In today’s preview, the News and Tribune ‘Bama Pop-Up Machine’s reporter Daniel Suddeath considers one item that will not be on tonight’s agenda: Last month’s tabled funding request from New Albany First, the city's first ever grassroots advocacy group for independent small business.
I find it slightly odd that CM John Gonder’s explanation herein, to the effect that such future funding requests should be for specific economic development projects, merely repeats what was said aloud during council discussions when the idea was first minted.
But far richer is CM Kevin Zurschmiede’s “slap in the face” line.
In a muddled piece of sophistry, Zurschmiede seems to be saying that existing organizations like Develop New Albany (a) get pride of place at the table, but (b) have been underfunded by the council in the past, and (c) would be insulted by monies devoted to any new organization which (d) seeks to accomplish something the existing ones have not attempted.
Any disinterested observer might respond by asking a few basic questions of Zurschmiede:
Why is an organization disqualified from requesting money just because it is new?
Any disinterested observer might respond by asking a few basic questions of Zurschmiede:
Why is an organization disqualified from requesting money just because it is new?
Isn't it possible that "new" trends, ideas and programs sometimes come along, and are worthy -- like when telephones replaced smoke signals?
Exactly what have these existing organizations done to help businesses?
If existing organizations actually have helped businesses, why has the council underfunded them?
If the $75,000 set aside by the council must be earmarked for existing organizations, why haven’t any of them yet followed the stated guidelines and come to ask for the money?
If they have not asked for money, aren’t they under-performing when it comes to helping businesses?
Of course, there’s the much-debated objection that NA First’s tabled request for monies included salary for a director. I understand why this is an issue. At the same time, DNA’s current president is being amply remunerated, albeit indirectly, with Federal cash via the mayor’s fix with the Midtown neighborhood stabilization program.
Exactly what have these existing organizations done to help businesses?
If existing organizations actually have helped businesses, why has the council underfunded them?
If the $75,000 set aside by the council must be earmarked for existing organizations, why haven’t any of them yet followed the stated guidelines and come to ask for the money?
If they have not asked for money, aren’t they under-performing when it comes to helping businesses?
Of course, there’s the much-debated objection that NA First’s tabled request for monies included salary for a director. I understand why this is an issue. At the same time, DNA’s current president is being amply remunerated, albeit indirectly, with Federal cash via the mayor’s fix with the Midtown neighborhood stabilization program.
Perhaps the true moral of the story is that NA First shouldn’t have asked the city council for funding. Rather, it should have approached Doug England directly, and had him arrange a meeting with Barack Obama, who'd gladly write that $108K check.
New Albany First funding to remain tabled; Zurschmiede: $80,000 request ‘slap in the face’ to other organizations
Councilman Kevin Zurschmiede said his personal feelings about New Albany First are separate from what he believes the role of the public sector is when it comes to funding the organization.
“I stand behind what they’re trying to do, however, I don’t think the council can provide funding for a new organization like that,” he said.
Beyond being a member of the organization, Zurschmiede said the council has scarcely provided funding for Develop New Albany, which was formed in 1990.
Appropriating $80,000 for a new group like New Albany First would come as a “slap in the face” to organizations that have been established and helping businesses for several years in the city, he continued.
I don't find Gonder's explanation odd at all. It's dead on, matches the funding ordinance language, and would dispel much of what Zurschmeide said since his protestations hinge on salary and general expense funding. (Worth noting here is that his position should beget a "no" vote to DNA, 1Si, etc., if they come asking for the same type of support. Otherwise, he'll be doing the slapping he describes.)
ReplyDeleteSusan Kaempfer's indefensibly expensive redevelopment contract is gross nepotism that negatively impacts both NSP and DNA-- a shining example of what's been wrong the past few years. I'm glad an NA First director wasn't put in a similar position as it allows them to remain an actual grassroots organization engaged in changing the overall paradigm rather than repeating the missteps of the past.
Jeff, I didn't do a very good job of explaining myself.
ReplyDeleteFrom the first time the NA First idea came up, I've been thinking that I was at the council meeting when it was first said that the monies were for specific projects. This has been in the back of my mind, but I can't find my notes or the passage in NAC that would support it.
Today, I merely find it odd that John's now saying this aloud, when it was said at the very start, all along. Then again, I have been refraining from council attendance.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYour recollections are correct. I'm not sure why this proposal went as far as it did before changes were required, except that some people involved just simply weren't aware of all the previous gyrations. Council members among others certainly should've known.
ReplyDeleteIn that context of "knowing", Kevin Z's thoughts make more sense, as long as he holds the same line for other fund requesters as well from here on out. To be clear, though, he and others didn't hold that line with 1Si during their last request for general, non-project specific funding, voting to approve it. That's inconsistent "slapping", too, and needs to be corrected.
Learn, adjust, learn some more, adjust some more, and move forward accordingly. Rinse and repeat. This is life, no?
ReplyDeleteI am going to agree with you on this one Roger. DNA should not have some built in primacy in funding just because they were first, in fact DNA does not even meet its mandate which is defined by its HUD origin.
ReplyDeleteDNA has been a failure from the beginning. I don't know anything about this new organization, but I do know downtown development will not happen without a professional on the job and DNA is not the answer.
For the record, DNA is an affiliate of the National Main Street Center, developed by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Many federal agencies supported the center's development early on.
ReplyDeletePerformance standards can be found here.
4. Possesses an historic preservation ethic.
ReplyDeleteHistoric preservation is central to the Main Street program's purpose and is what makes historic and traditional commercial districts authentic places.
As I understand it - "New Albany First" is a "buy-local" org.
Why, if they have different missions, are they fighting for the same funding?
here's a solution fund neither one and let the downtown merchants pony up the funds
ReplyDelete