NAC took to the same task last year and I did fairly well, going six for ten, though the transportation issues still linger. My 2009 prognostications are copied below.
Dispute my count or make your own predictions for 2010. I'm going to be stubborn and stick with two-way streets and a more sensible bridges approach in the upcoming year. Necessity's a mother.
The early beginnings of a more outcome oriented, collaborative revitalization movement.
Increased focus on preexisting neighborhoods as the foundation of sustainable economic and tax revenue development.
The introduction of a two-way street conversion project.
Code enforcement experimentation.
More interest in New Albany from agencies and funders related to community development.
Larger numbers of people coming together to put an end to the ridiculous East End bridge obstructionism, including pressuring the local politicians and chamber of commerce who've been hoodwinked by their southern counterparts.
Downtown land purchase(s) as a precursor to new construction.
Incremental success in all the above and the Greenway.
Me, celebrating those successes at several local watering holes including the new Bank Street Brewhouse but probably not II Horseshoes.
Daniel Short posting a photo that actually looks like him.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Basics:
2010 will see more new downtown restaurants and.....(drum roll).....new retail(!), including larger name retailers not previously seen here.
Me, celebrating those successes at several local watering holes including the new Bank Street Brewhouse but probably not II Horseshoes.
Probably? VBG.
Also, Dan, you have to let the cat out the bag because you are killing me with anticipation.
I'll take Dan's bet. Downtown New Albany's future is tied to "retailers" PREVIOUSLY seen here. All else is piggy-backing on the wimplitude of d. new albany.
His Honor, penned in by campaign promises and a panoply of 2011 opponents, will exert his autonomy and declare 4 out of 5 logical streets to be, henceforth, 2-way, pedestrian-friendly, biker-friendly, business-nurturing streets. Councilman Seesaw, acquiescent to the status quo, will acquiesce to Pearl remaining an anomalous 1-way Kentucky-bound street.
ODDS: 5-2.
We should move for Pearl to be pedestrian only. Then Seesaw could acquiesce to it only being returned to two-way as it, along with the entire downtown grid, was designed to function.
Panoply? I'll take that bet.
am I just making this up or didn't Mayor England say that this was going to be his last term in politics because he was (paraphrasing here) old and made his money, and just wanted to give back to the city.
Does anyone else remember that or am I just going crazy?
OK, Roger...for an actual picture of me check out the link below.
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/group.php?gid=379890765486&ref=nf
I didn't ask for a picture. Bluegill did.
But thanks anyway. Who are your opponents in District 2?
Dana Findley in the primary. Really not sure beyond that.
Your "OPEN" thread is smelling of closed minded as usual. Bluegill, as the unofficial "mask" for the city administration it's hard to take your postings seriously.
If you ask a question or make a comment about the Mayor, you are shunned. I remember our now Mayor-for-life also promising a one-term position because he had the experience to straighten everything out in one term. And the stuff about not needing the money, and his numerous health problems, etc. Yes, it's curious he's now in the race... why is that?
It's really a shame, G, that your imagination isn't put to better use.
yes, bluegill, think what you want, but the policy question was "has the mayor reneged on a campaign promise to retire after one term?"
As you often have the "official" line from the administration, I think it's somewhat legit for people to wonder aloud here ...?
I realize I fascinate you, but it's not about me. It's about civic dialogue. If you refer back to the democracy playbook, elected officials are open to debate, the more the better. You have increasingly functioned as a drag on that debate owing to a presumed (granted) old-fashioned smoky back-room relationship with the Mayor + redevelopment.
It's the reason I suspect you DON'T seriously want a real debate about policy and/or civic issues here. Prove me wrong...
Post a Comment