City Hall's staged Colonial Manor farce: It was INFORMATIONAL, you see, not COMMENTATIONAL. Deaf Gahan can't help it if voters don't know the lingo.

Last week's sadly shambolic City Hall charade on the topic of Colonial Manor's future proved a confusing, painful and infuriating experience for those community residents who hadn't previously witnessed the ridiculous extent to which power and money have gone straight to an erstwhile veneer salesman's head.

GREEN MOUSE SAYS: It's the Colonial Manor video Jeff Gahan didn't want you to see last night.

The Jeff Gahan Money Machine, Part 20: Buying and selling a city? Our master list of 59 Gahan wheel-greasers is a pornographic potpourri of pay-to-play.

Numerous flabbergasted and angry social media conversations have taken place in the aftermath of the meeting. However this one may be the most unintentionally revealing of all. In it, a Gahan appointee and apologist is shocked ... SHOCKED that Dear Leader would ever squelch public opinion.

Oh, we see it clearly now. Clique semantics explain everything, don't they?

When Mayor-for-Life Jeff M. Gahan presents a public meeting, don't forget to consult the bureaucratic glossary to determine whether it's a public comment meeting or an informational meeting. 

Never mind that the glossary's city web site link probably is broken -- or maybe the link leads to the web sites of Clark Dietz, Jacobi Toombs and Lanz, HWC Engineering -- better yet, all three.

Okay, so it's informational versus public commentational, eh? Well, Jeff Gahan's elite insiders know the difference fairly well, don't they?

Conversely, regular folks living in the neighborhood near Colonial Manor evidently are so naive and pathetically unversed in Standard Gahanesque Gobbledygook that they thought Dear Leader might actually be interested in listening to them -- but it was an informational meeting, meaning the information originates at the top with unelected "fix-stays-in" committees, and then trickles down to the rest of us.

Not only that, but the trickle's about to become even more homogenized and cookie-cutter in nature. Note the timeline and methodology of the city's Colonial Manor development choices:

• Caught by surprise by neighborhood activism, City Hall scrambles to regain control over Colonial Manor propaganda
• An architect from TEG is hurriedly engaged and e-mailed boilerplate sections from the comprehensive plan and updated zoning code
• Hastily produced proposals use these boilerplate sections to restrict the city's gaze to "what our codes stipulate," as though they were Biblical injunctions 
• The future? The city's development "ideas" become increasingly center of the target for the sake of ease: minimum design expense and maximum monetization via the usual pay-to-play "contractual" suspects

Informational sessions versus public comment sessions?

Please, functionaries. Stop insulting the public's intelligence. Yes, we know you believe the grassroots hive mind cannot compete with City Hall's pathological need for top-down power, but New Albany has a genuinely meaningful public comment opportunity coming on May 7, and the informational cue is this:

#FireGahan2019

City Council Thursday: Knable seeks the HRC's reanimation and appoints a heavyweight. Coffey rightly speaks up for public comment placement. But who squelched free speech in the first place?

Thursday's city council meeting clocked in at a brisk 32 minutes from gavel to gavel. The only ordinance on the agenda was Haven House homeless shelter funding (3rd and final reading). It was tabled until February owing to administrative something-or-another.

Mike Hall promptly performed 30 seconds of workmanlike stand-up mayoral ventriloquism, and then President Al Knable introduced council member appointments, three of which deserve special note.

Matt Nash (D) joins David Aebersold (R) on the Horseshoe Board.

Knable (R) will serve as one of two council appointments to the ignominiously beached Human Rights Commission (the other council appointment is local realtor Paul Kiger), supplanting Greg Phipps (D), who in 2017 vocally wishy-washed his hands of "his" crowning achievement.

Knable announced his intention to request two remaining mayoral appointments to the HRC (the body itself then chooses a fifth member) and to reanimate it. Jeff Gahan let it die, so this should become interesting very quickly.

Finally, David Barksdale (R) remains posted to the Duggins Turbo Pay Play Station (Redevelopment Commission), but Bob "Human Rubber Stamp" Caesar (D) is removed, to be replaced by an extremely well-qualified citizen, new Albany native Scott Stewart, who recently retired from his position as director of the Port Authority. Previously, Stewart was an executive at Proctor & Gamble, and worked for Governor Mitch Daniels.

Pro tip: time to start attending Redevelopment Commission meetings. 

Now, let's comment about comments. Last night, something was missing.

Last year, former council president Pat McLaughlin (D) echoed the local Democratic Party's aversion to dialogue by implementing a requirement to specify one's subject when speaking.

Knable now has removed it, and this is good. 

Meanwhile, it is perfectly normal (if surreal) for 1st district councilman Dan Coffey (I) to be on his best behavior during the first few meetings each year. He's studying the terrain for maximum self-aggrandizement, and sniffing the best opportunity to maintain beak-wetting.

Last night, the "good" Coffey ventured a genuinely thoughtful point, sans his customary theatrics: Why not move non-agenda public speaking time back to the beginning of meetings, rather than keeping it at the end?

Wouldn't this be of benefit to long-suffering members of the public, who simply want to be heard?

Shouldn't their comments be made first, up front, without restrictions?

Have a seat and a shot, because Coffey's right. This way members of the public would be spared the inexcusable agony of enduring Coffey's customary theatrics.

Nash asked Coffey how these public comments came to be pushed to meeting's end in the first place. Coffey chuckled and replied (paraphrased): let's just say some council persons weren't interested in listening.

Who was it?

You're in luck, because THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE.

Let's begin in January of 2010, when at-large councilman John Gonder was elected president. Previously, public comment time was on the agenda at the beginning of meetings. It was not divided into agenda and non-agenda slots. There was a single sign-up sheet, and before the introduction of ordinances and resolutions, those persons listed on it came forth and spoke.

(There are legitimate questions about how long members of the public should be allowed to speak, but these aren't the point, at least at present.)

Gonder changed the agenda; if memory serves, he lifted the original wording from the city's enabling ordinance. Throughout 2010 during Gonder's term, communications still occurred at the beginning of the meeting, in this cadence.

(E) Communications, in the following order:

(1) From city officials
(a) Mayor
(b) Controller)
(c) City Council
(d) City Attorney; and
(e) City Engineer

(2) From official commission:
(a) Board of Public Works;
(b) Plan Commission; and
(c) Park Commission

(3) From members of the public, including petitions and remonstrances

Other council business came after these communications, including committee reports, appointments, and the introduction of ordinances and resolutions.

By the first meeting of February, 2011, the agenda had been streamlined under a new council president.

You might even know him; it was an ambitious veneer peddler by the name of Gahan (D), in what was to be his final year as 6th district councilman prior to enthronement as mayor.

By February 7, 2011 the Great Wall of Comment Segregation had been erected.

From this point forward, members of the public were compelled to restrict their comments to items on the evening's agenda, or cool their heels -- maybe 30 minutes, maybe two hours -- to make general observations about the zeitgeist.

In 2017, McLaughlin cynically refined it further; now general comments were to be strictly delineated, too. Mercifully, this petty suppression is gone, and last evening, Knable also seemed amenable to re-ordering public comments according to Coffey's suggestion. He should. We can't help it if Coffey's right every now and then.

In closing, let's be clear.

If, according to Coffey, some council members back in the day didn't want to listen, it was Jeff Gahan as council president in 2011 who was most eager to rig the proceedings to result in less communication, as opposed to more of it. 

Because as we know, in 2011 or 2018: THAT'S WHY HE'S HERE.

I've reached a momentous decision about City Council.

On Deaf Gahan's orders, Pat tries to be clever -- and fails. 

But before we get down to brass tacks and gin-fueled reveries, a wee bit of background from early March is in order.

ON THE AVENUES: Never preach free speech to a yes man; it wastes your time and annoys Team Gahan.

 ... In each instance of public comment at council meetings, there is a sign-in sheet at the lectern, and if a prospective speaker fails to use it, there usually isn't a second chance -- until next meeting.

Rules, you know.

What's more, council president "Silent Pat" McLaughlin recently tightened the rules even more by stipulating that constituents must refrain from the extemporaneous.

Lord, how Team Gahan fears the unscripted.

There can be no doubt on this or any other nearby planet that McLaughlin's agenda tweak is aimed squarely at your friendly local blogger and his council-viewing colleague, Mark Cassidy.

That's because it has long been our habit to sign the sheet and indicate our intent with a question mark, thus allowing rebuttals or follow-up comments to be directed at whatever unchecked inanity just occurred.

Really, Pat, is it reasonable to expect a citizen to know exactly what he or she is compelled to say after being fed a whole meeting's worth of live ammo?

Think of it as our chance for three minutes of orgasmic pleasure following the prolonged agony of watching Coffey's pudgy index finger wagging like the rear-end plumage on a peacock in spring, or Bob Caesar as that starched-shirt 1920s-era schoolmaster warning against masturbatory anti-establishment individualism.

Ironically, the best way to forestall topical references from folks like us would be to shift the non-agenda public speaking time back to the beginning of the meeting.

Doing so would deprive us of opportunities for improvisation, wouldn't it?

Think about it, Pat, and while you’re at it, perhaps City Hall itself deserves overdue attention if your honest aim is to maintain order and decorum.

That’s because city council meetings typically are attended by most of the mayor's upper-level appointees, though never the corporeal dignitary of record, who sends his merry director of communications to emit hurried 45-second Access Hollywood updates of the sort that would have infuriated a red-faced Gahan back when he was city council president.

Memories are mighty short at the top.

In recent months, these appointed officials have perfected an elegantly matched Junior High School stratagem for displaying their displeasure with the public’s right to speak (and by extension, their own responsibility to listen) by deserting the chamber as one when non-agenda item speaking commences.

They rise choreographed as a group and rush into the corridor, tittering, safe in the knowledge that the mayor has their back and the Bud Light Lime’s on ice.

Admittedly this Great March is entertaining, although a third-party contractor must have devised the idea, seeing as not one of them is creative enough to think of it on his own.

I was in Massachusetts on the 20th of April. I'd have watched the council meeting on live video feed, which in today's Widely Wired World would cost mere pennies to implement, but although communities far smaller than ours provide the option, naturally none of our timer-servers want that level of openness, do they?

Mark attended, and during his public speaking time, he directed specific comments to McLaughlin's purported reform. Here's an excerpt, as relayed to me by Mark upon request.

Let's be realistic about this. It's not aimed at the general public of New Albany. We all know who is here at most of the meetings, especially at the end. I tried not to waste (council's) time. I often passed even when signed up, and almost always thanked council for the opportunity. I tried to stay on subject, but according to this new sign up sheet, if I hear something during the meeting, I can't comment on it.

Pat started to sputter, looked at the sign up sheet and evidently realized that there wasn't much he could say. I said thanks and sat down. They adjourned and I quickly left.

Please know that I'm thankful to those readers who have taken the time to thank me for NAC's council coverage, whether here or during those occasions when I tweet from the chamber.

I'll be back. However, I simply need a little more time off from the prevailing idiocy, much of it emanating from the undemocratic "Democrats," lest the enduring pettiness of mediocre non-entities like Silent Pat contributes to elevated blood pressure.

My time coordinating the resistance to One Party Gahanism is better spent peeling away one or two votes at a time from Dear Leader's future total, rather than competing with this reality:

They can't listen in this position, anyway.

Irv Stumler is not acting in an official capacity. Business owners, make your street grid feelings known using the e-mail address offered herein.

I'm a free agent at present, but I owned and helped to run a business for 25 years.

I understand as well as any other local business owner that when you're at work, you're busy working.

We all know what it's like to be in the middle of something at work and be interrupted by a solicitation. Many of these are legitimate. You're always being asked to post a sign, or sponsor an event. If I had a quarter for each of these instances during my time at NABC, I'd have long since moved to the Cote d' Azure.

Finally, I know how unsettling it can feel to be immersed in your daily routine only to be approached by someone like Irv Stumler, all frenzied and evangelical, who is asking you to take a side on an issue -- HIS side, and to commit on the spot, right now -- all the while making it sound as though there'll be some form of punishment if you don't agree with him.

Punishment like using his influence to alter your commerce?

Would he? Perhaps, or perhaps not, but he's not above implying it. He's also perfectly willing to be identified as an important agent of Keep New Albany Clean and Green, a non-profit organization with no connection to the city's management of the street grid.

Does this organization's board approve of the ongoing deception? Inquiring minds would like to know. 

The fact that Irv's out walking the one-way streets in support of his jihad against modernity should tell you something, but you can see this, and what I'm here to let you know is that the sanctity of the private ballot is still preserved in this instance.

Just thank Irv and tell him that you have made your feelings known to city officials, or will do so at your earliest convenience -- and please remember to follow through with a comment, whether for two-way streets, against them, or any shading in between. The e-mail addresses of city officials can be found at the the city's web site, and the official address for public comment is below. 

Irv may be on a mission, but it's strictly personal, and emphatically, he is not a priest. Irv has no right in ANY OFFICIAL CAPACITY to perform confessionals in or near your premises.

You can and should make your thoughts on the street grid known to the city, and that's that.  

The official e-mail recipient for public comments: Joe Dabkowski at RQAW Corporation ... jdabkowski@rqaw.com

Thanks for your time.

Citizen to FCHD: "I will not stand for our public officials and public departments to promote ... public bullying."

Katy is a friend of NABC and a blog reader. She made these comments in a Facebook link share, and I suspect they echo the thoughts of many. As Katy has done, please consider your own comments to the Floyd County Commissioners and the Floyd County Health Department. The photo may be gone, but the abuse of power lingers on.

---

I am writing this in complete disbelief and heavy disappointment. I am writing this as someone you are meant to represent, a taxpayer, a member of the community. A community that should be embarrassed at the misuse of your power and public forum.

Regarding the Floyd County Health Department website (front page):

Your 'battle' with local businessmen should be a private matter, regardless of the information -- who's in the right/wrong, etc. You represent our community, and yet you allow childlike mudslinging and passive/aggressive attacks to be promoted on public domain, a domain that tax payers provide, and a domain that represents our city and county.

I raise two children in this community. I will not stand for our public officials and public departments to promote inappropriate slander/libel/defamation of character in the form of public bullying. This is a horrid example you are setting. Sugar coat it as you wish, I am an unbiased party and easily see it for what it is (as do many others).

I am planning on spreading this contact information so that other members in this community, who have the same or similar concerns, can contact you and let their voices be heard. I feel that if this matter is not taken care of responsibly, there will be more 'coverage' and communication by the population of Floyd County. If you will not take the appropriate path of communication, do not think the members of New Albany/ Floyd County will stand by silently and be so misrepresented in the public realm. We simply will not.

Thank you for your time,

Katy Traughber

New Albany Main Street improvement project public comment this Thursday.

At last night's city council meeting, John Rosenbarger rose to urge council members to attend the coming meeting, and CM Benedetti asked a very good question:

Was Rosenbarger aware of the Complete Streets Workshop in Jeffersonville?

Yes, he replied, acknowledging the scheduling conflict between it and the Main Street meeting. John then noted that he'd recently attended a complete streets seminar in Indianapolis, which was noteworthy for its inclusion of business people, who seemed quite interested in the precepts therein.

Just like here. In New Albany ... except for CeeSaw, of course.

Diane nudged: Couldn't we do that sort of meeting here in New Albany?

Why, yes we could.

Okay, so can we get on with it? Thanks to Mrs. Benedetti for bringing it up, and to John for his comments ... when and where?

Second New Albany Main Street project hearing set ... Engineer: Input led to some changes in plan, by Daniel Suddeath (N and T)

NEW ALBANY — Planners heeded suggestions as to what improvements should be made along Main Street from residents and have incorporated many of those ideas into a preliminary design for the improvement project, city officials and engineers said Friday.

The public will have a second chance to weigh-in on the estimated $1.79 million project at 6:30 p.m. Thursday, Aug. 8, as the plan to upgrade Main Street from East Fifth Street to Vincennes Street will be on display ...

... As for Thursday, the public hearing will be held in the third-floor Assembly Room of the City-County Building. The first public forum drew about 50 people, including residents and city and state officials.

Tolling fetishist Kerry Stemler riffs on Nixon: "Fuck the doomed."

Considering the manner by which Kerry Stemler's Oligarchic Benevolent Society rammed tolling up the community's collective bunghole sans lube, believing anything might change in the attitude of the area's overlords has less chance of fruition than a tooth fairy's visit to your dentured grandfather.

Merely note that only now, with the boondoggle underway, comes ephemeral (and entirely phantom) "concern" on the part of the leading element over the economic impact of tolling, whereas the economic impact study on small business given lip service by certain bridges junta members two years ago has ... wait for it ... never, ever materialized. Never even been mentioned since then. Done gone and disappeared, not unlike the credibility of the junta's membership.

From New Albany's perspective, a platoon of cloned Einsteins aren't necessary to gauge the likely impact of tolling, whether pertaining to low-income and minority users or higher-income majority users. The bridge with no tolls (Sherman Minton) will become the chosen means to give tolls a miss, with the likely consequence of rendering the city's already indefensible one-way streets into choked non-arteries filled with pass-throughs, whose only objective is traveling elsewhere.

And yet still there is no plan for adapting the street grid to fast approaching realities. Instead, we seem intent on spending money on every other conceivable "lifestyle" project except the chief means of accessing them.

New Albany's never been a paragon of priorities, but really?

First of two open houses held on tolling, by Braden Lammers (N and T)

Residents again came out to voice their opinions at a meeting to collect public comments on the Ohio River Bridges Project, but few believe anything will change.

More than 120 people attended the public open house held to gather comments on the economic impacts of tolling for the bridges project on low-income and minority users.

"Last Chance to Comment on Tolling for the Ohio River Bridges Project."

(submitted by Paul Fetter)

No2bridgetoll Supporters:  The Indiana Finance Authority has proven what we have said all along! Tolling I-65 will cost Indiana residents and business BILLIONSof dollars and cause jobs losses! The SFEIS (Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Study) results of the "Public Comments overwhelmingly show public sentiment: "East End Bridge Only, No Action Downtown, and No Tolls ! The Ogle Foundations Study supports these results! Still we have tolling on the Kennedy Bridge and a Downtown Bridge that is not wanted and will not increase traffic delivery! The Project Team Ignored the Public Comment part of the process! Last Chance to Comment on Tolling for the Ohio River Bridges Project! Email: John Sacksteder at Ohio River Bridges Project jsacksteder@ctsgec.com and Janice Osadczuk at FHWA Janice.Osadczuk@dot.gov Thank You Paul Fetter Organization for a Better Southern Indiana, Inc No2bridgetolls.org (812) 283-5555 Ext 27 paul@clarkcountyaa.com

New Albany follows Jeffersonville with a resolution against tolling   "...The resolution calls for the construction of a downtown bridge to be delayed until other funding or financing options beyond tolling are presented. But in the interim, the measure urges the Federal Highway Administration to deny tolling on Interstate 65 and any existing bridges or interstates, and for the east-end bridge to be built..." Read the entire New Albany Tribune article here.

Small business owner: “Adding tolls on the 65 bridge will wipe me out.”

Travel agent Lynn Rhodea (quoted above) sees the reality of tolling -- and then there's 1Si's interim head, Matt Hall, regrettably touting his organization's disregard for the welfare of Hoosiers:

"Like it or not, we have no choice but to build the bridges."

Hall's sad bit of Stemleresque parroting/parody aside, hearty congratulations to Irv Stumler for his comments (see excerpt below) at Thursday night's public hearing to discuss the recently released "predetermined results courtesy of your nearest oligarch" ORBP economic impact study.

Irv's much appreciated candor should give him something to talk about with "clean and green" partner Jerry Finn at tomorrow's NA beautification day.

Local residents call to stop downtown bridge construction; Integrity of economic impact study questioned, by Braden Lammers (N and T)

Local residents acknowledged the benefit the east-end bridge will provide to the region for the planned Ohio River Bridges Project, but called to stop the construction and the use of tolls on the planned downtown bridge.

The Indiana Department of Transportation and the Indiana Finance Authority held a public hearing Thursday night to present and collect comments on an economic impact study released April 16 ...

... Irv Stumler, former New Albany mayoral candidate and Floyd County resident, pointed to the Louisville-based conservancy group River Fields for adding unnecessary bloat to the project.

“They’re not conservationists, they’re obstructionists,” he said. “I’m a bit upset about the whole process. And I don’t think it’s necessary at this point to build a downtown bridge, especially redoing all of Spaghetti Junction and throwing all of that in and expect Indiana to pay because of what Kentucky should have done years and years ago.”

"Will Your Business Be Affected By Tolling?"

(Submitted by No2BridgeTolls.org)

---

Will Your Business Be Affected By Tolling?

Please Attend Economic Impact Public Hearing and Share Your Concerns on Thursday, April 26th

The Indiana Finance Authority (IFA) has received an Economic Impact Study analyzing the impact of using a public-private financial and project-delivery structure for the East End Crossing portion of the proposed Ohio River Bridges Project. Public comments are being accepted online and a public hearing has been scheduled.

For detailed information on the study and the online comment form, visit the Bridges Authority website, www.bridgesauthority.com.

Make sure to attend and comment!

Public hearing on Economic Impact Study:
April 26, 2012, 6:00 p.m.
Sheraton Riverside Hotel
700 W. Riverside Dr. Jeffersonville, IN

Public comments also accepted during the same time via a video feed at:

University of Louisville
Shelby Campus
Founders Union Building, Room 218
9001 Shelbyville Road Louisville, KY

Questions? Please email or call.

Thank You

Paul Fetter
No2bridgetolls.org
(812) 283-5555 Ext 27
paul@clarkcountyaa.com

Udpate on Drummanard Estate

If you read and responded to our last email regarding de-listing the Drummanard Estate--thank you! We are currently awaiting the outcome as the decision date has been pushed back by a few days.

About No2BridgeTolls.org

We are a broad-based coalition of businesses, organizations and private individuals who are opposed to tolls on the I-65 Corridor/Kennedy Bridges System. Our targeted focus has been driven by recent announcements by the governors of both states to shift the financing burden for all of the downtown infrastructure needs to the Kennedy Bridge and its I-65 supporting new Downtown Bridge. We have formed under the entity of "Organization for a Better Southern Indiana, Inc." (OBSI.) Our purpose is to educate the public of the true impact of the current proposed bridge toll on both sides of the river. We are a 501-C6 non-profit organization that has been formed for the purpose of disseminating information. We are not against the bridges--just tolls or user fees on the I-65 Corridor/Kennedy Bridges System, which will divide our community, be a regressive tax that our citizens and businesses cannot afford, and will adversely affect the local economy, disproportionately affecting Southern Indiana.

Unable to attend the 1Si-supported holiday week bridge meetings? You can still comment.

(From Paul Fetter and No2BridgeTolls.org)

The Bridges Authority Public Comment meeting scheduled Christmas week had a low turnout as expected. Still, One Southern Indiana with its build the project "whatever it takes" view has increased its supporter presence. So that our community is properly represented, there needs to be a large number of "No Toll" comments. If you were unable to attend, make sure to include your comments in the process and send to both below addresses--please ask others to do the same.

• The Ohio River Brides Project is three parts, the East End Bridge, Downtown Bridge, and Kennedy Interchange. You cannot toll I-65 if the Kennedy Interchange is not tolled. It is unfair for Indiana residents to pay tolls on Bridges if Kentucky residents do not pay tolls on a new Kennedy Interchange.

• There is no tolling scenario that is fair for Indiana residents. Hoosiers will pay an unfair amount of tolls if either bridge is tolled. Even though tolling only the East End Bridge will still create financial inequity for Hoosiers, most will accept tolls on the East End Bridge to get a bridges project, but there must not be tolling on I-65.

• Build what you can afford! Do not toll I-65, it will divide our community.

• It is wrong to put new tolls on existing highways.

Bridges Project Team
https://kyinbridges.wufoo.com/forms/z7x3k1/

Jose Sepulveda Federal Highway Administration
jose.sepulveda@dot.gov

Thank you for your support.

A crack in the shade: More Ohio River Bridges comments sought.

When the Bridges Authority sought input during a previous, federally mandated public comment period, it was perhaps less a question of what the public wanted and more a time to ponder (again) whether the Bridges Authority, elected officials, and other proponents of the project as proposed would actually listen.

I'm cautiously optimistic but, in response to the many prescient voices that have emerged from the trenches over the past few years, perhaps they're starting to do that. As Paul Fetter of No 2 Bridge Tolls said, "This has been a very long, tiring process, but as I look back, we have achieved many great accomplishments." That getting the requisite heavies to a point of at least considering genuine discourse has been so laborious isn't exactly a source of regional pride. The community strength developed through that labor, though, most certainly is.

Along those lines, more public comment is both requested and necessary.

Straight from the Ohio River Bridges Project:

The Ohio River Bridges Project is currently developing a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. As part of this process, we are seeking comments on key documents being released Aug 10, 2011. One document explores the Range of Alternatives being considered, click here to view. The other compares the 2003 EIS Selected Alternative to the 2011 Modified Selected Alternative, click here to view. Public comments will be received through August 25 at 5 p.m. To submit comments via email, click here or send written comments to:

John Sacksteder
Community Transportation Solutions
305 N. Hurstbourne Parkway, Suite 100
Louisville, KY 40222

Important to note is a change in the descriptions of possible alternatives, even if they're not yet reflected in action.

6 Recommended Range of Alternatives

Based upon funds in the 2003 FEIS/ROD, preliminary studies and staff input, we propose considering the following range of alternatives in the SEIS

*No Build

*Selected Alternative (without Tolls) This alternative is the same as the Selected Alternative approved in the ROD; it does not include tolls. It is not a reasonable alternative because it is not financially feasible; it is being considered in the SEIS as a baseline for comparison with the proposed modifications to this alternative.

*All Alternatives Previously Evaluated in the 2003 FEIS The alternatives, considered in the 2003 FEIS and previously discussed in this document will be reevaluated to the extent necessary to determine if they warrant detailed study as viable alternatives.

*Modified Selected Alternative (with Tolls) This alternative would include many of the elements of the Selected Alternative, with tolls, but would also include reducing the Far East Bridge, and roadway, and evaluate design options to reduce the cost of constructing the east end tunnel; reconstruction of the Kennedy Interchange in Downtown Louisville in-place; and removing a pedestrian/bikeway facility from the Downtown Bridge.

After considering public and agency input on the alternatives presented above, all findings and the bases thereof will be presented in the Draft SEIS. Although TSM as a standalone alternative will not meet purpose and need, it will be evaluated in the Draft SEIS for further consideration a part of any selected alternative.

Have at it, and know that you're at least making it more difficult for narrow if well-connected interests to dictate the terms of debate. That's a step toward real discourse.