In my most recent posting (NAC note: see "The New Albanist on annexation, and the tail that wags the dog"), I provided a cursory review of the annexation proposed by the City of New Albany, making the assumption that readers who wanted to drill down into the details would do so and that others who have read my policy posts in the past would know that I had done the homework and could provide a reliable summary.
I also indicated that had I been a member of the council I would have voted to proceed with the annexation process despite any objections to the timing of the mayor’s initiative.
Apparently, there is more interest in the details than I had assumed – my assumption being predicated on the fact that practically no member of the general public attended the presentation of the resolution and ordinance.
I will presume that parliamentary difficulties will be resolved and that Tuesday’s special called meeting will end with a fiscal plan approved (resolution) and the annexation declared by ordinance on first reading.
Here are some key facts ...
Monday, June 28, 2010
From The New Albanist blog: "Annexation 101: The 2010 Initiative."
The New Albanist returns with a detailed analysis of Annexation 101: The 2010 Initiative. Here are the opening paragraphs. Follow the link to read the remainder.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
The only problem that I see in all this is it doesn’t include the starting of a parallel process to annex the residential areas.
“The result is that New Albany has become a magnet for absentee landlords, drug dealers, and the corresponding crime and dissolution. Property values are under siege and the idea of making New Albany more attractive and valuable is more like a dream than an achievable reality.”
I’m not signaling Randy out but I see this type of criticism often, and from a variety of people.
Even recently Roger reacted to someone saying New Albany is a “failed city”.
I think that it would be adventitious that a distinction was made that not all parts of New Albany meet these types of descriptions.
First there are many, and I emphasize many, parts of New Albany that have very few problems, if any problems at all.
I think that attendance from citizens at council meeting is a good indication to express this distinction. From my experience, in attending meetings, there is an overwhelming attendance from the pre-war (WWII) tracks of the city. I assume that this is an indication, from those citizens, as an expression of discontent with the city and/or its government. Aside from recent flooding victims I don’t recall seeing too many residents from post-war growth. Is this an indication that these areas are not plagued by the continuous issues pre-war areas constantly deal with? I think so.
Is it important that this distinction is made? I think so. What efforts have been made by citizens that make up these pre-war tracts to develop a plan to reverse these problems?
An interesting thought, Jameson. However, for the 4 years that I have been attending city council meetings, the only consistent attendance from the public has been a few of the progressives and Shirley Baird. The only time that anyone(pre or post WWII)else shows up is when there is something "big". Flood, sewer rate, smoking or a neighborhood shows up to be against some zoning change--then you never see them again.
I will ammend the above a bit. Ms Denhart used to be a regular along with Ms Bolovschak. Have not seen VA for at least a couple years and Ms Denhart still occasionally attends. There have been a few other who have attended on regular basis for a short period of time but then quit.
Even worse, in the last city election, there were 4 new members of the council elected. Want to know how many times I saw any of those 4 at council meetings in the months preceding the election and the couple months post election? One and that was only once or twice. You would have thought that once elected they would at least show up to have some idea of what was going on before they took office.
Mark, I wouldn't argue against what you said at 8:58.
You’re making the same point Randy was, in his article, about citizen participation. From my observation I have seen more people from the older urban core in attendance then I do post-war development. I'm assuming that these individuals are more dissatisfied with the city than the latter.
Like you said, only when you see big issues on the agenda do you see a larger variety of citizens and even then each issue results in different turnouts.
The sewer issue crowd was very different then the flooding crowd.
What I was trying to point out is that not all of New Albany is bad and the distinction should and needs to be made. I was using the public's attendance as an indicator of dissatisfaction. It may be a bad example to use do to the overall low attendance from all citizenry.
I feel this is important because pre-war parts of the city have unique issues and only when we identify these specifics can a much needed plan be formulated.
What is lacking is a plan and agreement with what is wrong.
RemCha: I don't read things the way you do...but that's not unusual.
I do not see the lack of attention paid as "satisfaction," but I don't see it as just apathy, either.
I honestly think it is surrender - in a belief that the system is broken and nothing they do will matter in a system so bound by inertia.
The "pre-WWII" designation is just coincidence. I think it is individuals. Perhaps you can make a case that these individuals are outliers and outliers are more likely to live in the "pre-WWII" areas. But maybe there is a corresponding boldness and activist spirit that is offended by what they see.
But they see because they are looking, not because of where they live, how they think, or something else.
I simply think the non-attending cadre aren't looking, don't want to look, and find what they see when they do look to be distasteful.
And it could just be that some of them are perfectly content that someone, anyone, is doing the looking for them.
If you think the readers of this blog only live in "pre-WWII" areas, you are mistaken. They might have a heart for the urban core, but they don't live there, per se.
J, do you disagree that New Albany has put out (by negligence, probably) the welcome mat for slumlords and criminals?
“I honestly think it is surrender - in a belief that the system is broken and nothing they do will matter in a system so bound by inertia.”
Yes, I agree there are individuals that feel this way and in my day to day encounters it’s the citizens who live in the urban core who feel the system is broken and nothing they do will matter. What these citizens feel is broken is the ability of city government to reverse the trend in the urban core. This distinction points to the low participation from even this defined group.
.
The other type of people I encounter are the people who think the system is broken but it in a completely different way and their perspectives are in the desire for small government. These people don’t want any government interfering in their daily lives and feel that the system is broken because no matter what they say government will always interfere, tax, and spend more money. I do meet individuals that feel this way, who live in the urban core, but most of them live in post-war developments. These individuals don’t have the same concerns that plague pre-war neighborhoods. They don’t have to deal with unkept properties, petty crime, zoning issues, garage fires, slum lords, perverts, etc.
This brings me back to my original point, not all of New Albany is bad and the distinction needs to be made. I was never trying to explain why citizens don’t participate, only trying drawing an example with who attends meetings and why they might attend.
I never said anything about how readers of this blog feel or where the live.
And to answer your question, from your second post, is a perfect example of my first comment. Post-war areas are not dealing with slum lords and criminals to the degree that we in the urban core are.
Has New Albany kept the welcome mat out for these individuals? My answer is only in certain parts but there are many reasons why that has occurred. One reason is the physical characteristics of those areas allow for exploitation.
J, I don't think New Albany is actually large enough, geographically, to make the distinction between pre- and post-war neighborhoods.
Maybe there are those who can pretend it doesn't exist...it frankly sounds like you've been circulating with more of those "rugged individualists" among us who feel no responsibility for their neighbors and believe their relatively nice neighborhood is that way because they are so virtuous and independent, and not because all of us and our ancestors created this city.
It is interesting that you think this.
I certainly see the different neighborhoods.
What of the areas around Slate Run, Klerner Lane, Mt. Tabor, Daisy Lane, Green Valley, Rainbow Dr., and Charlestown?
These are all areas that are mostly post-war development with very little in common when it comes to the issues listed earlier.
Are saying that you never encountered people that believe in small government?
Small government? Like turning over public land for private use and asking the police to enforce that parking?
Lincoln said government's purpose is to do what the people could not do as well individually.
The people I oppose are the ones who squander our assets in the name of "smaller government."
I will say this: I haven't run into anyone who has looked at what New Albany provides for the price and says "I'm satisfied with the way our money is being spent. We've done enough and done it well. Time to erect a statue."
What type of political theory one adheres to is only part of the greater issue, but it doesn't change my original point that not all of New Albany is bad and until that distinction is made we won’t see the right kind of improvement.
Aside from the NSP project, which is Federal dollars, what other projects is the city doing to reinvest into neighborhoods that don't qualify for CBDG?
I agree that NA's not at all as bad as Mogadishu.
It's not as good as the majority of the cities of similar size that I've visited in Western Europe.
New Albany isn't in Europe its in America and in the Midwest.
Yes, the parts of New Albany that need help really need help.
Will two-way traffic, pools, and ball parks fix those problems?
Or should New Albany be focusing on projects like the NSP but in areas that don't receive CBDG?
Nice egregious "two way streets" shot. Made my day.
I agree that there are oodles and oddles of nuts and bolts to be tended to. Absolutely. I believe the gist of it all is whether there exists any more or less commitment to basics like ordinance enforcement in older vs newer parts of town, and why the core regularly gets savaged.
Sorry, now I gotta go make a buck. Sadly, probably literally.
Look where Randy lives. The surrounding streets are very nice; well kept yards, vary little rental property, and low crime.
Why is this area like this? But only a few blocks toward the west it begins to change?
Can all of the Urban Core neighborhoods look like his?
Got to go too.
Just pointing out the difference in stratagy, with the two-way street comment.
Post a Comment