Friday, April 17, 2009

Okay, I'll say it: Messer and Coffey unite to promote cynicism in Wendy's flip-flop.

Some of you won't agree with me today, and that's fine. I'm sure you'll let me know about it.

When it comes to the relative merits of our elected council persons, most readers know that I hold Jack Messer in high esteem.

Conversely, my view on Dan Coffey is that far more often than not, his caterwauling political career is an unmitigated embarrassment to the council and the city.

Last night, Messer and Coffey flip-flopped on a controversial zoning change. The result was the same, a 5-4 turndown of what we’ll always remember as the Wendy’s ordinance, with Coffey’s dramatic closing flip negating Messer’s breathtaking flop and carrying the day against the change.

Briefly summarized, the two-year-long battle over the last remaining expanse of Charlestown Road green space on the city side of the beltway has been intensely political and occasionally personal, if for no other reason that the people involved, and more importantly, their careers. On one side is a group of respected, professional landowning types that includes County Commissioner Mark Seabrook, and their less savory chosen contractor, the famously condescending Gary McCartin.

On the other, there is a highly organized and motivated collection of neighborhood residents, who have played their defensive game to perfection, maintaining team discipline, researching legal precedents and attending all requisite meetings.

Bunches and bunches of meetings, in fact.

One proposal after another, or as some might say, one end-around after another, has passed or not passed muster with the planning authorities and arrived in better or worse condition before the council for mandated vetting, setting the stage for the usual preening and posturing, and perhaps more productive council hours have been squandered as a result than for any other single activity save full-contact sewer immersion.

As I reported earlier this morning, the Wendy’s proposal was defeated a few weeks ago in its 1st reading, with Messer voting “nay” (against the zoning change) and Coffey “aye.” When the ordinance returned for its 2nd and 3rd readings, Messer was on holiday. Chief “nay” voter Jeff Gahan (did he already know what was to come?) aggressively pushed for the final two votes to be held, much to the anguished squeals of the property’s owners, whose attorney Krafty John could not be present, and the result was two 4-4 tallies. Previous experience suggested that ties counted as “nay,” but council attorney Stan Robison subsequently announced that his research indicated otherwise, hence the presumed finality of last night’s reconstituted fourth and fifth readings.

Reconstructing all this as impartially as possible, it would seem that Messer had confided to some before the meeting that he’d be changing his vote based on a visit to the site, which allayed his initial concerns over increased traffic in the area. Perhaps this accounted for the strange tension in the corridor, as though something unexpected was fully expected to occur. Afterwards, it was plain that Messer’s voting strategy was largely predicated on his dead-certain expectation that traditional enemy Coffey would follow suit, change his vote and restore the status quo, enabling Messer to fulfill his tactical goal of … of what?

Of something, I guess.

However, aloud and for the council record, Messer explained his shift not as a thoughtful reaction to traffic patterns, but as a resounding vote in favor of the right of property owners to seek zoning changes, which sounded far more like Kevin “I am not Ward Churchill” Zurschmiede’s recent paean to fellow Republican Seabrook than that of a Democrat.

But I digress. For his part, Coffey described his last-second conversion as stemming from the realization that Randy Smith is right (huh?), and also the neighborhood advocates, in that there exists no coherent planning and zoning “plan” to follow in making such decisions, and that this was sufficiently troubling for him to change his stance after three (3) previous votes in favor of what he now opposed.

Hmm. Simply stated, it strains credulity to accept any of it at face value, and from either council member involved.

In effect, I’m being asked to believe that a city policeman of long standing didn’t have an accurate reading of traffic patterns, and that a ward heeler whose career defines contempt for any and all planning save that bearing his personal Bazooka Joe stamp might suddenly gain respect for the notion.

Furthermore, there is the strong suggestion that one politician, Messer, could score points of an as yet undefined nature by reading the behavioral playbook of another, Coffey, and proceed with the absolute certainty that Coffey would play his part and salivate at the ringing of a chosen bell. Since when has Dan Cofey been so easily read? How could anyone be thus assured, given the mercurial nature of Coffey’s previous machinations?

Politically, I still respect and support Messer, and I still abhor Coffey, but here’s why this travesty bothers me so much.

In this whole, sordid, ongoing struggle, only one entity emerges as anything approximating heroic, and that’s the neighborhood activists on Lafayette and Savannah.

Yes, there’s a fair share of NIMBY at work, and there always will be in such cases. However, the activists assiduously did their homework, patiently slogged through entire meetings, enduring Steve Price’s homespun platitudes and awaiting their assigned slot, generally at the very end, and in the final reckoning, came off as capable of articulating a principle, supporting the principle with facts, and performing the expected function of informed citizens in a democracy.

Granted, they got the outcome they sought, and given their perseverance and all-around chutzpah, they deserved it.

Here’s the problem.

The crass machinations and blatant cynicism of the flippy-floppy Wendy’s voting outcome tells both the neighbors and the remainder of the city that the final decision had almost nothing to do with the right reasons, and for the right reasons as based on law and order.

It was purely political.

In the end, the neighbors might as well have eschewed the hard work, stayed home to tend to their lives, and played the same style of game as the council persons by quietly raising money and making payoffs to the appropriate parties in the time honored fashion of machine-run cities everywhere.

Note that I’m not suggesting that something like this occurred. I don’t believe it did, and what's more, it might not have been the best strategy for the neighbors to try and outbid folks wealthier than them. But it would have been drop-dead cynical, and as illustrated by the terms of the final outcome, fully in keeping with prevailing trends.

It remains that last night's maneuvering sent an unmistakable message that political gamesmanship absolutely comes first, and facts always come second. Citizens thought they were playing – dare we say it? – by a shared sense of the rules, but the rules ultimately weren’t what mattered. Rather, what mattered were two council persons jockeying with each other for position, to the utter exclusion of the commonweal.

Sad.

Typical of New Albany, but very, very, sad.

26 comments:

  1. In a similar, though far smaller in impact, zoning case a few months back, I asked a Councilman why he had voted a certain way. The proud answer was, "I gave my word and I stand by my word."

    Sounds good on the face of it but what it told me was, that anything said during meetings didn't really matter. Very similar to what happened here.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Not to mention Steve Price's public enunciation of his doctrine, that he'll side with a majority of the neighbors, come what may, even if it means his own neighborhood, and those two pieces of property that he's sitting on which would have enhanced in value, but he voted no, anyway, some time in the past, grandma's cookie jar, nickel and dimes and utter exhaustion.

    Actually, the majority in Price's 'hood has voted resoundingly against him in two successive primaries. Too bad the anti-Price vote was split.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I absolutely disagree with your take that the neighbors could have stayed home and the outcome would have been the same.

    No one should glean from the recent past that public involvement is worthless. I daresay that the outcome would have been approval and the time spent on the process would have been greatly lessened had it not been for the dogged fight the neighbors waged.

    I think the development, as proposed, was deficient in several ways. It offered nothing of value to the city as a whole. It squandered precious greenspace on a vacuous grab for a quick buck. It strained the senses to see anything that could be confused with creative land use.

    And yet, if the neighbors had failed to show up, I could have possibly voted for the plan. It took the efforts of the neighbors to highlight the depth of concern they felt. If there weren't pushback from the neighborhood, why would anyone see that parcel as a place to apply the brakes in a race to the bottom? Clarksville is still held in high regard as a mecca of commercial good fortune.

    This is but a lull in an on-going tug-of-war between developers and those hoping to maintain green space or open land. The prevailing mentality, at least locally, accepts that private property trumps the public's interest in land use issues. That conflict is the real stage on which true environmental responsibility will be won or lost.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm with you 100%, John.

    And you did not address the cynicism of the flip-flopping, which was the whole point of my essay. Cynicism thus engendered leads naturally to the opinion that the participation need not have taken place and was in fact negated by the gyrations, although I fully understand your being circumspect on the matter.

    I'm a big fan of Jack's, and still am, but the manner by which this played out last night was New Albanian politics at its slimiest. It sickened me. When will it end?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Circumspection is called for in this situation.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "If there weren't pushback from the neighborhood, why would anyone see that parcel as a place to apply the brakes in a race to the bottom?"

    That, to my mind, is the question. The question never should have been whether or not the neighbors didn't want to smell hamburgers or have to pick up fries boxes. What was encouraging throughout the months of this fight was when the neighbors made objective arguments. I'm happy they won, but it wasn't because they are entitled to have a field of hay behind their houses.

    So far as I know, Jack Messer's vote was objective, sincere, and considered. His was a vote on the losing side. He surely sacrificed some future voters. The question of whether or not that is still residential land won't go away, but at least it has gone away for a season.

    It's NBA playoff time. If someone puts up an air ball, would you assume he's throwing the game? And if the other team gets a breakout pass and goal from that air ball, do you assume the shooter is in collusion with the opponent?

    Jack changed his vote. I understand he didn't articulate a reason that satisfied you. But it's a stretch, and probably a bit unfair to call it "slimy."

    You have a nice bully pulpit here. Don't confuse political palaver and predictions with plotting.

    A Thermos keeps hot things hot and cold things cold, but the question is: How do it know?

    In this case, I think Jack was one of the cold things. Mr. Coffey was just the thermos into which Jack didn't go. If Jack thinks he saw a sign on the thermos saying "Hot," who's to say he didn't?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Perhaps being the confidant provides, er, more clarity when the landscape alters.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I have to admit, watching those council guys jockey for mayoral candidate positioning is highly entertaining if somewhat offensive to one's sense of logic and reason.

    Of course, it's also probably indicative of how they'd function as mayor, which isn't so amusing.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Confidant? That's pretty funny to me, an outsider looking in, to see the insider snarkily calling me a confidant.

    The implication is that someone confided in me, but then I confided in you, too, in hopes that it might inform your commentary. All it appears to have done is agitate you. For that I apologize. Next time I'll just keep it to myself.

    I do have one question, though. If Jack Messer had voted "aye," as he did, and then Mr. Coffey had voted "aye," as he promised to an interested party just before the meeting, what would NAC have had to write about today?

    Would Jack Messer been accused of promoting cynicism then?

    Next you'll give credence to the idea that Dan Coffey changed his vote because of my brief comments on the issue. Conspiracies abound!

    bluegill, I'll agree about the jockeying being somewhat entertaining...don't know about the lack of logic and reason, though. It offends a sense what ought to be solutions and goals, but I don't know that it's illogical or unreasonable from the perspective of the players.

    I will continue to rely on NAC as The Racing Form, and I'll continue to confer with the trackside touts. I just need to know if it's of any worth to contribute to the "official" edition.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I didn't intend snarky. For the uninformed or even uniformed bystander, it was another litany of last minute conversions, secrecy and positioning.

    To me, it was as Macca noted in Eleanor Rigby, "no one was saved."

    ReplyDelete
  11. Randy,
    It is beneath you to balk at the term "confidant" when used in this instance. You know it as well as I do.

    ReplyDelete
  12. IAH, I disagree. I said it was funny. I smiled. I snorted. THAT's funny.

    I certainly don't think confidant was intended as praise in this instance, and for an editorial board who I consider to be my confidants, it's an odd choice of words, implying that I have some secret, unrevealed knowledge.

    But as I said, I don't want to cause anyone discomfort. If I should keep what I learn to myself, just say so. I'll continue to read The Racing Form.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Why is everyone so testy lately? Something to do with spring?

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'm not being testy, dammit. You're the one going to Bamberg!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Who in the hell invited you into this conversation?

    ReplyDelete
  16. He can stay as long as he agrees with me. After all, as Lloyd's friend says, it's all about me trying to intimidate people who rent.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Lloyd's friend"

    I love it!!

    ReplyDelete
  18. How much does it cost to rent Lloyd?

    I could hire him to find out if the code enforcement officer is leaving city employ to go work as the cigar czar at the white male drinking club in that gated community in Silver Grove. All the presidents I know love it. You can walk all the way to the power plant from there. It's right next to where the old Wendy's used to be.

    I'm hoping she can get me a deal on a used golf cart. I signed up for car insurance at first but then I gave it up after I talked to the mailman. It only covered some things but my brother assured me that it was the most comprehensive available except for the kind that covers everything. Either way, I'm never bringing it up again.

    Don't get me wrong. I support owning a car. I'm just not willing to pay for it. Ever since the garage that I don't own burned down, I don't have a place to park one anyway.

    Does this road seem bumpy to you? It's making me dizzy trying to read my copy of Anne Frank's Diary. It's a good thing I don't have a business to run.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Bluegill,

    If you have to ask..., you can't afford me!

    ReplyDelete
  20. To "The Bookseller,"

    I am a resident of Lexington Drive and have to disagree with many of your comments. First, you claim that "Jack Messer's vote was objective, sincere, and considered." Really? The man who waited to grandstand the crowd in an overdramatic way, when the council just gave time for debate?

    Needless to say, he did a great McCartin impersonation. Case in point: Read this Tribune article by Daniel Suddeath, especially near the conclusion, and tell me if anything sounds eerily familiar.

    http://www.newsandtribune.com/archivesearch/local_story_066211346.html

    Yeah, the whole "We could have had Green Tree Mall" argument is right there. Funny that he should bring that up when many malls were claiming bankruptcy the same day and another Tribune article had Uric Dufrene, an economist, discuss the overdevelopment of commercial real estate: http://www.newsandtribune.com/local/local_story_107134704.html

    Messer also went on to talk about how New Albany may lose Wendy's business from this ordeal. Now that makes me want to snort. I'm sure the nationwide food chain had great interest and took this decision painfully hard, seeing as it didn't have one official there.

    But I digress.

    Look, I don't believe Messer was bought off by any extent, but it's painfully obvious that Seabrook and Co. got to him. Seabrook belly-ached about how his lawyer, John Kraft, was unable to make it to the last council meeting. Well, he had a month and I didn't see him. They also didn't feel the need to talk. Hmm ... I wonder why? Maybe they knew Messer was in their back pocket and there was nothing to worry about? Ding ding!

    And finally, before my final hurrah and much-needed rest, I take very much issue with the neighborhood being "entitled to have a field of hay behind their houses."

    The neighborhood has listened and discussed possible developments that were not residential, such as the proposed heart hospital several years ago. Seabrook also had originally planned to use the land for a new funeral home, which many residents seemed to be OK with. This whole "they don't want anything" is another lie spread by Seabrook to push his desires.

    NOTE: My views and opinions do not represent the neighborhood as a whole, since I am just one scrawny, young, bushy-haired man.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Scrawny, young, bushy-haired" and damned articulate. Evan, we've been waiting for you.

    ReplyDelete
  22. A second on welcoming Evan.

    Stick around, please, if not at NAC at least in town.

    ReplyDelete
  23. While I wasn't in the room for Jack Messer's public statement, I did watch Evan in action at both recent meetings where the topic came up. It was very impressive and I take particular note of the fact that on Thursday he nailed the issue squarely - when is a PUDD appropriate? And did this project meet those criteria?

    No, they did not. And I'm pleased to think Evan's advocacy had something to do with that.

    In case it's unclear, I'm also pleased with the outcome of the vote. And like many here at NAC, I don't dismiss people who disagree with me or vote the opposite of my wishes. I do tend to dismiss people who can't articulate that they've done so on a rational basis.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Book,
    Would you care to be more specific?

    ReplyDelete
  25. I'm not sure what you want clarified, IAH.

    If someone votes no when I would prefer them to vote yes, I don't assume they are evil or stupid. I don't dismiss them as hopeless until they demonstrate, repeatedly, in some other way that they are hopeless.

    I think most of the community here shares that attitude. Debate is welcomed. That doesn't mean it won't be fierce or cutting, it just means that "sides" will try to persuade or find a common ground.

    Take the imminent traffic-calming measures in New Albany. Let's assume all agree that infrastructure should be safe, hygienic, and receptive to visitors and residents. That it should promote desired activities (commerce, recreation, transportation, tranquility) and not impede them.

    A recent letter-writer, desirous of safety, like us all, wrote a damaging letter opposing the very measures that will bring about that result.

    Please don't let me be the last word on this. I'll shut up now.

    ReplyDelete