It should be noted that much of the chicanery around potential paving has occurred as a matter of jihad against the proposed two-way street conversions with the conversation sometimes veering in a very personal direction, with objections based on where the conversions would take place rather than how.
The fact that a special, largely unadvertised meeting was scheduled to kill a widely popular proposal is unfortunately not surprising.
Those interested in two-way, traffic calmed, pedestrian and bike friendly streets might want to consider raising their voices.
14 comments:
Is this round two of the $10 mil (bond?) issue again? What is the history of this $2 mil?
Gina,
This is a stop gap measure(imo)of appropriating $2 million from EDIT funds to pave what they can yet get done this year.
I think the bond issue is dead or almost dead. I think the idea had merit but was handled badly by the administration. Took them too long to say what their plan was and the bond term(if I was told correctly by Mr. Gahan)was 20 years. Way too long for a paving bond in my opinion--even with 2-way streets included. 5 years would have been better, 10 at the absolute most.
It was dead before the administration had a chance to handle it.
what happened to the stimulus money? Did not the Mayor say on radio he would be using that money for 2-way etc work?
Only if the money doesn't have to go "through" the New Albany Common Council.
Don't ya know that they are totally responsible for the Black Death(plague), 1937 flood, Peal Harbor, "W", and anything else that has had disastrous consequences over time?
G,
Per federal regs, the stimulus money can be spent on upgrading traffic signals in a portion of the proposed two-way conversion area only.
Per the council thus far, we'll have really nice traffic signals functioning at about half their capacity with no improvement otherwise.
Th really great news is that since the council has decided on a piecemeal approach, we'll get to go through this nonsensical process all over again next year. It's not very efficient but it's a good way to get your name in the paper.
A 20 year bond for paving needed to be killed. Maybe it was DOA for some nefarious reasons, but it needed to dead nonetheless.
That's why I put some of the blame on the administration. They know that they are dealing with a council that it is not particularly accommodating, especially the president. So why give the council such an easy way out with poorly conceived and incomplete plans? It's called salesmanship. They ain't got none.
While my influence in any of these matters is extremely limited(or nil), I would have spoke against a 20 year bond for paving. I'm for the 2-way streets but to be for them, no matter what, is just as bad as being against them, no matter what.
The bottom line, Mark, regardless of what you or I may or may not support, is that every single council member will tell you that streets and paving are the mayor's responsibility.
And yet, what the mayor wanted to do about it has never even been put on the council's agenda for official consideration.
Instead, Dan Coffey single handedly kept that from happening and replaced anything the mayor's office might have wanted to pitch, communicate, or otherwise negotiate with his own agenda- one that specifically seeks to keep two-way streets from happening.
It's the exact same type of thing he's doing with the Georgetown sewer issue- declaring himself in charge.
And how have the other council members responded? Either by supporting him or sitting on their hands.
What I'm for is a council that takes an active interest in revitalization and seeks to proactively utilize its legislative and financial resources to spur forward movement in that arena. We have nothing close to that.
I don't disagree with any of that.
Any of it.
It's just what you left out. I'm also for an executive branch that actually has a plan, articulates that plan and the logic behind it. I'm also for an administration that knows how to build support. That would include tying before hand.
A 20 year bond for paving? JC, who did they think was going to support that? It just gave Coffey and his ilk a "get out of jail free" card. Coffey doesn't even have to defend his illogical opposition to two way streets.
There's been at least 2 opportunities lost here. One, to get streets done. The other was to make the opposition defend their position or lack thereof. And that could have been useful down the road. (no pun intended)
mark, the administration was tent shopping this winter... no time for street plans.
And where exactly does this sizable, highly motivated constituency that responds positively to and consistently supports good arguments both in public meetings and at the polls exist, Mark?
I might want to live there.
How has all the bitching, name calling, satire, etc of the council over the last several years worked for us so far?
Have they tried building that support through individual members of the council? If so, and as you might say, that is futile, why do we even bother with any of it?
Someone has got to lead, to break this stalemate. It only makes sense for it to be the executive branch. First of all, it's their job. Second, the executive branch speaks with one voice. You have nine elected officials on a council jockeying for position. The executive has to make their case. I just think the administration is doing a poor job leading. Same thing happened with the previous administration.
If you think the Council is just going to wake up one morning and turn around 180 degrees, well, I guess we both are looking for Utopia.
I've ever bought into the argument that the mayor has more responsibility to lead than any individual council member.
It's obvious, however, that the council sides with you on this one.
I consider that a problem.
Jeff,
It's a problem when you have 10 people trying to lead.
By design, the executive branch is the "leader". The legislative branch acts as a check. That's the very basics of the way it is set up. When they work together things get done. When they don't, well, you have New Albany.
What you and I have been "discussing" is a perfect example of the design. The executive proposed a $10 mil bond(leading). The legislative branch "checked" by saying the executive didn't give us enough information.
Now, someone might say that the council would not have not have considered it no matter what info they received from the executive. Could very well be true. I wouldn't argue against that point. We'll never really know, since there really wasn't much information presented initially. The point is, that's how the system is set up. How well each side does their job is the question. I say both sides failed--miserably.
Acting responsibly is every one's equal duty. There is no way leadership responsibility can be divided equally.
Post a Comment