Saturday, June 30, 2018
Anchor-approved arborist: Perhaps David Barksdale's Tree Bored can use this exciting new toy to "beautify" Market Street.
"Damn," said former redevelopment kingpin David Duggins. "If only we'd used one of these for the Greenway, Summit Springs, Main Street, Judge Cody's place, Thomas Street, Bicentennial Park ... say, do ya think it might work on those crappy buildings at my public housing estate?"
Smoking gun? City Hall finally releases the "Reimbursement Agreement" with Denton Floyd. A "do over" for Reisz is possible, isn't it?
Sorry, folks -- photo files are my only option on short notice. Excuse any sloppiness; I want to get this out.
Thanks to the Green Mouse for obtaining it.
The Reimbursement Agreement is dated August 11, 2017 -- three days after the Redevelopment Commission meeting on August 8 (read the resolution here).
As noted previously, Denton Floyd purchased the property on September 14, 2017, using the money approved in the Reimbursement Agreement on August 11.
In itself, this chronology is sufficient to expose the shadiness of Team Gahan's backroom deal; it also proves the Request for Proposal (RFP) six months later was always intended as a perfunctory sham.
To these eyes, what the city was doing last year with Denton Floyd was circumventing allegations of a backroom deal by contracting for "pre-development products" with its intended public-private partner. As such, it is stated that Denton Floyd is the presumptive partner, although of course city council approval is the final hurdle.
As such -- and I'm not a lawyer -- the agreement reads as though in the interim, Denton Floyd is to receive a sum of money to carry out certain tasks, and if council approval isn't forthcoming, ownership and improvements pass back to the city.
In short: contrary to corporate attorney Shane Gibson's assertions on the 21st, a Reisz Elephant do-over is still very much possible. Gibson said demolition would be the only alternative, but if council were to reject the backroom deal and the Reisz pass back to the city, it would still be possible for Scott Blair's market-oriented alternative suggestion to come to fruition.
Heaven forbid, it might even allow for a fair and informative RFP -- and Denton Floyd could even participate alongside other area contractors, with everyone entering through the FRONT door.
It isn't clear what Denton Floyd might do with the leftover silver platter bearing David Duggins' fingerprints, but surely area pawn shops could help.
Currently there are four "no" votes: Coffey, Blair, Aebersold and Knable. If they were to commit in good faith to saving Reisz if the present deal is rejected ... what does David Barksdale do -- apart from a good, long, post-Gahan-bed-sharing shower?
As a bonus, here is the financial analysis of the Reisz payment plan.
Following up: the Redevelopment Commission's resolution RC-06-17 is released, but not documents pertaining to the terms of the $750K handout to Denton Floyd.
As you'll see below, the Redevelopment Commission's Josh Staten complied promptly (two days) with my request to view the text of RC-06-17, the commission's resolution to spend public funds on the renovation of the Reisz Elephant, as well as two other buildings. I appreciate Staten doing this.
However, we've yet to see documents pertaining to conditions, agreements and contingencies approved by the city and Denton Floyd as a prelude to the handover of the check.
Reisz Elephant: Lawyer Gibson hails redevelopment's back-room RFP fix as an excellent way to do business with just one company.
Jeff Gahan handed Denton Floyd $750,000 to kick-start the Reisz project. Where are the documents detailing this transaction?
To reiterate, throughout city council’s discussion of the Reisz project, from May 2018 to the present, including the 35 questions for Gibson to answer (or artfully evade) on June 21, the actual text of the resolution and the content of accompanying legal documents have not been seen … by anyone, on council or off, although presumably the council’s two redevelopment representatives at the time, David Barksdale and Bob Caesar (the latter since replaced) viewed the terms.
These details are rather important, aren’t they?
Would any self-respecting attorney merely hand a $750,000 check to a contractor without specific language about the terms of the transaction taking place? There'd be signatures, right? And wouldn't there be detailed explanations of contingencies, the simplest being things like insurance coverage and time frames?
Or are we to believe that former (seriously?) redevelopment chieftain David Duggins brought a briefcase filled with C-notes to the limousine for Denton Floyd's public-officials-only Keeneland junket (with paid models) last September?
Isn't it impossible to believe that the Redevelopment Commission resolution and/or legal agreements between the city and Denton Floyd explaining the $750,000 payment AREN’T accompanied by somewhat more than a post-it note reading “if Reisz doesn’t happen, just keep the money and tear down that motherfucka”?
Absentee imperial mayor? City council should delay the Reisz Elephant vote until Deaf Gahan deigns to appear and answer questions. Isn't that why he's here?
Consider it foreshadowing (August 10, 2017):
Reisz Vote Buy Bonanza: "The News and Tribune asked to interview Mayor Jeff Gahan and was instead referred to statements in a news release."
Monday's council vote on the Municipal Government Self-Stimulation Act of 2018, aka Uncage the Reisz Elephant, will no doubt place take place with either Mike Hall or new hire Josh Staten on hand to "communicate" from the mayor.
It will be the latest in a long series of absolutely critical, time-sensitive-or-the-deluge council ballots at which Jeff Gahan has remained sequestered in the command bunker with the campaign finance abacus, a case of Bud Light Tangerine and the Netflix play list.
Of course, there's good reason why the forever agoraphobic Gahan's team of bootlicking sycophants must keep him safely secured against questions, and it's because the moment any public interaction strays from the script (read: eludes the control of handlers), the mayor's inability to improvise, or to connect with genuine human beings (as opposed to inanimate objects) is blatantly exposed.
When this happens, the harder Gahan tries, the worse it gets -- and the angrier he becomes.
In this now legendary video from city hall's rigged January meeting about the "Mayor Jeff M. Gahan Presents the Mt. Tabor Campaign Finance and Roadway Expansion Project," the mayor's petulance escalates with each of his dully repetitive refrains of "that's why we're here," until he's aggressively demanding to know why citizens aren't listening to him, even as he insists that this Potemkin facade of a meeting was staged to prove he's listening to them.
It's required viewing for every voter in 2019, and would be a comedy classic if not for the gravity of Gahan's serial ineptitude.
Will we catch a glimpse of the Great White Hope amid Monday's final vote on the Reisz Elephant? In my view, council should delay the vote until Gahan materializes to answer questions.
Meanwhile, last evening's guest column is worth a hard look.
Councilman David Barksdale's role in the Reisz Affair deserves closer scrutiny -- and his fellow historic preservationists should be the ones most worried. They've tied themselves to one mayor and his squalid motives, and thrown all their eggs into one basket.
Reisz's ripple effects will be much less in terms of economic development than proponents claim, and far more extensive as they pertain to compromising historic preservationists' credibility.
GUEST COLUMN: David Barksdale must recuse himself from the Reisz city hall vote.
As for the municipal corporate attorney's scowling and defensive (35 Questions) performance before council on June 21st -- these being the questions Gahan should be answering -- let's turn it over to the newspaper.
NEW ALBANY: Debate rages on over Reisz building, by Chris Morris (A Tom May Joint)
NEW ALBANY — For more than one hour New Albany City Attorney Shane Gibson stood before the city council Thursday night and answered 35 questions submitted to him about the proposed move of city hall to the vacant Reisz Furniture building. Many of the questions had been asked before, and many focused on the yearly payment and the added space the city would be acquiring.
Thursday was just a preview of what's to come.
The council plans to take a final vote on whether to move city offices to the Reisz building, which would be developed by Denton Floyd Real Estate Group, on July 2. Gibson will be back to answer more questions then prior to the vote, and provide additional input. The ordinance to use Economic Development Income Tax money for the project passed its first two readings last month by a 5-4 vote.
Friday, June 29, 2018
GUEST COLUMN: David Barksdale must recuse himself from the Reisz city hall vote.
I wrote these words in 2015.
During the time I’ve been paying attention to the local scene, there simply has not been any point of comparison with the atmosphere today in terms of retribution, intimidation and implied vengeance.
For those in support of the opposition, the consistent message is there’ll be hell to pay if the incumbent loses his bid for re-election.
My calls for UN election monitors and assistance from the Jimmy Carter Center are only partly in jest, because the situation is getting increasingly tense as voting draws near.
It's three years later, and my efforts to enlist just one or two local contractors to comment on the process by which Denton Floyd was handed the Reisz city hall project, with an unprecedented accompanying cash gift of 750,000, have met with eerily similar replies: "Roger, how can we still do business in this city if we talk openly about this?"
Trust me, folks. Had Team Gahan solicited open bids with the promise of three-quarters of a million up front, with the building's purchase price already pre-determined, and the promise that future EDIT money would preclude the possibility of failure ... let's just say that numerous contractors would have been competing for the project.
But the fix was in, and as I write, redevelopment continues to withhold the documents detailing the terms of the $750,000 check's handover to Denton Floyd -- unless, of course, there are no documents.
Pro tip: that's even worse.
I can verify the identity of the writer of this guest column, who also fears retaliation. Many community pillars don't want to hear it, and it's time their snooze ceased. It is a well-founded fear, and an oft-repeated reality. The only surprise at this point is that members of Gahan's inner circle haven't started wearing identical leather jackets.
---
Council,
Some of you know me well. Some of you barely know who I am. I no longer attend your meetings as frequently as I once did. Why? Because I sincerely believe that you as a body and you as individual councilmen have no interest whatsoever in hearing from your constituents, whether they are knowledgeable resources you could use or deluded lunatics. You ignore anyone who does not pay to or get paid by you.
This “deal” with Denton Floyd for a luxurious new city hall on Main Street is not only unwise but obviously criminal, pitifully evil, and abjectly corrupt. I hope you all have lawyers on retainer, because when the lawsuits begin, you will all be called as witnesses, if not as parties, and you will need the effective assistance of counsel.
But let’s forget for a moment the criminality. This is just foolish. This city’s resources are incredibly limited, with almost no revenues that you can deploy on a discretionary basis. To commit $10 million to a new, luxurious city hall that is by no measure a necessity is an abdication of your fiduciary duties.
You are poised to approve an enormous commitment of city funds, knowing full well that huge chunks of that will wind up in the pockets of craven bureaucrats that also have fiduciary duties to the citizens of New Albany. Further, I can find no evidence that the developer in question is committing even a single dime, risking even a penny. I can’t think of any developer – or investor of any sort – who would reject this deal. That reinforces my conviction that this is a deal riddled with corruption.
Your vote on Monday night will be your legacy. A “yea” vote will become a political Mark of Cain that will haunt you for the rest of your days. For the Democrats slavering to heed the orders of their master, it will be the vote that eliminates your party from participation in local government for at least a generation.
But I’m here to address the lone Republican who favors this boondoggle. At least I think he’s a Republican. He might be the only person in that party who supports it. Perhaps he’s switching parties?
I am greatly in favor of historic preservation of significant buildings. I think I’ve demonstrated that adequately through advocacy and at least modest financial support. But there is one person in this city who is most closely identified with that cause – David Barksdale – or as the local newspaper calls him, “Dave.”
David, Dave, Davie … you must recuse yourself from this vote.
I seriously doubt that you have a financial stake in the outcome of this vote. I will grant you that much respect. But you have a massive conflict of interest. I vigorously disagree with your stance on this, but your reputation, also, is at stake. If you are known for anything, it is your commitment to the historic preservation of buildings. Monday's vote is your payoff.
For you to take this bribe, for you to abdicate your fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers in exchange for this pitiful – in fact, arguable – “preservation” bauble is an egregious blunder. The others planning to vote yes will pay a political price. You, David, will surrender your integrity.
Step out of your seat. Come to this podium and advocate for this diversion of public funds. I would disagree with you, but I might still respect you. But you must not cast a vote in favor. You do not have the objectivity necessary to ethically cast a vote. Recuse yourself. Abstain.
The Reisz building can still be put to adaptive re-use. Do not pretend that this is the only, or even the best proposal. Your colleagues have offered intriguing alternatives that meet the same objectives at far less cost. Let us, as a city, debate these. If the Reisz building is endangered, condemn it and seek a more rational program to restore it in place.
But do not sacrifice your reputation by pretending that you are looking at this objectively. You can’t. Media accounts report that if this were a vote on $15 million or $20 million in financial commitment, you still would vote yes. That alone is evidence that you cannot separate your devotion to historic preservation from your duties as a councilman.
Save your reputation. Step aside for this vote. Your constituents will have no problem if you move to table this notion and spend the next six months trying to sway David Aebersold or Scott Blair or Dan Coffey or Al Knable to support your views.
But you cannot be the deciding vote on a 5-4 vote on this proposal.
Chris Morris on distracted driving: "Pedestrians have the right-of-way, and don’t block crosswalks with your vehicles."
 |
| True story. |
Those of us not cocooned in our cars understand quite well what it is.
Bullying, or the routine aggression that characterizes bad driving behavior.
We’ve all been there. You’re crossing the street, thinking you have a clear path, when the driver waiting at the light starts lurching into the crosswalk, itching for the green signal. Before you know it, you and everyone else crossing has to squeeze around this bully.
Inspired by a recent Jonathan McLeod post (headline: “Stop fucking driving your car at people”), I set out to catalogue a few of the most obnoxious behaviors people routinely engage in behind the wheel of a car.
Intersection bullying — when motorists occupy a chunk of crosswalk real estate that belongs to pedestrians with the right of way — is just one example of the many nasty, antisocial, and downright dangerous things drivers do when they’re interacting with people outside their car.
There’s a ton of bad driving behavior that should be socially unacceptable, but for some reason, granted the anonymity of a car, people engage in it anyway. This routine aggression needs to be called out for what it is — bullying.
Chris Morris nails this one.
MORRIS: Dealing with distracted drivers (Raycom Meets Tom May)
One of the reasons given for New Albany’s street conversion last year was to slow traffic, making it safer to not only drive in the city, but to walk, jog and ride a bike without the fear of being hit by a speeding car.
But city government can’t legislate distracted driving or those motorists who ignore traffic signals and crosswalks. Unless the police see it, not much can be done. So, a year later, are the streets safer?
Let’s say things have improved.
As a regular walker and jogger I see people every day ignore basic principles of driving on a downtown street. The main ones being pedestrians have the right-of-way, and don’t block crosswalks with your vehicles.
Here is what I see regularly at crosswalks: A motorist will pull up to the stop, ignore both me and the crosswalk, and wait for an opening before pulling out into traffic. Even though I was there first, and already had a step in the crosswalk, they just go on as if I were invisible. This one drives me crazy. Crosswalks are there for a reason, to allow walkers a safe path to cross a street.
This happens regularly in the morning as I cross Eighth Street. I usually have to jog behind or between cars because the crosswalk is covered up by a vehicle. It’s like I am invisible as they prepare to pull out onto Spring Street ...
What is CASA?
First, break down the acronym: CASA means Court Appointed Special Advocates.
My command of mathematics is forever shaky, but CASA of Floyd & Washington County was founded on January 10, 1978, meaning the organization is celebrating its 40th anniversary this year. The video provides a good introduction, and there's more information at CASA's Facebook page.
CASA Program
Every year, over 700,000 children in the U.S. experience abuse and neglect. Court Appointed Special Advocates in Floyd and Washington Counties are the spokespersons in court for these children. Volunteers undergo 30 intensive hours of training, are sworn in by a judge and make a year-long commitment to build a relationship with a child to help them find stability and hope for the future.
Thursday, June 28, 2018
Got conscience? In terms of Gahan, Barksdale and the Reisz Elephant, the wants of the few outweigh the needs of the many.
I was going to hold this until morning ... nah. I try to write well, and spend a lot of time on it, but tonight let's charge into it. Straight through, correct whatever mistakes I see with bleary eyes, and keep moving.
No one doubts that the current 3rd-floor City Hall struggles mightily with cramped and ancient office space in the decades-old city county building.
But have you ever heard a Gahan appointee admit error, even once?
To listen to Team Gahan relentlessly extol its own virtues, these past six and a half years have been a golden era of immaculate perfection.
As such, how can it be said that work space deficiencies have prevented Wile E. Gahan from effortlessly leaping from victory to victory?
We know better, of course, and it's just one of numerous circular arguments being deployed by the sycophants on behalf of a project of unfettered self-aggrandizement so brazen that there's really no parallel in the city's previous history.
With hard times all around, Jeff Gahan and David Barksdale are getting THEIRS, and they'e intent on getting it right now.
Maybe this is why the $10,000,000 Reisz luxury city hall plan is Peak Gahanism.
At a time when greater numbers of the city's residents than ever before are in need of assistance, Gahan's answer is to spend millions on himself. It's about the wants of the few versus the needs of the many, and displays hubris of such a high caliber that Donald Trump seems a meek and modest librarian by comparison.
Yet four Democrats and one Republican oblivious to daily life in this city somehow believe the best way to spend $10,000,000 million is on government's needs -- and meanwhile, Gahan continues to crow and strut about his masterpiece plan to displace public housing residents. He hasn't had the basic cojones to move forward with rental property inspections, and yet somehow, magically, voucher-ready apartments will soon be fruitfully multiplying.
Gahan ignores the consternation he's caused by annexing public housing. He can't bring himself to concede the existence of an affordable housing problem, or a homelessness problem, or a drug problem. In fact, he recoils from the very mention of human existence on his watch.
But a new city hall in a historically marginal warehouse? We definitely need to spend $10,000,000 on THAT.
As a longtime historic preservationist, Barksdale's probably incapable of a rational vote on this issue -- if he were being honest, he shouldn't vote at all -- but it's the four Democrats who amaze.
They pretend to adhere to a party platform that emphasizes fealty and commitment to the working man, but they see no contradictions in public housing demolitions accompanied by luxury government office boondoggles.
Not one of them grasps how the Reisz Elephant appears to the man and woman in the street, or can fathom that political behavior like theirs is what has put local Democrats in a position of sheer desperation with regard to holding power.
How is it that Democrats rationalize $10,000,000 for plush new offices when their constituents are suffering? Maybe grabbing as much as possible before the tsunami sweeps them into the gutter?
It defies logic. Unfortunately, it doesn't defy political patronage and blind loyalty to the Godfather -- and the money pours into Gahan's campaign coffers.
Readers, do me a small favor and remember this next year come election time. We'll have one, maybe two chances to restore values and integrity to city government. We simply cannot abide four more years of Democratic misrule -- and no, I don't prefer Republican.
Nine principled female independents on city council, maybe?
ON THE AVENUES: Said the spider to the fly -- will you please take a slice of Reisz?
ON THE AVENUES: Said the spider to the fly -- will you please take a slice of Reisz?
A weekly column by Roger A. Baylor.
“Will you walk into my parlour?” said the Spider to the Fly,
'Tis the prettiest little parlour that ever you did spy;
The way into my parlour is up a winding stair,
And I've a many curious things to show when you are there.”
“Oh no, no,” said the little Fly, “to ask me is in vain,
For who goes up your winding stair can never come down again.”
“I'm sure you must be weary, dear, with soaring up so high;
Will you rest upon my little bed?” said the Spider to the Fly.
“There are pretty curtains drawn around; the sheets are fine and thin,
And if you like to rest awhile, I'll snugly tuck you in!”
“Oh no, no,” said the little Fly, “for I've often heard it said,
They never, never wake again, who sleep upon your bed!”
“Let’s spend millions to make government more luxurious.”
Said not one taxpayer, in New Albany ... ever.
That’s why the officially sanctioned City Hall plot line for the Reisz Elephant has focused on the prerequisites of historic preservation.
The obvious problem with this approach is that Jeff Gahan’s fervent and impassioned public commitment to historic preservation resembles a tattered Halloween costume, to be pulled from the bag of tricks only once each year when the mayor’s internal campaign finance abacus indicates there may be something in "preservation" for him.
Namely, preserving and expanding his paranoia, and his power.
Haughey’s Place was just as historic as Reisz, and Gahan swept the former tavern away in spite of a solid plan to “save” it. Two new gingerbread houses, holding precisely the same number of occupants as a potentially refurbished Haughey’s, apparently were deemed brighter, shinier objects, at least in the mayor’s inner world of glitz over substance.
So it is that Gahan proposes a $10,000,000 expenditure over 15 years for the renovation of the Reisz Furniture Store into a new luxury location for city hall.
Knowing that plusher government sells about as well as warm Bud Light, Team Gahan’s selling point for the Reisz conversion continues to be those very merits of “historic preservation” he’s ignored so consistently in the past.
Let’s face it. Socially and culturally, Gahan and his sycophants are no better versed than the ordinary Communist Party hacks of old, shipped falling-down shit-faced from Outer Siberia to Moscow to be strapped to the mausoleum siding, lest they fall over it, and to view the May Day parade alongside Comrade Brezhnev.
When they so much as hear the word "art," they reach for their anchors.
However, when it comes to manipulating an intricately designed system of pure political patronage; Gahan is a veritable LeBron James, the reigning master of top-down, down-low, triple-doubled-up lubrication by means of old-school hard cash.
First and foremost, the Reisz Elephant serves a dual purpose for Gahan. It provides an escape route from shared space at the City-County Building, furthering the mayor’s overarching goal of building a wall between city and county government -- and making Mark Seabrook pay for it.
From the moment of Gahan’s accession to itty-bitty-pond power, he has maneuvered to forestall any conceivable manifestation of uni-gov, great or small, because the Democratic Party’s last remaining power base is municipal, and for the political patronage dollars to keep flowing, the fortress must be protected at any cost.
It isn’t exactly a coincidence that Republican at-large councilman David Barksdale feels historic preservation is so important that the Reisz building must be saved … at any cost.
Said the cunning Spider to the Fly, “Dear friend what can I do,
To prove the warm affection I've always felt for you?
I have within my pantry, good store of all that's nice;
I'm sure you're very welcome — will you please to take a slice?”
“Oh no, no,” said the little Fly, “kind Sir, that cannot be,
I've heard what's in your pantry, and I do not wish to see!”
Faced with the need to procure a fifth council vote for the Reisz extravagance, Gahan knew that Barksdale’s legendary tunnel vision not only facilitates the mayor's anti-county disruption tactics, but adds the indescribably sweet element of an otherwise detested Republican voting against his own party’s interests.
Unfortunately, Barksdale’s propensity for micromanaging tree seedling varieties (shade is secondary to the visibility of buildings from the vantage point of passing cars) and parsing IKEA furniture choices for streetside beautification projects better suited to suburban outlet malls (recently a downtown business owner was overheard to say, “If Barksdale doesn’t leave me alone, I’m going to board up my windows out of spite) suggests that he’s missing a bigger picture.
And the wider aims of historic preservation might well suffer for it.
Last August, it was evident that Gahan had artfully enticed the local historic preservation contingent by dangling the renovation of the former Baity Funeral Home on State Street, with a relatively inexpensive municipal tithe of $50,000 to leverage the fire-damaged building into headquarters for Indiana Landmarks (currently situated in Jeffersonville).
Of course, a finger in Jeffersonville Mike Moore’s eye always is a nice bonus.
With preservationists properly baited, the hook was easily set. There’s nothing controversial about the Baity renovation, while every last detail of the Reisz transaction is a journey into the ethics-free morass of self-interested Gahanism, thus the necessity of snaring Barksdale, presently leading a brigade of well-intentioned historic preservationists into a proxy war to defend Gahan’s political imperatives.
Because: these imperatives are all the Reisz Elephant has. Take away the politics, and Keeneland’s just another race track.
“Sweet creature!” said the Spider, “you're witty and you're wise,
How handsome are your gauzy wings, how brilliant are your eyes!
I've a little looking-glass upon my parlour shelf,
If you'll step in one moment, dear, you shall behold yourself.”
“I thank you, gentle sir,” he said, “for what you're pleased to say,
And bidding you good morning now, I'll call another day.”
The Spider turned him round about, and went into his den,
For well he knew the silly Fly would soon come back again:
So he wove a subtle web, in a little corner sly,
And set his table ready, to dine upon the Fly.
As an example, there is a potentially strong case for Reisz’s redemption according to historic preservation in a context of economic development. Team Gahan is aware of the subject heading, if not the entire essay, and has espoused it in connection with Reisz.
But the particulars of Gahan’s Reisz methodology largely negate the case for “ripple effect” economic development. The Reisz Elephant itself is a stodgy, embellishment-free warehouse. Passing traffic on the interstate won’t be diverting to view government offices in a warehouse.
And, as a government building, Reisz will be removed from the tax rolls. Precisely the same number of employees will be shifted three blocks, which is a wash economically, although they’ll pick up a few Fitbit steps by walking an extra block back for lunch at the Hitching Post.
In short, Barksdale’s current political coordinates – and by extension, historic preservation’s hard-earned credibility – can be viewed as resting dead center at the bottom of Gahan’s squalid political sewer.
Then he came out to his door again, and merrily did sing,
“Come hither, hither, pretty Fly, with the pearl and silver wing;
Your robes are green and purple — there's a crest upon your head;
Your eyes are like the diamond bright, but mine are dull as lead!”
Alas, alas! how very soon this silly little Fly,
Hearing his wily, flattering words, came slowly flitting by;
With buzzing wings he hung aloft, then near and nearer drew,
Thinking only of his brilliant eyes, and green and purple hue —
Thinking only of her crested head — poor foolish thing!
At last,
Up jumped the cunning Spider, and fiercely held him fast.
He dragged him up his winding stair, into his dismal den,
Within his little parlour — but he ne'er came out again!
The Reisz at any cost? Barksdale and his cohorts might first have considered the price of co-option. Our elders were astute when they observed that when you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.
As it stands, the Godfather’s unctuous corporate counsel Shane Gibson has defined the ruling clique’s terms: either Don Gahan’s way or the landfill. It’s a threat aimed squarely at Barksdale and the co-opted historic preservationists, who now must play the roles scripted for them, or else.
Hear me now: This is a bluff, and it’s utter bullshit.
At Wednesday’s public meeting, 6th district independent councilman Scott Blair repeated that it isn’t too late to make sense of the muddle. There are alternatives and options.
In Blair's view, the most rational course forward for the city of New Albany, having already invested in $750,000 to Denton Floyd by handing the real estate company a check contrived by a secret protocol known only to the upper echelons, is to invest in the Reisz building’s stabilization and remarketing.
Then, the city’s “skin in the same” would be an investment of roughly $1,250,000 in a building that most of us would like to save, a level playing field, and subsequently, the platform for truly fair bidding process. After all, lots of contractors would have been "interested" in submitting Reisz proposals had they been offered the sweetheart deal proffered to Denton Floyd.
The pause also gives downtown stakeholders a chance to participate in the conceptualization, rather than restricting it to Gahan and two of his closest cronies. Isn't the "free" market supposed to be about a multiplicity of ideas, not just one preferred option?
As Blair points out, the city already owns property on the southwest corner of Main and Pearl, where a parking garage once stood. A made-to-spec city hall could be built there for far less than the anticipated Reisz payments, and with Reisz renovated by the private sector, it would remain on the tax rolls and actually fulfill the economic development arguments at the heart of judicious historic preservation.
The only reason why Blair’s sensible proposals are being stonewalled is the intransigence of Gahan … and Barksdale.
Their fix is in, their timetables are set, and the tragedy of this whole story is that Barksdale, who means well, doesn’t understand the extent to which he’s being used by an egocentric and inveterate manipulator.
Consequently, historic preservationists might get their chosen building, but by hitching the wagon to Gahan’s unrestrained cult of personality, they risk being cast into the wilderness barring a solitary outcome of next year’s election: namely, the mayor’s re-election.
That’s too bad.
It’s not too late to fix the fix, but first, one of five council members currently dedicated to Dear Leader’s enrichment must put his foot on the brake.
By all rights it should be Barksdale, shouldn’t it?
And now dear little children, who may this story read,
To idle, silly flattering words, I pray you ne'er give heed:
Unto an evil counsellor, close heart and ear and eye,
And take a lesson from this tale, of the Spider and the Fly.
---
Mary Howitt wrote the The Spider and the Fly. This search takes you to articles at NA Confidential about the proposed Reisz project. The final vote is Monday. You're advised to contact your councilman (there are no women) and make your viewpoint known.
---
Recent columns:
June 21: ON THE AVENUES: Government Lives Matter, so it's $10,000,000 for Gahan's luxury city hall clique enhancement. Happy dumpster diving, peasants!
June 12: ON THE AVENUES: Histrionic preservation? $8.5 million to gift Jeff Gahan with a luxury city hall "want" is simply obscene in a time of societal need.
June 7: ON THE AVENUES: Taco Bell has as much to do with "local business" as Jeff Gahan does with "quality urban design principles."
There was no column on May 31.
Wednesday, June 27, 2018
Earlier tonight: "Concerns over Reisz building expressed during meeting."
For the first time in ages, I walked out of the house tonight without my phone, and rather than turning back, decided to let it ride.
My head count at CM Coffey's library gathering was 40 at the peak, and this strikes me as a solid attendance.
Honestly, if you've been reading NA Confidential, chances are you've already heard what was discussed this evening. Following are a couple extracts from Chris Morris's newspaper coverage.
Concerns over Reisz building expressed during meeting
The New Albany City Council will take a final vote on the ordinance to purchase the building at its 7 p.m. meeting Monday in the Assembly Room on the third floor of the City County Building.
In its first two readings, Dave Barksdale, Greg Phipps, Matt Nash, Bob Caesar and Pat McLaughlin voted in favor of the proposal while Coffey, Scott Blair, David Aebersold and Al Knable voted against it.
My 3rd district councilman Greg Phipps came to tonight's meeting and sat through most of it. That's worthy of commendation.
... The rallying cry from three of the four city councilmen against the project who were in attendance was for residents to call their district or at-large councilmen and express their concern, and to attend Monday's meeting. Knable was unable to attend Wednesday's meeting, but his wife Jessica did read a statement from him against the plan.
"We ask for people to fill that room," Aebersold said.
Mark Cassidy, a regular attendee at council meetings, also said if "a bunch of people show up, they will pay attention."
Will they?
Thursday is weekly column day. I've been writing it for a while, but since the Reisz Elephant has coincided with the frenetic period of pre-opening activities at Pints & Union, times has become an issue.
It may be Friday, but there'll be a column.
TONIGHT'S MEETING REMINDER: "Town hall to discuss possible Reisz purchase."
Don't forget tonight's meeting about the Reisz Elephant.
Stop the Reisz Elephant: There'll be a public meeting on Wednesday, June 27, downstairs at the library, at 6:00 p.m.
The newspaper recaps the story and previews the meeting.
Town hall to discuss possible Reisz purchase, by Chris Morris (Tom May Press)
NEW ALBANY — Dan Coffey said a lot of people are upset about the proposed purchase of the old Reisz furniture building for the new city hall, and he hopes many of them come to his town hall meeting tonight to share their feelings.
The meeting, at 6 p.m. at the New Albany-Floyd County Public Library, is intended to "get the facts out," about the cost of the building, according to Coffey. He said there are questions that have not been answered by the city's administration.
"The bottom line is they have not been forthcoming with the answers," Coffey, first district city councilman, said. "The process has been flawed and the real information has not been given to the public."
Readers, I've been doing my best to cover this issue, and the simplest way to look at it is that historic preservation is the very last consideration. It's actually a red herring. The Reisz Elephant is about Jeff Gahan's power and his political aims, as lubricated by lots and lots of money.
Look past the stated aims, and see the corrupt underbelly of the current occupant.
---
Previously:
Reisz Elephant: Lawyer Gibson hails redevelopment's back-room RFP fix as an excellent way to do business with just one company.
Jeff Gahan handed Denton Floyd $750,000 to kick-start the Reisz project. Where are the documents detailing this transaction?
2-for-1? Scott Blair describes a better way to save the Reisz building AND get a new city hall.
Donald Trump would greatly appreciate the disruptiveness of Jeff Gahan's signature Reisz Elephant.
Jeff Gahan's attacks on county government stand an excellent chance of hurting the business climate in New Albany.
ON THE AVENUES: Government Lives Matter, so it's $10,000,000 for Gahan's luxury city hall clique enhancement. Happy dumpster diving, peasants!
GREEN MOUSE SAYS: Latest Reisz City Hall cost estimate reaches $9,250,000 -- and the tote board keeps spinning.
Truth is stranger than fact: Back in 2012, the Reisz building was to become a senior living complex. Bob Caesar kneecapped it -- and Deaf Gahan DISAGREED with Cee-Saw.
ON THE AVENUES: Histrionic preservation? $8.5 million to gift Jeff Gahan with a new city hall "want" is inexcusable and simply obscene in a time of societal need.
Looking for bipartisan consensus? Unfortunately, endless wars fill the bill.
Follow the money.
Follow the money.
Follow the money.
Rinse and repeat.
How to Challenge the Elite Consensus for Endless War, by Andrew J. Bacevich (The Nation)
There’s only one way: We have to harness the energy of millions of fed-up voters.
... the contours of basic policy evade critical examination, and American wars continue as if on autopilot.
The circumstances permitting this mindless undertaking to persist are so well-known that they hardly bear repeating. They include a brain-dead policy elite; a military system that insulates the vast majority of Americans from sacrifice; a cynical decision to saddle future generations with the responsibility to pay for today’s wars while the present generation enjoys tax cuts; congressional abdication of its constitutionally assigned war powers, compounded by more than a few members of the House and Senate being deeply in hock to the military-industrial complex; the hiring of what Tom Engelhardt has dubbed “warrior corporations”—profit-minded contractors, proxies, and mercenaries—effectively hiding the magnitude of war from American view; the absorption of available political energy by eminently worthy causes—the anti-Trump resistance and #MeToo offer examples—that inadvertently consign war to the margins; and finally, divisions within the feeble anti-war camp, one wing leaning left, the other leaning right, with neither willing to make common cause on matters where their views coincide.
Of course, underlying these is the enduring conceit, regularly celebrated in Washington, that Providence summons the United States to exercise global leadership now and forever, with that leadership expressed primarily through threatened or real military action. All of these together create a layered and interlocking defense that insulates the militarized status quo from challenge.
Even so, the profound American disregard for actual policy outcomes remains something of a puzzle. After all, at some level we see ourselves as a pragmatic people, preferring what works to what doesn’t. Yet as far as our wars are concerned, the gap between declared intentions and the results achieved continues to grow from one year to the next, while political elites, for the most part, pretend not to notice. Let Afghanistan, a conflict now promising to extend into eternity, serve as the prosecution’s exhibit number one.
Here, I submit, part of the problem lies with Trump himself, widely viewed by members of the intelligentsia as a noxious charlatan. For this very reason, when the president, however inadvertently, utters a self-evident truth—that our post-9/11 wars cost a lot and aren’t working—his endorsement of that truth drains it of significance. It’s akin to an involuntary reflex: If Trump says our wars have achieved nothing, then surely they must have done some good, right?
Yet, however ironically, Trump’s own ascent to the presidency might itself offer a clue about how to extricate ourselves from these “forever wars.”
Tuesday, June 26, 2018
Reisz Elephant: Lawyer Gibson hails redevelopment's back-room RFP fix as an excellent way to do business with just one company.
On March 27, 2018 the Redevelopment Commission approved a resolution to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the city's City Hall Project.
Ten (actually nine) whole days were given for interested developers to submit proposals for a project already negotiated with Denton Floyd, and announced publicly seven months prior to the RFP.
Jeff Gahan handed Denton Floyd $750,000 to kick-start the Reisz project. Where are the documents detailing this transaction?
"The developer shall have title to the proposed parcel or show demonstrated ability to obtain title to the proposed parcel."
In Denton Floyd's case, the very same Redevelopment Commission issuing this purportedly fair and open RFP already had given its developer of choice the money to buy the property.
At last Thursday's city council meeting, municipal corporeal attorney Shane Gibson lauded the fixed back-alley RFP process as an excellent way to to save money by excluding the free market of ideas.
Are you finding the current occupant's arrogance a bit too much?
Let your council representative know and don't forget the meeting on Wednesday evening at the library.
Stop the Reisz Elephant: There'll be a public meeting on Wednesday, June 27, downstairs at the library, at 6:00 p.m.
---
CITY OF NEW ALBANY
CITY HALL PROJECT
In accordance with IC 5-23-5, the New Albany Redevelopment Commission (“Commission”), on behalf of the City of New Albany, Indiana (“City”), is seeking proposals from qualified developers for the development and construction of a new City Hall (“Project”) on property located within the City. The developer shall have title to the proposed parcel or show demonstrated ability to obtain title to the proposed parcel. The Commission anticipates entering into a public-private agreement for the Developer to provide site work, labor and material, as well as financing (as required), to construct the Project with the general characteristics described below:
• Minimum 20,000 SF
• Downtown location
• Redevelopment is preferred vs. new construction
• Other characteristics and specifications as may be identified and included in future design documents and agreements
The City would assume ownership of the site and improvements after a certain period of time to be proposed by offeror.
The scope of the project is to be determined in a scoping period. Respondent should be willing and prepared to engage in a scoping period with the Commission without any contractual obligation. During this scoping period, the Commission will require information from the selected developer sufficient to finalize the financing terms, design, scope, and costs of the proposed improvements once determined.
Information to be Included in Proposals
Proposals should include a written description of the Developer’s experience designing, financing, constructing, operating, transferring, and developing projects, as follows:
• General Information
- Developer’s general information including company name, principal office location, point of contact, and contact information
- Company overview, organization information, and organization chart
• Development Experience
- Experience working with local economic development organizations or local government units in Indiana
- Demonstrated experience developing projects of similar scope and scale
• Financial Capacity
- General financial and credit information
- Information indicating financial ability of the developer to complete the project
- Credit reference
• Project Approach
- Outline of duties and responsibilities of all parties related to the development project from the scoping period until project completion (including the operating period and transfer of property to the City). This should include a project timeline.
The Commission does not require you to submit a certified check or other evidence of financial responsibility with your proposal other than requested above.
Anticipated Selection Process
The Commission will review all proposals and may enter into discussions with offerors to clarify and assure a full understanding of proposals. All offerors will be accorded fair and equal treatment with respect to any opportunity for discussion and revision of proposals. The Commission or its agent will make a recommendation for award of an agreement based upon compliance with the above-requested information, or shall terminate the request for proposal process.
Of all evaluation criteria listed in this Request for Proposals, the offeror’s focus on redevelopment, general project approach and financial capacity will be given the most weight by the Commission. The price offered in a proposal will be considered, but is not the primary determining factor. The Commission reserves the right to modify or cancel this project at any time before a developer enters into a formal agreement with the Commission, including at any point during the scoping period.
Deadline
Proposals are due by 12:00 p.m. on April 6, 2018, and six (6) copies of such proposal (plus one (1) unbound copy) should be hand delivered to (and questions should be directed to):
Josh Staten, Redevelopment Director
City of New Albany, Indiana
Phone: 812-948-5333
E Mail: jstaten@cityofnewalbany.com
0128278.0635348 4822-7229-8591v3
BEER WITH A SOCIALIST: Anchor Porter is delicious. Just don't expect a firm answer as to how it differs from Stout.
Last week I bought a six-pack of Anchor Porter in bottles -- for research purposes only, mind you.
It's been a while, and I regret this.
Anchor Porter is black and rich, firmly hopped (circa 40 IBUs) with plenty of malty underpinnings. I'm getting chocolate, espresso, toffee and a hint of licorice in my mouth, and I'm struck by a vestige of similarity with some Baltic-style Porters I've had in the past -- albeit at a gentler ABV.
Of course, your own experiences may vary. Try as we might to quantify flavors, we all taste life (and beer) slightly differently.
These days, Anchor Porter falls into a category of classification not unlike rock and roll bands of a certain generation. It's a heritage craft beer, or maybe a legacy craft beer. In the context of the American beer revival, any beer first brewed in 1972 -- when there were maybe 100 operational breweries in the United States -- might as well have originated in 1492.
At Pints&union, it is my aim to showcase excellent beers like Anchor Porter, which now find themselves crowed off shelves and taps by the tsunami of 6,000+ breweries seeking an outlet.
I'm going to try keeping Anchor Porter on tap all of the time, because if you like Porter (or, for that matter, the closely related Stouts), then you're going to like this one. I suspect that supply might prove to be more of a challenge than depletion.
As for the differences between Porter and Stout, it's one of the hardest beer questions to answer. Bob Brewer writes:
I’m reminded of the time some years ago when I discussed this very same topic with the late Michael Jackson. The beer guy Michael Jackson, that is. We were well into a lengthy sampling of rare single malts when the conversation came around to the stout / porter issue. I asked for a simple clarification of the stylistic difference because I considered it to be one of the more confused and ill-defined. Michael’s reply was that it was actually the MOST confused and ill-defined. He furthermore stated that even the best-researched and well-intended writings on the subject were “as unambiguous as a horoscope.” I took the master at his word and we ordered another round.
Ron Pattison's definition is far more detailed. He debunks the myths and discusses the practice of parti-gyling ("getting every last bit of goodness from the malt").
“What’s the difference between a porter and a stout?”
Roasted barley. That’s the usual explanation of what separates porter and stout. Unfortunately that story is total bollocks. The true tale is more complicated, more confusing and much more fun.
Let’s go back to their childhood. Eighteenth-century London with its elegant squares, gin and the birth of industrial-scale brewing. Something that could only have happened in London. Pre-powered transport moving large quantities of beer overland was impractical and expensive. London was the only city in the world with the critical mass of beer drinkers to power an industrial brewing reactor.
The story of porter—the first style to span the world—is one of technology, innovation and taxation. And war ...
Does this make it any easier?
To me, Pints&union offers a chance to start over. We'll join together to drink Porters and Stouts, and then reach our own conclusions. The pub remains a couple of weeks away from opening, but until then, here's a pleasant, short video from Anchor about the brewery's Porter.
It makes me thirsty. As Jackson always said, the search for the perfect pint should last a lifetime.
Jeff Gahan handed Denton Floyd $750,000 to kick-start the Reisz project. Where are the documents detailing this transaction?
At last Thursday’s city council meeting, municipal corporate attorney Shane Gibson finally stated publicly what we’d assumed all along about the variety of options to "save" the Reisz Furniture Store.
According to Gibson, there are only two options. It’s Jeff Gahan’s way, or the landfill.
Gahan’s $10,000,000 project to renovate the horribly “neglected, dilapidated and blighted” building and create a luxury city hall commensurate with the mayor’s grandiose self-image is intended as an either/or proposition.
Gibson told councilmen that if the city’s back-alley deal with Denton Floyd falls through, there are no other choices aside from demolition. Either the city spends a minimum of $10,000,000, or there’ll be a hole in the ground.
Anyone listening to Gibson should have asked a simple question.
How so?
Last August, the Redevelopment Commission approved a payment of $750,000 to Denton Floyd, from which roughly $400,000 was intended from the very start to be used by the contractor to buy the building from Schmitt Furniture.
According the Elevate website, this purchase occurred in September, a month after the meeting, which strongly implies the real estate transaction was complete save for the cash.
Returning to Gibson's ultimatum, how can the city demolish a building owned by someone else, in this case a firm with which Gahan and cohorts are closerthanthis? Certainly there are ways, but the larger point is the disposition of the money we’ve already spent.
The city might well condemn the building and demolish it – and if so, the city’s out $750,000.
Or, Denton Floyd might ask to demolish it, and city still is out $750,000, but Denton Floyd used the city's money, anyway, leaving it free to return to being behind schedule and over budget on the M Fine seniors housing conversion just up Main Street.
As an aside, Denton Floyd undertakes few large-scale projects without voluminous government assurances, whether here or in Jeffersonville. But that’s for another time.
Back to Gibson’s question time before council, which by all rights should have been Gibson’s and Gahan’s joint appearance. The corporate attorney blithely assured onlookers that if the mayor isn’t handed his palace forthwith, the building’s a goner.
Where does it say all this?
The Redevelopment Commission voted unanimously last August in favor of resolution (RC-06-17), enabling the $750,000 windfall payment to Denton Floyd, as well as smaller payments toward the Louis Hartman House on State Street (future home of Indiana Landmarks; no self-interest THERE) and the Knights of Columbus.
Commission stalwart and Democratic Party chairman Adam Dickey's minutes detail the discussion.
The meeting minutes make no mention of the dollar amounts involved, but then-reporter Elizabeth Beilman of the News and Tribune included them in her coverage of the meeting.
The overarching point is that while details aren't always discussed aloud, they're included in the text of the resolution, accompanying legal documents, or both.
You know, like a contract.
And: Throughout city council’s discussion of the Reisz project, from May 2018 to the present, including the 35 or 36 questions for Gibson to answer or artfully evade last Thursday, the actual text of the resolution and the content of accompanying legal documents have not been seen … by anyone, on council or off, although presumably the council’s two redevelopment representative at the time, David Barksdale and Bob Caesar (the latter since replaced) viewed the terms.
These details are kinda important, aren’t they?
Would any self-respecting attorney merely hand a $750,000 check to a contractor without specific language about the terms of the transaction taking place? There'd be signatures, right?
And wouldn't there be detailed explanations of contingencies, the simplest being things like insurance coverage and time frames?
Or are we to believe that former (seriously?) redevelopment chieftain David Duggins brought a briefcase filled with C-notes to the limousine for Denton Floyd's public-officials-only Keeneland junket (with paid models) last September?
Isn't it impossible to believe that the Redevelopment Commission resolution and/or legal agreements between the city and Denton Floyd explaining the $750,000 payment AREN’T accompanied by more than a post-it note reading “if it doesn’t happen, just keep the money and tear down that motherfucka”?
Furthermore, if the resolution and/or legal documents discuss other possibilities and contingencies beyond demolition for the Reisz, then the entire truth wasn’t being told last Thursday night ... and if Barksdale and Caesar knew otherwise as they sat listening, doesn't their silence speaks volumes?
Until this information is made public, how can city council proceed with a vote next Monday?
Here's the text of my e-mail this morning to Barksdale and redevelopment director Josh Staten. Don't forget Wednesday's meeting at the library:
Stop the Reisz Elephant: There'll be a public meeting on Wednesday, June 27, downstairs at the library, at 6:00 p.m.
---
Good morning,
The topic is RC-06-17, the Redevelopment Commission's ordinance of 08/08/2017, described in the meeting's minutes as being titled "Resolution Promoting Historic Preservation, Economic Development, and Blight Removal.
The meeting minutes for 08/08/2017, which are available on-line, include a detailed discussion of this resolution, but the minutes neither make mention of funding amounts, nor include the text of the resolution itself.
However, in Elizabeth Beilman's coverage of the meeting for the News and Tribune, she quotes a figure of "$826,000 in total funding commitments for the Reisz Furniture building, the Louis Hartman House on State Street and the Knights of Columbus," of which $750,000 for the Reisz project is specified.
Consequently, in terms of public information, we know the nature of the discussion about the resolution. We also know the dollar amounts, courtesy of the newspaper reporter. But we have not seen the text of resolution RC-06-17, and for this reason I'm writing to you today to request a copy of the resolution.
I'm happy to visit the office to pick this up, or you can e-mail it to this address. I trust this will be promptly rendered.
Thank you
R
---
Previously: