Weatherford: "Statements such as Mr. Schellenberger’s are divisive and not constructive."

He's a Republican, right? Hell, if all us city folks would just be good and REPUBLICAN, we wouldn't have to use a youth shelter at all.

Shucks.

City, county should be one big family (letter to the editor of the News and Tribune)

I wanted to express my overwhelming concern at one of the statements that I heard at the Floyd County Council meeting on April 10. During the discussion on the ordinance for the New Albany-Floyd County Parks Department, elected county council member John Schellenberger stated that “city kids” were the majority in the Youth Shelter that was recently purchased and being remodeled by Floyd County.

I have lived within the city limits of New Albany since June 2009, and as far as I know I have been a resident of Floyd County the exact same amount of time. I consider myself a part of both, as I am sure that most of the population of the city of New Albany does.

In reply to Mr. Schellenberger’s statement, children are children. There should be no distinction between “city kids” and children that live outside of the city limits. The Youth Shelter may have a large percentage of children that live within the city limits, but 100 percent of those children live within Floyd County.

There was much discussion about the tension between the city council of New Albany and the county council at the same county council meeting. I have attended many city council meetings, and there is not a time that I remember that such a huge amount of time was spent on discussing the tension between the councils, not even the 911 merger.

It pleases me very much that the two councils were able to vote on the New Albany-Floyd County Parks Department. This is a step forward for our community and it is going to take time and learning on both councils for the merger to be effective.

Statements such as Mr. Schellenberger’s are divisive and not constructive. I hope that the councils can continue this trend when it comes to future mergers and work on building a better community that is 100 percent Floyd County, Indiana, and the city of New Albany.

— Amy Weatherford, New Albany

Tribune supports annexation, yawns at renegade realtor conspiracy theories.

The Tribune editorial board disagrees with Pat Harrison and Steve Price, and sees no harmful Nazi-inspired shenanigans behind the city's annexation plan:

TRIBUNE EDITORIAL: Annexation plan makes sense

It seems like a win-win move for the city. The area, which many consider part of New Albany now, will generate around $700,000 a year in property tax revenue for the city. How can you say no to $700,000 a year, especially when you currently have a $1.8 million shortfall in public safety expenses. Without a LOIT tax or another financial stream, the City Council can’t afford not to annex the property.

In the same piece, the board supports the county's purchase of Pine View Elementary as future home of the Youth Shelter, and cannot resist a backhanded swipe at the city:

Government does not always have to be confrontational and stagnant. It can work. Unfortunately, for those of us who live in the city, that is not always the case. Maybe the city council and city administration can learn something from their county brothers. When government works together, the citizens are rewarded.

Huzzah! Has Dan Coffey and Steve Price yet offered to slash their own paychecks?

Beyond repair?

In today's Tribune, the paper's editorial board offers an opinion on the progress (or lack thereof) of a new Floyd County Youth Shelter. Fair enough. Included in that piece, however, is the conclusion that the county's North Annex, currently utilized as the shelter, "has deteriorated beyond repair."

While I can understand suggesting that the Annex may not be the most suitable structure for a youth shelter, the above pronouncement suggests that the building retains no utility at all and should be torn down. Given that I don't remember (and can't seem to find) any Tribune report that documents any serious, "unrepairable" structural deficiencies putting the building at risk of collapse or presenting the building as an irremediable danger to the public, I find it puzzling that the board would find it necessary to make such a pronouncement as part of an argument for an alternative youth shelter location.

If anyone can point to Tribune reporting that provides evidence in support of a "beyond repair" claim, I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, what gives?

There's a city council meeting tonight. Time to spin the county's Wi-Fi wheel yet again.

City Hall is expected to come before the council tonight to discuss the approaching summer's paving plans, to ask for an appropriation to fund handicap ramps, and to prepare for the likelihood that Steve Price will vote "no" on all of the above while drinking tea at the same time. Puppetmasters of the world, unite.

Meanwhile, at his blog, the council president John Gonder offers extra info for Thursday in the form of a 6:00 p.m. skull session on insurance options.

The Tribune reports that Floyd County and New Albany city officials have discussed a new combined building, with the Coyle property again emerging as a likely candidate for it. Whether there'll be a historic building still standing as prime component for adaptive reuse, as most of the remainder of the civilized world would insist on doing, or whether the demolitionist Poli-Philistines will win again, has yet to be determined.

And, Floyd County Youth Shelter relocation has gotten another nudge. With multiple school buildings standing vacant and begging for (yes) adaptive reuse, rather like the defeated D. Sakel, naturally the most popular plan is to build a brand new building at the former country club, which should be purchased and converted into a new/old bayou to assist with eco-tourism and storm drainage, but of course hereabouts, in this municipality where a ban on logic is the only ordinance regularly enforced, such an idea might be confused with Communism or Obamaism by folks like Dr. Oakengruber ... speaking of which, the President of the United States recently called out Steve Price:

"If the just-say-no crowd had won out — if we had done things the way they wanted to go — we'd be in a deeper world of hurt."

Wait -- seems that Obama was talking about Republicans.

Same thing, right?

NASH: "Creative planning needed for new youth shelter."

Matt, let me help you: It's because that's what Philistines do!

NASH: Creative planning needed for new youth shelter

Their first plan was to destroy the former Floyd County Home, also known as the North Annex, a historic building constructed in 1878. Their latest plan is to destroy an integral part of Sam Pedan Community Park. Can the people in charge of building this new facility do so without destroying something that is important to many of the citizens in our county?

From North Carolina to Grant Line Road in ten not so easy elected officials.

Yesterday’s “New Life for Old Factories” presentation in Madison was highly informative, and well attended by New Albanians (six of us, I believe). To make a long story short, North Carolina is ahead of the pack when it comes to offering tax incentives and other inducements for those seeking to develop archaic factories, mill buildings, schools and public utility structures into newly usable revenue generators.

The results are stunning.

Indiana may lag behind, and one wonders why our governor did not accompany his Major Moves program with North Carolinian-style carrots/incentives for adaptive reuse of what we already have, but no matter.

Creative solutions actually do exist in Indiana, although you wouldn’t know it by observing the actions of Floyd County’s commissioners and council, our two governing entities, who continue to insist that the only way of improving the historic County Home (North Annex) building on Grant Line Road is to demolish it, ostensibly to allow the contemporary institutional, er, “grandeur” of its Timpermanesque replacement to be seen from the egalitarian confines of the Wal-Mart parking lot.

Speaking of lowest common denominators, currently the county’s leadership cadre doesn’t have the money to do even that, short of sending orange-festooned jailbirds with hammers to begin chipping away in the fashion of the Berlin Wall’s demise, or indulging in the time-honored local solution of summarily torching the edifice (moving the Youth Shelter kids away to a tent city first, of course), and this constitutes a rarely fortunate turn of events stemming from Indiana’s property tax class warfare.

Perhaps a thought process (is that legal?) somewhat removed from used car sales Philistinism will yet prevail, sensible options for adaptive reuse will be considered, and progress in the North Carolina sense -- savor the irony in that analogy -- might yet blossom right here in the domain of the Open Air Museum of Ignorance, Superstition and Backwardness.

Meanwhile, before anyone jumps in here to passionately defend the Youth Shelter, let’s be clear about the gist. I'm for the Youth Shelter. My comments here are not about the Youth Shelter, not about its employees, and not about its inhabitants.

To my knowledge, there is nothing in the mandate of the Youth Shelter that says a historic building should be thoughtlessly demolished when all available facts suggest it is cheaper to renovate such a structure than to build a new one. Throughout the previous months of this discussion, council, commissioners and Youth Shelter supporters alike have consistently sought to shift the conversation away from the merits of County Home reuse to the emotional insinuation that anyone opposing the politicos’ shortsighted “resolve” is guilty of ignoring, rejecting and detesting troubled kids.

No, it isn’t, that particular argument is flagrantly invalid, and the people advancing it need to become better actors.

As with most other political failings locally, the suggested fate of the County Home has far less to do with thoughtful future planning than it does with an abject and egregious absence of imagination on the part of elected officials. Once a historical building is gone, it’s gone for good, but imagination somehow continues to cling to survival hereabouts -- if only it might be acknowledged and nurtured.

Ironically, the clients of the Youth Shelter might have a better grasp of imagination, creativity and adaptive solutions owing to their own unfortunate circumstances than the generally well-meaning adults who insist on skewing the argument illogically. That's too bad.

In the archives:

NAC: Sekula on the North Annex: "Clarify and frame this discussion and ensure that it is portrayed accurately."

NAC: New thread: North Annex, preservationists, youth shelter advocates and ... and ...

NAC: North Annex? It's time to address Floyd County's political culture and its congenital cultural amnesia.

And: Bass Ackward (Diggin’ in the Dirt blog)

---

Photo credit: Floyd County Historical Association

New thread: North Annex, preservationists, youth shelter advocates and ... and ...

In the thread at Sekula on the North Annex: "Clarify and frame this discussion and ensure that it is portrayed accurately," NAC's Bluegill wrote:

One negative consequence of tying the youth shelter to demolition is that it unnecessarily pits two proactive, positive groups against each other.

The youth shelter folks have undoubtedly advocated long and hard for improved conditions, and rightfully so. What they've been told is that tearing down the county home is the ONLY way to get it.

It's created another fight where there really is none.

---

Precisely. And who is encouraging this fight where none should be?

The County Commissioners and the County Council, both of whom are pushing the youth shelter advocates forward and changing the topic in the process.

In the used car biz, don't they call that a bait and switch?

Sekula on the North Annex: "Clarify and frame this discussion and ensure that it is portrayed accurately."

Greg Sekula, director of the Southern Regional Office of the Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana, contributed the following to the Tribune as a guest column. It appears today. We're reprinting the piece in its entirety.

----

As has recently been reported in the media, a group of concerned citizens of Floyd County has expressed a desire to investigate the option of saving the historic two story section of the former Floyd County Home on Grant Line Road. This group has dubbed itself “The Friends of the Floyd County Home” and continues to grow in numbers as this issue garners increased public attention.

In response to the numerous articles and the Jan. 27, 2008, letter to the editor written by Pam Prince, president of Floyd County Youth Services Advisory Board, I think it is imperative that a number of points be addressed to clarify and frame this discussion and ensure that it is portrayed accurately from our viewpoint:

1. The concern for saving the former Floyd County Home is not an 11th hour revelation on the part of preservationists. The issue was raised by the New Albany Preservation Commission and Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana in letters written August 20, 2004, and May 16, 2005, respectively. The concerns went unheeded by county officials who claim that they had no knowledge of community interest in preserving the building.

2. Advocates for saving the historic building are not advocating for continued use of the annex as the youth shelter. We see the merits of constructing a new facility that is more conducive to modern day living accommodations. Our group, however, does desire to have our county officials sincerely study the costs involved in retaining the main historic sections of the former county home and utilizing this structurally sound building for office uses related to support services for the youth shelter operations or other functions as deemed fit by the county. If this option has indeed been studied, then as taxpayers of Floyd County, we respectfully request an opportunity to review those studies, including the cost estimates developed.

3. Larry McAllister, County Council President, acknowledged at a Jan. 22 site visit of the annex that there is not a statutory requirement that counties provide a youth shelter. Mr. McAllister explained that the County is providing this service to Floyd and surrounding counties because there is a recognized need for this service and the shelter creates a revenue stream for the county. Given this reality and the fact that citizens are today faced with property tax uncertainty, it is important to acknowledge that the citizens of Floyd County are being asked to support and ultimately pay for a $10 million dollar capital project that is not a required function of county government.

4. It has been stated that the existing building will likely remain standing until the new building is finished and ready for occupancy. Thus, it appears that there is time to further study re-use of this building without necessarily impacting the construction schedule of the shelter. Given what we have seen of the proposed campus plan for the annex site, it appears that the footprint of the two story section of the historic county home is outside the footprint of the proposed youth shelter building and the associated parking lot. Retention of the two story sections of the original building (main central block and wings) will undoubtedly necessitate some site plan and engineering adjustments to the campus plan. However, we would contend that such costs are potentially minimal when compared to the cost of demolishing a usable building that can continue to serve the people of Floyd County.

5. Demolition costs of the annex are conservatively estimated to be in the neighborhood of $120,000. - that is $120,000 of tax payers’ money. Could this money not be put toward the rehabilitation of this piece of our history? The demolition cost does not factor in the cost of improvements already made to the building in recent years, at tax payers’ expense, which would be wasted through demolition, nor the additional strain on our landfill that the demolition debris would provide.

In order to accurately determine the feasibility of retaining and rehabilitating portions of the county home for office use to equip our county leaders with the best information to make a fiscally responsible decision, it will be necessary to study the approach that I have outlined. Our group would like to hire an architect from outside the area to evaluate our recommended approach. The County’s cooperation in providing access to all relevant studies, reports, plans, financing, and cost estimates that have been prepared at taxpayer expense in connection with this project is needed. Additionally, access to the building by the selected architect must be granted so a rehabilitation assessment can be made. Cooperation and assistance from the County’s hired architect is also necessary to share any relevant information with the consultant architect. If the County is agreeable to this approach, The Friends of the Floyd County Home intend to pursue independent funds to cover the cost of this study without asking the county to contribute financially to the investigation.

I would, however, ask our county officials to approach the study with an open mind and to be willing to re-consider the fate of this piece of Floyd County’s heritage if the facts and figures demonstrate that retention of the building is a fiscally prudent and feasible option.

--Greg Sekula

----

Other links:

Diggin' in the Dirt: 7 Million Dollars

Tribune guest column by Vincent Klein: Floyd County reader believes now is the time to proceed on youth shelter

NA Confidential: North Annex? It's time to address Floyd County's political culture and its congenital cultural amnesia.