"Tear It Down," Sayeth the Councilman, Part 4: "I say do the work for which you're being paid."

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3


Jeff wrapped and tied the 922 Culbertson conclusion, and a discussion ensued. I'll let the participants speak for themselves.

And there you have it, folks: In 20 minutes, I just did more due diligence, provided more information, in terms of potential uses and impacts of corner stores and small, neighborhood commercial structures than the entirety of our city government has done in the past year. My councilman says: It's ugly. Tear it down. I say do the work for which you're being paid.

Greg Phipps
Maybe you should run for councilman next year.
2 hrs · Like

Jeff Gillenwater
Such a cop out, Greg. This passive-aggressive stuff is old already.
2 hrs · Like

Jeff Gillenwater
But this is how it goes: any number of citizens ask rightful, highly relevant questions. You get offended that you're tied to such, and jump in on a personal umbrage note claiming all is well and above board. Those questions, though - today and many times before- such as they address actual processes that impact the city and our lives in it, are duly ignored. There is no explanation, no justification offered, no anything in terms of regular communication, desired outcomes, strategy, nothing.. If you're offended by being mentioned as complicit in silence, how are the rest of us supposed to feel?
13 hours ago · Like

Greg Phipps
Jeff, the city council has no control over what happens to that building, those decisions are made by the administration and or redevelopment. I didn't make the statement in anger, I'm serious if someone else want to step-up and run for council I will gladly step aside.
12 hours ago · Like

Roger A. Baylor
Greg, very gently: And you abdicated whatever bully pulpit a councilman might possess by advocating the building's demolition, and to my ears, a tad flippantly. Jeff's question about due diligence is very appropriate. In this and other situations where decisions are being made behind closed doors -- as seems to be this administration's default setting -- if your brief does not include promoting transparency, then what exactly does it contain?
12 hours ago · Like

Jeff Gillenwater
Pretty much what I was about to say.... and add that specific concerns about maintaining and promoting small, neighborhood commercial structures very much falls under council purview, especially in a district where they readily exist in neighborhoods designed to function with them. Likewise for many other issues that end up ignored as part of any number of closed-door dealings. If you're going to criticize Landmarks about not being proactive... I wasn't joking in the slightest when I mentioned here that my 20 minute output was more than could be attributed to the City, even with so many full time staff and part-time elected reps supposedly engaged.
12 hours ago · Like

Jeff Gillenwater
I mean, if you're not raising concerns about the mayor touting tearing down a commercial building to implement "secret" plans in your own neighborhood, what would be objectionable enough in terms of process to warrant speaking up? Those corner stores don't represent some comparatively ancient, 19th century way of thinking (though we could learn from that, too) but rather they were viable, contributing parts of higher functioning neighborhoods through the 60s, 70s, 80s. Our neighborhoods are weaker without them and removing that potential completely is difficult to justify, or at least should be.
11 hours ago · Like

Greg Phipps
Roger: If I were aware of a plan that would be detrimental to the neighborhood, I would speak up, this is not the current case. Jeff: I'm not opposed to corner grocery stores, but I don't see people beating down the door to locate one in New Albany, if they are out there, there are plenty of abandoned building waiting to be developed. The bottom line is that businesses locate based on profitability not the desires of a select group in a neighborhood. I stand on my earlier statement- Tear it down.
11 hours ago · Like

Roger A. Baylor
Greg, are you aware of a plan, any plan, for this and/or other rapidly escalating vacant lots? Thanks. Your use of the word "detrimental" prompts my follow-up.
11 hours ago · Like

Greg Phipps
I have listened to the concerns of those in the immediate vicinity of this building and the majority are in favor of demolition. No one has stepped up with a complete plan to totally renovate the building. The only proposal has been to stabilize the building, then it may set empty for years before a complete renovation occurs if ever. So you criticize me for not listening to people, now when I publicly take a stand, after listening to constituents, then you criticize me "for listening" to people.
10 hours ago · Like

Jeff Gillenwater
A short time ago, no one was beating down the door to invest anywhere in downtown or midtown New Albany and, should anyone have wanted to, there were plenty of empty buildings available. Personally, I'm pretty glad they're still there and being near fully used.
10 hours ago · Like

Roger A. Baylor
Greg, I'm not doing any of that. I'm not talking about the building. I'm talking about the vacant space that will be there when it's gone, and the hundreds of others we have, sitting there, doing nothing -- holes in the fabric. I'm trying to learn if ANYONE in the city has a plan for these, and that's why I'm asking you NOT if plans you heard have been detrimental, but whether there ARE any plans at all for it? City Hall hints at such. Habitat for Humanity denies they're involved (I just asked them on Fb). Why are we knocking down all these buildings if there's no plan to utilize the empty space? Recall that Redevelopment begins with "re".
10 hours ago · Like

Roger A. Baylor
Greg: And all of it is conducted in an atmosphere of military-level state secrets. I'm sick of that, and I'm sorry, but you should be, too.
10 hours ago · Like · 1

Greg Phipps
Even if there were not a plan, wouldn't an empty lot be better than a crumbling dilapidated building? Such a lot could be used for in-fill housing.
10 hours ago · Like

Roger A. Baylor
Greg: Yes, it could. So what's the plan for in-fill housing?
10 hours ago · Like

Roger A. Baylor
Greg, and speaking to Jeff's point -- in the absence of questions and verification, the extent to which it is crumbling and dilapidated isn't really known. And, if it could be stabilized and used later, isn't this the very essence of sustainability?
10 hours ago · Like · 1

Jeff Gillenwater
This "plan" has been announced as a secret. If it truly is a secret, there's no way to judge if what's coming is better than what's currently there or could be done with the current structure. If it's not a secret, than others are responsible for helping to keep residents in the dark. Wouldn't it be better to actually market the current structure in a sincere effort to see what the possibilities actually are before declaring it dead? Why would infill housing be better than rehabbing the current structure?
10 hours ago · Edited · Like

Greg Phipps
Roger: When that lot becomes vacant, I will push for in-fill housing.
10 hours ago · Like

Greg Phipps
Roger: Stabilization with a plan would be great, but stabilization without a plan or definite time table perpetuates an eye-sore that affects the quality of life in the area.
10 hours ago · Like

Roger A. Baylor
Greg: Why won't you answer my question?
10 hours ago · Like

Greg Phipps
It's not the role of the council to announce plans, that's the role of the players who are involved.
10 hours ago · Like

Greg Phipps
Jeff: I can't imagine a plan that would be worse that what's there now.
10 hours ago · Like

Jeff Gillenwater
A) You've created a classic false dichotomy between the building as it sits now and whatever else might be put there. B) So you know what the mayor's plan is and won't tell us or you won't acknowledge if you know what the plan is? It's a simple yes or no that speaks directly to the trust issues I mentioned earlier.
10 hours ago · Like

Roger A. Baylor
Greg: Which plans? The plan for the single corner building, or the comprehensive plan for the numerous vacant lots we're creating? Can I accurately say, "Councilman Phipps concedes that he is aware of plans but cannot specify which plans he is aware of, and will not comment further?"
10 hours ago · Edited · Like

Roger A. Baylor
Greg, if you cannot answer a simple yes or no question clearly, then you quite obviously have become the politician you profess to loathe. I'm sorry for you if that's the case, but I'm sorrier for the rest of us.
10 hours ago · Edited · Like

Roger A. Baylor
Greg ... wait, but if the councilman's job is not to take any part in the decision-making process reserved for mayor and redevelopment, have you not usurped your own job description by canvassing neighbors for their opinion? Might we then judge by the tone of your disdain for this particular building that you've actually played an active role in advocacy which isn't any of the council's business? And what of these recurring arguments about "public safety" coming from an administration that will do absolutely nothing about unsafe traffic on streets in residential neighborhoods? Isn't this a "quality of life" issue, too? Is it EVER the job of council to ask City Hall to explain the hypocrisy -- or is that what Roger does?
10 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1

Jeff Gillenwater
And to think this whole conversation started by questioning my assertion that the process surrounding this building had been corrupted.
10 hours ago · Unlike · 1

Roger A. Baylor
Jeff: When the reply to every question is, "But it's a shitty old building and it must come down," I'm not sure there WAS a conversation.
10 hours ago · Like

Greg Phipps
Roger & Jeff: This will be my final statement in this matter- there is no plan at this point. Roger: You know I support two-way traffic and I will whole heartily support funding when the Speck study is completed.
10 hours ago · Like

Jeff Gillenwater
So, after significant back and forth, Councilman Phipps says Mayor Gahan is lying about there even being a plan and then won't say anything else? I know you're sticking with "Tear it down", Greg, but how about calling for honesty, at least as it pertains to your/our district?

---

There may be a part 5 if I have time.