Part 2: NA Confidential examines Councilman Steve Price’s interview responses.

(Originally posted in January, 2006)

Part 1: NA Confidential examines Councilman Steve Price's interview responses.
Part 2: NA Confidential examines Councilman Steve Price's interview responses.
Part 3: NA Confidential examines Councilman Steve Price's interview responses.

Our original questions are numbered, and CM Price's original responses italicized. Commentary follows. Note that while two-thirds of the questions asked of CM Price were formulated by Jeff "Bluegill" Gillenwater, the commentary is entirely that of the blog owner. Jeff is invited to join the discussion, either as a team member or in comments, and of course, all readers are likewise encouraged to provide their thoughts subject to our identity policy.

----

6. What have you done or what will you do to express a clear preference for the redevelopment of existing city neighborhoods as opposed to continued sprawl?

New Albany in the past several years recognized the neighborhood associations. It has been a pleasure to watch a growing relationship between the associations and the city government. Maintaining an open line of communications between the two is a positive step toward redevelopment of existing neighborhoods. I have assisted the associations within my district as they work with city officials to devise and implement proactive problem resolutions. For instance, there was growing concern among my constituents regarding a car lot being placed in their highly residential neighborhood. I was able to help them voice their concerns to the city and reach a positive resolution.

Small communities within a larger city working to improve their particular area in relation to the city as a whole is yet another example of new urbanism planning in action.

I will continue to work with the existing groups that are dedicated to improving their piece of New Albany, Which in turn will improve New Albany as a whole.

CM Price’s most recent pronouncement on this topic came at the January 19 city council meeting, when he remarked that “9 out of 10” property developers just want to make money; having voted previously to approve exurban projects initiated by Gary “The Gary” McCartin, we’re left to surmise that the 10th developer referred to by CM Price as not being interested in profit is The Gary himself, who has dismissed existing city neighborhoods as places devoid of lawns and churches, and suitable only for bulldozing and replacing with discount big box stores.

It has already been established that temperamentally, CM Price lies much closer to the “evil government” school of the GOP’s Grover Norquist than to the core ideals of his own Democratic affiliation, an identification that looks increasingly opportunistic placed within the relevant context of New Albany’s traditional Democrat-heavy political apparatus.

Accordingly, when asked to state a “clear preference” for the needs of the people of his own 3rd District – needs previously referred to by the councilman as his motivating factor in public service – and to contrast the benefit of inner city redevelopment with the exurban sprawl perpetuated by The Gary and his peers, CM Price can do no better than point to his heartfelt support of good communications between existing neighborhood associations and city government as evidence of his preference.

Like any good politician, CM Price also provides the example of his intervention in a dispute over a used car lot as proof of his involvement in neighborhood advocacy.

Neither does CM Price comment on his lack of engagement in similar issues, nor does he attempt to answer the question asked of him, i.e., to explain the merits of redevelopment of existing neighborhoods vs. sprawl.

---

7. Have you or do you intend to approach county officials to develop, in partnership, a countywide plan for smart and coordinated growth?

As I mentioned above, new urbanism or progressive urban planning is a team effort. It would be pointless to try and conceive a plan of progress in New Albany without consulting and coordinating with those who it will have the impact on.

If it will benefit my constituents and city government as a whole, I am certainly not opposed to opening a dialogue with county government regarding a mutually beneficial relationship to further “Smart Growth”, as it can only help.

CM Price’s answer to this question might be summarized as “I’m for it, unless I’m against it,” but he at least manages to indicate allegiance to the vague principle of city-county cooperation, albeit at the cost of avoiding the advocacy of potentially harmful specifics.

Incidentally, as the councilman is eager to imply support for the “smart growth” referred to in the question, here’s an introduction to what the term means: Smart Growth Online.

In communities across the nation, there is a growing concern that current development patterns -- dominated by what some call "sprawl" -- are no longer in the long-term interest of our cities, existing suburbs, small towns, rural communities, or wilderness areas. Though supportive of growth, communities are questioning the economic costs of abandoning infrastructure in the city, only to rebuild it further out. Spurring the smart growth movement are demographic shifts, a strong environmental ethic, increased fiscal concerns, and more nuanced views of growth. The result is both a new demand and a new opportunity for smart growth.

----

8. What have you advocated for or will you advocate for that would provide an incentive to or lessen the risk for the early redevelopment "pioneers" who are now making themselves known around the city? Have you played a role in attracting these people and/or how do you hope to empower and encourage them and other similar people?

If the mission of the “early redevelopment ‘pioneers’” is to continue to bring New Albany into the 21st century with a solid fiscal foundation then I will do everything in my power to support them.

If there is a more egregious example of CM Price entirely ignoring the intent of a question, you’ll not find it in the text of this interview.

What would the councilman do to “advocate,” to “attract,” to “encourage,” and to “empower” those willing to invest time and money into redevelopment projects?

Crickets chirp. Pins drop. Somewhere, a dog barks at his shadow.

And Steve Price is completely silent.

Cognitive dissonance is defined as:

A condition of conflict or anxiety resulting from inconsistency between one's beliefs and one's actions, such as opposing the slaughter of animals and eating meat.

Tellingly, CM Price can find nothing positive to say about the efforts of “redevelopment pioneers” because he is fundamentally hostile to their worldview in the social and cultural senses, and though he is grudgingly willing to acknowledge their work – and perhaps cognizant at some level that without their presence, there is little hope of a positive future for New Albany – he can do so only in the vacuous breach.

Given the councilman’s obvious fondness for the “debt-free” household strategies of the right-wing financial guru Dave Ramsey, and noting the breathtakingly transparent manner by which he refuses a tactically proffered opportunity to openly occupy common ground with the “redevelopment pioneers,” it isn’t surprising that he responds with a terse, intentionally lukewarm vote of indifference to the effect that as long as it doesn’t cost him or the city anything, then perhaps he’s for it – or, at best, not actively oppose it.

No single answer provided by CM Price is as indicative of his obstructionist instincts – and his inability to fathom the interests of his constituents -- than this one. Remember it. It’s going to come back again, and again, and again.

----

9. What is your reaction to this statement: “And yet, to Steve Price and those of his utterly clueless ilk, Frankfort Avenue is somehow the enemy, an inexplicable collection of strange people and alien concepts to be feared and loathed owing to the incomprehensible differences, and a revitalization equation that simply does not compute -- at least when reckoned by the slumlord’s shopworn abacus.”

This is a classic case of selective listening. Frankfort Avenue is a great example of new urbanism in a land locked area. Currently, New Albany is not land locked. I do believe there is such a thing as over crowding. When you have unimproved land throughout the city why over crowd tight spaces?

Excuse me?

In the sense that tenets of New Urbanism are applicable to New Albany, it is far from clear how being “land-locked” or not has anything to do with them.

Taken from the broader view of city limits and county lines, both New Albany and Floyd County are land-locked, but again, it isn’t clear how this pertains to the application of principles of New Urbanism to the existing neighborhoods and downtown areas of the city.

Overcrowding in the city comes from a block that originally was intended for single family homes but now is filled with these same homes subdivided into three and four unit apartments, and not from building new single family homes on existing vacant lots. While there may be points here that NAC and CM Price are in agreement, it remains that he does not explore them in his answer.

In short, CM Price provides a confusing and perhaps contradictory answer, and he sidesteps the cultural implications that were so obviously implicit in his original reference to Frankfort Avenue as something not to be wished upon New Albany.

See “cognitive dissonance,” above.

----

10. In terms of rate of growth in the state of Indiana, Harrison County ranks 4th, Clark County ranks 18th, and Floyd County ranks 44th. A local developer recently expressed to me that the "ridiculous politics" of New Albany played a major role in our low sore. Do you agree with this assessment? Please explain why or why not.

New Albany’s good ol’ boy perception has had an impact over the years. Hopefully our hindsight is becoming increasingly clearer as we pay the debt from our elected elders.

With such a brief and cryptic response, we’re forced to assume that New Albany’s “good ol’ boy perception” is considered by CM Price to be something negative in nature, and as such, we have no problem agreeing with this assessment.

Is it correspondingly clear that with hindsight, we can understand the mistakes of our “elected elders?”

Probably.

Hindsight’s like that … but what, then, of our future as a city? Do we strictly define the future by the the payment of debts in the financial sense, or is there an element of avoiding the past missteps when it comes to planning and strategic direction?

In short, is CM Price an improvement over the malady he diagnoses?

Indirectly, he seems to suggest that there is something to his positioning and political record over the course of two years as councilman to indicate that he is substantively different from these “good ol’ boy” elders that he identifies as those bequeathing disaster to the current generation.

If so, we have not seen the slightest indication of it.

Have you?