.JPG) |
| And yet, Bank remains a one-way street, just like our politics. |
Yes, every City Hall argument deployed in favoring the Coyle site development simultaneously argues AGAINST the farmers market build-out.
The build-out begins this week.
By the way, it’s an election year.
From December, 2014, after the city did what is said it wouldn't ...
Farmers Market expenditure: Nash, Board of Works rubber stamp flat Duggins "wait" lie.
... here are ...
10 reasons why Jeff Gahan's quarter-million dollar farmers market fluff job is wrong for New Albany.
It squanders irreplaceable infill residential potential on what might be a signature downtown corner – at a time when City Hall insists that such infill is a priority.
As such, it offers yet another example of disjointed, congratulatory-plaque-ready “thinking” that does not adhere to a coherent, self-reinforcing master plan.
It blatantly contradicts City Hall’s publicly stated intent to wait for the Speck street study before making a decision.
It blatantly contradicts the city council’s publicly stated position in favor of waiting for the Speck street study.
It reinforces Jeff Gahan’s enduring (and increasing disturbing) contempt for pluralism and public discussion.
It provides yet another example of Jeff Gahan’s enduring (and increasingly disturbing) penchant for edicts as rubber-stamped through clandestine activity with appointed boards, as opposed to public votes taken by elected officials.
It plainly rewards the wrong merchants, given that any money given to farmers (and to most vendors) does not remain in the city.
It just as plainly reminds us that as yet, there is no coherent downtown economic development plan to reward the right merchants, namely the ones who have invested in downtown, rather than loaded a truck with tomatoes from Orange County.
It may not even reward Develop New Albany, which for its many terminal faults has managed to steward the farmers market successfully, but likely now will see the market come under the control of the city parks department.
As such, City Hall’s latest exculpatory explanation that $250,000 will buy a facility suitable for use not only as a farmers market, but also as a likely parks department-controlled venue for other events (a) once again points to the unsuitability of Bicentennial Park as a venue; (b) once again points to the ongoing neglect of the Riverfront Amphitheater; (c) once again is an inefficient use of city property better saved for infill; and (d) once again testifies to City Hall’s proclivity for scattershot political appeasement rather than coherent, interlinked progress.
Now, ten links.
No comments:
Post a Comment