New Albany: Sewer “Crisis” 2010: Part 1 – How We Got to This Point.
New Albany: Sewer “Crisis” 2010: Part 2 – Why This Isn’t a “Crisis” but the Natural Result of City Council’s Irresponsibility.
New Albany: Sewer “Crisis” 2010: Part 3 – Why I Think Council is Digging its Heels.
New Albany: Sewer “Crisis” 2010: Part 4 – Keep your hands off our EDIT!
New Albany: Sewer “Crisis” 2010: Part 5 – A Modest Proposal to Help out “Aunt Sally.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
First, I would like to thank Randy for taking the time to address such an important issue. I would like to say that his effort to analyze the offer being presented to New Albany and look at different approaches is a much needed one.
But I don't know why in the same letter that he offers his ideas he ridicules others for doing the same thing. Dan presented his thought in the paper, but here, on NAC, he is chastised for such an effort. We do not need to agree with each other’s ideas but we should respect them. If Mr. Coffey wishes to censor individuals who continually mudsling is no different than Mr. Baylor’s wish to censor anonymous postings. The main difference is Dan doesn’t say anything about not censoring but Mr. Smith and Roger do. This makes there points hypocritical.
I find it interesting that in the first post Randy explains that no one really knows why the sewer is in the situation it is in but he then explains that it may be as simple as the nature of the beast.
Keeping with a term being used, when did Randy Smith conduct a “forensic audit” of the sewer? Where can he make such claims or the claims that the people who say that corruption is to blame are wrong?
By him taking this position, that it is the nature of things, and others making different claim are wrong, is one thing but when his actions say that it is alright for him to do it and not others, Mr. Smith becomes a hypocrite.
I am critical here because I want to see people work together but the prevailing attitude between people of different thought needs to stop. I think Mr. Smith's idea about frizzing the lowest rate is a good idea and that it should be considered but I also have read and heard other approaches that are equally valid, like using TIF and/or EDIT to fund the EPA mandates.
When all parties work together I believe we will come to a better conclusion but when one group accuses the other of demagoguery and then does the same thing here, by saying that the council wants the bond holders to come in and takeover is the very essence of demagogy.
I am critical here because I want to see people work together but the prevailing attitude between people of different thought needs to stop.
The following comments comes utterly without ulterior motive.
I believe you do want this. Your sentiments at Coffey Corner are noted. Just imagine. If you say 2 + 2 = 5, he'll accept it. That should tell you something.
But: Please share your reconcilation action plan with us. Please let us know exactly how you'll bring Steve Price to a table, or help the neighborhood associations cooperate, or for that matter, the Mayor, too.
You want to negotiate the cease fire? I'm right there with you. I'm a known entity. I can be held accountable. If I hold my fire and then break my word, I'll be toast.
How will you hold anonymous character assassins accountable? After all, they're this city's legacy, Jameson. That's the way it's always been here. Even having a sewer system to now fall apart probably only came about after their great-great grandparents fought it tooth and nail to the bitter end. It is not about rates and liens and EDIT. It's a culture war. How will you end it?
You've said you like to ask questions, and it's duly noted. You also have some fairly firm and seemingly intractable opinions about certain matters, too. We've all seen that look on your face when any question asked of you is unacceptable. Let us know more about how you arrived at these firm conclusions, and maybe trust between us can be enhanced.
No hidden agendas here. If you da man, then you da man. I'll say it out loud and perhaps be your campaign manager. I'd love nothing more than to inhabit a civilized city and go about my beer business without being strafed and abused night and day.
Just tell me how it works, and we march shoulder to shoulder.
Later.
Jameson, have you also chastised those who say that corruption is to blame? Do they have proof of corruption?
Hey, Jameson. Good to see you back in the scrum.
Dan Coffey is playing a game, and his diversions are extremely harmful. To the extent that you "fall" for his diversions, you become part of the problem.
I won't give credit to Mr. Coffey because of all the people in the loop, he has the least excuse. That includes Doug England and Carl Malysz, who were gone from New Albany for 8 years while Dan Coffey sat astride the city's finances.
I will ask you, Jameson, for a retraction. I DID NOT dismiss those who cry "conspiracy! fraud! incompetence!"
In fact, I said I would not dismiss such claims. But such claims are irrelevant to the issue at hand. If you or any other can bring forward proof or evidence, I'm with you. But I subscribe to "Occam's Razor."
Go back and read what I wrote on that point and I'll wait for your retraction.
As an aside, I still don't think you know the meaning of the word "hypocrite." Someone asked me recently if you didn't mean that we were hypercritical. That accusation is arguable and valid. But hypocritical? That's an assertion, not an argument. Please show me how I'm hypocritical.
I don't respect Dan's public pronouncements. Interestingly, I probably respect Dan more than I respect his words.
You misstate what I said, too. I never said no one really knows why the sewer is in the situation it is. Everyone paying attention knows. You, Jameson, should know.
Yes, a rate increase is painful. It's not perfectly desirable. But $6 million to operate the sewer system? Nothing suspicious there. Do you honestly believe that Doug England would risk the rest of his life in prison to mess around with petty graft? If he did, we'll recover it in spades. But just because Dan Coffey or Jeff Gahan feel dissed by the mayor or Carl doesn't mean they can give away our investment in the sewers.
Jameson, dozens of people have tried to reach you intellectually. You either respond with ideology, naivete, or you dismiss anything we say because you don't think we are nice.
I'm not really concerned with nice when elected officials are lying and then manipulating the public. Dan Coffey might as well be pressing his thumb on a scab. That's really all he's trying to do - cause pain.
Dan doesn't believe half of what he's saying. He's just lashing out at a world he can't comprehend.
Harsh? Yeah. I would rather be honored for telling the truth than be liked for being a nice guy. I AM a nice guy, by the way. I just care a little too much to let someone abuse my neighbors and their money.
Trust me, no one who tries to exploit the public or the public dollar will get a minute of mercy here. Dan Coffey and his confederates are doing that now.
As for your "forensic audit" mojo, I'll bet I've done a sight more than anybody you've talked to.
Jameson, I often have trouble following your use of the language, but I do understand that you don't like me. That's fine. But please don't put words in my mouth. You can say I'm unfair, unkind, or even unlovely. But political blogs are a place to declare your opponents "incorrect."
Considering that the ONLY time you and I have ever had a conversation, despite numerous opportunities, was during your primary campaign, when I thought I was more than kind to you, it's quite amazing that you've nurtured such an animus for me and practically anything I have to say.
It usually takes months of close contact before people can't stand me.
Andy, I am not chastising Randy for saying that it might be the nature of the beast I am chastising him for saying that those who claim it is corruption have no proof but his perspective is legitimate. I am chastising him on his hypocrisy. He is holding others to a standard or virtue that he doesn’t hold himself too.
Roger, I read what you said and I will get back with you.
Randy, it is difficult for me to be able to cover the many variables of human nature that is at play here. All I can say is if we are serious about understanding each other time will be necessary.
Yes, I remember our first encounter and I remember everything discussed. One of the things talked about was traffic. One thing that wasn’t talked about that night was that you were one of the few I talked with. I respected your willingness to converse and to me that was an indication of an individual I wanted to know better.
What you seem to fail to understand is that I have never closed the door to friendship. I don't know if you have. I have never said I don’t like you. I haven't made any large effort to speak with you at council meetings or after because I’m busy asking the council members questions.
You must understand that anytime that I have ever talked to any of the councilpersons not one of them has ever been rude to me but I can't say the same about some of the so called progressives. I don't agree with many things the council does but I will respect an individual as long as that individual returns the respect. The odd things is I agree on more issues with you then against but if I see someone representing those same issues but jeopardizing the greater goal I will be quick to point it out to them.
The best way to think about it is a true friend will point out the flaws but it takes as equal a friend to listen.
If I'm using the term hypocrite wrong then I will do what I can to learn the correct meaning but I will standby what I said. I see a lot more hypocrisy than I point out. How can I have a genuine conversation when an individual if I’m conversing with someone who sees things with a double standard? I am not here to waste my time, although it feels that way. If by me being here reduces the atmosphere of double standards and hypocrisy then I will be ever closer to reaching genuine conversation.
Hypocrisy (or the state of being a hypocrite) is the act of preaching a certain belief or way of life, but not, in fact, holding these same virtues oneself. Hypocrisy is frequently invoked as an accusation in debates, in politics, and in life in general.
"I will ask you, Jameson, for a retraction. I DID NOT dismiss those who cry "conspiracy! fraud! incompetence!"
Randy said, “Rather than try to explain the realities to their constituents, several council members have sought to stir up passions by casting this impending rate increase as some invisible conspiracy by a band of burglars intent on picking our pockets.
Make no mistake. The reason this increase is so large is that the council has refused to address the insolvency. It is most disingenuous of this council to pretend that this is sudden or unexpected”
Accusations of “conspiracy”
This is a dismissal of what they are saying.
The council, as I write this, is engaged in the worst kind of politics. They are willing to throw up “straw men” and take ideological stands, but they don’t seem to be capable of sitting down, raising their points, and then crafting a solution that addresses those points.
Blinded by pride, envy, hatred, and distrust of anyone or anything they don’t understand, and fearful of being fooled, the council is acting like 3-year-olds. They’re willing to say “no,” but they aren’t willing to work around the edges to fix the biggest problems. That’s true of most issues, but particularly true on this one."
You may not see this as hypocrisy but I do. What proof do you have to make these claims? You ask for proof from them but not yourself. You are asking people not to make accusations but you do yourself. You are asking people not to be demagogues but you are being one yourself. You are asking people to hold themselves to principles but you are not holding yourself to the same virtue. That is a Hypocrite
Randy said, “The “straw-man fallacy” is a tried-and-true technique frequently employed by demagogues. By distorting or mischaracterizing the choices before the council, a member tries to kill a proposal.”
Randy said, “For if the council carries out its stated intention of leaving the sewer utility’s bonded debt in default”
Randy said, “Stated”
When has the council ever stated their intention was to default?
The reason they didn’t vote on the seventy percent increase was that they knew that there would be an amended version on second/third reading. Some councilmen wanted a public hearing before any council discussion was made. They elected to reject the first reading as advertised and then allowed to give Mr. Skomp time to address the council and audience.
Randy said, “New Albany’s sewer utility has defaulted on its debts”
This is not true; New Albany transferred funds to pay what was owed up to that time from other funds. As said at Thursday’s council meeting.
Randy said, “Our city council, however, has emphatically signaled that they don’t care that we are in default. They unanimously rejected a sewer board recommendation to impose the 70% rate hike necessary to cure our default. What’s more, they played illegitimate parliamentary games to prevent the amending of that recommendation to accept a much more palatable offer from the creditors who hold the city utility’s fate in their vaults.”
Just like before this is a gross exaggeration of what happen and the context it was in. I was there and they do care. Once again, the rejection was because everyone knew of the 36-19 deal. Jeff said they didn’t want to amend the ordinace so audience members wouldn’t get confused if the council debated over the 36-19 and some may have mistaken that the debate was over the 70%. By voting unanimously against the 70% the council and audience knew what the vote was for.
Randy said, “If the council continues on its stated course (and everything I’ve been able to learn says they are hell-bent on giving the creditors a big, fat, hairy signal),”
More demagogy, the same kind that you are accusing Dan of using at his meeting.
Randy said, “Despite the fact that the council has signaled its complete willingness to give away the sewer utility and cast it into receivership, one can hope that rational minds will prevail.”
The council has never said, made, or took this position saying so is a lie, demagogy, and hypocritical
Post a Comment