"The automobile took over because the legal system helped squeeze out the alternatives."

I've said it before and I'll say it again: car-centrism, or "automobile supremacy," as the author refers to it, not only is a form of imperialism. It's perhaps the last remaining form of imperialism almost entirely absent social stigma.

When we get behind a wheel -- all of us, including me -- our assumption of acceptable behavior changes every bit as much as when we savage people on social media.

Single-family-only zoning, parking requirements, the mortgage-interest tax deduction ("the deduction primarily subsidizes large houses in car-centric areas"), prioritization of motorists' convenience over public safety, insurance inadequacies, tort law, criminal law ... the list of ways that the legal system institutionalizes this mode of imperialism is lengthy and daunting.

What's it going to take to make improvements, or do we continue to shrug and say nothing can be done?

Americans Shouldn’t Have to Drive, but the Law Insists on It, by Gregory Shill (The Atlantic)

The automobile took over because the legal system helped squeeze out the alternatives.

 ... As I detail in a forthcoming journal article, over the course of several generations lawmakers rewrote the rules of American life to conform to the interests of Big Oil, the auto barons, and the car-loving 1 percenters of the Roaring Twenties. They gave legal force to a mind-set—let’s call it automobile supremacy—that kills 40,000 Americans a year and seriously injures more than 4 million more. Include all those harmed by emissions and climate change, and the damage is even greater. As a teenager growing up in the shadow of Detroit, I had no reason to feel this was unjust, much less encouraged by law. It is both.

It’s no secret that American public policy throughout the 20th century endorsed the car—for instance, by building a massive network of urban and interstate highways at public expense. Less well understood is how the legal framework governing American life enforces dependency on the automobile. To begin with, mundane road regulations embed automobile supremacy into federal, state, and local law. But inequities in traffic regulation are only the beginning. Land-use law, criminal law, torts, insurance, vehicle safety regulations, even the tax code—all these sources of law provide rewards to cooperate with what has become the dominant transport mode, and punishment for those who defy it.

Let’s begin at the state and local levels ...

Especially this.

In other words, the very fact that car crashes cause so much social damage makes it hard for those who are injured or killed by reckless drivers to receive justice.

In a similar spirit, criminal law has carved out a lesser category uniquely for vehicular manslaughter. Deep down, all of us who drive are afraid of accidentally killing someone and going to jail; this lesser charge was originally envisioned to persuade juries to convict reckless drivers. Yet this accommodation reflects a pattern. Even when a motorist kills someone and is found to have been violating the law while doing so (for example, by running a red light), criminal charges are rarely brought and judges go light. So often do police officers in New York fail to enforce road-safety rules—and illegally park their own vehicles on sidewalks and bike facilities—that specific Twitter accounts are dedicated to each type of misbehavior. Given New York’s lax enforcement record, the Freakonomics podcast described running over pedestrians there as “the perfect crime.”

And the conclusion.

Americans customarily describe motor-vehicle crashes as accidents. But the harms that come to so many of our loved ones are the predictable output of a broken system of laws. No struggle for justice in America has been successful without changing the law. The struggle against automobile supremacy is no different.

THE BEER BEAT: There's one small problem with the Growler USA franchise coming to Jeffersonville, Indiana.

So far this week, I've learned that Louisville City FC's new stadium might include a brewpub (but why wouldn't it be Falls City?); Goodwood has decided not to feature Colin Kaepernick on its cans; and Dave Bailey of the Hardknott Brewery in West Cumbria gets it:

With apologies to all beer historians. I am not a beer historian. I am not sure if I understand where beer history truth ends and myth begins. I do care, but just haven't got the time to keep myself properly informed on such matters.

Exactly. Let's get back to storytelling, shall we?

Meanwhile, the News and Tribune informs us there'll be a new beer business down the road in Jeffersonville. The header says it's a brewpub, but I think not.

Brew pub, senior living facility planned for Jeffersonville's Bridgepointe Commons, by Danielle Grady (News and Tribune)

JEFFERSONVILLE — A chain microbrew pub new to Indiana and a 103-unit assisted living facility are the first confirmed tenants of Denton Floyd Real Estate’s 70-acre Bridgepointe Commons project along Ind. 62, north of the roundabouts.

Growler USA, which specializes in beer-infused food and craft beverages, including beer, kombucha tea, draft wine, hard cider and mead, plans to open a 19th location at Bridgepointe Commons. The location is the restaurant’s first in Indiana, Kentucky or Illinois. The chain was started in Eugene, Oregon and has 11 other locations “coming soon” to different states, according to the company’s website.

Brandon Denton, co-owner of Denton Floyd, said the restaurant will have a large patio and fire pits for gatherings.

“It’s going to be really nice,” he said. “A great place, like I said, for the community to go and have a beer or have a nice meal or sit down and watch the game.”

Construction has already started on the restaurant, and Denton expects for it to open this summer.

Recall that a brew pub brews its own beer on the premises, but Growler USA isn't one of these. Rather, the reporter Grady gets it right, because Growler USA is a "chain microbrew pub" with a profusion of taps.

Growler USA: America's Microbrew Pub

PRIME TERRITORIES AVAILABLE

Craft beer is the fastest growing retail product in America. Growler USA is a craft beer franchise poised to lead the nation. Good food. Simple operations

The ever helpful Franchise Gator explains that you can have one for yourself for less than $700,000 up front (an amount that all but precludes a brewing system), so what exactly is Growler USA?

What happens when you take the basic concept of a growler refill station and decide to take it national? Well, what happens is, you get something like Growler USA.

But let's hope the Jeffersonville franchisee isn't planning on pouring beer into actual growlers for off-premise sales, because doing so currently remains illegal in Indiana unless the beers are brewed in-house.

In short, if a Growler USA franchise eventually arrives in Jeffersonville, the beers on tap will be for in-house consumption only.

Of course, a fire pit -- now there's a game-changer.

"Car-centric policy dominates our legal system and the way police conduct business. And it's not holding people truly responsible."

Lest those of us who aren't employed by the city of New Albany forget:

ON THE AVENUES: For New Albany’s Person of the Year, the timeless words of Mother Jones: “Pray for the dead, and fight like hell for the living.”

I'd accuse City Hall of forgetting about Chloe Allen, although I'd hate to intrude on the image-burnishing and self-referential promotion that fills the languid days for Mayor Gahan's minions.

Yes, I'd accuse City Hall of forgetting about Chloe Allen, but let's be fair. The minions wouldn't even know who I was referring to.

That's how completely out of touch they are.

It's not just an accident, by Nathaniel M. Hood (Strong Towns)

Car-centric policy dominates our legal system and the way police conduct business. And it's not holding people truly responsible.

Hood tells of a horrible and inexcusable "accident" that took place on a shared use path where autos are not even supposed to be.

You guessed it. No charges.

It goes beyond not investigating something that so clearly should have been investigated. More often than not, reckless drivers do not lose their license and stay on the road. And, when a collision does occur and it’s not investigated, insurance laws can make it difficult to prove damage in a civil suit without charges and the dollar amount on damages can be capped.

This is the system we've created; one that favors drivers at nearly every level. It's unfortunate that car culture dominates our system and law enforcement so much that it doesn't hold people responsible. And until it truly does, we're not going to see as much progress as we need. Changes to laws and public mindset must happen in tandem with changes to the design of our streets. We need to reorient our understanding of transportation to value the safety and rights of pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users just as much as drivers.

The top comment to this post reinforces a point we've made previously -- again and again.

With apologies to those who know that I harp on this here and elsewhere, I need to continue pointing out that part of this problem is linguistic. Law enforcement officers automaticaly assign agency to vehicles, which cannot be prosecuted, instead of drivers who can. A car did this, a truck did that. How glorious it must be to operate machines that offer such speed, power, and control, and know that your blunders, no matter how deadly, will always be attributed to the vehicle.

The media then dutifully follow suit. Reporters, who are trained to avoid passive voice, can get very huffy when you challenge them to change "A pedestrian was struck and killed by an SUV" to "A SUV driver struck and killed a pedestrian." They seem to think that active voice wording implies malicious intent or opens them up to a libel suit.

If this premature exoneration annoys you as much as it annoys me, I invite you to start calling it out with the hashtag #DriverNotCar.

"Birth control and Obamacare: A pious hijacking at the Supreme Court."

The last paragraph is the clincher, but you'll have to click through to read it because I'm no human spoiler alert.

Birth control and Obamacare: A pious hijacking at the Supreme Court (The Economist)

 ... Think for a moment about what it means to “hijack” something. The first example that comes to mind is not an insurance plan but a plane that nefarious passengers commandeer for sinister purposes. A “carjacking”, similarly, involves jumping into someone else’s vehicle and stealing it. Any form of hijacking is marked by violently wresting property from its legitimate owner. And here is where Mr Clement’s metaphor breaks down. When the government arranges for contraceptive coverage with the insurance company used by the religious charity, it is not commandeering anybody’s property. Nor is it taking metaphorical control of the group’s health insurance plan. Instead, the government is seeking to fulfil Obamacare’s near-universal guarantee to female employees by working with the same insurance company or third-party plan administrator that provides the rest of the employee’s health benefits. Neither the insurance company nor the plan is the property of the religious charity: Aetna is not a wholly owned subsidiary of Catholic Charities. The non-profit and the insurer are independent entities. When a school brings a child to a playground that his parents (for some reason) opt to avoid, the teachers are not “hijacking” the swingset. They are using a resource for the child’s benefit. The parents may be displeased about the school trip to the forbidden playground, but any complaint they raise would necessarily have a paternalistic flavour. Employers do not have such a role vis-a-vis their employees.

Burn Baby Burn: Pence "scorched" by the RFRA firestorm, as we provide legal opinions.

And the best Silent Ron Grooms belatedly can manage is, "But all the other fascists states do it, too."

Verily, the state of Indiana's Holiday Inn Express hotels have been inundated with overnighters since Governor Mike Pence signed SB/HB 101 earlier this week and established the reign of error known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Before moving to a few legal opinions, let's look back on the past week's unpleasantness in our one-party Hoosier paradise:

March 24: Religious freedom: How about freedom from embarrassment?, by David Hoppe (NUVO)

KRAVITZ BLOG: Religious freedom bill may hurt Indy's sports, convention business, by Bob Kravitz (WTHR)

March 25: Tully: Statehouse Republicans embarrass Indiana. Again, by Matthew Tully (Indy Star)

March 27: Local religious leaders, others fire back at Religious Freedom act’s passage, by Jerod Clapp (News and Tribune)

March 28: Seattle, San Francisco mayors join in boycott of Indiana over RFRA, by Madeline Buckley (Indy Star)

And George Takei, and Keith Olbermann, and dozens of other humiliations, great and small. Even Pence's own feelings now have been hurt, along with his presidential prospects, and so damage control is operating full tilt:

Gov. Mike Pence to push for clarification of ‘religious freedom’ law, by Tim Swarens (Indy Star)

Gov. Mike Pence, scorched by a fast-spreading political firestorm, told The Star on Saturday that he will support the introduction of legislation to “clarify” that Indiana’s controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not promote discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Pence breaks into karaoke: "There must be some misunderstanding ... There must be some kind of mistake." The band is Genesis, which seems fitting. 

Following are three explications of RFRA from the legal community. The authors may or may not have stayed in a Holiday In Express, or even someone's airbnb spare bedroom, but at least they're trained, rested and ready.

Opinion: Democracy key in fighting Indiana and Kentucky ‘religious freedom’ laws, by Joe Dunman (Insider Louisville)

So how can opponents of discrimination defeat “religious freedom” laws? There is no easy answer, unfortunately. Laws like RFRA already have been upheld as generally constitutional. They codify a right already present in the First Amendment and don’t single out any classifications of people in their text or application. And limiting the classifications protected by civil rights laws is generally within the discretion of a legislature to do, since civil rights laws themselves are products of the legislative branch.

The Indiana and Kentucky civil rights acts currently omit sexual orientation from protection and there’s no constitutional compulsion to change that. Adding protected classifications is subject to the whim of the voters and those they elect to represent them.

Democracy is the key. Unlike discriminatory marriage bans, “religious freedom” laws like those in Indiana and Kentucky are best defeated at the ballot box. For this reason and many others, state elections matter. Individuals, businesses, and lobbying groups must pressure legislators not to pass and governors not to sign such laws, and vote them out of office when they do.

And:

The Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act – An Analysis of Its Controversy, by Matt Anderson (IN Advance)

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of this law to its opponents is that it comes right after Indiana’s very public and very unsuccesful bid to ban gay marriage. Our own attorney general went state to state submitting amicus briefs in support of laws that would prevent state-sanctioned gay marriage. The state’s arguments at the 7th Circuit were nearly laughed out of the courtroom and were called out for what they were: discrimination based on personal views. The proponents of the IRFRA seem to gloss over this aspect even though the proponents of this bill were the same who had tried to ban gay marriage through Indiana’s Constitution. The exasperation could probably summed up as: “Look, if you hate the LGBT community, so be it . . . but don’t act like this law has nothing to do with it.”

And:

Letter from the legal scholars

We write you as legal scholars with expertise in matters of religious freedom, civil rights, and the interaction between those fields, to offer our expert opinion on the scope and meaning of the proposed Religious Freedom Restoration Acts pending before both houses of the Indiana legislature. The thirty signatories to this letter, many who are Indiana University law professors, agree with the Indiana Supreme Court “that the Indiana Constitution’s religious liberty clauses did not intend to afford only narrow protection for a person’s internal thoughts and private practices of religion and conscience.” We share the view that a commitment to religious liberty is fundamental to a uniquely American notion of pluralism whereby religiously motivated practices should be accommodated in contexts where such accommodation would not result in meaningful harm to the rights of identifiable third parties.

That said, we have several concerns with the language of the proposed Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRA).

"There is a huge difference between an insult and a threat, and ... it isn’t actually that hard to tell one from the other."

This isn't food for thought. It's a five-course meal.

Two Views on Speech, by Adam Gopnik (New Yorker)

... The absolutist American view, let’s stipulate at once, still has much to be said for it. It says that once the state gets into the business of distinguishing acceptable dissent from unacceptable dissent then what we have is no longer dissent. Instead, we have state-sponsored and defined dissent, like that of the tiny “dissident” parties that were allowed to persist, once upon a time, in Eastern Europe, pendant to the chief Communist one. As John Stuart Mill said, in what is still the greatest defense of freedom of speech ever written, the free contest of ideas, even bad ones, is necessary to discover the truth of things. Or, to borrow a turn of phrase from the N.R.A.: it takes a good man with a pencil to stop a bad man with a pen.

But the view that governs the opposite position, in Canada and Europe alike, is not irrational or truly hostile to liberty. The laws and rules vary, but all have a simple distinction at their core, which is that criticizing an ideology, including a religious ideology, however vociferously, is different from inducing hatred of a people or persons. In plain English, hate-speech laws are based on the simple truth that there is a huge difference between an insult and a threat, and that it isn’t actually that hard to tell one from the other.

Rick Fox on marriage (in)equality: "The only people that benefit from this situation are the lawyers."

Really?

Lawyers benefit from things like this?

Speaking of which, how many different governmental agencies has Rick Fox represented, sometimes simultaneously?

Did you see how I didn't use the word "competently"?

As a side note, given that Bill Hanson now has you clicking twice in order to read whole documents, do you think this is intended to double the ad exposure?

I wonder how much traffic I've sent to be monitored by Hanson's ad-sniffers these last ten years?

I wonder if I've ever once been given credit down in Montgomery for doing so?

Notice all the questions I'm asking?

But there isn't any question that marriage equality ranks up there among the most basic of human rights and freedoms, those of which the likes of Rick Fox, Greg Zoeller and Mike Pence are determined to remain unaware.

Don't worry. They're on the wrong side of history, and with the passing of time, it will become increasingly obvious.

And rectified.

FOX: A measured take on gay marriage, by Rick Fox (Government Lawyerin' Cheap)

... I advised the clerk not to issue marriage licenses until I had an opportunity to review what was going on. I told the News and Tribune that I needed to review what was going on before I could advise Floyd County regarding this matter.

On dopey David Brooks and legal dope.

First came David Brooks in the New York Times.

Weed: Been There. Done That.

For a little while in my teenage years, my friends and I smoked marijuana. It was fun. I have some fond memories of us all being silly together. I think those moments of uninhibited frolic deepened our friendships.

But then we all sort of moved away from it. I don’t remember any big group decision that we should give up weed. It just sort of petered out, and, before long, we were scarcely using it.

And then followed Michelle Goldberg at The Nation.

This Is David Brooks on Drugs

The fact that David Brooks’s wistful, self-satisfied moralism cloaks a serious moral obtuseness is usually hardly worth noting. It’s simply to be expected, as predictable as Tom Friedman bumping into a taxi driver with pithy insights about globalization or Ross Douthat disapproving of his coevals’ sex lives. Still, Brooks’s lament about marijuana legalization is astonishing in its blindness to ruined lives and the human stakes of a serious policy debate. Somehow, he’s written a whole column about the drug war that doesn’t once contain the words “arrest” or “prison.” It’s evidence not just of his own writerly weakness but of the way double standards in the war on drugs shield elites from reckoning with its consequences.

At the third of three publications I commonly peruse, there was more.

Marijuana legalisation: Sort of in defence of David Brooks, by T.N. (The Economist's "Democracy in America" blog)

I FIND today's collective meltdown over David Brooks's bland column on marijuana slightly baffling. My colleague (along with most of the rest of the internet today) is absolutely right to note that Mr Brooks fails to account for the great harms of prohibition, not least the vast racial disparities in arrest and incarceration rates, and the subsequent difficulties for the victims of that injustice in finding work or public housing. It is shameful that a toot of a pipe can trigger consequences like these, and that is why it is such a relief to see parts of America (and other places) taking steps to wind down the war on drugs.

But let's not pretend that relaxing prohibition is cost-free.

I haven't smoked weed for 17 years. What compelled me to quit was an episode during which I accepted the offer of some really good shit in a one-hitter, and found myself deprived of the power of speech for half an hour. If I ever learn who spiked my bowl with animal tranquilizer, there'll be hell to pay. Legalized marijuana with some indication of potency would not be something I purchase very often. If some found its way to my humidor, I'd probably smoke it alone, at home, and refrain from driving.

And play the White Album, for chrissakes. Some things just fit, and just think of all the music released lately that might.

"Sock and awe."

Time out from the GOP's attempted coup d'etat, and time in for some good old-fashioned juvenile tittering.

Masturbation laws around the world: the penal code; A Swedish man caught masturbating in public has been acquitted – but if he'd been caught elsewhere what kind of punishment might he have faced?

A 65-year-old man found masturbating openly on a Stockholm beach has been cleared of charges of sexual assault after the court ruled his activities were not directed towards a specific person. The judgment may come as a surprise but when it comes to penal codes and masturbation, the international legal system looks like a patchwork quilt.

Independently New Albany: Next NA1st small business seminar is June 12.

It's another informative seminar from New Albany First, which at last glance was NOT using its Twitter feed to sell/lease downtown real estate.

The "be local." seminar series returns with Brandon Smith of Faith Ingle Smith LLC

7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 12

Join us as Brandon Smith of Faith Ingle Smith LLC presents “Cookie Jars and Banana Peels: Law and Insurance Basics for Small Business,” in the upstairs meeting room at River City Winery.

Biblical truth may be YOUR truth, but it isn't mine. Discuss.

Boy, did they discuss. I posted the following at Facebook, and we were off to the races.

Biblical truth may be YOUR truth, but it isn't mine. That's what the Constitution's all about, and why fundamentalists correctly sense that the gay marriage debate is about far more than just that one, specific issue. What it's really about is a nation drawing ever closer to dispensing with the fiction that the law for all is somehow "dependent" on one religion's holy book.

Hey, bartender, how old is that bean soup in the freezer bags?

The lawyers can correct me on this one, but my reading of Indiana's ridiculously huge collection of statutes pertaining to beverage alcohol -- regrettably, soon I'll no longer be able to compare it to a phone book because phone books are becoming as obsolete as Indiana's approach to beverage alcohol regulation -- uncovers only two sections pertaining to food on licensed premises.

This matters only because last night, New Albany's city council voted 8-1 in favor on the first reading of an ordinance to expand the boundaries of the city's riverfront development area westward. Think of it as the Holiday Inn Express Law, and note that I'm in favor of doing it, and furthermore believe the scope of the state's enabling legislation should be expanded to require inexpensive three-way permits be issued to any acreage adjacent to a church, without exception.

In short, riverfront development areas constitute exemptions to the quota, and make possible inexpensive three-way permits. In the run-up to last evening's vote, there was much discussion about booze versus food, and the desirability of restaurants as opposed to bars. Council member and mayoral candidate Jack Messer voted against the expansion, citing public safety concerns relating to the fearsome possibility that dive bars will proliferate.

But as the Indiana State Police already has proven with its incessant poaching over the past few years, the availability of food at targeted establishments makes no difference whatsoever.

In fact, all licensed establishments are compelled by law to offer food. As I suggested earlier this week, past judgments by visiting ATC officers have included the advice that an unopened package of weenies in a freezer compartment is sufficient to meet the requirement. Whether this is right, wrong or indifferent, it's still a matter for the ATC to enforce, and not local cops. I doubt the constitutional veracity of any city council effort to add food requirements to those already in existence, although I'd cherish the sight of council members with clipboards poking their noses into kitchens.

I cannot find any reference to food sales percentages, which I believe formerly were part of the system when it came to Sunday opening hours, and later were discarded when regulations were made slightly more reasonable (Hoosier fundamentalism precludes universal reasonableness owing to something Moses once said). There remains an obligation for some licensees to report food/alcohol percentages on the annual renewal application, although my understanding is this applies to the existence of separation in barrooms and family rooms, i.e., how under-21-year-olds and over-21-year-olds co-exist (or do not) in proximity.

However, I'm a publican, not an attorney, and surely I'm missing an esoteric something or three here, so please correct me if you find it. Following are the two ATC regs I found mentioning food:

IC 7.1-3-20-9
Restaurants; general requirements
Sec. 9. Restaurants: General Requirements.
In order to be considered a "restaurant" within the meaning of this title and to be eligible to receive an appropriate restaurant permit under this title, an establishment shall meet the following requirements: (a) It shall be provided with special space and accommodations where, in consideration of payment, food, without lodging, is habitually furnished to travelers; and, (b) It shall have accommodations at which at least twenty-five (25) persons may be served at one (1) time.
(Formerly: Acts 1973, P.L.55, SEC.1.)


905 IAC 1-20-1
Minimum menu requirements
Authority: IC 7.1-2-3-7; IC 7.1-3-24-1
Affected: IC 7.1-3-20-9
Sec. 1. Under the qualification requiring that a retail permittee to sell alcoholic beverages by the drink for consumption on the premises must be the proprietor of a restaurant located, and being operated, on the premises described in the application of the permittee; and under the definition of a "restaurant" as "any establishment provided with special space and accommodations where, in consideration of payment, food without lodging is habitually furnished to travelers,"–and "wherein at least twenty-five (25) persons may be served at one time;" the Commission will, hereafter, require that the retail permittee be prepared to serve a food menu to consist of not less than the following:

Hot soups.
Hot sandwiches.
Coffee and milk.
Soft drinks.


Hereafter, retail permittees will be equipped and prepared to serve the foregoing foods or more in a sanitary manner as required by law.

(Alcohol and Tobacco Commission; Reg 36; filed Jun 27, 1947, 3:00 pm: Rules and Regs. 1948, p. 58; readopted filed Oct 4, 2001, 3:15 p.m.: 25 IR 941; readopted filed Sep 18, 2007, 3:42 p.m.: 20071010-IR-905070191RFA)

Riverfront three-ways: Alcoholic beverages vs. square meals?

Earlier today, the discussion turned to legal esoterica, and as I should have known, it wouldn't be simple.

CeeSaw whiffs on a fat pitch as council considers expanding the booze zone.

Having now received a copy of G-06-15 from the city attorney, I may need help from a legal mind (not Legal Bagel, mind you).

I recall at the time of G-06-15's passing in 2006 that council members mentioned "50% food sales" language in the ordinance as making it difficult for those seeking a riverfront area three-way permit to run a booze-only joint (bearing in mind that all permit holders must have foodstuffs available at all times), as opposed to a restaurant dedicated primarily to meals.

Disregarding how convoluted these variations of "bar" and "restaurant" can become, such language is not stated in the ordinance passed by the city council, although reference is made to following the procedures and stipulations included in the state of Indiana's legal playbook:

IC 7.1-3-20-16
Airport restaurants; restaurants in certain economic development areas; redevelopment projects or districts, historic river vessels, cultural centers, historic districts.

However, the only mention I can find of 50% food sales comes under the heading of "service bars" at IC 7.1-3-20-17, which does not seem to apply to the topic at hand.

And yet I trust my memory, and recall council members assuring themselves that the legal language therein would preclude evil dive bars from brandishing cheap three-ways. I'm throwing this out for discussion and clarification, because I'll be tied up with work most of the day:

Exactly what, if anything, exists to prevent a special riverfront three-way permit holder from operating a gin mill, wherein the bare minimum foodstuffs required by the state (and seldom witnessed by customers) are theoretically available, and practically all revenues come from liquor?

Can't blame this one on the Pope.

If you haven't already seen this, go look: File under: Senseless atrocities.

My advice to preservationists or anyone else who wishes to see the old Coyle building remain standing as part of an adaptive reuse project, rather than bulldozed to suit the construction of a government center more worthy of Hugo Chavez:

See lawyers now, rather than later. Raise money to pay them now, rather than later. Seek legal redress now, rather than later.

Because:

Those bulldozers might be idling tomorrow morning. That's the way this hopeless, dysfunctional, Philistine-ridden, slumlord-infested burg works. Take it to them now, as they deserve it.

Good and hard.

I'm going for a bike ride now. At least I don't have to ride past the crime scene.

A quick primer before tonight's council meeting.

It's the council's first meeting of the year. A new president and vice president will be elected. According to New Albany law, here's what's supposed to happen after that:

§ 30.20 ELECTION OF MEMBERS OF COMMISSIONS AT FIRST MEETING EACH YEAR.

The Common Council member of the city's Plan Commission and of any other special body to which the Council shall be entitled to name a member or members, shall be elected by the Council at its first meeting in January of each year, to serve until the end of the current calendar year.

(Ord. 4600, passed 3-4-1957)


Note that it clearly does not say that the president shall appoint members. It says they are to be elected by the council.

According to my own firsthand observations and the minutes of the meeting, here's what happened last year after Dan Coffey was elected president and produced a list on paper of his own designees:

FIFTEEN MINUTE RECESS:

Mr. Coffey called for a recess at 7:35 p.m. to discuss committee appointments.

Mr. Coffey called the meeting back into session at 7:41 p.m.

Then newly elected President Coffey's first official act was to call a recess so that the entire council could privately discuss the positions. No public discussion and no elections took place.

The appointments were made contrary to city law and the recess was at least questionable under the auspices of state sunshine law. Tribune reporter Daniel Suddeath had to track down officials after the meeting to even get a list of the appointments.

As we're all aware thanks to the senior editor's reporting, that was just the first of Coffey's consistent rule violations as president.

Some council members have since claimed that they voted on those appointments but the minutes from last year's meeting show otherwise. An excerpt from the minutes of the second January '09 meeting provides further evidence:

Mr. Caesar stated that Mr. Coffey appointed him to the Horseshoe Board but he is unable to attend all of the meetings and he suggested that he re-appoint Mr. Gonder to that board.

Mr. Coffey re-appointed Mr. Gonder to the Horseshoe Board.


The council could take a step towards credibility this evening by correcting one of Coffey's many missteps. A straightforward election as mandated by law is neither difficult nor costly. It requires only a desire to follow the rules and set a better example.

We'll see.

HARBESON: "Maintaining misguided laws not the answer for alcohol licenses."

The opening paragraph in Debbie's column is a true classic.

HARBESON: Maintaining misguided laws not the answer for alcohol licenses

When I first heard Clarksville’s Redevelopment Director Rick Dickman say that most restaurants would love to have a three-way, I thought the Southern Indiana area might finally be getting a Cincinnati-style chili franchise. But then I realized it had to do with Indiana’s asinine alcohol laws.

Skyline is the only food and drink chain that I ever patronize.

Note that we did not confer before penning our respective columns. While my take on riverfront development districts is based on the reality we’ve been handed by the state’s regulatory regime, there’s absolutely no doubting that the state’s regulatory regime makes little sense and is skewed toward serial over-regulation. Debbie’s column makes this point with aplomb.

Presidential power? Let's look at the law.

It's become customary for newly elected City Council Presidents to appoint whomever he or she chooses to all commissions and groups on which the Council is entitled to a seat.

New Albany's laws, however, seem to point to a different procedure.

First, the presidential duties are outlined:

§ 30.16 PRESIDENT.

(A) The President shall preside at all meetings, preserve order, decorum and decide all questions of order subject to appeal to the Common Council. He shall appoint all standing committees and all special committees that may be ordered by the Council. All standing committees shall be appointed at the commencement of each year of the term of Council and shall serve only during the term of the President appointing same. He shall fill all existing vacancies that may thereafter occur in any of such committees.

(B) He shall sign all ordinances, orders and resolutions passed by the Council before their presentation to the Mayor, as well as the journal of proceedings.

(C) He shall vote on all issues, his name being called last.

('71 Code, §30.05) (Ord. 4600, passed 3-4-57)



The standing committees referenced are listed in § 30.50:

§ 30.50 STANDING COMMITTEES.

There shall be ten standing committees in the Common Council, appointed by the President, which shall consist of three members each, except the Committee on Budget and Finance which shall consist of all the members of the Council; provided that the President shall appoint a chairperson of each committee from its members:

(A) Budget and Finance.
(B) Rules.
(C) Public Utilities and Transportation.
(D) Police Department.
(E) Fire Department.
(F) Public Safety and Traffic.
(G) Public Works.
(H) Public Health and Welfare.
(I) Schools and Library.
(J) Development and Annexation.

('71 Code, §30.25) (Ord. 4600, passed 3-4-57)



Other commission and group seats are covered under § 30.20:

§ 30.20 ELECTION OF MEMBERS OF COMMISSIONS AT FIRST MEETING EACH YEAR.

The Common Councilmember of the City Plan Commission and of any other special body to which the Council shall be entitled to name a member or members, shall be elected by the Council at its first meeting in January of each year, to serve until the end of the current calendar year.

('71 Code, §30.20) (Ord. 4600, passed 3-4-57)


I don't remember any elections. Have the laws changed and not been recorded? Are current appointments valid? What am I missing?

It's been over two years; maybe he'll read it now.

Contrary to Building Commissioner Ron Hartman's assertions, the city need not hire a detective agency to track down owners of dilapidated properties. Notification of building repair orders via the local newspaper is allowed under Indiana law when a letter to an owner's last known address is returned as undeliverable. In fact, the state suggests that notice publication take place simultaneously with snail mail for "administrative convenience", just in case it's returned.

The law even says that failure to record an ownership interest or to provide the building commissioner's office with contact information in the absence of that recording is considered consent for corrective action and a relinquishment of any legal claims concerning notice.

Here's the New Albany law:

150.103 ENFORCEMENT; SERVICE OF NOTICES AND ORDERS; HEARINGS.

(A) Whenever the Health Officer or the Building Commissioner determines that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there has been a violation of any provision of this subchapter or of any rule or regulation adopted pursuant thereto, he shall give notice of such violation to the person or persons responsible therefor, as herein provided. Such notice shall:

(1) Be in writing,

(2) Include a list of the violations found,

(3) Allow a reasonable time for the performance of any act it requires, and

(4) Be served upon the owner or his agent, or the occupant as the case may require; provided that such notice shall be deemed to be properly served upon such owner or agent or upon such occupant if a copy thereof is served upon him personally, if a copy thereof is sent by registered mail to his last known address, or if service is effected by any other method authorized under the laws of this state.


Which laws of the state apply? I'm pretty sure this part of Indiana's unsafe building law does:

IC 36-7-9-25
Manner of serving notice
Sec. 25. (a) Notice of orders, notice of continued hearings without a specified date, notice of a statement that public bids are to be let, and notice of claims for payment must be given by:
(1) sending a copy of the order or statement by registered or certified mail to the residence or place of business or employment of the person to be notified, with return receipt requested;
(2) delivering a copy of the order or statement personally to the person to be notified;
(3) leaving a copy of the order or statement at the dwelling or usual place of abode of the person to be notified and sending by first class mail a copy of the order or statement to the last known address of the person to be notified; or
(4) sending a copy of the order or statement by first class mail to the last known address of the person to be notified.
If a notice described in subdivision (1) is returned undelivered, a copy of the order or statement must be given in accordance with subdivision (2), (3), or (4).
(b) If service is not obtained by a means described in subsection (a) and the hearing authority concludes that a reasonable effort has been made to obtain service, service may be made by publishing a notice of the order or statement in accordance with IC 5-3-1 in the county where the unsafe premises are located. However, publication may be made on consecutive days. If service of an order is made by publication, the publication must include the information required by subdivisions (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), and (9) of section 5(b) of this

chapter, and must also include a statement indicating generally what action is required by the order and that the exact terms of the order may be obtained from the enforcement authority. The hearing authority may make a determination about whether a reasonable effort has been made to obtain service by the means described in subsection (a) on the basis of information provided by the department (or, in the case of a consolidated city, the enforcement authority). The hearing authority is not required to make the determination at a hearing. The hearing authority must make the determination in writing.
(c) When service is made by any of the means described in this section, except by mailing or by publication, the person making service must make an affidavit stating that the person has made the service, the manner in which service was made, to whom the order or statement was issued, the nature of the order or statement, and the date of service. The affidavit must be placed on file with the enforcement authority.
(d) The date when notice of the order or statement is considered given is as follows:
(1) If the order or statement is delivered personally or left at the dwelling or usual place of abode, notice is considered given on the day when the order or statement is delivered to the person or left at the person's dwelling or usual place of abode.
(2) If the order or statement is mailed, notice is considered given on the date shown on the return receipt, or, if no date is shown, on the date when the return receipt is received by the enforcement authority.
(3) Notice by publication is considered given on the date of the second day that publication was made.
(e) A person with a property interest in an unsafe premises who does not:
(1) record an instrument reflecting the interest in the recorder's office of the county where the unsafe premises is located; or
(2) if an instrument reflecting the interest is not recorded, provide to the department (or, in the case of a consolidated city, the enforcement authority) in writing the person's name and address and the location of the unsafe premises;
is considered to consent to reasonable action taken under this chapter for which notice would be required and relinquish a claim to notice under this chapter.
(f) The department (or, in the case of a consolidated city, the enforcement authority) may, for the sake of administrative convenience, publish notice under subsection (b) at the same time notice is attempted under subsection (a). If published notice is given as described in subsection (b), the hearing authority shall subsequently make a determination about whether a reasonable effort has been made to obtain service by the means described in subsection (a).
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.309, SEC.28. Amended by Acts 1981, P.L.45, SEC.27; P.L.59-1986, SEC.15; P.L.169-2006, SEC.69;

P.L.194-2007, SEC.12.

Indiana's unsafe building law is available here. I'm keen on further exploring the section relative to court ordered receivership as a means of dealing with problematic properties myself.

Are we to assume Mr. Hartman hasn't read that bit, either?

The next video should be instructional.

A video feed of the second rental registration and code enforcement meeting will be posted as soon as I can get it done. The process takes hours and, seeing as how I'm trying to do the traditional media's job with a 12-year-old video camera I bought off eBay nine years ago, patience is appreciated. I think I'll leave the rig at home next time and just smoke a cigarette in the meeting room. Then you can watch it on the 11:00 news.

One needn't view the video in it's entirety, however, to grasp the essence of the situation. Amidst the embroidery of humorously bad arguments, irrelevant anecdotes, and sanitation fantasies, at least one thing is plain:

No one knows the law.

Over and over again, the questions arose: What legal obligation does the city have to notify property owners of code violations and what can legally be done if they don't respond? For that matter, what enforcement and collection options, according to the state, does the city have if they do respond? Every time, the answer was "I don't know".

Given the number of times the building commissioner has expressed exasperation with those unknowns, you'd think finding them out would be the crux of his efforts. If thinking was the hallmark of New Albany's past couple of decades, though, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

As much credit as I give John Gonder for displaying the fortitude so lacking in previous councils, there's not much sense in continuing the foray into chaos until those legal questions are answered. Otherwise, we'll be seeking to build an enforcement mechanism based on faulty remembrances rather than contemporary understanding.

And with all the superfluous talk throughout this conversation of how great things used to be, another myth is the last thing we need.

Annual ATC holiday downbuzz.

The Indiana Alcohol & Tobacco Commission poses a question and answers it:

Is it illegal to dispense alcoholic beverages on certain days?

Yes. It is unlawful to dispense alcoholic beverages on Christmas Day and on Primary, General, or Special Election Days while the polls are open. It is also unlawful to dispense alcoholic beverages for carryout on New Year's Day.

Surely ACLU intervention would be sufficient to remove the Christmas Day sales ban. If ever there were an obvious case of religious establishment, this is it. What other reason could there be for specifying Christmas over any other day?

Other than that, I’m having a great holiday.