We can't quote Gahan on neighborhood crime because he won't address it publicly.

Yesterday we had a look-see at the progress regress of this year's campaign to date, during which Slick Jeffie and the DemoDisneyDixiecrats have focused almost entirely on the mayor's ability to obey state law and produce a suitable annual budgetary snapshot.

As Gahan carpet-bombs Seabrook with HWC's cash, there is no discussion about real issues. Hmm, do you think that's intentional?

Republicans have not been the only listeners who've responded by suggesting we speak instead about Gahan's massive accumulated debt, but as an example of what's being missed, consider neighborhood crime.

Our friend D shared this thought on Facebook. It might be the best expression of the way optics propel Gahan in Oz; it's all about how things appear, and never about whether they actually function.

"To your point re: 'We've not heard an exchange of ideas about opioid use, drug addiction or their corollaries of neighborhood crime.' As someone (one of many in our community) who has been personally affected by drug-induced/related crime at my home, I reached out to one of Gahan's handlers earlier this year to see if we could get the Mayor (and perhaps the Chief) to host a town hall meeting to discuss what we as citizens could do to help police in their efforts to make our community safer.

"I'm quoting the response I received, 'That might be good for your neighbors and the community, but that wouldn't be good for Jeff.'

"I was told that they'd circle back to the idea after the primary. Now, call me crazy, but if our elected officials are doing it right, isn't what's good for the community and its citizens ALSO good for our elected officials? Apparently not in this version of New Albany, Indiana."

D not unexpectedly adds that Team Gahan hasn't gotten around to holding this meeting, even post-primary. Grassroots organizing has proceeded as City Hall keeps their efforts at arm's length, terrified of how it might make the Genius of the Floodplain look in reality, as opposed to fantasy.

I can hear Greg Phipps now: "But he bulldozed the homeless camp, didn't he?"

Election 2019: The buying and selling of a city, or our updated master list of 73 Gahan wheel-greasers, a veritable pornographic potpourri of pay-to-play.

These 30 free-spending special interest donors top Jeff Gahan's 2019 pay-to-play campaign finance windfall of $150,000 (so far).

CFA-4 Follies: OMG, just look at Gahan's huge pile of special interest donor cash flowing to out-of-towners.

Ain't talkin 'bout guns: "Understanding Safety at Neighborhood Schools."

Did any of the school board candidates discuss this?

Don Sakel, maybe?

I trust Strong Towns will forgive me for reprinting this piece in its entirety, which I seldom do, but it strikes me as precisely the sort of thinking that isn't ever considered locally.

Ever.

---

Understanding Safety at Neighborhood Schools, by Charles Marohn (Strong Towns)

Earlier this year, I was part of an unsuccessful effort to keep my local school district from tearing down an historic structure—a 1930s-era elementary school—as part of an effort to create two square blocks of parking in my city’s core downtown. Our efforts were called “disingenuous” by school officials who wrongly assumed we were anti-school, anti-education, or anti-taxes.

No, we’re just anti-destroying the city.

Geographically, the school district is enormous. Most of the people who voted do not live in one of the city’s core neighborhoods. Advocates for the school district had few misgivings with sacrificing an historic structure for more convenient parking. Most voters experience Brainerd as a place to drive through to get to a destination. For them, there will never be too much parking; trying to save the building was merely misplaced nostalgia.

Even so, there was controversy in the district’s discernment process over proposals to convert playgrounds into parking lots. Early site drawings showed off-street parking in the existing playground areas. In the months before the vote, this parking was removed from the drawings, and a note was added indicating parking would be built, with the location to be determined at a later date. I’m not suggesting anything sinister at this point; district officials said their drawings were creating confusion, that they had not intended to put the parking in the playground, and so they removed the parking from the drawings. It just also happened to be a convenient omission from the public conversation.

Now that the district has voter approval and is moving ahead with its plans, the full extent of the damage to my city’s core neighborhoods is becoming more widely understood. While they have yet to release schematics, the list of properties they are seeking through eminent domain suggests they are going to convert multiple blocks of residential dwellings into surface parking. It’s a double tragedy in that (1) it will permanently damage these struggling neighborhoods, and (2) few who are involved with the district or as advocates for the school’s plans seem to care.

In fact, in very predictable fashion, the people promoting the off-street parking are adamantly claiming that their motivation is safety. Specifically, safety for the children.

Safety First, or Driver Convenience First?
Call me cynical. I’ve read the school district’s documentation where faculty indicated that more convenient parking was one of the “top five priorities.” I’ve been in many of these schools, and while I’m sure there are staff members who live in the neighborhoods surrounding the schools, the vast majority do not. These neighborhoods tend to be poor and struggle with disinvestment. While education is not a lucrative career, it is a solidly middle-class career here in Minnesota. Most middle-class people live outside these neighborhoods and drive in. It’s understandable why, come February in Minnesota, people driving to their place of employment would want their parking to be more convenient.

It’s also easy to understand why a school board and senior administration—none of whom live in these neighborhoods, all of whom drive in—would be intuitively sympathetic to the convenience argument.

As psychologists have taught us, humans tend to reach conclusions based on their intuition and then use reasoning to justify those conclusions after-the-fact. We’re going to build parking lots to increase convenience, but we’re going to justify it based on safety for children. Alright, so let’s talk safety.

The Difference Between Urban and Suburban Environments
The vision for safety that the school district espouses comes from a misapplication of suburban design standards to an urban neighborhood. In a sense, what the district is proposing to do is to convert an urban neighborhood school into as close a facsimile as possible of a suburban campus. In that environment, safety is then addressed in standard suburban ways: separating conflicting uses, increasing traffic flow, and managing points of conflict.

In terms of safety for an urban neighborhood, this approach is an absolute disaster. Let me explain why.

Separating conflicting uses means keeping kids who are walking away from traffic. The theory is that, if we keep them separated, there will be no chance of any accidents occurring. The bus lane, pickup lanes, and surface parking departure lanes are all designated and kept away from where kids will be walking. Everyone in their place.

I find this approach suspect in suburban schools, but at least there the expectation is that most students will be driven in a car or bus to and from the site. For each of our neighborhood schools, the school district’s policy is to provide no busing for students living within a mile of the school. They are all expected to walk, bike or be driven by someone to school. As the school is in a poor neighborhood with a lot of working families, a high percentage of students walk, and they will be walking in every which direction. Compared to a suburban campus, walking patterns around urban schools are more random and chaotic.

That randomness conflicts directly with the second aspect of the district’s safety strategy: to increase traffic flow. Suburban schools channel personal vehicles and buses into their own designated lanes to help traffic flow more smoothly. This is accomplished by removing conflicts, by giving drivers a sense of security that potential conflict points have been managed. If we don’t expect turning cars, stopping traffic, wandering kids and the like, we feel more confident driving faster. A.k.a.: increase traffic flow.

Again, I’m not sold on this as a general concept even in a suburban setting, but in an urban neighborhood, it is an obscene level of negligence. These are random environments by their nature. Students are all over the place, like they should be in a good, urban neighborhood. Doing things that artificially speed up traffic, or give drivers a heightened sense of security, makes the environment vastly more dangerous for a child on foot.

The best thing that can happen for the safety of students is counter-intuitive for those who prioritize convenience of parking and driving: people driving through a school zone should be so terrified of hitting someone or something that they drive very slow and with an extreme level of caution. In other words, the exact opposite of what is being designed.

The third aspect of this misapplied suburban safety strategy relates to managing points of conflict: how we handle instances where children walking or biking must cross areas where buses or cars are driving. This is where we get the greatest insight as to the true motivation of the design, because designers are forced to prioritize one group over the other.

Let’s guess which one gets prioritized for safety purposes. Come February in the dead cold of winter, will the flow of traffic for parents picking up their kids, or faculty leaving the off-street parking lot, be halted so that students on foot can cross the street and get on their way? Or will students be expected to wait on the corner while those in their heated cars and on the bus are provided the opportunity to improve traffic flow?

Designers, in the name of safety, will attempt to channel kids on foot to designated locations where they will be collected and then, at intervals that don’t excessively interfere with traffic, be allowed to cross. In these situations, the design relies on everyone to follow the rules—or to put it another way, to mindlessly follow the rules, and be more obedient than attentive—and stay in their designated place.

Predictably, this creates the perfect excuse for the well-intentioned when tragedy strikes: “They weren’t following the rules.”

Not: “We should have anticipated that kids don’t always follow rules.” Not: “This is a complex and random urban neighborhood where unpredictable things happen, despite our planning and design.” Not: “We shouldn’t have given everyone a false sense of security.” None of the above.

And all of this reasoning applies merely to the roughly 75 minutes per day people are entering and exiting the school site. For the remainder of the time, and through all evenings and weekends and the three months of summer, this over-engineered design approach leaves a doughnut of desolation around each school, an inducement to drive even faster through this area where we know slower speeds are the key to safety.

From a pure safety standpoint, imposing a suburban design on an urban school is a disaster in the making. School officials who argue that this must be done for the safety of the students do not have the proper sense of how to create a safe environment in an urban setting. For the well-being of our students, and the health of our neighborhoods, we need a different vision for how to implement the will of the voters.

Fortunately, the city council in my hometown has the capacity to stop this. At its last meeting, the Planning Commission—which I am part of— recommended a moratorium on tearing down structures for conversion to surface parking. The council has the capacity to approve this time-out at any point, without any further public notice.

Such a time out would give city officials the opportunity to meet with the school district and work out the details in a way that is respectful to the neighborhood and truly safe for students. And if common ground could not be reached, the city has the capability to act unilaterally to require an implementation strategy that doesn’t damage the neighborhood where these students live.

I don’t think it will come to that, however. School district officials are smart and our city council has some very good leadership. And despite different concepts of convenience and safety, everyone involved does seem to want what is best for the students. I’m optimistic we can find a way to have a great neighborhood school while still having a neighborhood.

Fast fact about vehicular speeds that kill: "18 mph is the human tolerance of crash impacts."

I'll keep posting about speed because speed kills. If you wish to ignore all available evidence and retain a sense of automotive entitlement, which allows you to drive 40 mph on city streets that pass through neighborhoods, then I'd submit that your entitlement is anti-social -- and whatever the neighborhood must do to restore safety is justified.

If you can't understand any of what I'm writing here, that's not a deal-killer. But thinking of yourself as a "progressive"? That is.

Pioneering Study Affirms Vision Zero Focus on Speed Management, by Veronica Vanterpool (Vision Zero Network)

... Nationally, speed was recorded as a factor in 27% of fatal crashes resulting in 10,111 crash deaths in 2016, according to the study. Research has shown that the likelihood of pedestrians or bicyclists surviving impact with a vehicle increases significantly with each 5 mph decrease in the speed limit. Further highlighting the importance of lower travel speeds, researcher Eric Dumbaugh notes in a recent Vision Zero Network webinar on Safe Systems that 18mph is the human tolerance of crash impacts.

At Strong Towns, Marohn says "I’m one person with one vote and, sadly, despite my strong desire to invest in our schools, I’m compelled to vote NO."

A reminder of rants past, this one from November 4, 2016.

ON THE AVENUES: It’s our big fat Hibbardendum, and Jeff Gahan is carrying the superintendent across the threshold as Metro United Way tosses rice and One Southern Indiana steals all the liquor.

Charles Marohn's testimony isn't a perfect analogy, but it's a reminder of how at times, voices raised in opposition to sacred cows are the most progressive ones of all.

MY "DISINGENUOUS" PUSH TO SAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOL, by Charles Marohn (Strong Towns)

... Without knowing what else to do to nudge the school district towards sanity, I started a Facebook page to save the historic school. My thought was that if I could raise the profile a little bit, I could get the school district to, perhaps, open up to the potential of repurposing that building.

Two things happened. First, the response of this community was overwhelming. As I write this, the page has over 500 supporters — enough to tip the vote in my small town. I’ve been inundated with people wanting to talk about these issues, find ways to improve our neighborhoods and, most importantly, save the school from the wrecking ball. I’m ashamed that I did not anticipate this, but it has been a heartwarming surprise.

The second thing that happened has somewhat offset those good feelings. Not only has the school district doubled-down on their off-street parking rhetoric (and I feel somewhat compelled to say, stretched the truth beyond what I think is friendly in a situation like this), but the collection of insider voices — the newspaper, the chamber, local dignitaries, even some personal friends — have joined to ridicule, when they weren’t outright condemning, any efforts to question the approach.

People I’m very close to have suggested that I’m hurting our area students, threatening the future of the community and basically being a “disingenuous” jerk for not getting on board with the official plan. The newspaper even rolled out the tired bully tactic common to small towns: you didn’t bring up the concern years ago, so shut up, because it’s not valid anymore. I’m a little sickened by it.

I look around and I’m starting to feel the momentum shifting in this place. A sleepy old railroad town that accepted decline and second-rate status is waking up to possibility. The people in charge are no longer aspiring to be a cheaper version of the big box strip in the (showing the early signs of failure) city next door. They are starting to embrace our strengths. So are my neighbors, some of who have put their time and money into fixing up buildings in our struggling downtown. The list of things we can change is growing.

I owe it to them, and I owe it to the future residents of this community — kids and adults alike — to not support a $200 million investment that would irreversibly turn large parts of their neighborhoods into parking lot. I can’t support any more scars to the fabric of these neglected places. I won’t approve of my tax dollars making student’s walks any more dangerous, let alone their parents and those who must walk to get to where they are going. I find these site plans disrespectful.

And I won’t pay for a perfectly good, historic building to be put in the landfill instead of being repurposed, just so we can have a few more parking spots within convenient distance of the front door. The suggestion feels shameful and I can’t imagine what my Depression-era ancestors would say.

We’re making a once-a-generation decision, borrowing money for 25 years in this proposal. With the people of this community finally standing up to push back on the long-accepted decline, I don't feel compelled to settle for a choice between neighborhood schools and neighborhoods. They go together, and I’m going to keep saying that until school district officials grasp it.

"I know a place where your voice really matters and where your opinions and actions can make a definite impact: your own neighborhood."

It was a bizarre dream.

I was having breakfast at Daisy's with 15 Republicans, a lone European-style Social Democrat (read: independent) amid the Floyd County GOP.

They were talking about local issues, only briefly touching on wider Indiana state matters and with not mention of national or international affairs.

In this dream, I was aware of a certain uneasy caution, because in all likelihood their political ideologies and chosen candidates for state and national office were sure to differ radically from my own.

What struck me was the knowledge that for so long as the discussion remained centered on local problems and solutions, differences seemed less pronounced than similarities.

When I awoke, my first task was to find a toothpick, as there seemed to be a shard of bacon lodged in my teeth.

I'm neither stupid nor naive, but rather increasingly determined to remain non-aligned, capable of speaking with whomever I please for so long as the conversation makes sense to me.

Keeping it local tends to aid and abet this objective, and since so many local Democrats are unwilling or unable to converse with me about local topics, I've no compunction about having intelligent chats with those non-Democrats who will. It is of little concern to me who they are or which clique they belong to.

Rachel Quednau wrote these words months before the current tax "reform" measures -- which I oppose, for what's it's worth. I feel the way I always have: peel back the layers, strip away the dross. Life's all about the haves versus the have nots.

There's probably a Bible verse to this effect, though as you know, I'm an atheist.

I know full well that a spruced up public space in my neighborhood isn’t going to solve America’s immigration problems or infrastructure crisis. It’s not even going to solve the problems of poverty and crime in my city. But it's not worthless. And it's activism on a scale that everyone is capable of and equipped with the tools to do.

We ought not to let the immenseness of the problems facing our nation paralyze us into inaction. Yes, there is work we can do to change national politics, but there is also so much work to be done close to home, and we have a much better chance at getting it right. Whether that's work on immigration issues that impact your community or on a small public space that might make your neighborhood a more pleasant place, keep your eyes open for what needs to be done and don't wait for someone else to do it for you.

There you have it.

I'll do what I can, as I can, when I can. I possess my own indie social democratic principles, and I'll apply them to the local realm, because in spite of everything, my immediate vicinity remains the place where my efforts will be devoted. I'll push for little pockets of sanity, and hope they grow. Trump won't ever hear my voice; Gahan has already.

If a Republican can be of assistance, great. If it's a Democrat, fine. Beyond this, it's impossible to predict the future. I don't know why I feel compelled to share these thoughts. Perhaps it's necessary to re-declare independence from time to time.

Now, back to pub planning.

FRUSTRATED BY NATIONAL POLITICS? IT'S TIME TO THINK LOCAL, by Rachel Quednau (Strong Towns)

 ... I know a place where your voice really matters and where your opinions and actions can make a definite impact: your own neighborhood.

At the beginning of 2017, I wrote about how renters can be neighborhood advocates, in spite of some of the unique challenges that come with trying to have a voice in your community when you’re not a homeowner. I offered some advice and shared some from friend and member of Strong Towns, Michael McGinn. I’ve been doing my best to live by that advice for the past few months.

This Tuesday, for example, I went to a community forum discussing local businesses, public safety and public space. It was incredibly refreshing to sit in a room full of people who care after a day spent glancing at social media posts from people who feel the need to shout loudly that they care, and spend far less time actually showing their care. At this meeting, we listened to a representative from our neighborhood association talk about business closures and openings (four long-standing businesses sadly departed from our commercial street this year, but two new ones have already filled their spaces!). We heard a brief report from our alderman about traffic safety at problematic intersections and streets, and thanked him for taking our questions. I even got the chance to check up on the status of a traffic study about the one-way streets that I’d like to see turned to two-ways and saw a majority of the people in the room express their agreement about the necessity of this change.

We concluded the meeting with an extended discussion about a small strip of green space next to sixty odd yards of bike/walk path that connects two streets in our neighborhood, led by an architect who’s been working to redesign the space to be more inviting. I couldn’t help but mentally step back and reflect on the fact that, here was a group of 25 or 35 people listening attentively and seriously discussing a 50’ x 200’ strip of land for the better part of thirty minutes. Maybe that sounds like a waste of time to you. But it doesn’t to me ...

Strong Towns Week: "In an urban neighbourhood it is important ... that everyone has a park within a few minutes walk."

In New Albany, we've opted for the "grand park" approach. Millions in TIF borrowing have produced several mini-Disneys, but not the sort of neighborhood approach being advocated in yet another thoughtful posting at Strong Towns.

GRAND PARKS VS. NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, by Andrew Price

When we talk about parks in cities, I think it helps if we can classify parks into two types: Grand Parks and Neighbourhood Parks (Like a lot of things, I am making up terminology here, but I feel that it is often relevant to have terms to distinguish between things.) When I am talking about parks, I do not mean greenspace, which is unnecessary filler. You can often tell the difference between a park and greenspace, because somebody loves a park enough, no matter how small it is, to give it a name.

Grand Parks are places like Central Park, Prospect Park, national parks, Chapultepec, etc. They can range from day trip destinations, or sometimes far-flung destinations in other states.

Neighbourhood Parks are sort of places you expect to find up the street - kids can play there after school, people walk their dog there, you can stroll down there with a book ...

One significant problem with New Albany's mini-Disney approach apart from the misuse of TIF is it being predicated on people driving their cars to the parks, while the notion of neighborhood parks supports walking or biking there.

We have relocated to the NYC area, and are now renting a 3 bedroom townhouse in Hoboken, NJ. It's a very nice family-oriented area, but it is highly urban and virtually the entire city of Hoboken consists of either townhouses or mid-rise apartments. People here either just do not have yard, or it is a tiny communal courtyard.

So, if you have children, or you want to read a book, or lay among the trees, or throw a ball with your dog, you need Neighbourhood Parks. Central Park, as beautiful as it is, is useless for this purpose if you live 50 minutes away - you are not walking there with your book after work everyday.

That is why I think in an urban neighbourhood it is important that if you do not have a private yard that everyone has a park within a few minutes walk.

Even if you have a private yard, Neighbourhood Parks can still serve a purpose. They can be the living room of the community. If I am reading a book or doing work, I find it more relaxing to be among the light flutter of activity found in a public park than to be in absolute solitude. This is probably also why I prefer working from my office, even if I have the ability to telecommute on occasion - it is nice just to be in the presence of others.

ON THE AVENUES SATURDAY SPECIAL: One-ways on the way out, because with downtown at a crossroads, they simply had to be exterminated.

ON THE AVENUES SATURDAY SPECIAL:  One-ways on the way out, because with downtown at a crossroads, they simply had to be exterminated.

A weekly column by Roger A. Baylor.

To make up for Thursday's rerun ...

---

I haven't missed the irony.

The very act of persistently advocating for the restoration of two-way streets and the reform of our car-centric downtown grid completely undermines my fundamental personal objective, which is to be freed at long last from mandatory participation in one-way discussions that invariably begin with this anguished cry, openly stated or implicit:

WHAT ABOUT ME AND MY CAR!

To which I must reply:

What about them? What about me and my Not Car?

Or, better stated:

Why are your needs and your CARS more important than our needs and our Not Cars?

Yes, I have a car, too. However, since around 1992 it has been my aim to organize my life so as to facilitate other transportation options – walking, biking, Uber-ing, light rail -- whatever. I'd rather take the money and buy a plane ticket to a European city where I can ride the tram.

I haven't eliminated the need for a car, mind you, but have been shrinking it down, so as to be fit comfortably within the perimeter of a typical oil filter. I've purchased homes twice, one for each marriage, with this in mind. If I return to business, it will be downtown, where I can walk to and from work.

And so on. As Jeff Gillenwater put it on social media:

People are attempting to calculate their personal losses based on the perceived additional commute time created by a two way street grid, often using astronomical hourly rates for the at best fuzzy math. Even the most ardent opponents are typically coming up with a few minutes per trip. Suggest to those same people, though, that they might consider living closer to work in order to realize perhaps even double the financial savings and half the daily resource usage - making the point that their own decision making plays a large role, both for themselves and all the rest of us who put up with the negative consequences of their automobile dominated lifestyles - and the general response is anger and/or blank stares. As my favorite planning statement goes: You're not stuck in traffic. You are traffic.

Automotive propaganda has been so pervasive for so long that few of us even think twice before buying into it. It's like religion, in a way; modern life deprives us of any genuine input or purpose, but cars remain emblematic of a freedom otherwise denied us, and we worship them accordingly.

I think it goes further, addressing something along the lines of impotence versus power, an increasingly obvious societal dynamic in an era when we should be tarring and feathering the accumulators of wealth and capital rather than attacking each other.

The same Americans cursing Muslim militants for ramming cars into pedestrians probably have approached a bicyclist and considered precisely the same course of action. Most of the time they don't follow through, but it's hard to see much difference in these cognitive pre-conditions of terrorism.

There is much power within two tons of metal, plastic and rubber, as utterly dependent on the skill and equanimity of the human behind the wheel. Drop 26,721 bombs on other countries, and it passes without notice because it's all part of the plan, but draw an extra white line on the road in someone's path to a job he or she hates, anyway, and everyone loses their minds.

Gillenwater again:

People who genuinely believe that traversing Spring and other nearby streets in New Albany constitutes some sort of all-too-confusing struggle clearly lack the competence to be behind the wheel at all. They're one of the primary reasons street reforms were so badly needed in the first place. To the extent they're correct about being unable to keep from crashing into each other in the near future, I'm just going to chalk it up to Darwinism. I don't want them or anyone else to get seriously injured but disabling a slew of their vehicles would be a boon to us all.

I’ve noticed that as we debate two-way streets in New Albany, or more accurately, as proponents offer ream after ream of statistical evidence even as opponents respond by screaming and threatening to maul someone, those of the one-way persuasion tend to say "I" and "me" a lot, while those interested in more than one path through life use words like "we," "us" and “ours.”

Invariably it's about “my right” to drive anywhere, any time, at any speed, and never our collective responsibility to drive safely. When safety is mentioned, it’s all about safety for “me and my car,” not anyone else who might wish to use a sliver of a driver's city acreage at the same time, as though it's a zero sum proposition.

When you think about it, angry drivers are the ultimate in snowflakes, demanding that they have it all and have it now, and crumbling into infantile tantrums at the first sign they might no longer be coddled.

It’s understandable. Our society has been rigged like this since the 1920s, which only makes our crusade to restore a semblance of balance even more rewarding – and necessary, especially if “our” neighborhoods are to be reclaimed.

A last guest turn for Jeff …

It's amazing really. People who live in my neighborhood never seem to experience the horrendous driving conditions that so many who only pass through insist happen on a regular basis …

… there are typically so few problems with automobile congestion in Downtown New Albany, any seems like a lot. Those frustrated drivers, though, like to take it out on everybody else once they hit the ramps, driving 70-75 mph and weaving in and out of lanes because everybody knows that it's well worth risking multiple lives to keep them from being five minutes late to wherever they're going. I mean, they might not have time for a second cup of coffee at their destination before they have to get started with their work. If everybody driving a car was 1/3 as important as a lot of them seem to think they are, I could roll down my windows and chat with Nobel Prize winners every morning.

Just take a deep breath. If something confuses and distracts you -- if you don't know what it means, and find it challenging -- one possible response is to learn.

Unconventional, perhaps, but at least some humans have been doing it for thousands of years ... even before cars were invented.

---

I was asked this question on a thread about the many restaurants and bars in downtown New Albany.

"Finally, if these two-way streets are indeed better for business, then how has there been so much growth downtown in spite of one-way traffic?"

As a frequent customer of Holiday Inn Express (no, not really), here's my answer, albeit without statistics or outside sources, just personal observations. 

---

During the history of the two-way streets discussion in New Albany, we've tended to proceed along artificially parallel lines: two-way streets are good for neighborhoods and also good for downtown business districts, but for reasons that aren't always seen to overlap even if they share a basic set of fundamental aims.

The goal of enhanced walkability encompasses all, except I don't think we've always been able to see how neighborhoods and business districts can be the same thing. We've forgotten what this normal circumstance looks like, and we're locked into a mindset of commuting, as opposed to living.

Let's begin by rewinding.

Given the state of degradation in downtown ten years ago, it's obvious that thirty or more years of one-way streets did nothing to boost the overall value of downtown.

At their very best, one-way streets were neutral, serving their stated purpose of moving drivers through town as quickly as possible, almost none of whom were intent on stopping.

At worst, one-way streets were an impetus from the start for the hollowing-out problem, insulating speedy avenues for cars and implying that no one should or would stop because nothing of value was there to merit the effort – a self-fulfilling prophecy, for sure.

In short, the “value” of downtown in the sense of the historic central business district had collapsed to such an extent that it had become a huge undervalued asset – like a deep sink hole, if you will – in the middle of the larger municipal organism, with corresponding stressors extending like tentacles into nearby neighborhoods.

That's bad, but under the right circumstances, a depressed downtown might be worth greater investment precisely because it was so radically undervalued, and rates of return would be higher.

The combination of the YMCA and the inexpensive Riverfront Development Area permits (circa 2006) served as a jump start, bringing investors/pioneers into the undervalued zone, and in turn attracting contractors and developers to rehab real estate, gradually producing a ripple effect of sorts with almost no financial contribution from city government.

So far, so good, but these early waves of activity really were doing nothing other than beginning the neglected process of redressing an undervalued situation, and came nowhere near maximizing a critical mass that didn't yet exist. We were repaying delinquent interest and penalties, not touching the principal -- just filling in the hole, not rebuilding atop desired level ground.

Now, after ten or so years, perhaps the undervalued hole has been filled or at least is close to being filled, and as we approach the stage of consolidation and value creation above the mere restoration of the break-even point, I believe this is the point where one-way streets actually would inhibit further growth if not eliminated.

Consider that when the city finally started putting some skin in the game, the Breakwater apartment complex was the planners' result: 180+ apartments, maybe 300 residents returning to downtown for residential occupancy, along with dozens of other examples nearby of small-scale rehabs, upstairs in urban dwellings, the way it used to be before one-way streets helped enable flight to the suburbs.

Most of us who've been here for a while have long noted that the turning point would be when people once again were living in the historic business district, as they had during previous periods of the city’s existence, thus confirming that cities are best at efficiently concentrating resources, with people living near their amenities and recreation, because these are the sort of people who value the urban experience in the first place and don't wish to reside in the 'burbs.

Seeing as one-way streets more closely resemble interstates than city streets, they obviously can do little to contribute to this emerging urban neighborhood vibe, and so now we return to our neighbor Jessica’s argument that two-way streets are better for the neighborhood, because that’s exactly what downtown must become to complete filling in the hole and building atop the level ground.

If it doesn’t become a neighborhood, with the next round of ancillaries, these 37 food-based businesses within an approximate 5-block radius of the parking garage won’t be sustainable, whatever the street direction.

Two-way streets can facilitate this process, as opposed to one-way streets detracting from it. Two way adds neighborhood value, one way saps it. Ultimately, it’s less about appeasing locals who already know how to get places (they’ll adapt quickly to changes) or non-locals using GPS as wayfinding, because neither of these factors matter unless people WANT TO GO THERE, and by extension, WANT TO LIVE THERE.

If they can get somewhere else (work, play) by two-way streets as easily as one-way (they can), and if the design of one-way streets actively contradict neighborhood values (they do), and if two-way streets slow traffic and reinforce quality of life considerations (affirmative) ...

 ... then there is a strong case for what we’ve been saying for years: pass-throughs can take I-265, which was built to take cars and trucks around downtown, and walking and biking can be re-emphasized downtown to enhance it as a neighborhood, because if people really want to be there, they’ll come (and live) in spite of the imagined impediments on the part of those naysayers, many of whom don’t understand the urban attraction from the outset and continue to view downtown as an obstacle to be surmounted, not a positive value in its own right.

My answer, then, is that during the period of downtown hole-filling, which in economic terms probably must be viewed as a time when investments still are speculative, these entrepreneurial indie business speculators have survived by utilizing available conditions as skillfully as possible as part of a bigger wager; they’ll trade sparser pickings now (up to a point) for better ones in the future.

I know for a fact that many restaurant people feel this way. It’s a risk, and they know it.

Through this period, one-way streets have been tolerable, perhaps, but they can do nothing to help facilitate what must come next. They run counter to the urban ethos that must be honored if the next stage of revitalization is to be reached, because if the next stage isn’t reached, the probable result will be a step backward ... into the hole.

What do you think?

---

Recent columns:

August 24: ON THE AVENUES: PourGate (the Great Beer Pour War of 2013) and Dr. Tom's prescription: "Kneel and Kiss My Ring, You Degraded Alcoholic."

August 17: ON THE AVENUES: Love in the time of choleric Coffey, though it's nice of Deaf Gahan to support the K of C's political agenda.

August 10: ON THE AVENUES: Super Tuesday shrapnel – or, tiptoeing through the tulips with Dan Coffey, now THE face of historic preservation in New Albany.

August 3: ON THE AVENUES: On the importance of being ancient.

July 27: ON THE AVENUES: Irish history with a musical chaser.

The blog's junior editor nails it, but you were busy speeding through obliviously.

In the specific context of New Albany, it's noteworthy that so many of the outraged opponents of street calming live elsewhere.

Bluegill summarizes the hypocrisy with typical precision.

I've been speeding through other people's neighborhoods for years; 40 miles per hour plus, right outside their front doors. I can't believe they have the gall after all this time to try to make me slow down. Don't they understand that adding 2.3 minutes to my travel time will destroy the economy and ruin my quality of life? Don't they know the streets in their neighborhoods are supposed to be designed for me and not the people who live there? I mean, how selfish can you get?

One-way? It's the anti-social way, isn't it?

One hundred years ago, autos symbolized freedom. Now they're a tool for oppression, both financial and social -- not that I really expect folks like this to get it.

Charles Marohn on the "incremental approach to development."

How NOT to incremental it.

This week, Charles Marohn is discussing incrementalism. I'm not expecting this to be a focus for the incoming redevelopment/dishevelment director, so it's our job to bone up.

I’ve found that the most difficult thing for people to grasp about Strong Towns is our insistence on an incremental approach to development. I stress how we need to be making small investments over a broad area over a long period of time. I talk about the small bets our ancestors made when building places, how their approach fit with a complex world where we lack the ability to predict, project or even fully understand, after the fact, why one place succeeds and another fails. I show how the incremental approach results in places that are resilient, adaptable and – most incredibly – financially far more successful than our modern approach.

Here are the four parts of this week's series. Happy browsing.

THE POWER OF GROWING INCREMENTALLY

It is incrementally rising land values, combined with the ability to redevelop to something more intense, that naturally prompts the redevelopment of property in decline. Take away one of those two factors and redevelopment breaks down.

THE LITTLE HOUSE, A STORY OF INCREMENTALISM

It's the incremental nature of both the private and the public investments that made traditional cities strong, resilient and financially productive.

THE END OF INCREMENTALISM

Where improvement is not an option, stagnation and decline are all that remain.

THREE NEIGHBORHOODS IN ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT

We have come up with many ways to explain the decline we see around us. In reality, we've simply given our cities no other option.

Piss off, LEO. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries -- and your governor's worse than ours, on top of it all.

Thanks to J for pointing me to this.

I've decided to point something more fitting at it.

Back in the mid-1990s I helped run a beer bar and pizza joint in Indiana (gasp), on the north side of New Albany. "Better" is a relative and senseless term, but at the Public House we tended to carry beers that were hard to get in Louisville. Lots of Kentucky license plates were in the parking lot on weekends. I was proud of this, because "they" said it couldn't be done.

Much time has passed, and currently there's quite a lot to do in both New Albany and Jeffersonville, particularly downtown. It's even possible that the Derby price structure is a bit more reasonable way up here. I'm a cynic and a realist, and I know better than to get emotionally involved in such matters.

But for more than 25 years, I've been busting my butt trying to make this a better place, and state lines aside, folks anywhere else in the country tend to see us as one big metro area.

Too bad LEO doesn't. Now if you'll pardon me, I have a few epithets to mutter.

A guide to Louisville’s neighborhoods, two hours at a time, by Staff (Aaron's Trust Fund Baby)

The Derby isn’t until Saturday, but your Airbnb is in… Germantown, or St. Matthews, or… and you are not sure what to do with your time. Don’t worry, gentle visitor. Take our LEO hand, and let us lead you on nine, two-hour, neighborhood-specific adventures of wonder, gluttony, imbibing, shopping and just plain fun in a few central Louisville neighborhoods where you may be staying, or where you will want to stay next year ...

Since 2013 (and before), the Mt. Tabor Road beak-wetting boondoggle is a large millstone hung around Jeff Gahan's neck. Mayor overboard?

It's important to remember that Jeff Gahan did not become mayor until January 1, 2012. Before this, he served two terms as councilman for the 6th district, which includes the Mt. Tabor Road neighborhood referenced here.

In short, given the time generally required to mint and plan such big ticket roadwork boondoggles as the absurdly tagged "Mt. Tabor Road Restoration and Pedestrian Safety Project" (and I'm the one who uses too many words?), it obviously dates back into Gahan's council tenure.

By extension, given the ill-tempered stubbornness for which the mayor is renowned as far away as Bob Hall, it's equally evident that having spent a half-dozen or more years conjuring this asphalt-laden, traffic-speed-enhancing "gift" to the peasants, he's absolutely determined to ram the daintily wrapped arterial down their ungrateful throats, come what may.

In this context, Gahan's perennial joy in campaign finance enrichment -- no unwetted beaks left behind in New Gahania -- actually runs a poor second to the unfettered expanse of his ego. At NA Confidential, the story began in 2013. The following links are chronological, from oldest to newest.

---

October 19, 2013

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

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

---

November 5, 2013

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

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

---

December 26, 2013

ON THE AVENUES: Roundabouts make the politicians really ring.

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

---

December 27, 2013

The Great Roundabout Turnabout of 2013 and pedestrian friendliness.

In the newspaperman Suddeath's piece, city hall floats the notion that the Mt. Tabor roundabout was pulled because it abruptly became evident that it would not be "pedestrian friendly." Speaking personally, I believe this to be a red herring the approximate stature of the Elsby Building ... BUT if the Gahan administration wishes to stick to the walkability argument, I'm fully in favor of accepting it.

---

January 9, 2014

On the Rosenbarger planning conundrum, and FAN Fair, here I come.

Much like the sacrifice of Mount Tabor residential areas for poorly developed commercial strips on its fringes, the sacrifice of Spring and other nearby streets for Main has long been a part of the plan.

Rosenbarger's dismal performance at FAN Fair deserves another look, here.

---

July 23, 2016

Council frivolity, slice of the second part: "Gahan Cares More About Concrete Than People."

John Rosenbarger sat at his desk. Outside his door, the clamor of the peasantry could be heard amid the clatter of pitchforks. He spat, then threw back his last shot of fiery sarsaparilla.

“The grandeur of my physique, the complexity of my worldview, the decency and taste implicit in my carriage, the grace with which I function in the mire of today’s world – all of these at once confuse and astound the buffoons at Mt. Tabor and Klerner Lane."

Rosenbarger gazed at his reflection in the framed portrait of Robert Moses.

"But Jeffie's got my back, bro."

---

August 2, 2016

The city's spin doctors have outdone themselves on this one: Meet the "Mt. Tabor Road Restoration and Pedestrian Safety Project."

It's simply amazing what vocal citizen opposition to a New and Improved Round O' Rosenbarger Cream Tort will do to bring David Duggins bounding full Sellersburg up the stairs from the Down Low Bunker to inform city council that with construction work about to start, now's the time for operatives to fan out through the neighborhood to alter misconceptions -- but not only that, there'll be a post-decision public meeting on August 22 to further encourage conformity.

---

August 4, 2016

Chronicles of New Gahania: Mt. Tabor Road residents form civil defense squad to guard against John Rosenbarger.

Decades of poor planning and development decisions on New Albany's outskirts have created automobile traffic and drainage problems where there were none. Now, the City says that by redesigning the road for more cars going even faster, they're improving pedestrian safety and by substantially increasing the amount of impermeable surface area they're improving drainage. If any of our city planners or engineers had an ounce of intellectual and professional integrity, they'd speak up in opposition. That's pretty much a guarantee they won't. A decent mayor, should we ever get one, will fire all of them.

---

August 4, 2016

ON THE AVENUES: Federal funding mechanisms total eighty percent. The other half is unalloyed political malice.

Clark County resident David Duggins duly was dispatched to spray gasoline on the brush fire, which he accomplished with his usual aplomb by threatening to send the Rasputin of Redevelopment and other city officials into the afflicted neighborhoods to knock on doors and remedy "misperceptions", which immediately sent panicked refugees streaming toward Silver Creek, into the newspaper’s Clark County coverage area.

---

August 6, 2016

Look at Gahan hide, hide. Not to worry, because John "Human Shield" Rosenbarger is standing by, eager to obfuscate.

In other news, it took a long while, but the intentionally understaffed Jeffersonville-based "community" newspaper has clanked ineffectually into gear, producing drab content, but inadvertently shining a tepid light on the Gahan regime's boilerplate, namely that the mayor himself won't personally be touching this one.

---

August 20, 2016

Stop me if you've heard this one before, Mt. Taborites: "They’re looking at it as more of an arterial road to move traffic though than a quality of living project."

I can't agree with all the objections voiced by the Mt. Tabor Road residents, but from the very beginning, they've grasped an essential point, because the "project" has been one designed to make the road usable by an increased number of cars, and an increased number of cars means a decreased quality of life.

---

August 22, 2016

Tonight at OLPH: Mt. Tabor Campaign Finance Restoration and Propaganda Safety Project spoonfeeding.

This evening, what's already been decided will be explained to you. You're feeling better already, right? Someone asked whether Mayor Gahan will be in attendance.

---

August 29, 2016

An Orwellian wetting of beaks -- or, some thoughts about the Mt. Tabor arterial enfluffment and timbering project.

But you see, there's no way a euphemism like the Mt. Tabor Road Restoration and Pedestrian Safety Project cannot happen, once the federal funds have been committed. If someone else pays, the money must be used, whether to grease an arterial or construct a subway to Xanadu. Beaks must be kept wet. This is the cycle of political life, and it need not be connected to master plans or larger truths. It simply is.

---

December 21, 2016

Phipps, McLaughlin pleasure mayor, oppose Blair's 6th district stormwater impact efforts, but the investigative measure passes council anyway.

Representatives of the usual engineering suspects and a handful of civic appointees were on hand at the council meeting to reiterate the municipal party line: As it pertains to stormwater, those Mt. Tabor area residents who insist on trusting their own two eyes instead of the mayor's should be ignored, and The Plan allowed to proceed.

---

March 22, 2017

Shane Gibson is unaccountable yet again as "City of New Albany Withholding Public Records in Mount Tabor Road Land Grab."

Following is a press release, courtesy of local businessman Colin Receveur. Municipal corporate counsel Shane Gibson's cavalier disregard for public information requests is legendary. I'm delighted to his snared in arrogance of his own making.

---

March 24, 2017

'Bune snoozes and IL gets the scoop: "City of New Albany, residents head to court over road improvement project."

“From all the discussion on this subject over the past 4 years, it has become apparent that the only person supporting dual sidewalks at this location is the Mayor of New Albany,”

---

March 26, 2017

Mt. Tabor Road euphemism project: If City Hall looks bad, that's only because it's doing the damage to itself.

It isn't just that those federal 80/20 construction grants are like crack. It's that to Team Gahan, openness is like Ebola.

Dr. John Gilderbloom's video about pollution in Louisville, Kentucky: "Think Locally, Act Globally: Neighbourhood pollution and the future of the earth."

Earlier today I had the pleasure of chatting with Dr. John Gilderbloom. Regular readers will know him as the two-way streets researcher from the University of Louisville, who came to New Albany in August of 2015 and gave a marvelous presentation.

Watch the video of Dr. John Gilderbloom's two-way streets presentation last night.

Gilderbloom: Proving what Gahan can't seem to fathom, tonight at the library.

Perhaps the most memorable event in the time of our association with Dr. Gilderbloom occurred when Irv Stumler staged a meltdown at U of L over the professor's street grid research.

Irv wanted it squelched, and right now!

Irv still nutzoid, and Gilderbloom's research wasted on New Albany -- and Greg Fischer, for that matter.

A few weeks back, when Dr. Gilderbloom's most recent streets research project started being picked up by national media, Irv Stumler apparently visited the University of Louisville to demand that Gilderbloom be silenced, because how dare peer-reviewed academic research be allowed to deny the sanctity of New Albany's 18-wheeled Luddite exceptionalism?

Depending on the report, Stumler either was laughed off campus or curtly told that if he didn't take a chill pill, he would be forcibly removed.

How I wish someone would have filmed that episode.

I digress, because John closed today's conversation by recommending a video at YouTube about pollution and health by neighborhood in Louisville. It won't improve your mood, but you should watch it.

Think Locally, Act Globally: Neighbourhood pollution and the future of the earth

Dr John I. Gilderbloom

Dr John I. Gilderbloom discusses his work in Louisville, KY, researching the link between environmental toxins and the health of a neighborhood. His research pushes back against the power elite, industry chiefs, local foundations and a recent contribution of $6 million dollars from the Koch Brothers. He discusses the cause of early death rates in Louisville, whose residents live five years less than people in California due to air pollution and other toxins. He also explains the reasons that west end Louisville residents live 13 years less than east end Louisville residents. For more information visit Sustainable Urban Neighborhoods to learn more and to make a non-profit donations.