1. Newly elected Council President John Gonder followed the law in making committee and commission appointments. As I mentioned to Gonder while expressing thanks after the meeting, this shouldn't be news.
Apparently the
Tribune agrees, as they didn't report it or the fact that past presidents failed to follow the law in previous years.
But, it is news. Meeting minutes reflect that Gonder is the only one of the four most recent presidents (and perhaps more) to have actually handled appointments properly. Larry Kochert, Jeff Gahan, and Dan Coffey all either failed to read the law or just didn't care. That a council president took the time to familiarize himself with and apply the rules represents an exceptional shift in leadership attitude and aptitude for a body who's been perennially disrespected and avoided owing precisely to the lackadaisical efforts of the past. Hopefully, such diligence is deemed a precedent worth carrying forward.
2. There was continuation of an argument between Dan Coffey and everyone else present at the meeting who's worked on the Coyle property evaluation. The only reason citizens' and officials' time and energy are being wasted on it is because Coffey is falsely trying to distance himself from a process for which he's responsible. He went so far last night as to suggest that he only went to a meeting about the property because fellow Council Member Diane McCartin-Benedetti called and invited him.
As is often the case, the facts and Coffey's protestations have nothing in common. Previous reporting and meeting minutes confirm the following:
During his time as president of the Council, Coffey signed off on the creation of an exploratory committee in conjunction with the administration and county officials to examine the possibilities of the Coyle property. Coffey was also a member of the City's Redevelopment Commission at the time and suggested that body look into the use of TIF funds to finance the property, a process which they started and have continued, which is why it was under consideration by the Council last night. It's also why Carl Malysz has continually reminded that, though the administration is indeed interested in the property, the TIF initiative under consideration came from the council and not them.
Thus, the facts indicate the exact opposite of what Coffey asserted with regard to McCartin-Benedetti.
McCartin-Benedetti (and Kevin Zurschmiede, who replaced Coffey on the Redevelopment Commission after he resigned) became involved with the Coyle property analysis only because Coffey appointed them to the governing body that he himself suggested should handle the situation.
On the whole, McCartin-Benedetti has discovered what many others before her have: Coffey is a liar who can't be trusted with even the most basic facts. Luckily, she's refusing lately to play hapless victim to Coffey's signature intimidation tactics. As it should be wholly unnecessary, it's unfortunate that such refusal functions as an indicator of positive council growth but, owing to the conditions that Coffey regularly inflicts on the community, it's newsworthy as well. Coffey's council presidency is over. His messes, though, still require cleaning.
3. The residential private parking permit request is somewhat confusing. I'll try to provide more in-depth analysis in future but, from looking at aerial photos and driving the neighborhood, it appears as though the large majority of property owners in the Uptown area have sufficient room on their properties to accommodate private, off-street parking if they so desire. There are already so many driveways and garages that having private parking, rather than suffering from a lack of it, is evidently the norm. And, again, most who don't have it could.
As an initial question, why would New Albany citizens want to give over the public street space they finance to restricted, private use in order to appease private property owners who are unwilling to give up their own privately held resource for the exact same purpose?
One suggested answer was that providing additional parking for a particular property would increase its value. I can't argue with that. That's why people spend their money to build driveways and garages on private property. But, each time a single property value was increased with an additional parking spot taken from the shared pool on public streets, there would be a corresponding decrease in available parking for surrounding properties, thus lowering their values with little to no compensation for those who chose to invest based on that pool.
Does it make sense to use public funds to marginally increase the value of one house on a street at the expense of decreasing the value of several others? I don't think so. It goes against the very notion of shared resources and public spaces that define city life. That notion is the reason many of us have chosen to live here and is what will attract many more to do the same.
