Flip a coin: Four-corner stall or fast break?

Over at Facebook the other day, I queried at-large council member (and independent mayoral candidate) Jack Messer about his opposition to expanding the city's riverfront development district, as originally discussed here: The nightmare scenario: Weapons of mass pub grub destruction.

Roger to Jack: "Given that the state ATC already defines the legal requirements of all alcohol permittees, including an obligation for them to serve food, what safeguards are you suggesting beyond the state's existing ones? And, what do restaurants with three-ways have to do with policing? Aren't the state boys poaching already? Thanks."

Jack to Roger: "In answer to your question, I and other members of the committee think that with the way things are right now, we need to support the existing establishments and promote the growth in the area that we have now, I feel that this is the most important thing to try to accomplish. With expanding the area, we would possibly only pick up one business and that right now is on hold after talking to the owners. I also feel that since I am in the 11th hour of my elected office as councilman, I don't think decisions like this are in the best interest of a new council that would be taking office. For too long now, things have been done in the past to try to undermine the will of the people. If the community thinks that this would build New Albany in a positive way, then the next council can deal with this. It also seems to me that the only person concerned about this is part of this administration and not from the public. Maybe a political favor is at work here.

He didn't really answer my question, but that can be another topic for another time. What I noticed first was the underlined portion above, which seems quite clear in the sense of Messer signalling his lame duck intent: I'm almost gone, and the next group can deal with this.

Fair enough, I guess, except that candidate Messer had an entirely different view of pro-activity with respect to a measure approved at last night's council meeting, as quoted in OSIN on Thursday (pop-up alert):

Councilman and mayoral candidate Jack Messer said he favors the amended code. He said “leaving things undone isn’t going to solve the problem of getting things done.”

“If it’s a tie, nobody wins. So to kill it would be an injustice to the people of the community that wanted it,” he said. “I think it should be tabled and brought back up when there’s a full council.”

So, isn't it fair to ask: Should, or should not, the council leave things undone in its declining weeks?

And: Why is washing one's legislative hands of it the correct path as pertains to the riverfront development district, but the incorrect one when it comes to the amended voting procedure?

I consider this a purely rhetorical question, by the way. In a wider world outside the atrophied shores of Scribnerdom, immediate communication has been enabled, and perhaps even perfected, via platforms like Facebook, and yet sadly, Messer isn't the only New Albany political hopeful inclined to emulate the famous television commercial's advice when questioning time begins.

The voting measure went through: New Albany council strengthens code enforcement measure; Motion requiring majority vote to pass or fail a measure approved (Suddeath; OSIN; pop-ups)