Showing posts with label development. Show all posts
Showing posts with label development. Show all posts

Monday, June 06, 2016

At Summit Springs work session tonight, council will get an itsy bitsy glimpse into City Hall's smoke-filled secret planning chamber.


6:30 p.m., tonight, council chamber. Regular meeting at 7. Soothing gin available at The Exchange, pre-game.

Just plain citizen Aaron Hellems continues to perform a valuable public service by attempting to make transparent the backroom dealings that led to this project's surprise re-appearance, which for most people became evident only when the hillside was denuded of trees earlier this spring.

Shortly thereafter, City Hall triumphantly announced its participation in yet another private developer enrichment project, Summit Springs (NOW WITH HOTEL!!!), and therein lies the biggest question of all, at least for me.

We, the city, spent in excess of two years -- more like three -- battling these developers in court over issues pertaining to our ability as a municipal entity to establish rules about developments like Summit Springs.

We, the city, moved the court case to Scott County, far from prying eyes. The court case was settled (circumstances as yet unknown -- that transparency thing again) circa October of 2015, and mere months later, down came the trees, and up went the plaque proclaiming we, the city's tremendous achievement in public/private partnering with the developers to snarl State Street traffic for generations to come -- not to mention stormwater system overloads and a host of other questions not subject to public review or participation.

Here's what inquiring minds want to know:

Given the time it  takes to engrave plaques and overhaul multi-million dollar project plans, was one arm of City Hall fighting Summit Springs even as another arm was fluffing it?

The answer should be obvious. Waiting for Jeff Gahan to answer this question honestly? Don't, because he cannot and will not. He won't come to tonight's meeting. However, at the ribbon cutting, he'll be standing center stage, fundraising for That State Senate Campaign in 2018.

Summit Springs work session coming soon, by Jerod Clapp (Utica Solidarity Gazette)

NEW ALBANY — Getting some answers on the process and what's coming forward for the Summit Springs development off State Street is the aim of a city council work session Monday night.

Since the clear cutting of trees behind home on Fawcett Hill Road, which backs up to the proposed development, Aaron Hellems has raised his issues with the city in terms of why those trees were cut down, how it was pushed through by a single city official and looking for assurances that the city will honor laws regarding PUDDs in the future.

He spoke at the last city council meeting on May 19 about the issues. However, he said he's not heard from anyone involved in the development since.

"Unfortunately, nobody from the city has reached out to discuss this," Hellems said. "Likewise, the developers haven't tried to contact us, either. [The city council] said when you come back, you need to know what you want. It's not so much about me as it is the neighborhood."

He said part of the issue is how the clear cutting was approved. He said those sorts of decisions require second approval by local governing agencies under the law, but that didn't happen with those trees. Scott Wood, director of the city plan commission, made that decision in April. He said there was a deadline to meet to cut the trees down before Indiana Bats began roosting in them, which would have delayed the project for about another year.

The heroic Statue of Disdain, coming soon to a hillside near us.

Green Mouse Q and A: How the Summit Springs hilltop clustermuck got to this point.





Tuesday, April 12, 2016

FLASKBACK: What I wrote on the occasion of Summit Springs ... nine years ago.


From council coverage on February 5, 2007 ... a little over 9 years ago, when the first iteration of the Summit Springs property development bubbled to the surface. Are we making "progress' yet?

---

The more rope he is provided, the bigger Larry’s slippery noose grows.

Z-07-01
Ordinance Amending the Code of Ordinances New Albany, Indiana, Title XV, Chapter 156 (Docket P-12-06: Pat & Pam Kelly – Summit Springs Development)
Crump 1

Discussion of this, the latest in a series of divisive green field development projects, is my not-so-dark-horse choice to prompt a shouting match, either between citizens, council members, or both.

In essence, local zoning authorities use existing sets of criteria to rate such projects, which pass to the council for final approval, and are considered by the council using entirely different sets of criteria (read: political and electoral). The predictable result is a wide divergence of philosophical intent, and a striking absence of contextual continuity from one debate to the next.

With open space at an ever-increasing premium within the city limits of New Albany, but numerous adjacent tracts available for redevelopment and the type of adaptive reuse that we advocate here on a weekly basis, it continues to be frustrating that the square-pegged development logic of the “limitless” exurb so often is forcibly jammed into what are urban holes of decidedly different shape and ideal usage.

Unfortunately, a big part of the problem is the community’s inability – perhaps its unwillingness – to unify for the pursuit and maintenance of common development goals. To reframe our zoning standards according to a futuristic perspective, and to step up enforcement of standards already determined, is to set goals that are consistent with a principled recognition of changing circumstances, and to plan how these bars can be cleared for overall betterment.

As with so many other issues, I’m entirely unsure how we get past the enmity of generations and eliminate the personal animus that tends to improperly provide the backdrop to most of the council’s zoning decisions. It is clear that a working compromise between certain development mentalities structured to transform corn fields into asphalt, and those addressing the city’s pressing need to meet the demands of a far different – not better, not worse, just different – target market for an urban experience downtown, must be achieved … and soon.

Like so many previous proposals that have come before the council for consideration, it is likely that the Summit Springs project will be subject to the spasmodic paradigms of the body’s ward-heeling faction, and that it will be approved or rejected in the lamentable absence of a genuine community debate over developmental standards. Where the coin will drop is anyone’s guess, as it always is with this group.

VIDEO: Summit Springs development and roadway proposals, Redevelopment Rubber Stamp Commission, Tuesday 12 April 2016.


The topic is Summit Springs, a huge hilltop property development off State Street, which apparently began forward motion (probably downhill) only after the resolution of a two-year-long lawsuit undertaken by the property owners against the city, which was resolved last October.

As no one outside the down-low bunker knows what the resolution of the lawsuit stipulated, it's anyone's guess, although this snippet of the development's enabling city council ordinance way back in 2008 (Z-01-18, I believe) contains a very important nugget.


Needless to say, no such secondary review has occurred, but a hillside has been stripped clean and the city has agreed to TIF a cliff-clinging road. The rest, as was repeated so often today, is merely the detail of responsible, civic due diligence by the very same design and engineering suspects as always.

The royal houses of Europe learned these lessons the hard way. From the newspapers:

New details revealed in disputed N.A. project, by Lexy Gross (C-J)

Favorable vote moves New Albany hotel development forward; Board gives OK to road extension work, by Chris Morris (Clark Chronicle)

---

The following four videos are from the Redevelopment Commission meeting of Tuesday, April 12. I'm the first to admit that I'm new at iPhone videos, but since the most recent RC minutes are several months old, I thought something is better than nothing. I exhausted available storage space just as former councilman John Gonder brilliantly spoke, and also missed the unanimous commission vote in favor of the road.

Of course, no road, no project. Many approvals are ahead, and maybe the property owners will surprise us and actually follow the letter of the eight-year-old law.

Speakers in these videos include commission members and representatives of the development company hired by property owners Patrick and Pam Kelley. The last of these videos is Aaron Hellems, who spoke against the project. There'll be more to say about this, but for now ... it's something.









Green Mouse Q and A, Episode 2: Let the city know how you feel about the Summit Springs environmental clustermuck.


Green Mouse Q and A, Episode 2: Let the city know how you feel about the Summit Springs environmental clustermuck.


On Tuesday afternoon, Jeff Gahan's cloak-and-dagger Redevelopment Backscratching Commission will consider the future of Summit Springs, a bizarre hilltop commercial development off State Street that has been turned down more often than I was during prom season back in '77.

And yet following the late 2015 resolution of a lawsuit against the city, the controversial project has returned to life and is being warmly embraced by Team Gahan, which has resolved to TIF-Gift this for-profit private development monstrosity with an access road somehow tacked to the hillside, requiring a feat of engineering last witnessed when we spent $3 million on Bob Caesar's Silver Hills driveway.

Green Mouse Q and A: How the Summit Springs hilltop clustermuck got to this point.



Behold the aesthetic monstrosity of Summit Springs, coming soon to our low-density State Street corridor.




As noted yesterday, the Green Mouse has found a disgruntled informant close to the top. As information comes in, it will be published here.

---

What can be done to stop this environmental disaster of Gahan-ic proportions?

Up on my floor, we call Summit Springs “Schisty Springs.” As for what can be done to stop it, it's the same old story. You have to register your viewpoint.

You can inundate city government with calls expressing your dissatisfaction with this planned development and the secretive means it has been thrust upon us. 

The main number for the city building is 812-948-5333. Ask to speak to the mayor’s office, the City Plan Commission, and Redevelopment. You are also strongly urged to contact your district city council person and each at-large member. If you are feeling particularly ornery and feisty, express your discontent and insist on satisfactory answers to your questions.

While you’re at it, email them as well so there’s a paper trail. 10, 15, or 20 calls in a day is enough to get anyone’s attention. This is not just about being a nuisance … it’s about holding our public officials accountable and making sure they follow the law.

However, good luck in trying to reach these city officials. Judging from the past, I fear they may already be in hiding trying to avoid the fallout of this latest debacle.

Monday, April 11, 2016

Green Mouse Q and A: How the Summit Springs hilltop clustermuck got to this point.



On Tuesday, Jeff Gahan's handpicked Redevelopment Rubber Stamp Commission will consider the future of Summit Springs, a hilltop commercial development off State Street. The city's TIF Gift to this latest monstrosity is to be road tacked to the hillside.


Behold the aesthetic monstrosity of Summit Springs, coming soon to our low-density State Street corridor.




The Green Mouse has found a disgruntled informant close to the top. As information comes in, it will be published here.

---

Where did the trees go?

A developer has decided to place a hotel and other businesses on top of that steep hill, and apparently, the trees were in the way.

When did this get approved?

It didn’t. Well…kinda.

It’s a little confusing unless you are a Krafty lawyer. The property owners have been trying to develop that hill since 2003. Most recently, in 2012, the proposed plan failed to gain support from City Council. However, the night City Council was to vote on it, the property owners withdrew the plan.

A couple months later, the property owners returned with the intention of reviving a plan from 2008. This particular plan had received primary approval from the Plan Commission and approval from City Council in 2008. However, because the property owners did not obtain secondary approval from the Plan Commission within 18 months as stated in city ordinance, the 2008 plan was no longer valid.

Now, the property owners must have known this. Otherwise, why would they go through the trouble and cost of getting another plan approved?

Since the property owners couldn’t get the needed votes from the 2012 City Council, they needed to devise a scheme to bypass City Council … enter the 2008 plan. They took the 2008 plan before the Board of Zoning Appeals but the Board saw through the scheme despite being threatened with a lawsuit. The property owners held true to their promise and sued the City of New Albany and the Board of Zoning Appeals.

This is where the story becomes unclear.

The city’s attorney, Stan Robison, requested a change of venue which ultimately moved the proceedings to Scott County. The local reporter (Daniel Suddeath) who had been covering the proposed development left the News and Tribune. Any and all coverage of this news story was non-existent during this time until now, when the hill has been stripped bare and the property owners want to build a road.

Whatever happened in the courtroom was clearly in the property owners’ favor. So, when did this plan gain approval? In 2008, by the city’s then Plan Commission and City Council, with the assistance of a judge at some point in the last two years. All of this was done without the property owner ever filing and getting approval for a secondary plan that would provide the details of the proposed development, which breaks city ordinance. So, it was not approved using the process set forth by the city.

How wonderful it is to be above the law. I wonder what else has been done without proper approval ... wait, don't ask me to answer THAT one.

Friday, April 08, 2016

Behold the aesthetic monstrosity of Summit Springs, coming soon to our low-density State Street corridor.


Team Gahan can't install a crosswalk at Main and W. 1st, and then there's this.

The fact that the area has already been timbered doesn't bode well for New Albany rubber-stamp Redevelopment Commission ...


... to give the project's TIF road a thumbs-down, because of course all of it would have been arranged in the back corridors long before the rest of us knew anything.

You know, like an iceberg.

When the Yugoslav war crimes tribunal is finished, do you think the Hague would let us borrow it for a few months? Trust me, it won't take long, and they can have it right back.

Hotel, development slated for State Street in New Albany; Redevelopment commission to consider request Tuesday, by Chris Morris (10 Reasons Why Clark County Rocks)

NEW ALBANY — The New Albany Redevelopment Commission will consider a request to construct a road in order for a new development, which would include a hotel, to be constructed on the land behind Burger King and next to Home Depot in the 2200 block of State Street.

New Albany Mayor Jeff Gahan said the hotel being planned for the area is a Fairfield Inn and Suites. There would be other new development near the hotel which would likely include a medical facility and restaurants. He said the land was already approved for a Planned Unit Development.

Trees were cleared from the land recently in order to meet the state's April 1 deadline, due to bat and bird nests.



Friday, April 12, 2013

Kotkin versus Florida.

Good reading in this point-counterpoint from the Daily Beast.

Richard Florida Concedes the Limits of the Creative Class, by Joel Kotkin

The so-called creative class of intellects and artists was supposed to remake America’s cities and revive urban wastelands. Now the evidence is in—and the experiment appears to have failed.

Did I Abandon My Creative Class Theory? Not So Fast, Joel Kotkin, by Richard Florida

Joel Kotkin says I’ve turned my back on the idea that the creative class spurs economic growth and reinvigorates cities. My response? Bollocks.

Monday, August 08, 2011

County planner asks: What are your thoughts on the Annex building's future?

In recent weeks, Don Lopp, the Director of Operations and County Planning in Floyd County, has twice joined the blog discussion about the future of Community Park and the North Annex.

July 31: Community Park, North Annex, development and the fog of political obfuscation.

July 15: "Is Floyd County seeking to develop up to 18 acres of Community Park?"
NAC appreciates his willingness to participate, and so I'm moving his most recent posting to the marquee in hopes of continuing the chat. First, I wrote this:

The Annex occupies a very small part of up to 18 acres. The very best idea for these acres is the only one I'm not hearing: Keep them green ... and that's a direct result of the Philistine proclivities of the dudes who sign Don's check.
Don's response:

I appreciate the forum and the response regarding the alternative of keeping the frontage entirely green. I would like to continue the dialogue if I could by asking your thoughts on the annex building. Thanks for the discussion.
Readers, what are your thoughts on the Annex building, and by extension, the topics considered in the ongoing Community Park thread?

Sunday, July 31, 2011

Community Park, North Annex, development and the fog of political obfuscation.

OSIN's Chris Morris braves the eternal glower of the county council's prez-for-life to report this story:

No decision yet on North Annex future; NA-FC Parks Department wants Community Park to remain intact

... Ted Heavrin, president of the county council, said no decision has been made about the property’s future. He said the layout of the area will limit development.

“You can’t build under power lines ... they should know that,” Heavrin said of the parks board.

Heavrin said before anything is decided, all parties involved will have a meeting.
Sound familiar? That's because we were discussing it on July 15: Is Floyd County seeking to develop up to 18 acres of Community Park? The discussion rather prematurely ended with this comment from Jeff Gillenwater.

I appreciate your time, Don (Lopp), but that really doesn't answer my question. You mentioned that the original thought was to make 4-6 acres available but that preservationists requested an expansion to 18 acres.

Why? What is someone going to do with 18 acres that they couldn't do with 4-6? Is there an entity proposing something specific that requires more land? What thinking led to the expanded offering?

Given their abysmal communication record lately, it would be helpful for the public to know what's happening on the preservation front *before* any governmental commitments are made.

So, what's really happening? Give that wheel a spin, will ya?

Friday, July 15, 2011

Is Floyd County seeking to develop up to 18 acres of Community Park?

The Green Mouse went out to forage last night, and he came back with this interesting tidbit -- today's special at the Floyd Boobocracy Rumor Mill.

Amid talk of Floyd County's perennially unimaginative political leadership cadre replenishing its coffers by selling Community Park's Grant Line Road frontage to property developers, thus making short-term profitable asphalt sausage from the last existing green space inside the beltway, now comes a strong hint that up to 18 acres of parkland is being considered for future development.

I'm told by a reliable source that county planner Don Lopp recently released a Request for Development (to the general development population) for proposals to devour up to 18 acres of Community Park for development, and that the Parks Department had no prior knowledge of this action.

As such, the smelly morass of parks district legislation proposed earlier in 2011 bubbles yet again to the surface, in the sense that seemingly just last week, political seat-holders now expressing keen interest in paving the city's green space were accusing the parks board of precisely the same objective.

Who to believe? And how many showers must one poor blogger take when reporting the news of greed? Okay, readers: Tell us what you know, up front or down low.

Wednesday, April 06, 2011

Good stuff from Gonder on development and externalities.

It's always nice to see an elected official going beyond a spreadsheet to make community development and the value of the commons a part of economic calculations.

GONDER: Brake or Gas

In each of these examples, with which all Americans are familiar, we can see that large developments do, in fact, deliver some benefits, but they do so at quite a cost. The success of these large ventures is built upon a sturdy foundation of costs shifted from the developer, the owner, the schemer, onto the citizens of the host communities. These shifted costs are sometimes referred to as externalities. Externalities are imposed upon the commons, that which we by right of our citizenship or residence own and share in common with our fellow citizens or neighbors--air, water, open land, places or things too big to be hauled in, tied down or titled with the aid of an enviable checkbook.

Saturday, August 14, 2010

Institute 193 presents Shaffer's Residential Facades


TRAVIS SHAFFER: RESIDENTIAL FACADES
August 12, 2010 - September 5, 2010
Opening Reception: August 12 | 6 - 9 PM
Institute 193, Lexington, KY

Eleven Mega Churches, Thirtyfour Parking Lots, Fortyone Walmart Supercenters, Every Church in Fayette County and finally - Residential Facades. Travis Shaffer, a recent MFA graduate from the University of Kentucky, has spent the past two years documenting various aspects of America’s less-than-enthralling architectural landscape and development through his steady production of photographs, books and portfolios. His most recent project, Residental Facades, visually recalls the austere photographs of Berndand Hilla Becher, but is distinctly local in its treatment of Southern suburban architecture and the unnerving anomaly of street-oriented residential facades without doors or windows.

In anticipation of the World Equestrian Games, Lexington has entered a period of breakneck development and infrastructural improvements that will have long-lasting effects on our community.Shaffer’s work paints a sobering picture of unchecked development but is able to disguise its social and conceptual critiques in symmetry, line and form.

More photos from the exhibit are available at Shaffer's web site. His Eleven Mega Churches is worth a look, too.

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Today's Tribune column: "Usable and reusable expertise."

The devil didn't make me do it. The facts are another matter ...

BAYLOR: Usable and reusable expertise

... Scrolling back through my blog, I found the references, and so we return now to January 2006, when former Tribune Staff Writer Amany Ali found a glowering counterpoint to percolating downtown optimism by obtaining the testimony of Gary McCartin, auteur of the Wendy’s that isn’t.

Monday, March 23, 2009

Benefit to the entire community, not the developer? Is that legal in New Albany?

In one of at-large councilman John Gonder's best blogs yet, he makes so much sense that one wonders how he managed to get elected in the first place. Just imagine the potential utility of Gonder's thoughts if the remainder of the local Democratic weren't terminally platform-resistant. Coincidentally, my Thursday column in this week's Tribune is devoted to a similar topic.

Back to the Drawingboard. Please.

In an attempt to extract something meaningful from the proceedings, I would like to offer an idea that could have possibly yielded a different outcome. At least it could have changed my vote. Unfortunately I'm not holding my breath waiting for the missing ingredient, because that missing ingredient is found in such short supply among developers hereabouts. The ingredient? It goes by several names: innovative thought, creative approaches, getting ahead of the curve, anticipatory development in recognition of the changes suggested by new environmental realities.

Thursday, June 05, 2008

The developer, the ordinance, his sister and her vote ... buy now and get bonus photos and a "REWIND" for the same low price.

The Tribune’s front page headline couldn’t have said it any clearer:

New Albany Councilwoman votes in favor of brother’s development, by Daniel Suddeath.

Developer Gary McCartin didn’t get what he was after at Monday’s New Albany City Council meeting, but he did get a little help from his sister.

For the second time since being elected, council member Diane McCartin-Benedetti did not abstain from voting on a proposed zoning change that involved her brother.


For what I really think about the apostle of suburban/exurban cookie-cutter development, otherwise known as Gary McCartin, see the “REWIND” below, which follows a few photos from the most recent council defeat suffered by the rapidly eroding former monolith.

As for his sister’s council vote, I’m told that she continues to insist that there is no conflict of interest if she has no direct pipeline to monetary gain from the ordinance in question. While that may be true in the strictest of senses, and I doubt it, the councilwoman’s tacking to the very lowest standard of ethical propriety reveals an incomprehension of reality that’s fairly alarming.

Perhaps the council president might whisper a few words in her ear … and while he’s at it, wield the magic gavel a bit more often when Dan Coffey mounts a Luddite filibuster.

Here are the photos, followed by the commentary.

----



REWIND: Imagination Atrophy Syndrome, downtown churches, the "right facilities," and the "wrong" developer.

(Originally published on August 5, 2007)

Last week I was part of a conversation between two fellow “improve downtown New Albany” community activists, and one mentioned the numerous opportunities he'd had to network with downtown Louisville property developers while one and all were enjoying arts events at Louisville’s Mellwood Arts and Entertainment Center.

Interrupting was hard to resist, but other than a muffled harrumph, I managed to keep my thoughts to myself:

“Gee, wouldn’t it be something if one day New Albany and Floyd County’s monochromatic, knee-jerk exurban developing caste were spotted congregating at trendy arts events? At look-a-like Cracker Barrels, maybe; at a swill-choked, charred-wiener-laden tailgate party for a football game, certainly; but photo exhibitions, courtyard art displays and performances?”

Seems unlikely, doesn’t it?

But I’m serene, and remain delighted to have provided posterity and future archivists with so many vivid examples of the complicity of New Albany’s and Floyd County’s land and property developers in perpetuating our most enduring collective cognitive civic malady: Imagination Atrophy Syndrome.

Recently I described this affliction in the context of the city's non-existent accommodation for bicycling:

And that’s because New Albany’s collective 800-lb gorilla, and the ultimate source of the psychosis that so degrades all our future prospects, is an utter failure on the part of government and citizenry alike to muster any degree of comprehension as to what is occurring in the larger world that lies outside their own exceedingly narrow comfort zones.

Consequently, it isn’t just that so many drivers don’t ride bicycles and lack any semblance of understanding of the issues explicated so clearly by Daniel Robison, it’s that they can’t even imagine doing so and moreover cannot imagine life outside the confines of an automobile – and if they can’t imagine it, then how could anyone else? It follows that those who are able to imagine it must be mistaken, defective, or both, and any person sighted on a bicycle must be either too poor to afford a car or restricted to riding a bike because of a mental illness, DUI conviction, bad personal credit or contrarian tendencies …

When it comes to the local kingpins of construction, there’s certainly a paucity of constructive imagination to go around ... and around ... and around. NA Confidential gave lengthy consideration to a veritable "Exhibit A" in this January, 2006 essay:

The Gary: An excess of pure, unadulterated ego? Perhaps tolerable in the exurban sprawl, but not relevant to downtown New Albany.

While readers are strongly encouraged to navigate the link above and read the original piece in its entirety, I’ll cut to the chase and reprint the conclusion below. Nothing has happened during the 18 months since then that might lead me to doubt the veracity of this assessment, but I do sometimes wonder: Who’ll be the local developer who finally decides to think outside the self-imposed box and is the first to contribute a signature project in the New Urbanist mold to New Albany’s downtown?

Or must we look outside Floyd County to Louisville or elsewhere to find the vigorous imagination necessary for such an overdue event to occur?

Rewind to January, 2006, beginning with an newspaper excerpt from Amany Ali, then a reporter for the Tribune …

----

(Ali) … Not everyone is convinced that Scribner Place will be the great catalyst for downtown New Albany. Longtime developer Gary McCartin doesn’t think people are interested in living downtown. And he doesn’t think a YMCA will entice people to do so …

… Instead, he thinks people would rather have a yard and live near their church and other conveniences …

… McCartin reviewed the plans for Scribner Place when they were originally introduced by former Mayor Regina Overton.

“My expertise told me it was not a winner,” he said.

McCartin thinks there is hope for downtown. He thinks city officials should use their power of eminent domain to tear down some buildings and determine what would be best to erect. He thinks some part of the downtown could be utilized for discount-priced retailers.

“It’s (about) getting the right facilities,” he said.

(NAC) We’d be wasting precious column inches to dissect The Gary’s views line by line; instead, let’s consider just one of his assertions.

Between the foot of Silver Hills and the Silver Creek watercourse, using the Ohio River as the southern boundary and Culbertson as the northern, how many churches are in operation?

Our guess is somewhere around two dozen, ranging in size from St. Mary’s (Roman Catholic) to a handful of tiny, storefront Protestant congregations.

Therefore, according to The Gary’s own stated “logic,” there should be several hundred people desirous of residency downtown, to be “near their church.”

But that’s not what The Gary was saying, is it?

Isn’t he really speaking in the exurban demographic code, with class- and race-based implications fairly obvious?

We think so.

What (Donald) Trump -- uh, McCartin -- is saying with such transparent inelegance, smirking whilst pretending to dispense “expertise” to the same city planners and public officials he is maligning because he feels they aren’t permitting him have “his way” in pending development cases, most prominently that of the Green Valley Road medical office complex that has run afoul both of the decidedly residential neighborhood where it is to sited and the local officials in charge of planning and zoning, is that people just like HIM want houses just like HIS close to the church that HE attends, with quick and easy access to chain stores HE built and the Interstate highways connecting the sprawl that HE and his ilk have engendered.

Obnoxious? Yes. Arrogant? Perhaps.

But fair enough when it comes to the way of life in the exurb. Our advocacy of those principles that have coalesced under the “New Urbanism” banner does not preclude a fundamental “to each his own” when it comes to a preference for ideological conformity and suburban sprawl – and there are any number of Gary McCartins lining up outside our doors to help these cookie cutter dreams come true.

But McCartin’s self-aggrandizing profession and the precepts that he wields like spiked clubs to help further it mean little or nothing to those who prefer the urban experience and seek its expansion and improvement, and for McCartin to blithely assert that the best solution for revitalizing downtown is to cast it in the mold of his trademark projects in the suburbs and exurbs is the height of self-inflated folly – and, given the proofs afforded us by the successful growth of urban communities elsewhere, it is palpably untrue.

In the end, The Gary probably knows this just as well as the rest of us do.

The words he spoke to Amany Ali were not offered with any sincere intent to contribute to a solution, or even to be an honest broker in any accepted sense of the idea, but as a means of jousting for advantage with his perceived enemies, while providing our local Luddite obstructionists with a convenient pull quote to wave in the air during public speaking time at council meetings.

In the end, The Gary turns out to be little more than another playground bully, and as such, small wonder that he and Councilman Cappuccino have formed an alliance to denigrate downtown New Albany’s best hope for success in many decades, understanding that a guerrilla war of petty obfuscation and delaying tactics might somehow succeed in halting projects like Scribner Place, leaving an expanse of open ground where the buildings already have been knocked down sans the need for messy eminent domain actions … in the councilman’s home district … just a big, empty place to build a big, new building or two of the sort that people like The Gary really want.

Perhaps then, owing to these "advantageous" McCartinesque circumstances, we’d get our big-box discounter on West Main, with an ample pool of Coffeyite customers to be drawn from the poverty-stricken inhabitants of the inner city – confined to living near their churches, and not sullying the neat lawns and social order in the New Albanian exurb, the one that expresses so very well the ethical limitations inherent in growth for the sake of growth -- the ideology of the cancer cell -- taking precedence over the interests of society as a whole.

To summarize, there are many people currently engaged in consideration of these interests as they apply to downtown revitalization, and as The Gary now has illustrated, albeit inadvertently, the single best way to proceed with the plan for this revitalization is to accept that downtown must be remade as differently as possible from the exurb -- which is to say, we must pursue the polar opposite of any path recommended by The Gary.

Hey, thanks for the encouragement, Mr. McCartin. Your "expertise" has proven quite useful, after all.

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

Good ethical judgment and strict legalism: Not necessarily the same thing.

Over at New Albany 15A, Coop makes the right call. His piece is reprinted here in its entirety (italics are mine):

Benedetti-Recuse?

Concerning the vote on Gary McCartin's Charlestown Rd. development ...

Just got off the phone with Mrs. Benedetti. She was very direct and to the point. She states she does not have to recuse if there is no capital gain for her.

She did not abstain because she said she was well informed, had done her homework, had her facts straight and made an informed decision.

She insists her decisions will be made for the interest of New Albany, not for any developer.

I have to agree with her statement legally, but personally for ethical reasons I would abstain, because I would not even be addressing a close relative’s issues with my council. The last thing I would want is for someone to have reason to be investigating if there are capital gains to be made by my vote.

There are going to be several people
watching her votes very closely concerning development issues. I guess I'll wait and see about her integrity as I will do with all new members of council and the re-new mayor.

Thursday, September 20, 2007

Why is “The Gary” proposing duplexes for a locale so far removed from the churches that (his) people want to attend?

Here’s the scoop, courtesy of the Kerberos’ Korner blog:

WTF: Slumlord Proposes Duplex Near DePauw Avenue

The long and the short of it is that Gary (McCartin) is applying for a variance in order to knock down the existing structure and build two 2-story duplexes ... in a proposed historic neighborhood. I don't think so!

Gary's reputation as a landlord is less than stellar. The one way we will beat this variance is to show up October 2nd at 7 p.m. at the City-County building and show our support for our neighborhood.

NAC has been corresponding with several local neighborhood activists, and here is a sampling of their comments about The Gary’s latest variance fix:

----
Here comes the next wave from Mr. McCartin … I've no doubt the residents over there are sufficiently mobilizing.

----

Hard to imagine he’d be interested in that corner. It isn’t a cornfield, and it’s fairly far away from the church that he thinks all of us want to attend.

----

There couldn't be a more inappropriate place for 2 duplexes on the face of the planet.

----

I’m not a conspiracy buff, but you have to wonder if this latest headscratcher is some sort of diversionary maneuver. Maybe he's in need of pocket change - who knows?

----

Some good that may come from this, the folks in and around DePauw may decide to seek historic district status. After the variance is denied (and it will be denied) that would be the definitive "get out and stay out" message to Mr. McCartin.


----

An interesting aside - the MLS for this property expired on Aug. 30 with no sale, and the asking price was $84,900. Neighbors interested in purchasing the property contacted Marquis Realty prior to the expiration date and were told the property was sold.

----

Much in the same way that rogue slumlords poison the “keg of nails” for those rental property owners who are legitimate, Gary McCartin continues to pursue his goal of a shoddy fleur-de-lis-tattooed exurb in every backyard – something that has the unintended (or is it?) consequence of discrediting legitimate suburban development plans offered by thoughtful developers … and yes, there are some hereabouts.

There will be more on the Vance/DePauw story next week. Meanwhile, let's try for a big contingent at the October 2 hearing. Video cameras, anyone?

Sunday, August 05, 2007

REWIND: Imagination Atrophy Syndrome, downtown churches, the "right facilities," and the "wrong" developer.

Last week I was part of a conversation between two fellow “improve downtown New Albany” community activists, and one mentioned the numerous opportunities he'd had to network with downtown Louisville property developers while one and all were enjoying arts events at Louisville’s Mellwood Arts and Entertainment Center.

Interrupting was hard to resist, but other than a muffled harrumph, I managed to keep my thoughts to myself:

“Gee, wouldn’t it be something if one day New Albany and Floyd County’s monochromatic, knee-jerk exurban developing caste were spotted congregating at trendy arts events? At look-a-like Cracker Barrels, maybe; at a swill-choked, charred-wiener-laden tailgate party for a football game, certainly; but photo exhibitions, courtyard art displays and performances?”

Seems unlikely, doesn’t it?

But I’m serene, and remain delighted to have provided posterity and future archivists with so many vivid examples of the complicity of New Albany’s and Floyd County’s land and property developers in perpetuating our most enduring collective cognitive civic malady: Imagination Atrophy Syndrome.

Recently I described this affliction in the context of the city's non-existent accommodation for bicycling:

And that’s because New Albany’s collective 800-lb gorilla, and the ultimate source of the psychosis that so degrades all our future prospects, is an utter failure on the part of government and citizenry alike to muster any degree of comprehension as to what is occurring in the larger world that lies outside their own exceedingly narrow comfort zones.

Consequently, it isn’t just that so many drivers don’t ride bicycles and lack any semblance of understanding of the issues explicated so clearly by Daniel Robison, it’s that they can’t even imagine doing so and moreover cannot imagine life outside the confines of an automobile – and if they can’t imagine it, then how could anyone else? It follows that those who are able to imagine it must be mistaken, defective, or both, and any person sighted on a bicycle must be either too poor to afford a car or restricted to riding a bike because of a mental illness, DUI conviction, bad personal credit or contrarian tendencies …

When it comes to the local kingpins of construction, there’s certainly a paucity of constructive imagination to go around ... and around ... and around. NA Confidential gave lengthy consideration to a veritable "Exhibit A" in this January, 2006 essay:

The Gary: An excess of pure, unadulterated ego? Perhaps tolerable in the exurban sprawl, but not relevant to downtown New Albany.

While readers are strongly encouraged to navigate the link above and read the original piece in its entirety, I’ll cut to the chase and reprint the conclusion below. Nothing has happened during the 18 months since then that might lead me to doubt the veracity of this assessment, but I do sometimes wonder: Who’ll be the local developer who finally decides to think outside the self-imposed box and is the first to contribute a signature project in the New Urbanist mold to New Albany’s downtown?

Or must we look outside Floyd County to Louisville or elsewhere to find the vigorous imagination necessary for such an overdue event to occur?

Rewind to January, 2006, beginning with an newspaper excerpt from Amany Ali, then a reporter for the Tribune …

----

(Ali) … Not everyone is convinced that Scribner Place will be the great catalyst for downtown New Albany. Longtime developer Gary McCartin doesn’t think people are interested in living downtown. And he doesn’t think a YMCA will entice people to do so …

… Instead, he thinks people would rather have a yard and live near their church and other conveniences …

… McCartin reviewed the plans for Scribner Place when they were originally introduced by former Mayor Regina Overton.

“My expertise told me it was not a winner,” he said.

McCartin thinks there is hope for downtown. He thinks city officials should use their power of eminent domain to tear down some buildings and determine what would be best to erect. He thinks some part of the downtown could be utilized for discount-priced retailers.

“It’s (about) getting the right facilities,” he said.

(NAC) We’d be wasting precious column inches to dissect The Gary’s views line by line; instead, let’s consider just one of his assertions.

Between the foot of Silver Hills and the Silver Creek watercourse, using the Ohio River as the southern boundary and Culbertson as the northern, how many churches are in operation?

Our guess is somewhere around two dozen, ranging in size from St. Mary’s (Roman Catholic) to a handful of tiny, storefront Protestant congregations.

Therefore, according to The Gary’s own stated “logic,” there should be several hundred people desirous of residency downtown, to be “near their church.”

But that’s not what The Gary was saying, is it?

Isn’t he really speaking in the exurban demographic code, with class- and race-based implications fairly obvious?

We think so.

What (Donald) Trump -- uh, McCartin -- is saying with such transparent inelegance, smirking whilst pretending to dispense “expertise” to the same city planners and public officials he is maligning because he feels they aren’t permitting him have “his way” in pending development cases, most prominently that of the Green Valley Road medical office complex that has run afoul both of the decidedly residential neighborhood where it is to sited and the local officials in charge of planning and zoning, is that people just like HIM want houses just like HIS close to the church that HE attends, with quick and easy access to chain stores HE built and the Interstate highways connecting the sprawl that HE and his ilk have engendered.

Obnoxious? Yes. Arrogant? Perhaps.

But fair enough when it comes to the way of life in the exurb. Our advocacy of those principles that have coalesced under the “New Urbanism” banner does not preclude a fundamental “to each his own” when it comes to a preference for ideological conformity and suburban sprawl – and there are any number of Gary McCartins lining up outside our doors to help these cookie cutter dreams come true.

But McCartin’s self-aggrandizing profession and the precepts that he wields like spiked clubs to help further it mean little or nothing to those who prefer the urban experience and seek its expansion and improvement, and for McCartin to blithely assert that the best solution for revitalizing downtown is to cast it in the mold of his trademark projects in the suburbs and exurbs is the height of self-inflated folly – and, given the proofs afforded us by the successful growth of urban communities elsewhere, it is palpably untrue.

In the end, The Gary probably knows this just as well as the rest of us do.

The words he spoke to Amany Ali were not offered with any sincere intent to contribute to a solution, or even to be an honest broker in any accepted sense of the idea, but as a means of jousting for advantage with his perceived enemies, while providing our local Luddite obstructionists with a convenient pull quote to wave in the air during public speaking time at council meetings.

In the end, The Gary turns out to be little more than another playground bully, and as such, small wonder that he and Councilman Cappuccino have formed an alliance to denigrate downtown New Albany’s best hope for success in many decades, understanding that a guerrilla war of petty obfuscation and delaying tactics might somehow succeed in halting projects like Scribner Place, leaving an expanse of open ground where the buildings already have been knocked down sans the need for messy eminent domain actions … in the councilman’s home district … just a big, empty place to build a big, new building or two of the sort that people like The Gary really want.

Perhaps then, owing to these "advantageous" McCartinesque circumstances, we’d get our big-box discounter on West Main, with an ample pool of Coffeyite customers to be drawn from the poverty-stricken inhabitants of the inner city – confined to living near their churches, and not sullying the neat lawns and social order in the New Albanian exurb, the one that expresses so very well the ethical limitations inherent in growth for the sake of growth -- the ideology of the cancer cell -- taking precedence over the interests of society as a whole.

To summarize, there are many people currently engaged in consideration of these interests as they apply to downtown revitalization, and as The Gary now has illustrated, albeit inadvertently, the single best way to proceed with the plan for this revitalization is to accept that downtown must be remade as differently as possible from the exurb -- which is to say, we must pursue the polar opposite of any path recommended by The Gary.

Hey, thanks for the encouragement, Mr. McCartin. Your "expertise" has proven quite useful, after all.