Church-state separation: Reverend's got a brand new church spire, but New Jersey's supreme court begs to differ.

We turn back the gnarled pages to 2013.

75k for church restoration to be weighed by New Albany council, by Daniel Suddeath (All Tom May All of the Time, Even Then)

The final vote on a $75,000 appropriation to help restore the historic Second Baptist Church building is slated to be taken by the New Albany City Council Thursday.

It passed.

Councilman John Gonder is the sponsor of the $75,000 appropriation, and said due to the church’s role in the Underground Railroad during the Civil War, the building should be maintained and treasured as a part of New Albany’s legacy.

He added more money will have to roll-in to support the rehabilitation of the structure, as the first phase of the project including replication of the original steeple and repair of architectural woodwork is estimated to cost $217,500.

“What we’re putting in is a significant amount, but it’s not enough to get the job done,” he said. “It’s a matter of getting out and talking to the citizens and getting them involved in seeing the value of this.”

The Horseshoe Foundation awarded a $25,000 grant to the project.

Councilman Scott Blair opposed the measure on initial ballots because he said he wanted more guarantees that the city’s money would be matched by other entities.

The $75,000 public grant should serve as a foundation for the project with an assurance that enough funds can be raised to see the rehabilitation finished as planned, Blair said.

Councilman Greg Phipps was the other member of the body to vote against the appropriation on initial ballots. Phipps said he has “strong feelings of separation of church and state” and that the project mixed a religious institution with public funding.

While annoying owing to the casual manner in which local elected officials stared at the ceiling and skirted the issue of church-state separation, the spire supporters' argument from history and historic preservation had at least some merit.

It's just that as a one-off exception, this decision to spend taxpayer funds on church building repairs did not establish a useful precedent for other non-religious instances. No pattern emerged, and it was back to the same old political back-scratching.

It's also worth noting that while opposed to the measure on principled, impeccable grounds, with which I concurred, Phipps expended not a dollop of political capital in opposition, and soon returned to doing as he was told, when he was told, by mayor and party.

And still they mock him behind his back. To the Gahans and Dickeys of the planet, Phipps is just a useful idiot. It's sad, but there we are.

Meanwhile, in New Jersey, we've been given a glance at what church-state separation should look like.

---

NJ Supreme Court Says Taxpayer Money Cannot Be Used to Fund Church Renovations, by Hemant Mehta (Patheos)

In a unanimous decision just announced by the New Jersey Supreme Court, taxpayer dollars cannot be used to help repair or maintain churches. It’s a major victory for church/state separation advocates and one that will save taxpayers in the state millions of dollars that would otherwise have gone to promoting religious dogma.

The case involved more than $5.5 million in “historic preservation grants” that were given to a dozen churches in Morris County between 2012 and 2015. They were presumed legal because they didn’t directly promote faith.

But giving churches money for general maintenance is promoting faith since it frees up funding that goes right back into worship.

That’s why plaintiff David Steketee and the Freedom From Religion Foundation filed a lawsuit in 2015 saying the grants were illegal.

Unfortunately, a judge ruled against them in January of 2017. If the decision wasn’t appealed, there was a good chance other churches would’ve taken advantage of the loophole, taking whatever money was in their budgets for maintenance, repair, and other structural issues and putting them into programming, knowing that they could just replete their accounts courtesy of state taxpayers.

FFRF appealed the decision and it eventually landed in front of the state’s supreme court. Today, thankfully, all seven of the justices overturned the earlier decision.

Here, the County awarded $4.6 million to twelve churches to repair active houses of worship — from roofs to bell towers, from stained glass windows to ventilation systems. The use of public funds to pay for those repairs violated the plain language of the Religious Aid Clause.

The judges noted that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Trinity Lutheran — which allowed taxpayer funding for ostensibly secular projects like a playground even if it was on church property — didn’t apply here because this was clearly not a secular project.

… the public funds awarded in this case actually went toward “religious uses.” It is clear from the stipulated facts in the record that the Churches all “have active congregations that regularly worship, or participate in other religious activities,” and all hold “regular worship services in one or more of the structures that they have used, or will use,” taxpayer-funded grants to repair.
… a number of the applications expressly stated that churches sought funding for repairs to continue to conduct worship services.

…

This case does not involve the expenditure of taxpayer money for non-religious uses, such as the playground resurfacing in Trinity Lutheran.

The judges said it would be virtually impossible to figure out how much of the grant money was used for religious or non-religious purposes at this point, so they are allowing the old grants to remain in place. The ruling isn’t retroactive. The churches can have the money already given to them, but the good news is that they won’t be able to receive the grants in the future.

FFRF is obviously thrilled with the victory but also relieved that these justices understood their argument.

“It’s shocking that it took a trip to the New Jersey Supreme Court to enforce such a plain constitutional command,” says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “New Jersey taxpayers can breathe a sigh of relief that their constitutional religious liberty rights have been protected.”

“This is not just a win for secular citizens, but for every New Jersey taxpayer,” explains FFRF constitutional attorney Andrew L. Seidel. “Governments in New Jersey cannot force Muslims to bankroll temples and yeshivas, compel Jews to subsidize Christian churches and Catholic schools, force Christians to fund mosques and madrassas or nonbelievers to support any religion. It’s a win for all.”

The Religious Right won’t see it that way. They’ll inevitably twist this ruling into some tale of Christian persecution. But when all the justices speak in unison like this, anyone looking for the facts will find them easily. They just have to read the ruling instead of the spin.

ON THE AVENUES: "Water on the brains: Much less for far more will keep us swimming in it."

ON THE AVENUES: "Water on the brains: Much less for far more will keep us swimming in it."

A weekly web column by Roger A. Baylor.

New Albany's River Run Family Water Park belatedly opened last week, and was formally dedicated yesterday by means of a mayoral re-election rally thinly disguised as a christening. By last night, several discussions were underway at Facebook and other social media sites as to the water park's value in a community context.

Memories are short, and the following was written by NAC co-editor Jeff Gillenwater. It was published here on May 20, 2013. Given that Jeff Gahan will be using the aquatics facility as a major component of his 2015 campaign platform, and depicting it as a precious gift bestowed upon loyal subjects, it seems only fitting to give over my column today to Gillenwater's matchless explanation of how Gahan might have claimed just as much credit for half the price -- because the money does indeed matter, whether Steve Sipes, Pat McLaughlin or any other Democratic functionary cares to discuss it or not, and they generally haven't.

This $9 million expenditure was not mentioned during Gahan's 2011 run for mayor, and once it was given the green light, there was no substantive public discussion of benefits versus cost.

Without such a discussion, how is the water park's ultimate value to be determined?

Answer: It isn't, and that's the whole point. In fact, River Run is a certified campaign issue in 2015, just not in the way Gahan assumes -- and Gillenwater explained why two whole years ago.

I'm delighted to let him do it again. Take it away, Jeff.

---

Water on the brains: Much less for far more will keep us swimming in it.

Since the serious prospect of a new municipal swimming pool or aquatic center was made public in New Albany, several people, though not elected officials or most media types, have issued numerous, relevant questions.

Roger did a fine job, for instance, of asking how or why an aquatics-based project fits with quality of life justifications, particularly when more pressing quality issues, some of which are much less expensive to address and more costly not to, stand mostly ignored.

Likewise, Sam Schad and his group asked why, with such a huge expenditure, we can't at least get increased utility from such a facility if we're going to build it anyway without the sort of considerations Roger suggests.

Somewhere in-between the two, I mused that whether the expenditure would be worth it or not would depend largely on what was ultimately and comprehensively delivered-- hardly a profound concept but one too readily dismissed by too many current decision makers. Given the vast amount of money then proposed and now doubly approved, I foolishly held out hope that council voices would rightfully point out that, for the price, we should be able to produce an aquatic center and a competitive lap pool and the reclamation of our two-way streets and perhaps some other potential initiatives.

Why did/do I think that? Because, apparently unlike some voluntarily voiceless council members, I bothered with a smidgeon of research into how comparable cities have handled comparable situations.

Marion, Ohio, is one such city. Its population of just under 37,000 is almost exactly the same as New Albany's. Marion, too, had an aging pool - a very common predicament nationwide - in a setting of roughly the same land space as Camille Wright: one that needed either substantial rehabilitation or replacement if the city decided to maintain a facility at all.

Conversation in Marion was somewhat similar to ours here as well.  Like New Albany, there were discussions of the overall usefulness of such a facility and whether or not it would cash flow. Totally unlike New Albany, there was even legitimate debate about proposed costs. Finally, Marion's city council online.com/uncategorized/2011/06/council-overrides-veto-of-aquatic-center/">overrode a cost driven mayoral veto to build an aquatic center, depicted below via text and images from online.com/">Marion Online and the aquatic center's Facebook page. It opened last summer, 2012, and has since online.com/news/2013/03/marion-aquatic-center-earns-state-award/">won a state award for recreation facilities.

"The new center will feature heated water, Lazy River, Floating Lilly Pads, Zero-depth entry, 25 foot Racing Slides, a 6 foot Family Slide, a Water Play set with a bucket that dumps 150 gallons of water, 25 meter 6 lane pool with a high dive and low dive and a separate baby pool."

 

It indeed appears to be a very nice facility that's been well received by the community. 

Here's the rub: That debate about cost that led to both a mayoral veto and a council override? It was a fight over whether to spend $2.4 million or $3.5 million. The council favored the 3.5 and won. 

All the above- much of it strikingly familiar - was built within the past couple of years for less than half of even the most conservative cost estimate provided by the administration and approved by the council for New Albany's impending center. Assuming we're not purposefully overspending for nefarious political purposes, New Albany could have something very similar and $4 - 5.5 million left over to address other quality of life needs without spending any more than what's already been approved.

Making that possible, though, requires a majority of council members who think beyond mayoral and Estopinal suggestions and consider such basic, comparative due diligence a part of their job. In terms of what our council has thus far publicly offered up relative to aquatic center merits, the one direct comparison offered here - easily gleaned from about 30 minutes of individual research - unfortunately represents more than our council members have collectively put forth over several months. 

The quantity and quality of discourse around numerous "park" projects has been so low and the prices so high that, if I didn't know some of the folks involved personally, I'd probably just assume they were receiving substantial kickbacks for such a dubious (lack of) effort. I don't believe that, but the lack of diligence has been egregious enough to make it a plausible explanation to fill an obvious void.

One would think (or at least I did) that the public embarrassment of a $750,000 downtown pocket park with less utility and flexibility than a $200,000 park could've offered and/or tens of thousands so casually given to a Bicentennial Commission who clearly told council members they had "no idea" how the money would be used before being granted funding should have been sufficient cause for a slightly more thoughtful approach in considering the aquatics expenditure. But, then, I already admitted to being foolishly optimistic.

If any of the council "yes" voters would like to explain exactly which portion of our proposed aquatic center justifies multiple, additional millions as compared to what we can plainly observe here, the floor is open. It's been open for months. Until any such rational, evidence-based explanation materializes, however, "rubber-stamp" criticisms will ring truer than usual for a group who, via the intelligence of its individual members, ought to know much better. 

As an overall experience, our current council group has in ways been even more frustrating than some of the lesser moments of the Kochert-led era that served as my introduction to New Albany politics. During that time, a distinct lack of intellectual capital coalesced with an abundance of insider bullying to render capacity so low as to substantially limit both expectations and actual potential. 

But that's not the case here. What we have now is an example of "won't" rather than "can't" in which acquiring council seats has somehow rendered usually talented people into an amorphous mass of counterproductive group decline. The sum is less than its parts. No one is consistently demonstrating their capacity for good questions, so we're settling for lousy, injudicious answers and losing badly.

So far, a bunch of really smart people have managed to haphazardly waste millions in public funding without so much as addressing some fundamental quality of life and prioritization issues. If such behavior continues unchecked by any number of council members quite capable of checking it, future councils and the city at large will have a much more difficult time responding to those issues as we try to dig ourselves out of holes already dug, some quite literally, at places like Bicentennial Park and the aquatics center. 

As a citizen and voter, I've always felt it important to extend at least some effort toward helping ensure that we elect as talented a group of leaders as possible. This council, however, with its inexplicable yet seemingly automatic brainpower off switch - apparently activated by the doors at city hall - is calling that premise into question. 

An unexamined "yes" is no better and sometimes worse than an ignorant "no" in that it actively reduces opportunities rather than just passively ignores them. In short, all this "no-brainer" malarkey when it comes to water features is costing us a lot of money that could easily be better spent but which we'll never get back. 

We've seen several frighteningly unthinking financial decisions from this council lately that, taken together, set quite a negative precedent that should be and, since no aquatics contracts have been let, can be immediately corrected before yet another boondoggle becomes a part of their permanent record.

---

Recent columns:

June 25: ON THE AVENUES REWOUND: Red scarf, white shirt and San Miguel beer (2012).

June 18: ON THE AVENUES: These 10 definitions will help you speak local politics like a native.

June 11: ON THE AVENUES: This is Dan Coffey, New Albany’s quintessential Democrat.

June 4: ON THE AVENUES: Dan Coffey speaks for Jeff Gahan and the Democratic Party … unless they say otherwise.

May 28: ON THE AVENUES: The last of the summer beer.

May 21: ON THE AVENUES REWOUND: "I Just Want to Know, Can I Park Here Somewhere?”

Remember when Dan Coffey wanted to exclude transgender people from the human rights ordinance?

Dan Coffey's utterance, as captured Monday on film: 

"Every time you turned around there was something coming up about gays, lesbians and transvestites."

Ignore for a moment the plain fact that Dan Coffey's chief political patron, Jeff Gahan, has overseen the virtual mothballing of the Human Rights Commission, keeping it parked safely in the garage rather than being deployed as a mechanism to explore egregious outrages like -- well, Dan Coffey's entire tenure on the council. Coincidence? Someone call Poirot.

So ignore this, and remember that in 2012, Coffey voted in favor of the Human Rights Commission, but less than a year later, he reversed field, evidently when struck by a thunderbolt labeled "transgender" -- a word he could not bring himself to say aloud. 

Here's how it went down, as explained in this posting from May 7, 2013.

---

Coffey: Planets and employers must be protected from human rights.

On July 19, 2012, New Albany's city council approved the establishment of a Human Rights Commission.

City council unanimously approves a human rights commission.

Unanimously?

That's right.

All eight council persons in attendance last July (Pat McLaughlin was absent) approved the final reading, including the 1st District's Dan Coffey. Reporter Daniel Suddeath of the News and Tribune even mentioned there was "little discussion" of the measure, which is the way I remember it, too.

Last night, at the council's first of two May meetings in 2013, the Human Rights Commission was back on the agenda. As city attorney Stan Robison explained, the new ordinance is meant to correct errant wording and change the HRC's meetings from every two months to quarterly.

(Shouldn't someone eventually ask aloud why all parties involved worked so long to procure this shiny new HRC vehicle, and now behave as though they're terrified at the prospect of it being rolled out of the garage? But it is late, and I digress)

A quick vote on first and second readings seemed imminent, but then it happened.

Gone for so long, the Copperhead suddenly returned to the fray. The old Dan Coffey oozed to the surface to begin an impromptu filibuster in objection to the stipulations of the Human Rights Commission, ones that he happily approved thrice before in 2012, evidently without ever reading the document he rubber-stamped.

So, what were Coffey's specific objections to the new corrective ordinance?

Did he seek to reject the pagination change, the subject-verb agreement reconciliation, or the meeting calendar reboot?

No.

It seems that somewhat belatedly, it has occurred to Coffey that when "Mars changes and becomes Jupiter," we must realize that employers are people, too, and keep these silly human rights considerations from applying to actual human beings in the private sector -- especially if said considerations are being passed along by (shudder) ... a "non-elected committee."

Gads.

Rather like the one Coffey voted to enable just last July.

Is this about Chick fil-A again?

Ah, but it seems that there's now a vague and unrevealed "situation," one that a councilman perennially obsessed with gaining all the relevant information could neither explain coherently nor describe apart from inscrutable code words normally reserved for whole planets.

Coffey's artless prattling continued as his fellow council persons scratched their heads. Even Shirley Baird forcefully objected to Coffey's formless meandering, and finally Greg Phipps asked whether the secret word just might be "transgender."

Coffey mumbled assent, still unable to bring himself to say the word aloud, but holding that in cases of interplanetary change, then it's "not the same person" any longer.

Leave it to John Gonder to state the obvious: The entire discussion, being entirely irrelevant to the ordinance being considered, sounded suspiciously like something for the Human Rights Commission to discuss.

That is, if the city ever lets it meet.

Phipps did not change the wording. The first two readings passed 8-1, with Coffey for once refraining from abstaining and hitting the "no to non-persons who dare to hold jobs in New Albany" button.

That's the situation, dear reader. We thought the old council was gone. Last night, there was a startling return to form.

ON THE AVENUES: Roundabouts make the politicians really ring.

ON THE AVENUES: Roundabouts make the politicians really ring.

A weekly web column by Roger A. Baylor.

Earlier in 2013, New Albany’s planners announced a long-gestating “improvement” project for Mt. Tabor Road.

Residents in the vicinity promptly objected to the plans, noting presciently that proposed measures to reduce traffic congestion would have the real-world effect of putting more cars on the road at faster speeds, compromising safety and reducing their neighborhood’s quality of life.

In short, they’d spotted the likelihood of induced demand, and decided to press the case against it.

The neighborhood activists found an eager ally in 6th district councilman Scott Blair, who lives nearby. He assisted them in the orchestration of a city council appearance, in which elected officials were petitioned for a reconsideration of the improvement project. Specifically, a roundabout proposed for the intersection of Mt. Tabor Road and Klerner Lane came under intense criticism, and not merely owing to the selective logic of the NIMBY. Rather, these were very good points.

If the four-way stop at this intersection functioned so well amid existing traffic that there had been few, if any, accidents reported there in years, why construct a roundabout that would require a larger topographical footprint than the current working arrangement?

And, by extension, wouldn’t the “need” for a roundabout serve as tacit acknowledgement from planners that far from regulating traffic in the neighborhood, the coming “improvements” actually would be increasing it?

There came a magical moment when the words were spoken aloud (paraphrasing): Won’t these changes bring more traffic from people using Mt. Tabor to pass through to somewhere else?

Yep. In a nutshell.

Veteran council watchers agree: Nothing tilts the legislative balance quite like large numbers of citizens crowding the inadequate council chambers. Public forums are one thing, and demonstrating at a regularly scheduled meeting something else entirely. It brings out the fears in their eyes, and the tears in mine.

There is little doubt that CM Blair was being quite savvy, indeed, in the sense of leveraging a positive resolution to his district’s roundabout issue by transforming it into one of those political chits, to be redeemed in the form of a favor returned for previous support … say, for an aquatics center.

Well, this is the way the game is played, isn’t it, and these thoughts came back to me this week when I received a tweet from one of the Mt. Tabor activists.

“Ding dong the roundabout is DEAD! Now hopefully one way streets follow.”

Roger couldn’t agree more, but I was curious: How did he know, seeing as I’d not yet heard the news through normal channels?

“The four of us on the corner received a personal visit from the mayor Sunday evening. Nothing in the paper that I know.”

Roundabouts are not intrinsically evil, but the Mt. Tabor Road residents looked past the surface dollar sheen and got to the heart of the matter: Roadway engineers would be altering conditions to suit the maxim of moving traffic through their neighborhood as “efficiently” as possible, and by doing so, would be reducing their quality of life in an almost mathematical, commensurate ratio.

These activists asserted their right to some degree of neighborhood autonomy, and because their councilman almost surely understood that it was time for a favor to be returned, the point was made, and the mayor visited their homes to concede it. It may be the single most important lesson of the year, and a template I hope is being grasped in Midtown neighborhoods, where the very existence of one-way arterial streets affects quality of life, property values and fundamental prospects for renewal as feet are dragged, Main Street is fluffed, and City Hall’s eyes are averted.

Mt. Tabor residents, I salute you. You clarified some very important points.

Midtown residents, just this: See what we’re trying to say?

Quality of life might be a valid concept, and it might also be a cliché. Quite possibly, it is both. But one recurring feature of life in New Albany is that rational definitions always pale in comparison with organizational skill and raw bile.

And selective hardball on the part of a councilman doesn’t hurt, either. It can be distasteful … but like invasive surgery, sometimes it is necessary. Shall we count favors?

---

Throughout the year, the newspaper’s Amanda Beam has been writing a weekly “Bicentennial column,” which I often enjoyed prior to the Alabama Pop-Up Paywall’s construction.

(Mr. Hanson, tear down this wall)

In her final installment, at least until we commence the People’s Bicentennial celebration in 2017 (the 200th anniversary of the city’s actual incorporation), Amanda looks to the future – and remember, when it comes to future versus past, 1 for 52 is a far better batting average than Bob Caesar can muster.

New Albany residents, business owners and community leaders were asked to answer the question, “where do you see New Albany 100 years from now?” Below are their responses.

Respondents include Ed Clere, Jessica Knable, David Barksdale, Alice Miles and Dan Coffey … and your faithful blog columnist. I was hesitant to offer a reply until I’d conferred with the Green Mouse, who has seen it all.

“In 2113, the tiny number of white-skinned speakers of English left in New Albany will gather together during Cinco de Mayo at the usual spot by the Fork in the Road sculpture, decant their bottles of NABC Quadcentennial Ale, and say: ‘You know, 100 years ago there were one-way streets here. That’s amazing. It’s a wonder they ever figured it out; but after all, even a stopped clock is right twice a century.’”

City council approves more ordinances to refrain from enforcing, declares victory, and returns home to carve the Christmas spam.

Last night's final city council meeting of 2013 is amply covered by Grace Schneider in the C-J. Surely she's cursing the misfortune of drawing the short straw.

Of Vicki "Erika" Denhart's favored council seat holders, Kevin Zurschmiede and Diane Benedetti were absent. It's an unscientific assertion, but I'll reiterate: Has there been such a recurring level of council absenteeism in the past decade?

I think not. Because gin was sounding far better than spin, I wasn't there, either. Then again, I wasn't elected to serve, which implies clocking in on a regular basis.

Shirley Baird was present, and offered an ordinance to suppress aggressive panhandling. It was passed on its first two readings, as was the port authority enabling legislation. The latter seems justified, at least until we see the strikingly poor caliber of usual suspects appointed to its governing board, and are duly repelled. As for panhandling, it brings to mind an array of stirring council memories, including porch furniture bans, prohibitions on novelty lighters and heroic objections to non-binding resolutions.

Really?

I'm not sure why non-binding resolutions get all the attention. Non-binding ordinances are far more common in this town.

Port authority or otherwise, you can bet we'll see two-way movement for bikes and walkers on the Greenway -- and no monster trucks.

There are two interesting pieces by Daniel Suddeath in the weekend edition of the Paywall Picayune.

New Albany may establish port authority; Gahan: Authority would aid in riverfront planning, development

NEW ALBANY — New Albany is set to take the first steps toward establishing a port authority — a move that could bolster the Ohio River Greenway and aid the city in constructing riverfront developments such as piers and a marina.

On Thursday, the New Albany City Council is slated to cast initial ballots on forming a port authority through legislation backed by Mayor Jeff Gahan. State statute allows local port authorities to construct facilities, improve canals and waterways and build dock lines and piers within its jurisdiction.

And ...

Ohio River Greenway likely landing $1M donation; Horseshoe Foundation considering a matching grant

NEW ALBANY — The Ohio River Greenway Commission likely will be the recipient of a $1 million donation for riverfront improvements in New Albany.

On Thursday, Greenway officials presented the Horseshoe Foundation of Floyd County with a grant proposal for the organization to match the $1 million donation. Greenway Commission Project Coordinator Shaunna Graf said Friday she couldn’t confirm that the donation had been made, but said the organization has “many conversations with various donors all the time.”

If you have the requisite hall pass, you may go there, taking care to dodge the Hansons that continue to come flying at you like a video game of old.

Indiana's code defines port authority, and I must digress here: Yesterday when I searched for the relevant code section, the search ended with a specific URL: IC 8-10-5 Chapter 5. Creation of Port Authorities by Local Governments

Today, every attempt to paste this same URL into my browser leads immediately to the Indiana General Assembly 2014 page. While I contemplate the message of this redirectional intrigue, the code still can be accessed here: Port authority as defined by Indiana code at Findlaw

Maybe this link will be direct and active again: http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/2010/title8/ar10/ch5.html

Council agenda scant, so let's make a New Year's non-binding resolution to cut a rug.

New Albany's city council meets tonight, and yet again, it has quite little to do apart from housekeeping. The sole agenda item is this:

A-10-13 Additional Appropriation From EDIT/Riverboat Fund Matching Fund Of Fire Department Grant For Fire House Vehicle Exhaust Systems (Coffey 1&2)

Fortunately for the Fire Department, it's an appropriation and not a non-binding resolution, meaning that 6th district council representative Scott Blair can take part in discussing it, thus earning his pay.

Unfortunately for the rest of us, CM Blair has yet to reply to an e-mail I sent him on November 22, repeated here in full.

Scott

Please consider this your opportunity to clarify what happened last night. I refer you to the last sentence of WDRB's coverage of the meeting: "One council member abstained, and Scott Blair was the only council member to vote against the resolution."

As a council regular, I know that in the past, you have at least prefaced such an instance with an explanation, but last evening, you did not. That's one problem; the people in that gallery are not regulars, and are not aware of your casuistry. A second problem is the casuistry itself, and the nature of your way of expressing opposition to resolutions. As I put it in the blog:

In essence, if a resolution strikes Blair as unsuitable for voting, he'll say so aloud (curiously, not so last night) ... and proceed to vote against it.

But how can either a yes or no vote be viewed as an expression of Blair's rejection of voting? Both are votes. As others before me have cogently noted, Blair's only coherent option if he wishes to express the view that he should not be asked to vote is to abstain from voting. Consequently, each time Blair has publicly diddled his 'I shan't vote' principle, he has followed not by abstaining, but by voting -- in each instance, as again last night, by voting no.

In turn, this means that far from expressing principle, he is in fact choosing a side. History will record his vote, not his objections.

Frankly, I find this very troubling. As far as the outside world is concerned, my 6th district CM (where I own property and a business) has voted AGAINST an expression of principle (that word again) opposition to tyranny. A leftist like me gets it. Ed Clere gets it. What are you trying to say here? I guarantee that the majority of NABC's 70 employees are going to have a very hard time grasping your stance here -- and HJR-6 has just a bit to do with economic development, doesn't it?

Surely you do not support HJR-6, and surely, you'd like to elaborate on this for my readership.

Thank you

R

And yet it's never too late to set the record straight.

We'd be delighted to publish a statement from CM Blair explaining the vote and the nature of his objections to resolutions of the sort considered last time the council met. This might be a dialogue, and a means to achieve greater understanding. You might even refer to transparency as a non-brainer.

But: It takes two to tango. NAC's got the ballet slippers on. Let's dance.

Gonder on HJR-6 resolution: "Most of the City Council did speak for the hopes of those who appealed to us."

John Gonder published this essay at his blog (below).

Verily, there have been times in the past when I've fully agreed with a close friend, who once said of Gonder, "I wish he'd spend more time being a council person and less time being Senator Gonder," or words to this effect.

I also agree completely with John's sentiments in this piece, even as I wish that certain of the council's progressive/coherent members would remain engaged publicly with local concerns on a less rarified plane, and to advocate for them over time, even if it takes more time than usually is allocated for such advocacy.

Here then is one: Our city's streets as an indice of civil rights and social justice.

I know; it sounds mundane. But it affects each and every one of us, every single day -- black or white, straight or gay (and perhaps more importantly) Democrat or Republican.

Here is the essay.

Reach Out

 ... A couple nights ago the New Albany Common Council met in what seemed to be one of its particularly thin proceedings. No ordinances were under consideration. The administration had asked for nothing. Instead we were asked to weigh in on something The News and Tribune likes to refer to as, (and why not paraphrase?) "a meaningless, empty, expression". The empty rhetoric this time was directed at those in the state legislature who would commandeer the state constitution for political purposes (HJR-6); as bait, or shiny objects for those who would see danger, and thus political advantage, in the pursuit of happiness by "others". Others may be refined, or defined, to include q-words, f-words and anything other than me- or we-words.

As I looked out into the gallery that night I was humbled by the hope the "others" had placed in us--their local government. As The Tribune is wont to say, the New Albany Common Council weighing in on state or national issues is pointless, perhaps grandstanding, but certainly, ineffectual. But for the time the others spoke in our chamber, I, at least, glimpsed just a bit of representative democracy. For that brief time, I think, people looked to us to hear their message of disaffection, their hope for inclusion in that which the majority takes for granted. They looked to us to speak for them, our friends, our neighbors, our un-acknowledged kin.

A "principled" Blair votes no, but council approves resolution condemning HJR-6.

7:00 a.m. Friday update: WDRB makes my point with the final line of its report: "One council member abstained, and Scott Blair was the only council member to vote against the resolution." 

Earlier tonight, the Common Council of the city of New Albany approved R-13-16, a resolution opposing HJR-6.

The vote was seven in favor, with Diane Benedetti abstaining after a lightning-fast attempt to match a thicket of post-it notes detailing 5th district voter rolls with numbers from a flurry of phone calls she received late in the afternoon, presumably from the Koch brothers and their gay-baiters nationwide.

Scott Blair was alone in voting against the resolution. More about that in a moment.

Overall, with Blair the one glaring exception, the council acquitted itself well. Lone Republican council person Kevin Zurschmiede sounded confused for a bit, but rallied nicely. Bob Caesar said nothing, and was firm and crisp in joining the majority. John Gonder and Shirley Baird spoke convincingly, and Greg Phipps eloquently provided all the necessary preparatory information. Dan Coffey surprised some, although not me, by forcefully advocating for the resolution. I believe Coffey's life experiences have led him to savor the role of the underdog and downtrodden, and although the two of us come from entirely different poles, we have this one thing in common, if nothing else.

On the other hand, Blair achieved the rare distinction of striking out before stepping to the plate. All evening long, he spoke only one word with regard to a sensible, rational resolution opposing shameful violations of human rights: "No".

Regular council attendees of a particularly masochistic bent know that in the past, Blair has bizarrely confused his council seat with a slot on the Supreme Court of the United States, choosing to somewhat pedantically take issue with any resolution he feels does not pertain to his specific mission on the city council. It is entirely a procedural objection, and we are supposed to take this as an expression of profound governmental conviction even if he hasn't quite divulged the criteria for it in any great detail.

In essence, if a resolution strikes Blair as unsuitable for voting, he'll say so aloud (curiously, not so last night) ... and proceed to vote against it.

But how can either a "yes" or "no" vote be viewed as an expression of Blair's rejection of voting? Both are votes. As others before me have cogently noted, Blair's only coherent option if he wishes to express the view that he should not be asked to vote is to abstain from voting. Consequently, each time Blair has publicly diddled his "I shan't vote" principle, he has followed not by abstaining, but by voting -- in each instance, as again last night, by voting "no". In turn, this means that far from expressing principle, he is in fact choosing a side. History will record his vote, not his objections.

Has anyone on the council even tried to explain this to him, or is is some sort of hazing ritual gone tragically astray?

Consider that many of the folks in the gallery tonight do not regularly attend council meetings. They are not aware of Blair's tortured, quasi-Jesuitical "pick and choose then flip the coin again" soft shoe when it comes to proper versus improper resolution jurisdiction.

However, after tonight, what they DO know about Blair is that sans explanation, the 6th district councilman voted against a resolution opposing human rights violations. Yes, in effect, he chose a side. It is quite clearly the wrong side, because it's the side that mocks human dignity -- and at the end of the day, it's a public relations failure of epic dimension, all because of slavish devotion to an obscure procedural principle.

Perhaps as a banker, Blair mistakes principle for principal; after all, even if the principle of human rights fails to excite like the cost-benefit aphrodisiac, there's always high interest in principal, or rather the high interest owed on principal -- and as procedural devotion goes, and fetishes are nurtured, there's always the blessed penalty for early withdrawal ... except that premature stupefaction couldn't possibly be the desired outcome for someone like the councilman.

Could it?

ON THE AVENUES: The Hoosier Stain.

ON THE AVENUES: The Hoosier Stain.

A weekly web column by Roger A. Baylor.

The story goes that Groucho Marx was standing in line at a famous Hollywood restaurant when he turned to a woman and asked, “Are you alone?”

“Why, yes I am,” came her flattered response.

“Then there must be something terribly wrong with you,” shrugged the comedian before turning away.

Groucho was male, and leering older codgers indeed can be scary, even to other men. We don’t know the woman’s ethnicity or political affiliation, and it’s worth remembering there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with being alone. The episode might well be apocryphal; after all, why would a world-famous movie star be required to wait in line – unless it was his Jewishness?

However, what we DO know is that yesterday, the state of Illinois made national headlines.

CHICAGO (AP) — Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn signed legislation Wednesday allowing same-sex weddings starting this summer, making President Barack Obama's home state the 16th overall — and largest in the nation's heartland — to legalize gay marriage.

As citizens in Illinois celebrated this latest in a growing series of coming out parties, a cinematic tableau began developing in my mind. From street-level views of jubilant Illini, the scene dissolves into the relative quiet of the New Albany city council chamber, where a resolution in opposition to HJR-6 is scheduled for hearing tonight.

House Joint Resolution 6 is a proposed amendment to the Indiana Constitution which states: "Only marriage between one(1) man and one(1) woman will be valid or recognized as a marriage in Indiana. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized."

If enacted, House Joint Resolution 6 would amend the Constitution of the State of Indiana to do two things: 1) Prohibit any future legislators from passing a law that would allow same-sex couples to legally marry. 2) prohibit any future legislators from enacting a law that would allow legal protections for any unmarried relationships that are similar to marriage, such as civil unions or domestic partnerships.

Indiana law already prohibits same sex marriage. HJR6 makes it permanent.

In the imagined screenplay, I look up from my seat in the peanut gallery and notice a council person reading his meeting agenda. His body language and furrowed countenance testify to discomfiture and cognitive dissonance – alas, not for the first time – and as a good Samaritan, I resolve to come to his assistance.

I rise and stride purposefully to his side.

“Are you troubled by these incessant reminders of same sex marriage, LGBT issues and HJR-6, and feel resentful that yet again, you’re being asked to provide local guidance on an issue that’s outside your presumed bailiwick?”

“Why, yes I am,” comes his relieved response.

“Then there must be something terribly wrong with you,” I shrug, before turning away.

---

Just two days ago, the Purdue University Senate stopped squirming, pulled on its boots and got down to basics, adopting a resolution opposing HJR-6.

Surely it’s because they grasp that if the university’s big cheese-tain Mitch Daniels were to require of Purdue researchers the same commitment to hidebound voodoo ideology demanded of adherence to HJR-6, they’d rightly come to the conclusion, arguably quite belated, that Daniels belongs in a looney bin, and rush forward with strength and resolve to save Hoosier agriculture from a posturing pint-sized Lysenko.

So it is that rarely in this pot-bellied skeptic’s life has it been any better than this.

As an attitudinal tsunami of societal evolution approaches, Indiana Republicans who’ve long since forgotten the lessons of freedom embodied by the American Civil War gaze first at their shoes, then around the hall of mirrors they persist inhabiting, and start making tepid gurgling sounds about the will of the people. What they need most is a swift kick in the balls by Abraham Lincoln.

Then, one pleasant November morning, you arise to the usual espresso and kippers. Hearing a commotion outside, you part the curtains and see numerous visitors of the sort who’d customarily be told to get the hell off your porch: Multi-denominational interfaith representatives, stuffed shirt Ken dolls from Fortune 500 companies, and best of all, those shameless, clucking, congenital fluffers of our douchebag gilded-age oligarchs … all standing by the bushes, holding hands, singing Kumbaya, and insisting that the needs of economic development march hand in hand with bountiful diversity and the expansion of human rights and freedoms.

Granted, living wages seldom are discussed in this context, but we’ll overlook it for now.

They sing, you blink. It’s time to make another espresso, dig out the seismograph from its storage space in the cabinet behind the toilet paper and find a comfy hammock. Opposing HJR-6 is a necessary, fair and decent act – but it’s a lot more fun when the usual suspects switch sides.

We now return to our prevaricating council person, as oft-times before seeking to dodge voting on a resolution owing to some smugly contorted bit of Rococo subterfuge, when all he’s really doing is ducking his responsibility as a human being, because these matters of basic fairness and human dignity, while nagging, are hardly minor.

You look at him, and you repeat after Bono: “Am I bugging you? I don't mean to bug ya.”

And, of course, you go right ahead, bugging him.

---

Recently I was asked, and I paraphrase: Roger, why must you be so confrontational and edgy about this matter? It doesn’t affect you. You’re already married, and to a woman.

It’s because I drink locally but think globally.

It’s because there is reality outside my immediate vicinity.

It’s because I care deeply about human rights, and believe we all deserve the same treatment.

It’s because the promise of the historic American experiment was not intended to be limited to white straight “normal” folks who read just one version of a religious text.

It’s because for so long as human rights and freedoms are restricted owing to the clinging vestiges of any type of dominant caste, we all are diminished as a result.

And it’s because sometimes, if you’re not metaphorically shaken by your dainty oblivious buttoned-down lapels and forcibly fed some genuine truth, you have this tendency to lose focus.

That’s why.

Council meeting: Mt. Tabor residents advocate for two-way streets ... sort of.

There was a slim agenda at last evening's city council meeting, and so it lasted twice as long as it should have. This is not unusual; rather, this is New Albany, where we're all here because we're not all there -- and city government is the ironclad rule that proves the steadfast rule.

My pal Mark and me -- well, you know, we wuz miffed.

As council regulars, we're quite accustomed to waiting until the end of the session for the opportunity to speak our minds, or at any rate, what's left of them. But on Monday night, unbeknownst to us, a special treat was in store, as my (Grant Line Road work neighborhood) 6th district council person Scott Blair had artfully stage-managed an appearance by Mt. Tabor Road residents, better to flood the meeting and protest proposed road improvements to their vicinity.

Of course to Blair, it isn't only the group's cherished status as constituents which compels skullduggery with the agenda, by moving their presentation forward. It's also an issue of specific shared preconceptions, which actually are more generalized than Blair currently is able to grasp.

Hence, my existence s gadfly, and my mandate to remind him at every opportunity of certain repetitive lapses in his random application of principle. It's a dirty job, but someone must do it, and two martinis provide exquisite encouragement.

Granted, it's easy for a conceptual European like me to laugh derisively at the native New Albanian aversion to roundabouts (and in this instance, sidewalks), but of course, these Mt. Tabor Road residents have a very good point overall.

The city's proposed changes would make the road in front of them more likely to be driven by a greater number of cars, and at a rate faster than before, a situation of induced demand likely to be taken advantage of by outsiders with no better reason than passing through because they can, thus rendering the corridor less safe for neighborhood residents ... and yes, that's right, creating a scene designed to negatively impact their quality of life.

Thus, CM Blair's desired choreography achieved two unexpected, salutary results: It meant I was able to speak nearer the beginning, and the Mt. Tabor Road group succeeded in forcefully making my point for me, in the sense that their argument precisely mirrors the contemporary plea by inner city residents to convert one-way arterials to two-way neighborhood-friendly streets.

The primary differences are two in number: Downtowners have been afflicted by the mayhem for close to half a century, and CM Blair doesn't understand this affliction because he does not understand what downtown urban living means.

I persist in thinking that's he's capable of learning. I'll continue to earnestly, humbly and yet determinedly assist him in this quest.

Unfortunately, council veteran Kevin Zurschmiede chose last night's meeting to reveal his own difficulties in learning, declaring "I'm not educated enough," and furthermore, insisting that his ignorance of current events absolves him from attempting to fathom them. But was it really KZ, or was Mark Seabrook still wearing his mildewed KZ costume from Halloween?

Either way, I shall refrain from criticizing the councilman's incisive self-knowledge. All of us know ourselves best, each and every one.

Zurschmiede's revelation happened as the council discussed CM John Gonder's R-13-15, a "resolution in support of efforts to increase participation in the new health care law," known colloquially as "the governor's ball is a son of a bitch" resolution ... wait, make it "governor's," not "governor's ball," seeing as the former is a gubernatorial inadequacy and the latter merely a bicentennial atrocity.

One of CM Blair's favorite approval stamps is "no brainer," and Gonder's resolution proved just such a "no brainer" phenomenon, one so incredibly obvious that even Bob Caesar favored it with his once-per-year nod at vaguely resembling a Democrat; the final vote was 7 in favor and 2 opposed. Oopsing the resolution was Zurschmiede, who admitted he couldn't comprehend it and thought others should follow his lead, and ... (sighhhh) ... Blair, who yet again reprised his periodic selective principle wherein what isn't the council's business should be avoided unless Blair ratifies an item as council business.

I'd link to the newspaper's coverage, but the Pensioners' Paywall precludes me from doing so. It's there, at the website, if readers have not exceeded their limit.

Pulse-quickening council preview as we await the NewAlbanist's speeding citation report.

Tonight there'll be a renewal of New Albany's twice monthly futility rite, otherwise known as a city council meeting, and against my better judgment, I'll be in attendance.

Live tweeting will begin as soon as Bob Caesar utters something incomprehensible, self-serving or utterly foolish, which is to say whenever he enters the room, right before the meeting begins.

The council agenda tonight is as barren as Bud Light's olfactory allure, except for a symbolic resolution from John Gonder scolding the governor of Indiana for being a reactionary swine (my words, not Gonder's) with respect to Affordable Health (Obama)Care.

R-13-15 Resolution in Support of Efforts to Increase Participation in the New Healthcare Law

Meanwhile, most of the rest of us look forward to the release of the bookseller's speeding analysis, which is due to hit the mean streets around 8:00 p.m.

Coming Tonight: Report on Speeding in New Albany

I expect to complete my last round of edits on my analysis of New Albany’s speeding citations. As you’ll recall, NAPD Chief Sherry Knight provided me with a list of all citations for excessive speed during a 12-month period ending September 30, 2013. I’d like to thank the chief for her prompt response to my request.

And wordsmiths appreciate Randy's other post at his NewAlbanist blog today.

The Rot That Corrupts New Albany

Corruption, classically, refers to impurity or deviation from the ideal ...

... Corruption has another sense that can be applied to New Albany without resorting to accusations of criminality. Negligence, incompetence, and apathy can corrupt the workings of government just as effectively as brazen self-dealing.

The city is thinking about doing road shit. Really. It says so, over there behind that wall.

There was an article by Daniel Suddeath in the local chain newspaper about council members quizzing administration officials 'bout infrastructure projects: "New Albany City Council questions administration about projects." Tunnel under the paywall to read it, or peruse this nifty paraphrasing.

The miracle is that City Hall sent anyone to the council meeting when there existed a chance they might have to reveal top secret plans. But David Duggins, who serves as the city's Economic Development and Redevelopment Director Everywhere Except Downtown was there on Thursday.

Duggins said that anything you've heard about the Slate Run Road, Mount Tabor Road and Captain Frank Road projects is true, unless it isn't. All are being contemplated, unless they aren't. The mayor will consider modifications, unless he won't. The usual suspects from Pool "A" will design these projects and build them, unless other usual suspects from Pool "B" are chosen instead. To reveal more would mean having to kill us all, and the street department can't manage such a clean-up.

Councilman John Gonder then made a forceful presentation on the topic of sidewalks in the context of safety, and mentioned that since the city is in a position to massively fund no-brainer quality of life issues like aquatic complexes, there obviously is money for basic walkability elsewhere. Duggins answered that the city had contacted the usual engineering suspects and would begin formulating a secret sidewalk plan for Captain Frank Road.

Finally, council person Diane Benedetti asked Duggins about the long discussed and always delayed Slate Run Road project. Resisting the impulse to provide Benedetti with the most obvious reasons ...

If you don't vote with the mayor, you can't have any road work.

How can you have any road work if you don't vote with the mayor?

... or suggesting that she move to Silver Hills where the streets are paved with Caesar's Gold, Duggins remained composed and replied that of course, it is being considered just as top secretly as all the others.

In other news, the Arts Council will permanently loan a Barney Bright sculpture to Bicentennial Park, where everyone hopes it won't be vandalized during the annual Harvest Homecoming Swill Walk.

Is it beer thirty yet?

Gonder: “I’m sure that with a forceful presentation from the mayor, (street changes) would get done quickly."

For my three minutes of public input time this evening, what do you think should be the emphasis?

Two way streets? The annual Harvest Homecoming debacle? The absence of tangible economic development plans for downtown? Ignominious Republican defeat in the showdown charade?

Maybe we need some more parks.

---

New Albany council to take final votes on 2014 budget; No measures on street changes are on the agenda, by Daniel Suddeath (News and Paywall Tribune)

NEW ALBANY — Budget items that were easily approved on initial readings are up for final ballots tonight, but a revised plan to study downtown street or to adjust traffic flow will have to wait until another New Albany City Council meeting.

Officials have said that there’s still interest in addressing the city’s downtown traffic grid despite the council’s failure to approve a street survey earlier this month.

That measure — which was sponsored by Councilman Greg Phipps — called for a $60,000 traffic study, but since it didn’t receive majority approval, the legislation died after final reading.

Councilman John Gonder, who is a proponent of two-way traffic for downtown, was one of the three council members that opposed the appropriation. A $60,000 study is unnecessary when there’s a general consensus to change the street pattern downtown, Gonder has maintained.

Some intersections may require a study, but the city possesses employees with the knowledge to figure out how to convert most streets to two-way traffic flow without an expensive and detailed examination, he continued.

But Gonder doesn’t believe the issue has died just because the study didn’t pass.

“I think that getting away from that study is probably counterintuitive, but I think it expedites the process because we don’t have to study something that I’m quite confident we already know the answer to,” Gonder said Wednesday.

Mayor Jeff Gahan has said he’s “generally supportive” of converting some downtown streets to two-way traffic, but has also stated he wants a study administered before any changes are made. Gonder said the mayor has the power to push the street changes through if he chooses to do so.

“I’m sure that with a forceful presentation from the mayor, it would get done quickly,” he said.

Phipps’ measure was approved 4-3 on final reading, but it takes at least 5 votes out of the nine member council to approve legislation.

Council members Scott Blair and Diane McCartin-Benedetti both supported the study on initial readings, but were absent for the final vote.

Blair didn’t outright state his support for two-way streets, but said he still supports funding a study for the potential project.

“I just think we need some direction or some advice from groups or experts that have looked at these issues before,” Blair said. “I think it’s worthwhile to do what we can to enhance our downtown and our street grid.”

Due to procedural rules, the council cannot simply hold another ballot on Phipps’ measure. To garner an appropriation, the measure would have to be changed in some way before it can be again presented to the council.

As for items on the agenda, the council will take a final ballot on the $22 million general fund budget for 2014 this evening. The budget was approved 7-0 on initial readings.

“I think the administration has done a great job with the budget, and we’re fiscally sound,” Blair said.

The meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. today, Oct. 17, in the third-floor Assembly Room of the City-County Building.

Traffic studies are bullshit. Just do it.

Why? Go here.

Last evening in the romper room, the entirely unnecessary downtown traffic study being sought by a bunker-bound City Hall as craven political cover for chronic two-way street grid timidity was promptly scotched by a wholly redundant city council, in part owing to the council’s chronic absenteeism this term, but mostly because elected and appointed officials in New Albany believe the only thing they have to fear is every last aspect of modernity that somehow managed to occur, in spite of their efforts, since their graduation from high school.

Welcome to New Albany, where we’re all here because we’re not all there, and so into this gaping, barren chasm of a leadership vacuum eagerly steps 2nd district council seat occupant Bob Caesar, who is to sheer cranium vacancy what Imelda Marcos was to shoes, and to an extent so egregious that he surely is the only so-called “Democrat” party member in the whole whacked-out United States who exalts the Thoreau Institute as reputable scholarship.

The Koch Brothers thank our own bejeweled blitzen, and so here’s Bob Caesar for attribution last night:

“(Two-way streets) are being driven by about a handful of people that want to be able to turn right onto Bank Street from Elm Street."

Ouch!

What was that twinge I just felt?

Wait – it was an intellectual pygmy gouging a toenail with the planet’s tiniest set of 1920s-era tweezers. Where the hell is Balso Snell when you need him most?

Of course, this is the same Antediluvian Bob who insisted to me that he be quoted thusly, back in 2011:

"Change every street to two way -- not Pearl Street. Pearl Street will NOT be two way."

Come to think of it, antediluvian might not be the best word. After all, in New Albany, two-way streets actually existed before “our” flood.

Two-way thinking in New Albany: Those who say they’re for them mostly do nothing apart from assuring us they agree. Those who are against them mostly don’t live here, except for Bob Caesar, whose head is somewhere in the vicinity of an 18th-century Mongolian yurt. For the sake of clarity, here’s a quick, informal, four-point list explaining why two-way streets matter.

Safety for the neighborhoods.
Economic development for local independent business.
A boost for walkability.
Protection against Kerry Stemler’s tolls-borne invasion.

Wham, bam, thank you Bob: When Caesar reduces the street grid discussion to accusing others of being just as myopic as himself, it may be amusing fodder for the retrograde elements who view our arterial one-way streets as so much Astroglide to facilitate their driving pleasure, but it insults and demeans every last resident of any city neighborhood not known by the moniker of Silver Hills.

The Democratic Party might choose to make Caesar pay for a slur this enormous, because as we've established, a walkable environment is a civil rights issue, but don't hold your breath waiting for it. You'll be blue by the time a worthwhile bicentennial event rolls around.

New Albany. It never ceases to amaze. Degraded and wasted for 30 years, and yet everyone in it is afflicted with Stockholm Syndrome, suitably terrified of efforts to alter a failed dynamic, and beholden to the superstitions that keep us down. It is breathtaking – and it distracts us from the vital task of devising ways to reforming, moving or outlawing Harvest Homecoming.

I wonder how many petition signatures the mayor needs to no longer be frightened of his own so-called "democratic" party?

It's simple. Either City Hall gives clear indication of its "plan" -- of what's to come -- or the guerrilla localism war starts immediately.

Too bad county government doesn’t come down hard against two-way street conversions.

We’d have them before the elephant ears get cold.

In which Patrick Duffy steps from the shower, and Bob Caesar lovingly French-kisses petrochemical fascists.

There was a council meeting last night.

In it, two-way street conversions were discussed, even though neither measure considered was even remotely necessary, because the mayor does not need council involvement to rationalize the street grid, except evidently City Hall does not intend to expend its own political capital to pursue what it says it supports despite making no public comments in favor of it, and when it comes right down to it, someone in the administration really needs to read this memo I wrote. Where the hell is John Galt when you need him?

Meanwhile, reporter Daniel Suddeath strives mightily to make sense of the evening's needless muddle here.

Or, you can read my tweets. Spoiler warning: There is jaundice and dolt fatigue throughout.

As an aside, last night we learned to no great surprise that Bob Caesar, who somehow avoids being hit by retributive ideological lightning while still referring to himself as a Democrat, capital-D, bases his "lost cause" defense of 1950s-era roadway planning and the white bread social order entirely on the wit and wisdom of the Thoreau Institute.

This is rather like an anti-Semite citing The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as justification for an internal noggin irrationality for which permanent cures don't presently exist, although lobotomies remain an option -- for those of us forced to listen to the sheer drivel.

Yes, it can be depressing living in this monument to underachievement.

Certain of these elected "leaders" gaze at us -- at the year 2013, at modernity itself -- with an abject and bottomless incomprehension, even sometimes the ones who might on occasion know better. New Albany remains in the perfect position to be an exciting, groundbreaking laboratory for urban change. The ones who know this mostly just sit there and say nothing for fear of ... well, of what?

And the ones who do not possess the imagination to grasp change are the ones we permit to make the decision. The decades-long search for political cojones in New Albany goes on and on, but in a place where ignorance is considered the ultimate virtue, perhaps those particular balls simply never will be launched into the air.

Will some one wake me when the clock strikes disinvestment time?

Bob Caesar needs to get the hell out of modernity's way.

Allow me to begin my council recap by profusely apologizing to Greg Phipps. I began my comments at tonight's council meeting by noting that on nights like these, I regret all the bad things I ever said about Steve Price.

Emphatically, this was NOT aimed at Greg, who did the community a great service by actively transforming an otherwise routine assembly into a discussion about two-way streets. He brought Jeff Speck's book, and he advocated. Good work. 

Of course, I was referring to the enduring civic and political embarrassment that is Bob Caesar. 

Caesar on the current one-way street grid: "If it works, you should keep what you have."

Really? The way downtown "worked" all those wasted years?

The way Endris Jewelers single-handedly revitalized New Albany all those same squandered years?

In reality, a clear majority of the new generation of local indie business people who are putting New Albany back on the map are for two-way streets. Bob might try talking to them some time, rather than heading over to Chick fil-A.

The bizarre tragedy of Caesarism is that his business is precisely the sort to benefit from two-way conversions and other street grid changes. His store survived years of a moribund downtown because customers returned. Caesar seems to believe that he'll have no remaining loyal patronage if they cannot turn left onto Pearl and park smack on the street in front of his door. But all those years, they already were making a special effort to come find him. No one ever slammed on the brakes and said, "Hey! Let's buy a ring!" His store always has been an urban destination business. It does not depend on suburban conditions, and never did. And yet he worships suburban conditions. It makes no sense, and it strikes me as sad, except that he seems determined to keep us all mired in the Eisenhower Administration.

If Bob Caesar is a Democrat, Kim Jong Il is Mother Teresa.

But I can see why Caesar is confused, given that all he really knows on a daily basis is commuting by car from Pearl Street to his home in Silver Hills, and as such -- amid his protests that any money spent on rationalizing the street grid would be too much -- shall we remember (again) just how much it cost to repair Spring Street Hill ... his way home ... not once, but twice?

Caesar might not be the only council member who'll claim "zero benefit" to two-way streets, calming, and complete streets. Scott Blair sounds hazy, and Kevin Zurschmiede's assertion that drivers won't go out of their way to avoid dollar tolls is twice mistaken.

Caesar does prove that it's amazingly easy not to see the nose on his face when he's wearing blinders. He's the business owner, and the one without an excuse.

He needs to get the hell out of modernity's way.