This video, shot during the mayoral campaign in 2007, highlights a portion of Mayor England's proposed solution for rampant slumlordism in the city. Apologies for the audio being slightly out of sync with the images. It's a copy of a copy of a copy. It's also strangely apropos, owing to the fact that what was said still doesn't match what we see.
Pre-election, the mayor promoted the idea that while a full-time city attorney wasn't necessary, irresponsible landlords would never take the city seriously until they started getting hauled into court. This occurred in addition to multiple promises at other times to make public examples of the most egregious offenders with no concern for what the slumlord population might think.
Two and a half years into the mayor's return to office, we have a full-time city attorney and to my knowledge no one has faced a judge to be held accountable for the condition of their rental property(s). If I'm wrong about that, please correct me. It certainly hasn't made the news or been otherwise communicated. If I'm not, should we assume they're still laughing?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
What a novel idea. A question(or accusation, if you will)AND proof.
Good job, Jeff.
Now we see the progression as such:
Mention was made of opponents "pushing back" against rental property registration and code enforcement.
When asked by the mayor, Warren Nash said: Come to the realtors and explain what's needed, and they'll probably agree.
When I asked what happened next, the mayor conceded: "Nothing."
When Randy Smith asked, "When will you expend political capital" toward something like registration and enforcement, the answer was riverfront redevelopment, to which (as Randy noted) there was no pushback from any quarter.
At this point, Carl (once again) intervened with the "we're lucky to get anything done" argument mentioned in my posting last night.
Throughout all of this, I was hoping that Jeff would dig up the 2007 video. I'm grateful he did.
Yes, Carl is right -- to a point. State government is guilty of municipality abuse, and the council is populated by obstructionists. And yet, using the excuse that City Hall must stand idly in the shadows while what supposedly was its own initiative gets stonewalled in council committee is just another dog that won't hunt.
The council, even if for the wrong reasons, has always been right about one thing: Why provide more when the tools already available aren't used?
If the administration could make a reasonable case that they'd exhausted all current code enforcement resources and achieved a good deal of success in proportion, the story might be different. As it stands, the admin branch is just conveniently scapegoating the council and others.
I don't remember voting for a realtor. Anyone else?
And there's more video.
"When Randy Smith asked, "When will you expend political capital" toward something like registration and enforcement, the answer was riverfront redevelopment, to which (as Randy noted) there was no pushback from any quarter."
This alludes to a greater issue that I have noticed.
The "issue" is that New Albany City Government's balance of representation is overwhelmingly pro-business.
Aside from the flooding victims there has been no effort to make neighborhoods better.
No plan, nothing.
Granted, there has been new energy and focus coming out of the building commissar’s office. It is too early to make a judgment but I think we’ll start seeing some improvements with code enforcement. And what I can tell from the body language of the council, when Mr. Brewer addressed them last, they seem poised to cooperate, as long as Mr. Brewer keeps them informed and treats them with the respect.
The “new energy” points to another issue. Mr. Brewer is enthusiastic about his job, it is new to him, when I speak with other officials, in other departments, all I get is excuses as to why we can't do anything.
Maybe it is time that we get new people who want to make differences and not excuses.
I agree with you about Mr. Brewer. I've been impressed, so far.
That all Mark, nothing else?
In September '09, the City Council approved $ 25,000 for a tool bank in the SEJones neighborhood.
http://newalbany.in.gov/Ordinances/2009/R-09-09.pdf
Has anyone seen the tool bank? Is/was there a deadline for spending the $ 25,000?
As someone who is just getting my start in owning rental property, I think the concept of rental registration is a half-baked idea--as it was when Mayor Overton first raised the issue.
A code violation is a code violation, whether it be a rental or owner-occupied property. As far as not being able to easily locate owners, that should be a simple matter of mailing the citation to the address on file for sending the property tax bill. The inspector cites the violation, mails the notice and gives x number of days to correct it. If that doesn't happen, further action is taken. It's not rocket science.
But I do agree that a city court needs to be established for this, even if it is a one night per week night court.
The inspector cites the violation, mails the notice and gives x number of days to correct it. If that doesn't happen, further action is taken. It's not rocket science.
Exactly. State law specifically says that municipalities are only responsible for notification to the last recorded owner. If ownership has changed and the new owner hasn't recorded it, it's the property owner's fault and the city bears no responsibility for that owner's potential lack of awareness.
Here's what Indiana's unsafe building law says:
(e) A person with a property interest in an unsafe premises who does not:
(1) record an instrument reflecting the interest in the recorder's office of the county where the unsafe premises is located; or
(2) if an instrument reflecting the interest is not recorded, provide to the department (or, in the case of a consolidated city, the enforcement authority) in writing the person's name and address and the location of the unsafe premises;
is considered to consent to reasonable action taken under this chapter for which notice would be required and relinquish a claim to notice under this chapter.
The proper recording of ownership actually protects the owner, making sure they receive notice of any violations for which they're responsible whether they receive notification or not. "Can't find the owner" appears to be just another in a long line of...lack of political will.
yes, people have laughing for a long time. How does it feel that now the people are laughing at you Mr Mayor? You are now the standard bearer for Slumlord City USA, formerly Tree City USA.
Jeff, I think that's it--lack of political will for code enforcement. The council and administration don't consider it a priority.
I'm not sure why, although I don't attribute it to corruption or any of the other bile that's been spouted. It just is not a priority to the powers that be.
It just is not a priority to the powers that be.
Yeah, I know. But just once I wish someone in that position had the chutzpah to be straight about it instead of dragging everyone through the "this time, it's going to be different" posturing. It calls everything else they say into question, creates derision, and ultimately damages any chances we have for a more cooperative approach.
It's amazing the amount of energy that gets wasted avoiding small bits of truth.
If the current administration lacks political will, the citizens of NA must also accept some blame for their lack of civic will. If time is wasted in avoidance of truth, there is also a significant amount of time wasted on reactionary rhetoric and pontificating through the blogoshpere about the shortcomings of city officials.
Do we favor a top-down approach and expect local governments to improve our communities through regulatory apparatuses like code enforcement? Do we expect property owners to suddenly take an active role in improving their properties or actually pay the fines that come when those codes are finally enforced? Is this mind-set what passes for "progressivism" in Southern Indiana?
NA has the potential to experience a real revitalization. By real, I mean something much deeper than Disneyfication and gentrification, something more than having restaurants downtown that serve as a weekend tourist destination for people in the Knobs. So often in cities across the US, that is what characterizes so-called revitalization: a protected corporate enclave where suburbanites can be tourists in their own urban cores, with a police force that guards the business establishments from the superfluous local population. Any community that has experienced a participatory, broad revitalization has been able to do so through a bottoms-up approach to neighborhood organizing and advocacy that ultimately serves to implement a communal structure in order to meet their community’s needs through their own, collective means. It isn't always pretty, sometimes we have get a little grimy and actually clean our own neighborhoods, sometimes we have to enforce codes ourself, and sometimes we actually have to interact with our neighbors (even the poor ones who may not share our penchant for intellectual discourse and highly cultured tastes)…but it beats waiting on the local government to do things for us.
When individuals fail to act out of a proper organizational structure at the neighborhood level they become limited to solely reactionary measures (which is why 4 neighborhood schools can be closed at a moment's notice and no one can do a fucking thing about it except criticize the officials involved after the fact and vow to vote them out of office come election time).
I have collected dead rats from my neighbor’s property, cut down his weeds myself, and cleaned his gutters on my own time. All of which was not only against his will, mind you, but flew in the face of open hostility for my actions. The house behind mine is vacant, the doors swing open and it sounds as if people or animals squat there some nights. I have made the proper calls to the proper departments. When the situation remained the same after several weeks I bolted the doors shut. I understand how disheartening it is to invest in your own property, work on your home during what little spare time you have, and watch dilapidation occur next door. I understand that. So, I make the calls and nothing happens. Do I expect some regulatory accountability? Of course. But in the face of its nonexistence, my only solution is personal activity. However, personal activity is best carried out within a collective framework, which is, sadly, as nonexistent as code enforcement.
The entire notion of promoting and marketing our community and casting it in a positive light comes with some cost to reality. This denial will exacerbate the problems that we try to cover up in the long run. Yes, we have rats in our neighborhood, homeless children in our schools, abandoned properties, meth labs, and public housing at full occupancy.
In the face of these problems, the proper question has never been and will never be; "how do we win?" The question, as always, is, "how do we get more people involved?" And since not every neighborhood organization is able to bribe their members into working, that question isn't even on the table. Meanwhile, we can work on "marketing" New Albany, we can work on "promoting" NA, we can work on “changing people's perceptions” of NA, we can work on "developing" NA, we can work on making NA "exclusive," we can work toward making NA "attractive" for people whose tastes and financial status now enable them to be labeled “creative” (which is nothing more than a class barrier). We can even work on "re-branding" NA (the gentrifier’s newest strategy). But until we put all of our efforts into forming participatory organizations that are focused on improving the conditions in New Albany for the people who currently live here, all this energy will amount to is a lot of reactionary, self-serving rhetoric, intellectual posturing, and perhaps a few corporate chain stores and condos downtown.
Right on all accounts, Josh.
One part of the public taking responsibility is to expect, demand, and *demonstrate* equitable treatment.
Unfortunately, our "revitalization" efforts are often just fronts for personal rather than community led agendas and any suggestion to the contrary is considered an act of treason, punishable by whisper campaigns. By New Albany standards, "collaboration" occurs when a small number of folks privately decide what they want to do, whether any reasoning is explained or even present, and others support that particular endeavor without ever asking for clarification or consideration of other issues in relation to it. Any objection to said process and the double standards it engenders, regardless of how expressed, is "controversy".
True collaboration, of course, means a broader, more inclusive conversation with at least some semblance of education, consensus building, and each side giving up a bit of power in service to the whole rather than fighting over it for themselves. Without the clarification and consideration, an understanding of the reasons, it simply can't exist. When organizations can't make that happen within their own ranks, their chances of helping it occur in a broader sense are near zero.
It's this perverted sense of collaboration that's perhaps most frustrating as various groups masquerade as representing community interests when in fact they work to suppress topics that may be uncomfortable for them personally in both public and private conversations.
Even for the well-intentioned, it's counterproductive. For those a bit more mercenary, it's just self-serving tripe. Community is built around the notion of negotiated meaning. Quelling negotiation or attempting to dominate it is the opposite of community building.
I specifically referenced code enforcement here because our current mayor made it a major issue in order to glean support during the election cycle. As a result (to be clear, it may not be the only reason), he carried those districts where code enforcement as a function of government is a principal concern and won both the primary and the general election by narrow margins. As mentioned, a lack of follow through on those issues and the mistrust it generates are harmful in more areas than just enforcement.
After being fooled over and over again, it's no wonder that people are desensitized to the idea that actual collaboration could be helpful or even possible. There's simply no trust.
Re-branding, to the extent that it reflects positive changes occurring on the ground, speaks to equitable-as-possible opportunities, and helps propel more of both, can be an effective tool. When it just furthers the masquerade as part of an "instead of" strategy (and, as you point out, that's often the case) it's even more problematic than saying nothing at all, discrediting reality with myth, excusing the behavior that led to it, and providing succor to those who pretend to be challenging the status quo when they are doing anything but.
Thank you Josh for your comments. I have experienced many of the safe housing issues with my neighbors. I’ve assisted the police in several arrests next door where
flagrant drug dealing and prostitution where occurring 4 years ago when we moved here. I’ve helped trap and neuter feral cats which used to blanket this area, now not as much. Rats... on-going. Lobbying for the restoration of the hardwood canopy...check. Joining my neighborhood association but finding out it was just a place to gossip about the other neighbors,....check. (except for Valla Ann B. who did actually work hard to get things done for our neighborhood like the Quiet Zone) I think the neighborhood associations are their own worst enemies in New Albany.
My bottom line, (duck, here comes the hurty truthy part) there is “low social trust”, low educational standards, and endemic poverty which prevent forward movement in New Albany.
Look at the numbers, we have a substantial city population that is self-perpetuating at the lowest rung of the social and economic ladder, has been self-perpetuating for as long as I can remember, and I’ve never heard anyone propose solutions other than get more government section 8 money - grow the ghetto. It’s so much more expensive to pay for a ghetto than a mixed income neighborhood. Why just yesterday I was watching a man who was in line for the St. Marks soup kitchen pass out. It looked like a case of dehydration. While he was being hydrated by our capable first responders, I calculated the cost of the firetruck and ambulance and 4 firemen and how many calls they make to people so incapable of self-care they don’t remember to drink anything but liquor, till they pass out on the street somewhere...
It’s why I cringe at the Pollyanna “Let’s Go New Albany, rah rah rah” BS that passes for “progressivism here. Ground up organizing has to happen. Top-down solutions will never come.
One other thing, I got the impression from the last several posts that some may have just come to the conclusion city government is pro-business. Again, in the past I’ve noted that if you just look at the org chart downtown, quite a disproportionate share of money and resources are devoted to issues surrounding the concept of “development/redevelopment/planning” - code for helping to keep the extraction economy humming? You may have seen some well tailored representatives of the economic elite at council meetings for their entitlements, I mean tax abatements, and you now are thinking maybe government is pro-business? It exists, as currently conceived, solely for that purpose and as an employment agency for an entrenched class of bitter little people.
Enjoy your evening.
Post a Comment