at all levels, both administration and council alike, they act as the knowledgeable, concerned adults they were when they first ran for office and as we know most of them remain, rather than react with that long festering hate for each other and anything forward looking that has become their fallback call to arms that is so prevalent.

None of us desire conflict but we want, nay, we demand a soultuion to this stalemate. We are willing to work towards that end and are willing to withstand the cost, but we must have leadership and unity from some corner that leads to results!

Nothing less is acceptable on any front!

Jeff Gillenwater said...

This is one area where the administration and Council actually do cooperate. Privately, each group will tell you that there's no point in pressing the issue because the other won't support it or will mishandle it. As long as neither of them actually raises the issue in a meaningful way, though, they all remain safe from having to publicly explain on record why they won't deal with it in any sort of official capacity.

Note to Tribune: I'm sure readers would be very interested in the answers should you decide to ask them why they won't.

Regardless of their propsensity to attack each other at times, the concern they all share for maintaining the relative safety of silence seems to override any personal conflict or overall concern for the community.

That unspoken agreement unfortunately means that direct political pressure, sometimes via very negative media coverage of New Albany that we all would rather avoid as it makes positive marketing efforts that much more difficult, has proven the only effective way to garner a response from our local government.

It think it's important for any new readers to understand that those who are now vocal critics of City Hall and the Council didn't start out that way. After years of trying to build copperative relationships, it's become clear that those relationships, with a few noted exceptions from individual city employees, are largely one-way endeavors.

The sad part is that that situation has been well-explained to those currently in power. The public forums that often result in unified criticism of our government could just as easily be pep rallys in support of nearly anyone willing to take a legitimate step forward in dealing with code enforcement.

Instead, the most passionate, caring citizens are forced to devote inordinate amounts of time, which could be much better spent on the other more positive activities in which they're involved, to removing the obstacles placed before them by the government. It's a waste of resources not only troubling on a politcal level but one that also creates a very personal resentment that will not be easily overcome by any 11th hour pleas during an election cycle.

If a battle of wits and wills is what current officeholders want, they're well on their way to producing one. With their established positions, they may even win the first few rounds. But, based on the intelligence and diligence I've witnessed amongst fellow citizens thus far, those victories will be short-lived and ultimately fruitless. They will have lost the war already.

Highwayman said...

John,

You and I have never met face to face but I feel I know a bit about you from your comments thru this medium and elsewhere. Although not always in total agreement, I like and respect what I've seen.

Having said that, as much as I applaude you & your folks for the services provided to the community, it is not enough.

The issue of separation of church & state notwithstanding,if you aren't already, you must as individuals get more involved in the political process of New Albany.

The only action these folks respond to is people in their face constantly. Not in an agressive, hateful way, but just present and expressing a viewpoint.

Make phone calls to not one but all of the councilmen, the mayor,the police, and the various department heads. Then make them again and again. Attend the various public meetings to get a handle on how this disfunction came to be first hand.

Then get out, and beat the bushes for new blood & faces that are willing to run for public office and support them. Not as a church, but as individuals of this city.

Finally, get registered, encourage others to get registered, and most importantly, VOTE!

Beleive me when I say that none of us want to have to get our hands dirty in this mud hole that has devolved into the two pary political armpit of our universe. We all would prefer to be chasing other dreams. However we have come to the resolution that we have absolutely no other choice.

PLEASE, outside the pulpit, encourage your people to join the fray and we feel confident we can make New Albany a different & better place!

G Coyle said...

John, I appreciate ALL the fine religious institutions downtown. The number of old beautiful churches et al in our city is amazing and an asset. They used to be the cultural and social centers of town, alas now they seem more like fortresses in our midst. I know the insides of most houses of worship where I've lived in Massachusetts, not because I'm religious necessarily, but because they program so much in the way of lectures, music concerts, whatever will get people to use the spaces basically. Maybe it's just a "flabby" yankee tradition of NOT evangelizing, dunno. So I guess I'm saying - open up the churches more...air them out...let the sun shine in! We've started on teh eggnog early - Merry christmas everyone!!

Anonymous said...

Highwayman!

Thanks. You actually did answer my question. I emphatically believe in a separation of church and state. I have no desire or inclination to suggest for whom people vote. I'm just trying to find a way to help---and you gave me some insights. Thank you!

And Gina---I agree. I also think that it's never too early to start on the egg nog!

Highwayman said...

John,

Just to be clear, I would never presume to tell anyone who to vote for beyond expressing my personal opinion of a given candidates qualifications.

I just feel strongly that we the public exercise the the right to choose. Do your own research, listen, read and then vote for whom your intelligence and conciense dictate, but by all means VOTE!!!

Jeff Gillenwater said...

John,

I think the church's interaction with those in our city who are financially struggling could lead to outreach even beyond the obvious good you're doing with food and clothing.

The clean up movement has been criticized for not including "the poor". While I don't think that's an accurate criticism, it is true that the movement has had trouble prompting substantial participation from those living in rental properties.

Given the level of predatory activity out there, one can't really blame lower income households for maintaining a healthy level of skepticism. Things labeled as help are often the farthest thing from it. As a result, though, legitimate efforts to be more inclusive have been met with suspicion.

Perhaps the church, as a trusted institution, could help with educational efforts. My guess is that at least some of the folks served by the church's programs may be living in poorly maintained rental properties. Would it be worth putting together information packets or some other form of communication about tenants' rights that could be distributed along with the other items?

I don't know how effective it would be, but I don't think it could hurt to let people know that, when it comes to problem landlords, the church and lots of others are on their side and willing to stand with them in fending off the ugly profiteering that hurts all of us.

Lloyd and Gina's ideas are quite good, too. From a totally selfish standpoint, I'd love to see the inside of St. Marks. I'm a big fan of Mid-Century architecture and your building is arguably the best example of it in New Albany. Doing an activity releated to that could attract the same artistic crowd others are trying to draw to New Albany and help mend some fences after the demolition dispute.

Happy eggnogging.