Strong Towns Week: “This blog has changed my life in profound ways and, in the process, your reaction has given voice to a movement that is slowing seeping into those cogs of government.”

The Copperhead can be intimidating.

You know, this guy up in Minnesota getting involved, and finding it discomforts the governing cliques, the sycophants serving them, and the oligarchs being served by them.

Comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable? Marohn is an engineer, but it almost sounds like journalism.

STAYING STRONG, by Charles Marohn

... I wanted to share this because I know there are Strong Towns advocates out there who occasionally get similar responses in their communities: Why don’t you move? Let’s see you run for council. Why don’t you show up? These are really destructive and dysfunctional notions that are meant to intimidate and shame the receiver. We can’t let that change what we do.

We all need to understand, first and foremost, that you don’t need to attend a meeting to care. You don’t need to be involved in the system that has been set up for you in order to be involved in your place. A base assumption of the Strong Towns movement is that the city is ours. We are not relegated to secondary citizens simply because we are not following the process set forth by those in power.

One of the more deeply offensive moments of my professional life was at a meeting of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s citizen’s board where one of the outspoken board members stated that, “the world is run by those who show up.” This was said in the context of defending the actions of a wealthy, highly-connected group of prime property owners who not only could afford to take time off work and travel 150 miles to the meeting, but retain legal staff and professional experts to advocate on their behalf. Needless to say, their opposition didn’t “show up” in the way that they had — their concerns thereby invalidated with a pompous remark.

City council meetings are incredibly unfair environments for a member of the general public wanting to be heard. The layout of most council chambers is intimidating and isolating. A person asking to speak has to come up to a podium, stand there alone and face an assembled group of officials who are seated behind an intimidating table and, often, elevated above the crowd. In my city, they are on television to boot. I’ve seen grown men shake with fear when asked to address the council in this way.

This is the home field for the staff and the city council. They have the benefit of having spent a lot of time in this abnormal environment. They know how the protocols work, how to control the floor and how to direct the discussion. They have inside information that members of the public don’t have, adding to the asymmetric power structure. I will never fault someone for not subjecting themselves to that, no matter how important their cause.

The format of a council meeting creates feedback that is disjointed and unhelpful. There is little opportunity for back and forth dialogue. Complex issues must be discussed in limited timeframes. Members of the public are often given cursory slots at the beginning and the end of the agenda and frequently leave feeling as if they are being patronized or tolerated, not listened to. I don’t blame anyone for finding little value in spending their time this way.

And this:

Here is what are we called to do as Strong Towns advocates:

1. A Strong Citizen is a leader by example, sharing the values of a Strong Town in the way they live their own life.
2. A Strong Citizen is actively involved in their community, although not necessarily in local government.
3. A Strong Citizen knows their immediate neighbors and works with them to resolve conflict and build a strong neighborhood.
4. A Strong Citizen seeks connections with others outside their neighborhood as a way to gain knowledge, build understanding and strengthen the community.
5. A Strong Citizen honors the work of past generations, respects the needs of the current generation and protects the interests of future generations.

Don’t be intimidated by haters. Keep doing what you can to build a strong town.

Gahan and Coffey Together Forever, Part 4: The new conjoined councilmen are Coffey and Gahan (17 January 2009).

LAST: Gahan and Coffey Together Forever, Part 3: What The F@#* Opie? Ya Ain't Seen Nothun Yet! (16 January 2009).

Following is a draft, never before published, and untouched since it was written on January 17, 2009. I haven't changed a word.

Two years later, I supported Jeff Gahan for mayor. He told me what I wanted to hear, subsequently reneged on every promise, and in retrospect, I can only plead insanity given the verdict below, which has been amply demonstrated throughout the years since.

Here's the unpublished analysis from so many years ago.

---

DRAFT The new conjoined councilmen are Coffey and Gahan.

Thursday evening's city council meeting is summarized by the Tribune's Daniel Suddeath:

NEW ALBANY CITY COUNCIL: Promotions for two still in limbo after 4-4 vote

Too bad I missed the coda, during which Dan "Wizard of Westside" Coffey flagrantly abused his new position as council president by jeering citizen Cassidy during non-agenda speaking time, gaveling Cassidy down, and in short, reverting to the serial boorishness and unconcealed instability that preceded last's year's charm offensive prior to the backroom deal with former council president Jeff Gahan that gifted Coffey with the council leadership in return for the support that the Wizard has been providing for Gahan's emerging Machiavellian tendencies.

Yes, CM Gahan will eventually learn that when you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas, and seeing as both of them harbor ambitions for higher office, it will be fascinating to see this alliance play out, but this story goes further than that -- past the redistricting venom at the end of the meeting, to Coffey's verbal and physical harassment of another citizen afterwards in Studio's.

Pay close attention: Coffey is the president of the city council, and in effect, Gahan placed him there ... and the president of the council has taken it upon himself to threaten and bully a private citizen with whom he disagrees. It isn't even the first time that Coffey's true nature has emerged in such a context. Note that in the past, before he was president, Coffey once looked at me during a council meeting and mouthed the words "I'll kick your ass."

I'm quite sure he would try, because he can't respond to the written word in anything remotely approximating an equal footing with me, and owing to that knowledge of inadequacy, violence real or imagined usually is the result of the disparity. However, Coffey has been Coffey for so long that his most recent ill-tempered outbursts seem little more than par for the sad, degraded course. Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, and Coffey gotta dispense malice. In some ways, its a yawner ... unless, of course, you're the one actually being threatened by an elected official who apparently didn't get the memo and doesn't think that human decency -- not to mention rule of law -- applies to him.

We'll see about that, but in the meantime, remember: Jeff Gahan has a plan, and as part of the plan, Gahan would like us to believe that Coffey is best suited to lead the city council. Think about that. Don't forget it. Does judgment get any worse than this? Plain and simple, Gahan currently is an accessory to what happened Thursday night, both at the meeting and after it.

Contrary to what both Gahan and Coffey have spluttered in recent months, an ordinary citizen is not precluded from participation in the local political process unless he or she decides to run for office. That's transparent nonsense, and both of them know it, although it provides a few valuable insights into the depths of the proclaimer's character.

Mark Cassidy was not a part of the redistricting lawsuit, and became involved only after a judge ruled that the the council needed to (a) do its Constitutional duty, and (b) do it correctly. Cassidy then became a member of the committee formed to come up with an equitable plan, one that both Gahan and Coffey had no intention of honoring. Cassidy studied hard, and volunteered considerable time to do what the elected public officials refused to do even after a judge instructed them to do it.

So, you see, this really isn't about Dan Coffey. It's about Jeff Gahan.

I've used this space dozens of times to ask publicly that Jeff Gahan tell us exactly what his secretive game plan for New Albany is. We know he believes that scofflaws like Coffey are useful to further his own personal ambitions, hence the imminent need for flea powder. We've seen him scoff at the equal protections of the Constitution so often that it's appears to be a personal grudge against the system of government he's been sworn to uphold. We've seen the senseless, divisive and time-wasting anti-smoking jihad, which was staged primarily with the mayor and the mayor's office in mind. We've seen the ongoing refusal to put an end to indefensible sewer subsidies extracted from economic development monies that should be used as intended.

I won't pretend to be anything but confused and saddened by Gahan's free-fall into the outer reaches of the dark side. He always seemed like someone who was reasonable, but now, only question marks remain, and they're multiplying by the day. Now, I can't run against Gahan for council, both because I have neither the time nor the interest in the job, but also because I don't live in his district.

However, my business is located there, and given that I'm not feeling well represented at the moment, it is well within my sphere of interest to consider the legal establishment of a fundraising mechanism to raise money for candidates of either (or both) parties who will undertake to oppose Gahan in the next council election cycle.

---

NEXT: Gahan and Coffey Together Forever, Part 5: Did you know that humanity poses the greatest threat to the natural habitat of copperheads? (22 January 2009).

"For millions of Americans, the dysfunction of our political system may be frightening, but it’s creating a unique reform moment."

(1 of 4)

Basketball-laden holiday weekends are death for readership, but I'd rather think about public participation, ranked-choice voting, Constitutional reform and other structural reforms.

This Is What Political Revolution Really Looks Like, by Wendy R. Weiser, Rob Richie and Sanford Levinson (The Nation)

Without these structural reforms to American democracy, even a progressive presidency couldn’t accomplish much.

The rise of Bernie Sanders, whatever the fate of his campaign, has likely altered the trajectory of progressive politics in the United States for decades to come. He has not only rallied millions of supporters to stand with him, in the words of Michael Harrington, on “the left wing of the possible,” he has significantly expanded the realm of the possible itself. Yet for many on the left even Sanders’s fiery denunciations of a rigged political and economic system fail to account for how profoundly that is the case and how challenging it will be to un-rig it. In this installment of “That’s Debatable,” our continuing series of forums, Wendy Weiser, Rob Richie, and Sanford Levinson argue that deeper structural reforms would be necessary for a “political revolution” to make our federal government more responsive to the people in whose name it governs and whose interests it is supposed to serve.

Now is the time for tactical urbanism in New Albany.

Fighting Padgett with paint (brushes).

We've talked about it, and now that Greg Phipps' new best incumbent friend intends to delay street grid reform for up to 18 months out of naked political terror, it's time for tactical urbanism to begin.

Let's roll.

If you're interested, let me know. I'm not speaking here of my campaign. Rather, it's about what we can do to jump-start initiative, and to dispense with the perennial top-down thinking of the usual suspects, who cannot undertake any worthwhile reform without first tying the largesse to campaign finance.

Tactical Urbanists Are Improving Cities, One Rogue Fix at a Time, by Emily Matchar (Smithsonian)

And city governments are paying attention, turning homemade infrastructure changes into permanent solutions

One rainy January night in Raleigh, North Carolina, Matt Tomasulo went out to commit what some would call vandalism. Along with his girlfriend and a friend, the graduate student walked around downtown hanging homemade signs on lampposts and telephone poles. The signs featured arrows pointing the way to popular downtown destinations, along with average walking times. Tomasulo called the project “guerrilla wayfinding.” His decidedly un-criminal intent was to promote more walking among Raleigh citizens.

Frustrated by the syrup-slow pace and red tape of the traditional civic change process, citizens across the country are bypassing the bureaucratic machine entirely and undertaking quick, low-cost city improvements without government sanction. They’re creating pop-up parks in abandoned lots. They’re installing free library boxes on street corners. They’re creating homemade traffic-slowing devices using temporary obstacles like potted plants to make their streets safer.

New York-based urban planner Mike Lydon coined the term “tactical urbanism” several years ago to describe the phenomenon. Now, Lydon and fellow planner Anthony Garcia have come out with a new book, Tactical Urbanism: Short-term Action for Long-term Change, offering a history of the movement and a guide for aspiring practitioners.

The NewAlbanist: "And Then There Were … None?"

Admittedly, it struck me as a bit premature that Brad Bell announced his candidacy for the 2015 council race some 20 months before the primary.

In addition, there's a "once bitten, twice shy" hangover from my erstwhile newspaper column's shoddy treatment (post-primary, 2011) at the hands of the Blind Goys from Alabama.

It's also true that no one's running for anything until there's the correct election to contest. Verily, at this precise moment, I'm not running for office, although if you're interested in examining the platform from my council race in 2011, the Facebook campaign page remains up.

Clear as mud? Now, here's what the bookseller (NewAlbanist) has to say, and as always, it's quite thought-provoking. Now if you'll excuse me, there are tea leaves to be read.

And Then There Were … None? by newalbanist

At their next family reunion, if not sooner, Jeff Gahan, New Albany’s mayor, and Dan Coffey, the city’s longest-tenured city council member, will surely share a satisfied chuckle over their cooling baked beans and warming potato salad. For yet another talented and innovative New Albanian has thrown in the towel and conceded the electoral field to the reigning cabal.

My friend, Roger Baylor, seems to have literally done that. In the midst of a renewed effort on his part to simply help improve our city, Roger has been compelled to issue a caveat in conjunction with that effort – “I’m not running for office.” More on this, below.

The $60,000 Question: If we submit an invoice, will they stiff us?

The bookseller's on a roll.

His new survey proposal set grime-encrusted wheels to spinning, and eventually a precedent was disgorged. We've all been here before. Sort of.

But first, the 2013 hiking idea. I endorse it, and I'll be there on the 10th.

I'll also submit an invoice.

The $60,000 Hike – Sunday, Nov. 10, by Randy Smith (The NewAlbanist)

Despite the fact that New Albany employs a full-time Streets Commissioner (and staff), a Neighborhoods Coordinator, an economic development director, and police and fire chiefs charged with guarding our safety …

… the bureaucrats have decreed that the quite simple task of reverting downtown streets to their original design for two-way traffic will first require a “study” costing $60,000 ...

... In the spirit of saving our city a substantial sum, I propose “The $60,000 Hike.”

Has it really been just shy of eight years ago since we last indulged in some mapping?

SUNDAY, JANUARY 30, 2005

Taking a walk, by Randy Smith (Volunteer Hoosier)

Our intrepid band of surveyors launched today, and while allusions to Lewis & Clark would be inappropriate, the frigid temperatures lent an air of bicentennial authenticity.

Working as a team, we were able to piece together some of the raw data, architectural heritage, and unfiltered rumor about one segment of the downtown business district. We managed to do a fairly decent survey of the west bank of Pearl Street from Oak Street to Main Street.

Look carefully -- there, above the door: It's Bank Street Brewhouse, on the right side of New Albany street grid history.

October 24 update: My two-way street project and how you can help.

I've paid to have 125 of these simple two-way sheets printed. My dime. You can buy me a beer some time.

They are intentionally wordless, but there is space to add a message if desired:

"Two way me, baby"
"There's more than one way to drive"
"In NA, we like it both ways"

Maybe just, "We Support" or "In Favor"

What I'll be doing in the coming days is trying to get as many of these as possible in downtown business windows. I'll be starting on Pearl Street. See if you can guess why. By the way, here's an anecdote shared by a friend.

My co-worker wanted to buy the book being sold at Endris. We pulled up on Pearl right by Endris. A woman parked a SUV right outside their door and waited, Jean came outside and they began to go through the stuff in the woman's van. We waited, Jean crossed the street like one north west spot and put stuff in her own SUV. We asked if the lady was gonna move but noooo, they had more stuff to go through. My rambling point is this ... downtown merchant ... councilman ... opposed to 2 way ... taking up at least two parking spots for themselves on the short block of Pearl between Spring and Market. WTF.

New Albany redistricting plan ready for a vote

There's more excitement on the horizon as Councilman Cappuccino makes yummy hash from his day-old BBQ bologna and plots pre-emptive secession for Westendia lest pernicious outside investment monies poison the scam and render him null and void -- not that he isn't already.

New Albany redistricting plan ready for a vote, by the Tribune's Daniel Suddeath.

Committee Co-chairman Randy Smith said the six districts were shaped to include as close to 6,325 people each as possible, based on population numbers confirmed through Floyd County Clerk Linda Moeller.

The district most under the average is short 19 people, while one district is over by 27 people.

The proposal likely will be brought to the council for approval July 7. Smith said he’s hopeful the council will sanction the new map since none of its members have provided input, except the three at-large councilmen assigned to the committee.

“I expect no criticism whatsoever, since we’ve had five public meetings,” Smith said.

Randy, a plaintiff in the lawsuit that handily exposed the previous council's cavalier and Kochertian disinterest in rule of law to an eagerly waiting world, went on to suggest that the current council may well regard the judicially mandated redistricting effort in like and negligent fashion.

As a plainftiff, I can speak only for myself in saying that it would be a mistake for yet another council to wash its hands of legality.



To paraphrase Mick Jagger: "ACLU, children, it's just a call away."

An open letter to another concerned citizen.

Dear Pastor Evans,

Thanks to you and the Jones Memorial AME Zion Church for hosting the town hall meeting this past Saturday. It was a worthwhile afternoon that I hope, as suggested that day, will grow to become a regular event.

As an East End resident, it was encouraging to hear that West End residents share many of the same goals expressed by their cross-town neighbors. We all seem to agree that enforcement of city laws, proactive citizen involvement, and cooperation are necessary to carry our city forward with increased opportunities for us all.

Quite frankly, I talk a lot and sometimes it’s just good to listen. Thanks for the opportunity.

It would’ve been nice had your district’s City Council Representative, Dan Coffey, seen fit to attend the meeting. Perhaps you noticed his absence as well. Based on his performance as your representative at last night’s City Council meeting, it would seem that Mr. Coffey could’ve benefited from just such a listening opportunity.

During the council’s proceedings, Coffey complained that people in his district are expected to pay for the parking tickets they receive when parked illegally. He complained that people who renovate in historic districts without getting the proper legal approvals are told to stop. When asked his opinion of a redistricting concern by the council-created committee charged with redrawing political boundaries, Coffey refused to answer, still insisting his ego, wounded while defending the previous council’s defiance of state and federal election laws, is more important than a fair election process.

When Council Member At-large John Gonder proposed that the council put the legal framework in place to establish citizen committees and commissions to advise the council about issues in their neighborhoods, Coffey warned against such citizen participation in government, lest some concerned group of voters actually become knowledgeable and start making recommendations to the council he doesn't like.

I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. This is the same Dan Coffey, after all, who once proclaimed that he'd never be dictated to by a bunch of citizens.

Perhaps that's why he skipped last Saturday's meeting. I’m not sure, but it might be worth asking him.

Sincerely,
Jeff Gillenwater

A submission to NAC: On the government we deserve.

The following is an unsolicited submission to the blog. Regular readers know that NAC’s general policy is to require disclosure, with exceptions sparingly permitted so long as the senior editor knows the identity of the contributor.

Such is the case today with this thought-provoking piece ... or, at least, close enough for rock and roll, by proxy.

Pop quiz essay question: How do the thoughts expressed below jibe with social devolution?

----

“Wannabes” - Getting It Backwards

“If you want change, then change your habits, beliefs and thinking; if you don’t want change, keep repeating what you already do.”

New Albany gets the government and services it deserves. It does so, because New Albanian’s don’t participate at the level they should.

New Albany is like a homeless person sitting on the street corner, unwashed, unemployed, while shaking a Styrofoam cup, looking for a handout - depending on others to do for them, while muttering “poor me“ over and over to themselves.

A thoughtful person - maybe even a blind person - should be able to see the obvious: New Albany is at a crossroads. But can its citizens figure that out? A community that expects its government to lead loses. Look at Gary, Indiana or any other down-at-the-heels community. When will locals take control of their present and future and stop expecting others to provide for them, lead them and take on tasks that should be partnerships between the citizenry, business community and the elected officials?

Larry Kochert calls unelected citizens concerned about their government “wannabe’s”. While this ludicrous, pithy and really stupid comment refers to the failure of the city council to perform its legally mandated responsibility, this ludicrous, pithy and really stupid remark goes further to reflect “public officials” attitudes toward citizen participation.

About two years ago citizen participation forced four idiots on the city council to vote in favor of a project they had spent months trying to kill. The idiots failed; but they wasted valuable time and made the town look like fools in the process. Now that project is being built at the end of State and Main streets.

New Albany’s elected “elite” believe that they alone have the right to define the direction of the city. Unfortunately many of its citizens seem to believe the same thing.

Talking with various people about what citizens can do this election year I keep hearing “Wait until the election is over, then we’ll know what the new mayor wants.” These citizens are concerned about the “new administration” taking ownership of any plans or programs that they may not control. Why give up the power the voters have – why not define the city YOU want, not what THEY choose.

This is an election year. This is EXACTLY the time these plans should be updated; this is EXACTLY the time for citizens to take control of their town and their future. They did it once with Scribner Place; they can do it again, and again, and again. Any actions SHOULD take place NOW - before the election. This would be considered an unstoppable citizens movement by the most intelligent elected official. And what elected official doesn’t follow the crowd?

It doesn’t matter if England or Hubbard is elected . . . That decision is up to the voting citizens of New Albany.

But stop letting the “elected elite” set the community agenda. This is the time – BEFORE the election - for those officials to be telling us exactly what they plan to do for the city - “for” not “to”.

But this is also the time for the citizens to be telling the candidates exactly what THEY expect of them once the election is over. Consider this a call to arms - a manifesto if you will - but a philosophy New Albany should adopt.

As long as the citizenry refuses to take responsibility for themselves and their community - others will do their thinking for them. And then you get the government you deserve.

Seize the day, the day is now.