GIVE GAHAN THE BOOT: (Tuesday) Gahan the faux historic preservationist demolishes the historic structure -- with abundant malice.

Last week was Harvest Homecoming, and my city's favorite festival kept me pinned to the tarmac, but now we're back to what passes for normal here in New Gahania, where "We're All Here Because We're Not All THERE."

This week as a run-up to Decision 2019, I'm headed back into the ON THE AVENUES archive for five straight days of devastatingly persuasive arguments against four more years of the Gahan Family Values™ Personality Cult.

I've already made the argument for Mark Seabrook as mayor. Now let's return to the voluminous case against Gahanism in five informative and entertaining installments.

In the following saga of the demolition of Haughey's Tavern in the autumn of 2014, you'll see all the elements of virulent Gahanism falling into place. There is the mayor's instinct for self-deification, his pathological secrecy, and the bullying of subordinates (note that John Gonder was targeted for defeat by his own party in 2015 owing to this and other examples of independent thinking).

Another fascinating repercussion of the Haughey's fix in 2014 is fully applicable to the Reisz Mahal boondoggle in 2018.

Greg Sekula of Indiana Landmarks called Gahan's bluff the first time, so when the mayor needed to reverse field and lie shamelessly and publicly about his historic preservation credentials in order to bring about the luxury city hall expenditure, he staged a creative end-around.

Payhan simply bought off the preservationist bloc with the bait of the old Baity funeral home (now serving as Landmarks headquarters), then deployed a pliant and enfeebled David Barksdale (a presumed Republican) as the fifth "aye" in a controversial city council vote.

We don't term Gahan's milieu a swamp for nothing.

GIVE GAHAN THE BOOT: (Monday) The Reisz Mahal luxury city hall, perhaps the signature Gahan boondoggle.

GIVE GAHAN THE BOOT: (Tuesday) Gahan the faux historic preservationist demolishes the historic structure -- with abundant malice.

---

October 2, 2014

ON THE AVENUES: Now on tap at the ghost of Haughey's Place: The politics of pure spite.

Whether or not it's historic isn't really relevant. Randomly tearing down what for all we know is a perfectly salvageable, useful commercial building in a neighborhood that needs them isn't cleaning up. It's just destroying assets, a waste in itself. If there's a rational case to be made for why the building isn't usable, no one from the City has made it.

The mayor says there's a post-demolition plan for the lot but it's a secret that can't be revealed to the neighborhood. Councilman Phipps, who represents the neighborhood, says there is not a plan, or maybe there is, and, if there is one, he shouldn't really tell us what it is anyway.

There's far more dirtying up than cleaning up going on.

-- Jeff Gillenwater, on Facebook

“The values to which people cling most stubbornly under inappropriate conditions are those values that were previously the source of their greatest triumphs.”

-- Jared Diamond, in "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed"

---

In the frustrating weeks prior to the pre-ordained demolition of the historic Haughey tavern building at 922 Culbertson, numerous efforts were made by this blog to coax someone/anyone in city government to explain the sudden haste in destroying it, apart from the purely shambolic and theatrical "public safety" subterfuges, repeated like bureaucratic mantras, over and over again.

Even the customarily somnolent newspaper ventured a few sparsely tepid inquiries, although as usual, it couldn’t locate an editorial standpoint amid the profusion of rollover videos.

There were many questions, and the city batted them all away, preferring to conduct its predatory business in private, via a combination of overweening silence and condescending press releases.

Disturbingly, our 3rd district councilman Greg Phipps also took a vacuous pass on the topic, resorting to startlingly evasive academic sophistry when directly questioned about plans for the future of the cleared space, all this despite numerous substantive explanations of the building's value, both in a contemporary sustainable neighborhood sense (Gillenwater’s oft-repeated remarks above) and by area journalists without snarky bones to pick (see "Historic Culbertson tavern demolished", by Baylee Pulliam in the Courier-Journal)

All such efforts at transparence came abruptly to rest at what has become the single enduring symbol of Jeff Gahan's mayoral administration: A big, honking, impermeable stone wall.

---

Afterward, as the fully jigged dust was settling over the rubble, Gahan finally released his explanation, announcing what we'd all suspected was true from the start: A top secret agreement already was in place for an as yet undisclosed builder to erect two houses on the lot – hence the many rumors postulating Habitat for Humanity’s involvement, which were denied by the organization, but now can be seen as harbingers of a fix, all in.

We don't know who’ll be building these houses, or why this information could not be released before 922 Culbertson came to earth. Maybe it since has been announced in classic governmental fait accompli fashion, as filtered on Facebook by city hall’s chosen content provider, or hidden somewhere within daytime commission meeting minutes.

But make no mistake: This quote by Mayor Gahan surely speaks volumes.

“After the construction of these homes are completed, no one will miss the dilapidated structure that was at 922 Culbertson Ave.”

You’ll note Gahan's presumptive use of the term "dilapidated."

It is a characteristically passive/aggressive way of having the last word in a contest of wills, which few community members ever knew took place. His choice of post-mortem language, aimed at mocking the building's presumed decay, is telling. It is anti-intellectual, and it is an intentional dig at his critics.

Gahan could not bring himself to reveal details of this bold, shining path of a future for the corner lot as justification before irrevocably removing a piece of New Albany's drinking history, but evidently there was a “plan” all along, and our own councilman was bizarrely willing to abet the charade by assuaging his suburban aesthetic sensibilities.

Unfortunately, there always will be questions as to the nature of the presumed decay. How dilapidated was it? As Jeff Gillenwater wrote:

There's been no evidence provided by the City or anyone else that it's rotting apart. The building has never been publicly marketed like a regular property to potential buyers. The proposed sale price has never been publicly shared.

So... we don't know what kind of shape it's actually in, what the price is, or how any stipulations put on the property by the City might be defined.

Based on not telling the public what specifically is wrong with the building and needs to be fixed and not really ever trying to sell it at a known price that reflects repair needs, city officials have somehow - magic, perhaps - determined there's no interest in it.

This knowledge, if any, was kept safely controlled within the inner sanctum. The city wouldn’t release it, and the council (perhaps excepting John Gonder) didn’t care to ask about it.

---

The Green Mouse did some digging, and he reports that at least some aspects of the 922 Culbertson anti-transparency debacle might be explained by Gahan's determination to establish authority over the Indiana Landmarks Foundation and its local overseer, Greg Sekula.

According to insiders, Sekula took Gahan to task early in the pre-programmed 922 Culbertson demolition farce, demanding that the mayor protect the building after he learned that siding and other architectural elements were being harvested from the structure. Sekula then went public to demand that Landmarks be given time to broker a preservative outcome.

It’s all too clear, isn't it?

With the mayor having conceded moments after the demolition that a mysterious, secret infill “plan” was in place all along, and with the very existence of this unrevealed plan neatly explaining the city’s ongoing reluctance to clearly explicate the building’s presumed decay – again, other than to insist that the same “public safety” concerns currently unenforced on hazardous one-way streets pressingly applied to this one, lone building sans any semblance of due diligence – it is obvious that Sekula made the error of fatally intruding into what was, in effect, a finished deal, one done dirt cheap in timeless and enduring New Albany civic fashion.

The result? Vindictiveness, an iron fist, and the loss of something irreparable. The Green Mouse’s contact had this to say:

Sekula daring to do his job apparently violated Gahan’s principles, because he “owns” the town since being elected God of New Albany, and so Landmarks gets nothing from now on, even if they offer up the best plan. Gahan was defied, and that’s now allowed, and so he has turned his guns on Landmarks, and Sekula especially. It's fine by me. Now that the rats are devouring one another, maybe there actually is something to karma.

What remains in the wake of 922 Culbertson's demise? For starters, there's an administration sworn to pathological secrecy, displaying a pervasive need to control information that approaches Nixonian proportions.

There's also a question of whether we have a participatory city council in any coherent sense. When was the last time that the council president Pat McLaughlin could be seen to veer from city hall’s proscribed diktat-of-the-moment? To be sure, Gonder has dared to do so -- and now finds himself on the municipal “shit list,” to be excluded even further from insight into state secrets.

The “shit list” continues to grow, and those of us inhabiting it may need to relocate to a more expansive holding pen. Maybe it’s time for us to buy a dorm fridge, paper plates, some picture frames and furniture, and decorate a bit.

Does anyone know where those 922 Culbertson fixtures are being stored?

Jeff Gahan's impressive historic building hypocrisy at this year's Facelift Awards.

Over at the pan-fried paper, Jerod Clapp quotes Mayor Jeff Gahan on the occasion of the 9th annual New Albany Facelift Awards.

Mayor Jeff Gahan said he’s glad to see so many people in New Albany take care to preserve and restore such historic buildings in the city.

“Our city’s two centuries old now and lately, we’ve seen development and businesses show more interest here,” Gahan said. “What’s exciting about the growth of New Albany is we all have the same goals for our historic buildings.”

What Jerod fails to mention, and which I'm delighted to note, is that when the mayor sought to make a few ineffectual jabs in the general direction of "affordable housing" prior to re-election, and a historic tavern building stood in the way ... well, in this instance we all didn't "have the same goals for our historic buildings," and the combined weight of officialdom couldn't wait to tear that mother down in spite of one solid and reputable proposal to rehabilitate it.

Let's look back. After all, it's been only a year and a half.

Squeals of arousal and delight resound across the 3rd council district as more of the city's history bites the dust.

ON THE AVENUES: Now on tap at the ghost of Haughey’s Place: The politics of pure spite.

The 3rd district councilman did not acquit himself well, either.

"Tear It Down," Sayeth the Councilman, Part 1: The rudderless newspaper squanders another 922 Culbertson opportunity, but an informative chat occurs, anyway.

"Tear It Down," Sayeth the Councilman, Part 2: "Just how has this been a corrupt process?" Hint: Secretive nonsense.

"Tear It Down," Sayeth the Councilman, Part 3: A civilian's due diligence as to 922 Culbertson's possibilities.

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

"Tear It Down," Sayeth the Councilman, Part 5: The ghost of Orwell enjoys a pint at Haughey's Place.

Aren't they cute?

Follow the slush, my boy.

Always follow the slush.

ON THE AVENUES: A year later, the backroom politics of pure spite at Haughey’s Tavern still reek.

ON THE AVENUES: A year later, the backroom politics of pure spite at Haughey’s Tavern still reek.

A weekly web column by Roger A. Baylor.

In September of 2014, the city of New Albany demolished the historic Haughey’s Tavern building at 922 Culbertson Avenue. There'll be more explanatory links at the conclusion, but for now, here's an overview from the archives.

Oct 2, 2014: ON THE AVENUES: Now on tap at the ghost of Haughey’s Place: The politics of pure spite.

The vacant space subsequently was folded into pre-existing and thoroughly secretive plans for erecting six New Directions houses, which have since been completed, and form one of Jeff Gahan’s re-election platform planks – this being a prime reason the potted events occurred in the first place.

Four of the new houses are in a row across Culbertson from the ghost of Haughey’s, and two occupy the tavern’s decimated footprint.

Let’s try not to forget the central point, one consistently obscured by Team Gahan’s relentless, PAC-financed and self-serving propaganda machine: Haughey’s Tavern might have been saved and rehabilitated into the sort of street corner anchor that these two new houses are utterly incapable of being, now or ever.

After all, Haughey’s did it for more than 125 years, with various occupants surviving floods, tornadoes, ice storms and changing times ... until Gahan's suburban-over-urban logic came along.

There are numerous vacant spaces nearby where houses might yet be built, and in fact, since this disgraceful act unfolded behind closed door last year, the city has yet to present a coherent plan for affordable infill housing – at 922 Culbertson, or anywhere else.

This shameful absence only continues to be accentuated by the shameless non-public process prefacing the unnecessary Haughey’s demolition.

Just as there is much to be learned by any human society’s treatment of its most challenged members, we can derive insight as to the behavioral patterns of the Gahan administration in recalling this story, which is not for the faint of heart.

The narrative that follows is based on several composite sources. Some people directly involved spoke to me about the experience, but given the mayor’s vengeful tendencies, they would not do so for attribution. If anyone mentioned herein objects to my characterization, I'll retract it, though I think it's accurate. Maybe some day we'll have investigative journalism hereabouts.

Conversely, when I filed a formal “freedom of information” request with municipal "corporate attorney" Shane Gibson for e-mails, these were promptly provided … and not a single one of them involved the mayor.

That’s right. Not even one.

Do you believe Jeff Gahan did not send a single e-mail pertaining to this issue during the time period requested?

My guess is that he did, but did not use his official city e-mail account, and instead wrote for attribution via a private e-mail address – one at a server lying conveniently outside the realm of public record requests like the one I made.

If you believe that Gahan did not utter a single electronic communication about the Haughey’s debacle, then I have an Ohio River Bridge for purchase.

On layaway.

---

During the run-up to the demolition, the city of New Albany never openly listed the Haughey’s building in any coherent manner that might have enticed developers to inquire. It was not marketed, and there was no effort to arrive at independent verification of the building’s structural condition.

Nevertheless, local developer Steve Resch examined the building and made an offer. He never believed the “dilapidated” party line espoused by City Hall’s minions (David Brewer and David Duggins prominent among them), and thought the building was salvageable.

Resch apparently thought he had a deal, to include the city and Indiana Landmarks combining resources with him in an amount previously discussed even before his offer was made, as intended to make possible a complete stabilization and exterior repair.

After that, Resch would wait for a tenant, and then finish the interior to spec on his own dime. His estimate of the total cost of rehabilitation was one-half to one-third less than that suggested by the minions – who never once explained their numbers publicly.

No sooner than Resch thought it was done deal, the rug was pulled out from beneath him. The only transparent, clear and publicly apparent instigator at the time was 1st district councilman Dan Coffey – in whose district the address is NOT located – who subbed for the AWOL 3rd district councilman Greg Phipps and constantly insisted to all and sundry that the building must come down.

Why?

Two sources told me that with county elections coming in November, 2014, and with Coffey mounting an ill-fated campaign for commissioner, he’d concocted a campaign financing deal with CCE/Eastridge, a deal that depended on the Haughey’s Tavern demolition to funnel the appropriate percentage toward Coffey’s campaign.

Coffey didn’t even get 40% of the vote – and a building that cannot be replaced subsequently disappeared.

It’s worth noting that during Doug England’s final term, CCE/Eastridge constantly was on the hot seat, prompting numerous neighborhood complaints about its toxic (literally) operations where Silver Street Park eventually was built with TIF bonds after the city bought the property for a princely sum.

Yes, from CCE/Eastridge.

Nowadays CCE/Eastridge is the beneficiary of prime governmental largess, including numerous demolition contracts, many of which emanate from The Redevelopment Commission, upon which both Coffey and Adam Dickey (the Democratic Party chairman and a vocal proponent of serial historic property demolition) are seated.

Coincidence or conflict of interest?

Always.

There was a lonely voice on Redevelopment advocating for sense and sensibility, but as usual, John Gonder was ignored.

One probable reason for CCE/Eastridge’s newfound preferential treatment has less to do with Coffey and more to its ownership of ground by the river needed by the city to complete the 8th-through-18th stretch of the Ohio River Greenway.

That’s right: A project that goes straight through the Redevelopment Commission.

---

At some point during the spring or early summer of 2014, local Landmarks head Greg Sekula spotted the down-low demolition order, and called Gahan seeking an intervention.

Evidently Gahan initially indicated he was receptive, then began badgering Sekula into asking instead for a Horseshoe Foundation grant. This Sekula did, but when the Horseshoe meeting took place, Gahan sat impassively, refusing to motion, afterward remarking to Sekula that it didn’t matter.

According to Gahan, the board he so regularly maligns wouldn’t consider it, anyway, so why bother? We can surmise that the deal already was done at this point, but Ceausescu -- oops, Gahan -- wasn’t finished yet.

Following the Horseshoe fiasco, Gahan complained about Sekula to the head office of Landmarks, and in essence, tried to get him disciplined or fired. This did not occur, primarily because Sekula had done nothing untoward apart from trying to do his job, as opposed to appeasing Gahan's ego.

These phone calls jibe with stories told by other informants, who point to Gahan’s fundamental and recurring vindictiveness, and his zeal in this instance to show preservationists like Sekula exactly who’s the boss in this town.

Previously I sent e-mails to New Directions asking when the infill plan we see now was originally minted. The chronology matters, but New Directions never answered these e-mails.

At the time, there were regular rumors to the effect that Habitat for Humanity had a deal in place prior to the Haughey’s demolition, which Habitat dismissed – but the rumors themselves suggest the existence of some sort of pre-arranged outcome, even as the other subplots dropped into place.

No sooner than Haughey's came down than Gahan announced the partnership with New Directions to construct his platform planks.

From top to bottom, the fate of Haughey’s smells of an arrogant absence of due process, even a year later. The suburban niceness of the houses standing there now jars with ironic dissonance as one learns how they came into being, because ends do not justify means, and transparent processes really do matter.

Unfortunately, an arrogant usurpation of due process is the way Gahan rolls. For more, read this five-part series from August of 2014.

Let’s not let an atrocity like this happen again.

"Tear It Down," Sayeth the Councilman, Part 1: The rudderless newspaper squanders another 922 Culbertson opportunity, but an informative chat occurs, anyway.

"Tear It Down," Sayeth the Councilman, Part 2: "Just how has this been a corrupt process?" Hint: Secretive nonsense.

"Tear It Down," Sayeth the Councilman, Part 3: A civilian's due diligence as to 922 Culbertson's possibilities.

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

"Tear It Down," Sayeth the Councilman, Part 5: The ghost of Orwell enjoys a pint at Haughey's Place.

---

Recent columns:

October 28: ON THE AVENUES REWOUND: How many businesses already have died because of City Hall’s street grid procrastination?

October 26: ON THE AVENUES EXTRA: Gahan says speeding sucks, but street safety can wait until after he is re-elected.

October 22: ON THE AVENUES: My career as a double naught capitalist.

October 19: ON THE AVENUES REWOUND: Courtesy bicycle to the Hotel Silly (2010, 2013).

October 15: ON THE AVENUES: To the New Albanians, each and every one.

October 8: ON THE AVENUES: There’s an indie twist to this curmudgeon’s annual Harvest Homecoming column.

October 1: ON THE AVENUES: No more fear, Jeff.

September 24: ON THE AVENUES: Almost two years later, Mr. Gahan has yet to plug in this clock, and so it's time for him to clock out.

September 17: ON THE AVENUES: Dear Neighbor: If you’re tired of the same old story, turn some pages.

September 10: ON THE AVENUES: Lanesville Heritage Weekend comes around again.

September 3: ON THE AVENUES: When even Mitt Romney can run to the left of New Albany’s Democrats, it's a very big problem.

Midtown Renaissance: It depends on what you mean by "painted lady."

I suspect the use of "painted ladies" is intended to imbue these rare instances of New Albanian urban infill with architectural respectability.

"Painted ladies" is a term in American architecture used for Victorian and Edwardian houses and buildings painted in three or more colors that embellish or enhance their architectural details. The term was first used for San Francisco Victorian houses by writers Elizabeth Pomada and Michael Larsen in their 1978 book Painted Ladies - San Francisco's Resplendent Victorians.

But while it's probably no longer politically correct, I prefer Elton John's word association.

"Painted lady" is a euphemism for a prostitute, but Elton's voice is in fine form in this 1976 recording.

Top blog comment of the month: A COA for the NSP infill? It'd be MIA.

You know, before he changed the seal and all. 

Our post this morning ...

Life is like a street piano. What the Bored of Works gets out of it depends on how they "nay" it.

 drew an insightful comment:

Did the city ask the Preservation Commission for a "Certificate of Appropriateness" before they demolished the tavern at 922 Culbertson?

Defending hated buildings, and building a better New Albany.

Empire State Plaza, Albany NY (from the article)

One of the central misnomers about historic preservation is that is espoused to the exclusion of new buildings. Rather, the idea that the greenest building is the one already standing impels preserving and reusing what we already have, even as we contemplate the functionality and aesthetic of "next."

This being the 30th anniversary of my first European vacation, I've been contemplating my exposure to cities (Berlin, Vienna, Budapest) that suffered significant damage during World War II, and the way that their urban tapestry embraces old, new, and everything in between. I've often observed to those commending the revival of downtown New Albany that the real turning point will be when surface parking lots created by demolishing older structures become the site of new construction.

That's why ill-considered projects like the farmers market expansion make so little sense. Prime acreage is lost for what is supposed to be, by its very nature, a transient institution.

If we insist on subsidizing and incentivizing companies from elsewhere to erect new buildings, as with the sewer tap-in waivers granted Flaherty and Collins for the apartment buildings at the moribund Coyle property, then we'd be better off stepping outside the box and borrowing a page from Columbus by encouraging boldness in design.

Is it really progress to obliterate the historic tavern at 922 Culbertson, which stood the test of time and could have been rehabbed, with houses made of pressboard and balsa wood -- ones designed primarily for campaign press releases, and not sustainability in a neighborhood so desperately needing it?

The underlying point in each of the following defenses of "hated" buildings is that civilization is renewed through the new, in addition to honoring the old. Every day is a snapshot of a composite.

In a place like New Albany, these decisions must be removed from the money mill of partisan political considerations, as so tirelessly exploited by Team Gahan, and based instead on rational decision-making and consistent, demonstrable criteria.

Seven Leading Architects Defend the World’s Most Hated Buildings, as told to Alexandra Lange (New York Times)

Can the field’s top minds change the way we think about a doomed housing project in Naples or the most abhorred skyscraper in Paris? Allow them to try.

A visual Fischer goes full Gahan on the ad hoc demolition of historic properties.

Dear Louisville

Been there, done that. Jeff Gahan personally inspected the historic tavern building at 922 Culbertson, then rejected subsequent evidence that didn't jibe with his "professional" opinion as a former salesman of veneer products. The building came down. Palms were greased. Coffey got his rocks off, and now the site is being monetized for campaign finance.

Signed ... the Hood

PS -- If anyone sees our council person, can you let us know? 

---

Tonight is the Jefferson-Jackson dinner, when Greg Fischer and Jeff Gahan will take the stage to trade yarns about those dumbass preservationists. You see, Gahan wanna Omni, too, and why not learn from the best?

We discussed it last October.

ON THE AVENUES: Now on tap at the ghost of Haughey’s Place: The politics of pure spite.

... With the mayor having conceded moments after the demolition that a mysterious, secret infill “plan” was in place all along, and with the very existence of this unrevealed plan neatly explaining the city’s ongoing reluctance to clearly explicate the building’s presumed decay – again, other than to insist that the same “public safety” concerns currently unenforced on hazardous one-way streets pressingly applied to this one, lone building sans any semblance of due diligence – it is obvious that Sekula made the error of fatally intruding into what was, in effect, a finished deal, one done dirt cheap in timeless and enduring New Albany civic fashion.

Regime. Change. Now.

Metro didn’t require engineering report before demolition of buildings at Omni site, by Stephen George (Insider Louisville)

By declaring the buildings an immediate safety risk, Metro avoided a lengthy public approval process that includes a one-week notice of intent to demolish, public review and input, and an additional mandatory review for any building listed on the National Register of Historic Places, such as the Morrissey Garage. That process applies to all private developers working on historic sites or structures.

Mayor Greg Fischer told IL on Wednesday he is comfortable with the conclusions drawn about the buildings, which stood on the site of the biggest economic development project in downtown Louisville’s history. He said he visited and personally examined the buildings and was concerned they could collapse, threatening public safety.

“I understood the importance of that decision. I went in those buildings myself, and I saw the state of disrepair they were in as well,” he said. “I saw that also there was a homeless camp inside there. What I did not want to see is those buildings collapse with people inside them, people being killed.

“So unfortunately these buildings couldn’t be saved, and that’s why they needed to come down,” he continued. “As I said, I checked it out myself as well, and I understand a verbal engineering report told us that’s what had to happen.”

BREAKING: Rogar Bayler leaks plan for new city hall at 922 Culbertson.

Duh -- I mean, he left Ceausescu out.

Keep me posted on that public access request, will you?

922 Culbertson: A new owner for the property, or the components? By the way, where are these components?

Would it be impertinent of me to ask whether the inventory of "historic components" is finished, how many components were taken away before the building was secured, where these knick-knacks currently are being stored, and if there's a plan to dispose of them?

I certainly hope these questions are impertinent.

After all, the demolition of Haughey's Place was fairly impertinent, too.

Many of the historic components of the structure and bar area have been removed and will be stored by the city so they can be salvaged, Brewer said. He will begin compiling an inventory of the items next week. Despite what some may think, Brewer said the city’s goal with most every troubled property is to find a new owner, if possible.

ON THE AVENUES: Now on tap at the ghost of Haughey’s Place: The politics of pure spite.

ON THE AVENUES: Now on tap at the ghost of Haughey's Place: The politics of pure spite. 

A weekly web column by Roger A. Baylor.

Whether or not it's historic isn't really relevant. Randomly tearing down what for all we know is a perfectly salvageable, useful commercial building in a neighborhood that needs them isn't cleaning up. It's just destroying assets, a waste in itself. If there's a rational case to be made for why the building isn't usable, no one from the City has made it.

The mayor says there's a post-demolition plan for the lot but it's a secret that can't be revealed to the neighborhood. Councilman Phipps, who represents the neighborhood, says there is not a plan, or maybe there is, and, if there is one, he shouldn't really tell us what it is anyway.

There's far more dirtying up than cleaning up going on.

-- Jeff Gillenwater, on Facebook

“The values to which people cling most stubbornly under inappropriate conditions are those values that were previously the source of their greatest triumphs.”

-- Jared Diamond, in "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed"

---

In the frustrating weeks prior to the pre-ordained demolition of the historic Haughey tavern building at 922 Culbertson, numerous efforts were made by this blog to coax someone/anyone in city government to explain the sudden haste in destroying it, apart from the purely shambolic and theatrical "public safety" subterfuges, repeated like bureaucratic mantras, over and over again.

Even the customarily somnolent newspaper ventured a few sparsely tepid inquiries, although as usual, it couldn’t locate an editorial standpoint amid the profusion of rollover videos.

There were many questions, and the city batted them all away, preferring to conduct its predatory business in private, via a combination of overweening silence and condescending press releases.

Disturbingly, our 3rd district councilman Greg Phipps also took a vacuous pass on the topic, resorting to startlingly evasive academic sophistry when directly questioned about plans for the future of the cleared space, all this despite numerous substantive explanations of the building's value, both in a contemporary sustainable neighborhood sense (Gillenwater’s oft-repeated remarks above) and by area journalists without snarky bones to pick (see "Historic Culbertson tavern demolished", by Baylee Pulliam in the Courier-Journal).

All such efforts at transparence came abruptly to rest at what has become the single enduring symbol of Jeff Gahan's mayoral administration: A big, honking, impermeable stone wall.

---

Afterward, as the fully jigged dust was settling over the rubble, Gahan finally released his explanation, announcing what we'd all suspected was true from the start: A top secret agreement already was in place for an as yet undisclosed builder to erect two houses on the lot – hence the many rumors postulating Habitat for Humanity’s involvement, which were denied by the organization, but now can be seen as harbingers of a fix, all in.

We don't know who’ll be building these houses, or why this information could not be released before 922 Culbertson came to earth. Maybe it since has been announced in classic governmental fait accompli fashion, as filtered on Facebook by city hall’s chosen content provider, or hidden somewhere within daytime commission meeting minutes. 

But make no mistake: This quote by Mayor Gahan surely speaks volumes.

“After the construction of these homes are completed, no one will miss the dilapidated structure that was at 922 Culbertson Ave.” 

You’ll note Gahan's presumptive use of the term "dilapidated." 

It is a characteristically passive/aggressive way of having the last word in a contest of wills, which few community members ever knew took place. His choice of post-mortem language, aimed at mocking the building's presumed decay, is telling. It is anti-intellectual, and it is an intentional dig at his critics.

Gahan could not bring himself to reveal details of this bold, shining path of a future for the corner lot as justification before irrevocably removing a piece of New Albany's drinking history, but evidently there was a “plan” all along, and our own councilman was bizarrely willing to abet the charade by assuaging his suburban aesthetic sensibilities.

Unfortunately, there always will be questions as to the nature of the presumed decay. How dilapidated was it? As Jeff Gillenwater wrote:

There's been no evidence provided by the City or anyone else that it's rotting apart. The building has never been publicly marketed like a regular property to potential buyers. The proposed sale price has never been publicly shared.

So... we don't know what kind of shape it's actually in, what the price is, or how any stipulations put on the property by the City might be defined.

Based on not telling the public what specifically is wrong with the building and needs to be fixed and not really ever trying to sell it at a known price that reflects repair needs, city officials have somehow - magic, perhaps - determined there's no interest in it.

This knowledge, if any, was kept safely controlled within the inner sanctum. The city wouldn’t release it, and the council (perhaps excepting John Gonder) didn’t care to ask about it.

---

The Green Mouse did some digging, and he reports that at least some aspects of the 922 Culbertson anti-transparency debacle might be explained by Gahan's determination to establish authority over the Indiana Landmarks Foundation and its local overseer, Greg Sekula.

According to insiders, Sekula took Gahan to task early in the pre-programmed 922 Culbertson demolition farce, demanding that the mayor protect the building after he learned that siding and other architectural elements were being harvested from the structure. Sekula then went public to demand that Landmarks be given time to broker a preservative outcome.

It’s all too clear, isn't it?

With the mayor having conceded moments after the demolition that a mysterious, secret infill “plan” was in place all along, and with the very existence of this unrevealed plan neatly explaining the city’s ongoing reluctance to clearly explicate the building’s presumed decay – again, other than to insist that the same “public safety” concerns currently unenforced on hazardous one-way streets pressingly applied to this one, lone building sans any semblance of due diligence – it is obvious that Sekula made the error of fatally intruding into what was, in effect, a finished deal, one done dirt cheap in timeless and enduring New Albany civic fashion.

The result? Vindictiveness, an iron fist, and the loss of something irreparable. The Green Mouse’s contact had this to say:

Sekula daring to do his job apparently violated Gahan’s principles, because he “owns” the town since being elected God of New Albany, and so Landmarks gets nothing from now on, even if they offer up the best plan. Gahan was defied, and that’s now allowed, and so he has turned his guns on Landmarks, and Sekula especially. It's fine by me. Now that the rats are devouring one another, maybe there actually is something to karma.

What remains in the wake of 922 Culbertson's demise? For starters, there's an administration sworn to pathological secrecy, displaying a pervasive need to control information that approaches Nixonian proportions.

There's also a question of whether we have a participatory city council in any coherent sense. When was the last time that the council president Pat McLaughlin could be seen to veer from city hall’s proscribed diktat-of-the-moment? To be sure, Gonder has dared to do so -- and now finds himself on the municipal “shit list,” to be excluded even further from insight into state secrets.

The “shit list” continues to grow, and those of us inhabiting it may need to relocate to a more expansive holding pen. Maybe it’s time for us to buy a dorm fridge, paper plates, some picture frames and furniture, and decorate a bit.

Does anyone know where those 922 Culbertson fixtures are being stored?

Squeals of arousal and delight resound across the 3rd council district as more of the city's history bites the dust.

The 922 Culbertson demolition will proceed on Friday, September 5.

Conversely, the city's degradation is open-ended.

Dapper suburban-derived orgasms ripple across the 3rd council district as 922 Culbertson is prepared for demolition.

Good heavens, where's that CCE truck going at 50 mph through a residential area?

Maybe it's heading here.

It's looking like the end game for 922 Culbertson. I'm so old, I can remember when CCE was public enemy number one, but alliances shift, and the company -- a prime beneficiary of all these swinging wrecker's balls -- was on site today prepping.

Jeff Gahan has to be feeling good about himself. He stood firm in his poker game with the Horseshoe Foundation, and now the aged lumber can fly.

Gahan's streets may be unsafe, and getting more so by the minute as he gazes steadfastly in the other direction, but by God and Warren Nash, Hizzoner can tear down buildings with the best of 'em. He doesn't know what to do with the vacant lots. All he knows is that suburbanites crave tidiness and order, not that repulsive density of the city.

Maybe he needs to be mayor of Mark Seabrook, instead.

"Tear It Down," Sayeth the Councilman, Part 5: The ghost of Orwell enjoys a pint at Haughey's Place.

Perhaps by the end of the week, the city will have finished with the demolition of the old Haughey's Place tavern building, and of course, the world won't come to an end.

However, certain illusions perhaps are best terminated, the sooner the better, and that's why I've posted exhaustively on the topic today. No one else will; might as well be me. Let's begin with a classic of restrained understatement.

There are obviously intertwined matters of transparency, "advise and consent" and planning, and the 922 Culbertson imbroglio has exposed considerable and ongoing deficiencies in these areas. 

First and foremost to my mind is City Hall's seemingly pathological desire for secrecy and control. It is an administration seeking always to conduct business by means of carefully sanitized, upbeat press release -- long after the details have been squared away safely behind the scenes ... and I'm phrasing this mildly.

If readers believe I'm exaggerating, then think of it this way: Can you imagine City Hall as currently constituted conceding error or uncertainty on any topic, in any way?

That's what I thought.

As 3rd district councilman Phipps's comments in today's series illustrate, the council as currently constituted shares much of the blame for the condition of non-transparency. The council's president tends to run its affairs as though he were the mayor's appointed whip. Due diligence on the part of council has been almost entirely absent amid huge expenditures, as with the aquatic center. Individual members veer wildly back and forth between contradictory self-definitions:

"We're here to do something; no, wait, we can't do anything at all. We can't decide, so we'll ward-heel ... unless, of course, we don't."

The inevitable result in terms of practical effect is little more than old-fashioned party machine politics, and it reeks of paranoia and cliquishness. It squelches ideas and outside-the-box thinking as effectively as a one-party dictatorship -- which quite frankly, it is.

As pertinent questions of the sort prefacing participatory democracy continue to go largely unasked, both by a newspaper that exists solely to entertain at a 4th-grade level, and by elected officials meekly willing to toe the party line -- whether actively or passive-aggressively -- substantive dialogue is subsumed by vapid buzz-phrases:

Quality of life
Public safety 
Fundamentally better

These are merely three of the recently minted ways of evading scrutiny and intellectual honesty by what amounts to modern variants of Orwell's newspeak.

Specifically, I find City Hall's "public safety" position v.v. the doomed building at 922 Culbertson to be flagrantly insulting. The city's outmoded one-way arterial streets are more unsafe by the day, and nothing is done to correct or even address the situation aloud. The recent onslaught of heavy truck traffic has exacerbated an already ugly scene, and City Hall's reaction has been to lock lips and fold arms even more tightly.

Why?

Because it must wait for Jeff Speck's political cover to confirm the daily lesson of its own sets of eyes, and that, my friends, is political cowardice.

Consequently, public safety currently means one thing, and one thing only: Just demolish as many buildings as possible, and triumphantly point to this quasi-suburban standard of vigilant cleanliness as City Hall's equivalent of fascism's ability to make the trains run on time:

"We're orderly in the city, folks. We're eliminating the unsightliness. Look at the nice grass where once a slumlord reigned. Come here and invest -- not that we'll be doing anything to make investment fruitful after the rubble is hauled away."

Naturally, these were rampant slumlords untouched by the city's "enforcement" arm over generations of inert passivity ... but let's not urinate in the broth, quite yet.

Yes, of course unsafe buildings need to be addressed, by demolition if necessary.  

No one denies that, but what needs to be addressed concurrent with their escalating demolition is what happens when they're gone. Urban areas need density to function as intended, not suburban standards of cul-de-sac green-space propriety. We have hundreds of weedy holes in the urban fabric, but what we don't have is a plan to sell, give away or rebuild on them.

The fact that every such debate as 922 Culbertson's conjures from scratch a different, ad hoc response should tell the scattershot tale clearly enough. After all, "redevelopment" has a prefix that suggests new beginnings, not merely efficient bulldozing.

Where the hell is the plan? You DO have one, right? You ARE aware of modernity ... please?

And so the newspaper put the worst possible photo of 922 Culbertson on its Fb page, and asked whether the building should be saved. 

Maybe, maybe not, but nothing should be done until Mayor Gahan tells all of us (a) what happens to the vacant spot in terms of redevelopment, (b) what happens to all the other vacant spots, and (c) exactly who has shown interest in the vacant spot such that the building's removal suddenly has become so important that the mayor himself is involved with the decision. In this context, I asked Habitat for Humanity whether they sought the space, and once again, they've answered "no."

Jeff and I tried to ask these questions of Councilman Phipps, and were surprised to learn that he has become the evasive politician he professes to loathe.

Me?

I'd just appreciate a yes or a no to those questions I ask that offer these two simple options. This doesn't mean I personally dislike my councilman, or intend to write mean things on his locker at school. It does mean that I'm quite disappointed that his now-evident personal zeal to demolish 922 has blinded him to the numerous larger issues, but I can only pitch the ball and hope someone hits it.

And yes, the public safety argument at 922 Culbertson is a red herring of epic proportions. If public safety were the overall municipal objective, we wouldn't have one-way arterial streets slicing through these same residential areas, undermining all the purported advantages of rampant demolition.

It's plainly hypocritical, but at the moment, it's all we have.

For now.

"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.

"Tear It Down," Sayeth the Councilman, Part 3: A civilian's due diligence as to 922 Culbertson's possibilities.

Part 1
Part 2

As the plot thickened, Jeff did something absolutely unprecedented, and far outside the customary "business as usual" box that one might be forgiven for imagining that it is prohibited by New Albany municipal ordinance.

He offered numerous cases in point from a wider world to show how the 922 Culbertson discussion might have been proceeding had it been (a) transparent and involving the neighborhood, and (b) not emphasizing squalid "business as usual," which has a way of being, well, usual.

Here they are.

Study: Older, smaller buildings better for cities (AP)

"While small, older buildings might not make for an impressive skyline, they may be better for cities than massive, gleaming office towers, according to a study released Thursday.

Neighborhoods and commercial areas with a mix of older, smaller buildings make for more vibrant, walkable communities with more businesses, nightlife and cultural outlets than massive newer buildings, according the National Trust for Historic Preservation's study."

---

New Focus for Redeveloping and Revitalizing Communities (CPHA Baltimore)

"This means that a previously unoccupied, or poorly maintained, historic building is more likely to be developed into a place that could benefit the community and local economy, such as a locally-owned coffee shop, a renovated corner store, or a well-maintained home.

Strengthening existing communities prevents unnecessary building of auto-centric shopping and business centers in rural areas, which negatively impact the environment, and causes people to flee existing communities. If residents can shop locally and walk to work in their neighborhoods, communities will be more stable and sustainable."

---

Detroit's West Village becomes hot spot for restaurants, revitalization, by Amy Haimerl (Crain's Detroit Business)

"That was in the glorious fall weather of last October, and the two walked the streets looking at Georgian Revivals, Tudors and a passel of other historic properties tucked way in the area. In their ramblings, they came across a commercial space at Parker and Kercheval streets.

'There used to be an old party store in it, and we kept looking at that space and saying, 'Oh damn, that would be such a great spot for a more upscale bodega like you see on every corner in New York,' ' said Kirby, 26.

And since Drought goes through three tons of organic produce a week, the two knew they'd have access to excellent fruits and vegetables to build a market/bodega around. (Bodega equals party store in the local parlance.)

Kirby and James started rehabbing the space in November — using $1,200 worth of credit card points James traded for Lowe's gift cards — and are planning a soft launch party April 3.

As they make plans for their grocery, a recent open house drew more than 20 people to 1417 Van Dyke St., all of whom were hoping that their business would be selected to move into the location.

'Things have evolved here,' said Hurttienne of The Villages CDC. 'That evolution has led us to the point where 1417 Van Dyke can do an RFP for a business to move in. That feels like a huge thing. It's just tremendous.'

That property is owned by Alex Howbert, a third-generation West Village resident. He is working with Practice Space to find the right business tenant for the Victorian house, which once housed a grocery that his father and uncles frequented."

---

The (hi)story of a corner: Community and revitalization at Tower Grove and Manchester (The Grove)

Guy Slay is a firm believer in collaboration and the strength of such collaboration in driving a neighborhood to success. The drivers include the Grove Community Improvement District and its roles in marketing, infrastructure and security initiatives, the other investors, developers, and business owners in the neighborhood, as well as all his tenants.

---

Corner Store Revitalization Project (City of Edmonton)

There’s been a shift in Edmonton’s retail landscape away from local community and neighbourhood shops. Shopping malls, mega-commercial strips, and power centres with stand alone big-box format stores dominate the shopping landscape.

This shift has drawn people away from shopping in their own neighbourhood at local corner store businesses and small local shopping centres. As a result, there’s been a decline in the number of neighbourhood stores and businesses, and a physical deterioration of many residential shopping sites.

The purpose of the Corner Store Project is to explore the actions the City might take to revitalize small neighbourhood shopping sites in mature neighbourhoods.

---

"Healthy Corner Stores as an Economic Development Strategy" (Healthy Corner Stores Network)

Corner stores are a convenient food source in rural, suburban, and urban communities across the country. Most corner stores sell packaged foods and beverages of minimal nutritional value, alcohol, and tobacco products, with few healthy or fresh options. However, these small-scale
stores have tremendous potential to improve community health and promote economic development.

---

Sparking Community Revitalization (White House)

"In 2010, the Obama Administration launched the Healthy Food Financing Initiative (HFFI), a partnership across various federal agencies to combat the lack of access to healthy food by provide financing for developing and equipping grocery stores, small retailers, corner stores, and farmers markets selling healthy food in underserved areas. There are currently 23.5 million Americans, including 6.5 million children, living in neighborhoods without full service grocery stores and limited access to fresh, healthy food.

In addition, in 2011, the Department of Treasury provided $25 million in grants to Community Development Financing Institutions to fund healthy food initiatives and the Treasury’s New Market Tax Credits program includes 50 companies that expect to generate $461 million for HFFI activities. The Health and Human Services Department awarded $10 million to community economic development corporations to develop grocery stores, small retailers, corner stores, farmers markets, and other innovative initiatives to help revitalize communities. And U.S. Department of Agriculture continues their work to improve access to healthy and affordable food across the nation through various agency programs."


---

Part 4 is on the way.