Black Lives Matter: "You can agree or disagree with (it), but nothing in it promotes hatred of any race or group."

Even if Develop New Albany seems determined to sweep its own teachable moment under the soiled but convenient rug of Dear Leader's scandal-plagued wing, other such opportunities have been in abundance since last weekend's display of Neanderthal Americana in Charlottesville.

Like this one. Does the local branch of the Democratic Party ever find itself waxing democratic about "matters" like this?

You're right; unlikely, isn't it? Jeff Gahan's largest bloc of supporters doesn't want to be troubled by thoughts of this nature, and so the dog whistles will continue.

The Economist explains: The misplaced arguments against Black Lives Matter

Some on the right have called for the movement to be classified as a hate group

 ... Some seem to object to the name, hearing in the phrase “Black lives matter” the implication that other lives do not.

That argument is easily dismissed. Affirming one thing does not negate all else. Donating money to support, say, cancer research does not make one a cheerleader for tuberculosis. Someone who says that black lives matter does not imply that other lives do not—they are simply reminding people that for most of American history black lives have been valued less than white ones. The days of slavery and de jure segregation have mercifully passed, but black Americans remain poorer, less healthy and more likely to be killed by police than whites. You can agree or disagree with BLM’s platform, but nothing in it promotes hatred of any race or group.

8664: Stemler, the study, and digging a bit deeper (Part 2)

A review of Ohio River Bridges Project (ORBP) history, then, along with the support of 8664 by many Hoosiers, lead us to Kerry Stemler’s published claims.

His first claim is that 8664 doesn’t address congestion from the west in New Albany. A review of both the 8664 and ORBP plans, however, does not support that conclusion.

Anyone who regularly travels I-64 and I-265 in the New Albany area knows that the intersection of the two is a congestion-inducing bottleneck during heavy traffic times. Accordingly, the much less expensive 8664 plan budgets $52 million to augment that merge point, including the construction of additional lanes. In contrast, the ORBP for which Stemler advocates, even with its nearly doubled price tag of $4.1 billion, budgets no money for that area. The already crowded interchange is, in fact, not addressed by the ORBP plan at all.

Further, neither Stemler’s remarks nor the ORBP reflect concerns about the flow of human traffic between West Louisville and New Albany.

As much faith as I have in the West Louisville residents I know and the work they’re doing to revitalize the area, a portion of New Albany’s criminal activity has traditionally been attributed by citizens and police alike to our proximity to its sometimes struggling neighborhoods. The veracity of that attribution notwithstanding, it’s clear that New Albany has a vested interest in the betterment of our southern neighbors.

Like the I-64/I-265 interchange, the ORBP again fails to address the issue with its massive expenditure. 8664, on the other hand, stands to improve West Louisville substantially, thus improving New Albany by association. Aside from reestablishing an attractive waterfront from downtown to approximately 22nd Street, 8664 would remove the massive 9th Street ramp to I-64 that has for decades served as a physical and psychological barrier between West Louisville and the downtown business district. Doing so would help foster confidence in the area and spur much needed investment.

Additionally, an 8664 review of impact in other cities that have restored waterfront areas shows that not only is the directly reclaimed property positively affected, but a secondary zone, usually within ¼ or ½ mile of the reclamation area, also shows increased value and investment. In Louisville that amounts to 60 - 120 city blocks, much of it to the west of the downtown business district, nearer New Albany.

As we move toward reopening the K&I Railroad Bridge to pedestrian and bicycle traffic, more closely connecting Louisville’s riverfront with our own, what’s on the other end of it will play a considerable role in determining how attractive an amenity it will be in and of itself and, ultimately, how accessible other amenities on the opposite shore will be. A rejuvenated West Louisville is the best possible scenario for allowing New Albany to market a pedestrian bridge connecting the two as an asset and to encourage those enjoying Louisville’s waterfront to extend their walk or ride to include our shops, eateries, and cultural institutions.

Though already partially addressed, Stemler’s second claim is that since Hoosiers have not had a voice in visioning the 8664 plan, it would damage our side of the river.

Momentarily setting aside the regular communication that occurs between Hoosiers and 8664, the group’s consistent requests to communicate with Indiana officials and business leaders, and the fact that Indiana businesses help sponsor the group’s events, two points immediately come to mind: 1) As 8664 representative Joe Burgan rightly pointed out in the article, his group, unlike Stemler’s, is currently the only one standing up to East Louisville political forces, fighting to prioritize the East End Bridge that Hoosiers have favored for decades and 2) prioritizing the East End Bridge stands to create an economic boon in Indiana, as shown by the federal environmental impact study conducted for the ORBP.

The study claims that the East End Bridge will create approximately 10,000 jobs in Indiana that may otherwise go to Kentucky, a number used not only by Kentucky-based bridge opponents to argue against it but also by local chamber of commerce One Southern Indiana to support it. As recently as a 2008 article published in The Lane Report’s Market Review of Greater Louisville and Southern Indiana, 1SI again touted the job creation numbers and District 71 State Representative Steve Stemler characterized the East End Bridge as “really the missing, critical link” in our region.

While 1SI and ORBP representatives did acknowledge the East End Bridge as part of the larger ORBP scheme later in the article, job increases induced by completing the I-265 loop were mentioned repeatedly while no similar claims were ascribed to the proposed third downtown bridge. Odd then, that Kerry Stemler, Past-Chair of 1SI, would refer to a plan that prioritizes East End Bridge construction as “detrimental” to our state.

Beyond his initial illogic, however, Stemler and the Bridges Coalition’s more recent advocacy betrays his concern for keeping Hoosier voices prominent in the decision making process.

Perhaps the most significant financial occurrence in the bridges saga since the formation of the Build the Bridges Coalition has been Kentucky's passage of a transportation budget in 2008 that included much less than the amount deemed necessary to maintain the ORBP schedule. It showed not only the difficulty inherent in financing such a megaproject but also revealed important preferences as Kentucky officials chose to delay East End Bridge construction by two more years, instead prioritizing available funds on the redesign of Spaghetti Junction in preparation for a new Downtown Bridge.

Given Indiana’s long favoring of the East End Bridge and the benefits touted by his own economic development organization, one would think that Stemler would have rushed to the defense of his fellow Hoosiers, decrying the decision and pushing for the Bridges Coalition to pressure Kentucky’s government to return the East End Bridge to its rightful place in the funding hierarchy. Instead, he and the Coalition chose a far different course of action: the pursuit of tolls.

We'll examine the potential impact of those tolls on Hoosiers in the next installment.

8664: Stemler, the study, and digging a bit deeper (Part 1)

A recent Tribune article detailing the misrepresentation of the 8664 plan in a study commissioned by Kentucky state transportation officials was unfortunately marred by misleading statements from Kerry Stemler, a Hoosier and member of the Build the Bridges Coalition’s Executive Committee.

Aside from his snide and inaccurate assertion that 8664 is nothing more than “pretty pictures”, Stemler objected to the plan on two points: that it doesn’t address congestion coming from the west in New Albany and that a lack of concern for Indiana’s needs have rendered the plan “detrimental to what’s going on our side of the river”.

Neither is true.

Before examining Stemler’s claims, however, it’s important to understand the context in which his Build the Bridges Coalition operates. As Hoosiers who’ve long supported the construction of an East End Bridge are well aware, that particular span was officially adopted as part of the region’s transportation plans in 1969. It was reaffirmed in those plans in 1978 and 1993.

For decades, a small but wealthy contingent of Kentucky property owners, via a group called River Fields, has fought the construction of the East End Bridge. It wasn’t Hoosier citizens, elected Indiana officials, nor even traffic engineers who purposely complicated matters by introducing a downtown bridge proposal in 1994.

That year, Louisville’s Downtown Development Corporation (DDC), a private group with strong ties to both River Fields and Louisville Mayor Jerry Abramson but no public accountability, released a study suggesting that Spaghetti Junction congestion could only be eased by attaching the interchange to an additional downtown bridge. The DDC’s relationship with Abramson, who has over the years unilaterally approved the transfer of millions of dollars from Louisville coffers to the organization, has become so suspect that members of the city’s Metro Council recently filed open records requests in an effort to at least track how the money is spent.

Even though that relationship and the study’s bridge conclusion were and are still disputed, River Fields seized the obstructionist opportunity and, under the leadership of then president Jim Welch, released a plan for a Downtown Bridge within months.

The Downtown Bridge proposal was introduced not to suggest the construction of an additional bridge, however, but as a mechanism to further fight the eastern one. As Kentucky politics boiled, Hoosiers had no voice in the matter and their concerns were ignored even as public polls at the time continued to show overwhelming support for the eastern bridge.

As the green of Hoosier’s east end referencing “Build the Bridge” bumper stickers faded, consistent lobbying and delay tactics from River Fields and their allies continued to divert attention from the majority opinion to the point that years passed before a still contentious “political compromise” was reached, backing the region into a corner with a monstrous, all or nothing $4.1 billion Ohio River Bridges Project (ORBP) that we’ve yet to and may never figure out how to finance.

For some, that was the point. Of the two bridges, one project plan, even our governor, Mitch Daniels, said in the News and Tribune, “The 'one project' idea - I think for some people - it was a tactic to delay the whole project."

It’s worth noting that, according to ORBP estimates, Indiana currently has the money in hand to build the East End Bridge and its corresponding northern approach – twice – while incurring no debt. The delayed Kentucky approach, already more costly owing to mass and length, was made tens of millions of dollars more expensive and thus more difficult to finance with the inclusion of a 2,000 feet long tunnel that, according to River Fields’ pressure tactics, is necessary to protect a single historic estate.

Tellingly, River Fields, who supposedly counts historic preservation among its concerns, has advocated for a plan that would demolish numerous historic structures downtown and in nearby areas to facilitate a bridge, a grossly expanded Spaghetti Junction, and a widened I-65 there.

In recent years, Jim Welch, the previously noted former River Fields leader and East End bridge opponent, was named Chair of the DDC. The DDC, in turn, helped create the Build the Bridges Coalition and Welch became a member of its executive committee. Questions as to why a staunch opponent of the East End Bridge was given such a prominent role in pursuing financing for the Bridges Project have gone unanswered.

Interestingly, another founding member of the Coalition dependent on Abramson’s support, Greater Louisville Incorporated (GLI), may have provided early impetus for exploring the removal of Interstate 64 from Louisville’s waterfront even before 8664 was formed. Though admittedly unconfirmed, a reliable source has publicly stated that Louisville entrepreneur Doug Cobb, founder of the Cobb Group, CEO of Appriss, and former GLI president, was impressed enough with other cities’ success in removing their waterfront expressways that he had the group travel to study them as possible best practice. The following GLI president also supposedly supported the expressway removal idea. Outside of speculation about Abramson’s and River Fields' influence, the group’s about face concerning local interstate initiatives remains largely unexplained.

Though Louisville, New Albany, and Jeffersonville governments have all ceded leadership to them, the Build the Bridges Coalition is a private organization and, like the DDC, has no public accountability even though its membership consists of several groups who receive public funding. Two of its founding organizational members have documented and/or reported histories that do not all match the group’s stated objectives, qualified professionals have publicly refuted factual claims made by the group but have received no response, information about decision making methodology has often been available only through legal challenges and the public has almost no input into the process at all.

Regardless of intentions, that’s the situation that One Southern Indiana helped exacerbate under Kerry Stemler’s leadership when they joined the Coalition and the one he continues to support in his capacity as an executive committee member.

Next time, we’ll begin looking at his published claims.

* a small portion of the above was paraphrased from the 8664 web site history section.

Steve Price on rental registration and code enforcement: "This is a bunch of (expletive deleted) (expletive deleted)."

Before we document the 3rd district uncouncilman’s revealingly ill-tempered sex-act-and-defecation outburst at the library on Saturday -- that's right, within whispering distance of the kiddie section -- let’s look back at a bit of pertinent information posted here last week.

---

Or maybe it's a religious ritual?

Owning a rental property is more than an investment — it's a business. You have to be willing and able to commit the time and resources necessary to run your business successfully.
--GMAC Mortgage website

Did you know that to search the Internet for “rental property” +business is to generate more than 3,000,000 hits?

---

Yesterday, my colleague Bluegill documented the scene following Saturday’s first rental registration and code enforcement committee meeting. In the comments section, Gina had asked if Price really lost it, and Jeff replied:

Yes, G, (Price) said it, apparently right after he told Lloyd that he'd do whatever he could to fight it (rental registrations).

He played most of his in-meeting comments to the landlords in the crowd, bemoaning what a tough business rental property is, which I'm sure you saw.

It's paraphrased but here's the gist:

After the meeting, an already angry Steve interrupted my conversation with another committee member.

"You're wrong. Rental property ain't a business", he said.

I told him that it is and asked what he did for a living.

He then went into a semi-intelligible tirade about how it wasn't. I asked him what he did for a living.

He told me my house (which serves as a family residence only) was a business. I asked him what he did for a living.

He hollered that he didn't want to pay any more taxes. I asked what taxes he was talking about since there hadn't been any additional taxes discussed. And then I asked him what he did for a living.

When he started to say something else unrelated, I told him to answer the question about what he did for a living.

"I'm barely breaking even", he said. "I'm living off my council salary."

"Just because your business is struggling," I said, "it doesn't mean it's not a business."

With that he turned for the door, repeated some of the stuff he'd said earlier about people wanting guys with clipboards running around, and then finally pronounced "This is all a bunch of fucking bullshit" as he headed out.

The funniest part to me is Price's unintentionally candid (and ever elastic) definition of "business": It's a business if you're making money, but not if times are hard. Price isn't making any money off my rental properties, therefore, they no longer constitute a business. Right. It hasn't stopped him from incorporating a business entity, has it?

I'm guessing Price's state of affairs has more to do with business expertise and the normal cycle of business than the nature of business itself, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding him. That's an easy thing to do. Listening to Price speak publicly is rather like trying to read a goat path map of Tibet -- upside down.

But those priceless expletives … well, the meaning is clear. Ironically, taken together, they also aptly describe the quality of the “work” Price has done during his tenure as councilman.

The same general attitude also helps encapsulate our eternal gratitude that council president Gahan has appointed the transparently biased Price to the rental committee. Before this, Gahan gifted the Urban Enterprise Association board with precisely the same befuddled personage (attendance record: 3 "present"and 5 "absent" so far this year).

Thanks, Jeff.

Actually, "fucking bullshit" describes Gahan's recent attitude toward the community in general just as pithily as it does Price's historically cavalier disregard for his 3rd district neighbors.

Perhaps, then, we should file this under "be careful what you wish for," because having asked for consistency, Gahan's now giving it to us.

Good and hard.