C-J coverage is here, and the Tribune's there.
At the end of the second excerpt, Randy posits the shape of a new Gang of Four. Sadly, this seems to be substantive fact, and there has emerged another grouping of regressive-minded council persons, even without King Larry and Bill Schmidt available for duty.
It has been recurringly obvious that if one's sole goal as council representative is to retain some measure of personal influence as ego wash at the expense of the greater good of the commonweal, all progress must be halted, and all economic development must be sacrificed to short-term subsidies that gather votes while gutting the future.
Steve Price's and Dan Coffey's cynical proposal to drain every last economic development funding source available so as to prevent a sewer rate increase is precisely this. By kneecapping development for generations, the Axis of Banal seeks to avert an influx of interloping, achievement-oriented people who cannot be controlled by their traditional shell games, dolteries, voodoo and nutjobberies. Doing so "sticks it" to those in the city who understand the difference between a legitimate policy statement and an intentional whopper of a lie that originates in deep-seated feelings of social inferiority.
The question isn't whether Price and Coffey believe any of this, or why they do. Those issues are settled and beyond dispute. The real issue, one sure to be debated by New Albanians for years to come, is this:
Why have Jeff Gahan and Pat McLaughlin fallen so readily for it?
Back to Randy:
Tuesday evening, the powers that be (elected and appointed) put on a show where they pretended to solve a critical sewer funding problem. Although no decisions were made, much pandering took place. Of course, Steve Price put on the greatest display of ignorance, but that’s to be expected any time the council gathers in front of the press or the public ...
... The whole evening was an exercise in implausibility, buck-passing, blaming of previous administrations, vituperation from CM Price, and good old pandering most applicable to a “presser.” The PR value on Wednesday ought to be bankable.
Here’s my take on the visible consensus [though I have independent evidence that much of the evening's performance was just for show...you'll have to take my word.]
The consensus is to put city finances
Into voluntary servitude
To benefit ratepayers at
The expense of working taxpayers
To benefit businesses at
The expense of working taxpayers
To benefit fringe property owners at
The expense of working taxpayers
To benefit landlords at
The expense of working taxpayers
To benefit profligate users of water at
The expense of working taxpayers.
Thus cutting off opportunity
Flexibility
Equity.
Handcuffing all New Albanians in the future.
JUST THE WAY COFFEY, PRICE, GAHAN, and McLAUGHLIN want it.
Panglossian economics. Except that this plan would make even Dr. Pangloss a little cynical. Thanks Randy.
ReplyDeleteI have of late become more than just a little concerned with the performance of Mr. McLaghlin, and have become increasingly skeptical of my ability to lend support should he run again.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI like Pat. Pat seems a little too concerned about "votes". Yes, he is elected to represent his district but, to use an old stand by, if the majority of his district was in favor of jumping off a cliff... Sometimes you have to lead and then explain why. If that still doesn't work--why would you want to keep the "job" anyway?
ReplyDeleteDisappointing all 'round. The same politicians who want tolls to pay for interstate "get out of town as fast as possible" bridge work we don't need won't support fees to support local infrastructure we do need.
ReplyDeleteToday's CJ contains an article stating that 134 manufacturing jobs are coming to Scottsburg. The article says:
ReplyDeleteThe Indiana Economic Development Corporation offered Tokusen up to $1.1 million in performance-based tax credits and up to $75,000 in training grants based on the company’s job creation plans. The city of Scottsburg will provide additional property tax abatement.
I'm waiting for someone to say these 134 jobs are a bad thing. Had Scottsburg and the State of Indiana used all of their funds to reduce fees elsewhere, Scottsburg would have 134 fewer good jobs.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou can say that again
ReplyDeleteMark,
ReplyDeleteI too really like Pat, he is fundamentally a good guy, but if he gets to the point where is part of the eternal blockade, I will still like him on a personal level, he just won't get my vote next time around.
Chris,
ReplyDeleteI understand and understood. (grin) I wasn't quite as clear as I needed to be.
Last nights brainstorm session was a farce. There were no alternative ideas considered. What was considered was a plan that The Mayor and some council members discussed prior to the meeting in the Mayor's office.
ReplyDeleteThere is a better solution to all this.
I have learned a few things by attending these sewer proceedings and the number one thing is rate payers are getting flushed down the drain by our elected officials.
Jameson,
ReplyDeleteI recently finished an excellent book and thought of our discussion from a few weeks ago. "Crabgrass Frontier" by Kenneth Jackson is far and away the most comprehensive and exhaustive account I have read concenrning suburban expansion and how cities formed in the US.
It is also extremely well written. The U of L library has 2 copies so it is sure to be available if you are interested.
Take care.
thank you Joshua I will make an effort to read it.
ReplyDeleteConcerning the sewers.
The deal that was talked about last night sucked.
There is no good reason to borrow the 7.4 million dollars.
The best case scenario last night is an immediate 18 followed by 17.
This scenario still includes borrowing additional money from SRF.
The administration fees to borrow this money is 200,000
The cost to rate payer, in interest, is 2.2 million dollars over the term.
If the monies were used correctly we would only have a one time rate adjustment of 36% but if cost cutting measures suggested by the Mayor are included that 36% could be less.
Not borrowing additional money from SRF would make those who are opposed to using EDIT to subsidize sewer rates happier.
The only reason that has been offered to why City officials are adamant about borrowing more money is that city officials collect a portion of the 200,000 in administration fees, which is ethically wrong and a conflict of interest, but legal in Indiana.
So has any council members or sewer board members made a known effort to contact Richard Lugar in regards to the federal grants he indicated we may be eligible for?
ReplyDeleteIf you're not interested in how the sewer rate crisis will end, stop reading now.
ReplyDeleteIf you are interested, keep watching this Web site. Word is that a palatable solution will be revealed before the Sweet 16 tips off. That ought to keep the tongues wagging this weekend.
Jameson, I don't know if you'll like it, but I expect the next proposal you hear (read) will be the end game for this chapter of the dysfunction.
Let's just hint at this much. No, let's not. Let's let the press release speak for itself.
There might be a glitch, however. The consensus solution was supposed to be public by bedtime. Oh, well.
Jameson, I'm interested to hear your recommendations. Really.
Chris I don't know if any efforts have been made. The only time it was mentioned was when Jeff brought it help at the council meeting. Thanks for trying to find ways to help.
ReplyDeleteFor some reason city officials including the council want to borrow additional money.
As I said before the only reason that has been given to me is city officials will make a percentage off of the bonding. Chris, if this is true, there is no incentive for city officials to look into the grants other than it is the right thing to do.
Yesterday the only capital project that they said had to be done is basin 14, which can be funded by State St TIF totaling 1.3 million.
Why this project has to be done right away I don't know but I do know that at the sewer board presentation, which was a very good presentation, sewer officials said that there was no EPA mandated timeline. The timeline for the 7.2 million dollars of improvements was set by the SRF. As told by sewer board members this restriction of time, set by SRF, was to show good faith that New Albany is doing a good job to qualify to borrow the money.
The 7.2 million dollar capital improvement projects can be stretched out over a longer period of time if they don't borrow money from SRF. There are pros and cons for this.
Also, mentioned last night some of the projects wouldn't need to be done if they started the relining process. The relining process would take time but the expense would be over a broader time frame.
This would allow an opportunity for the city to apply for any grants.
Additional research would have to be done to find out if other TIFs could be used to fund additional capital projects. This was requested by Mr. Coffey and acknowledged by Mr. Malysz.
Other funds that could be used to fund the capital projects could be rain day funds and CBDG but they where never brought up in the “brainstorm session”.
BTW, at the sewer board presentation sewer officials said the optimal ratio for the sewer budget is equal capital improvements vs debt service. New Albany's debt service is greater than capital improvements. Borrowing more money further exacerbates this problem.
Instead of using river boat funds and edit to subsidize rates use it to fund the capital projects.
Eliminating the need to borrow the 7.4 is the best solution for all rate payers.
Consensus is that the grants are extremely unlikely. New Albany isn't eligible for some, and the others are a longshot. But Chris's efforts were appreciated by all.
ReplyDeleteGlad to hear what Jameson has to say, but I'd like to hear more. Can I ask "what if $3.5 million a year for 3-5 years brings us into compliance and scot-free from oversight?" Would you still oppose borrowing?
Jameson,
ReplyDeleteJust want to say thanks for your report and thoughts on this subject. You've brough up some things to think about.
Mark
I'm of the thought if there isn't even a chance to get a grant we still should try you never know what might happen.
ReplyDeleteOnce the rejection letters are received it will help to know what to do.
Once upon a time there was a little clinic running out of a two bedroom, run down house owned by clark memorial hospital.
ReplyDeleteIt was beat into that clinics head that we wcould never qualify for most federal grants, and the ones we could qualify for were extremely unlikey as it generally takes 8 years or more to get the chance to get one...
Surprisingly enough, the little clinic got the BIG grant on the first try, under an administration that was favorable to community health centers. Multi-millions of dollars later in federal grant money, the size of clinic has exploded, patient services massively expanded, 27 new jobs were created...
What set the little clinic apart? A professional grant writer.