Mainland Properties circles back, trickles off, and responds to Redevelopment.

Anita Massey, project manager of the moribund River View development, is the originator of the infamous "trickle back" reference.

June 14, 2011: Trickling back: It's about gravy, not gravity.

Earlier this week, New Albany's Redevelopment Commission finally decided that "trickling forward" wasn't enough, and besides, it had become weary that the money kept not getting shown.

July 10, 2012: New Albany Redevelopment Commission rescinds agreement over River View property

Trickle Platz wasn't thrilling us, either. But you already knew that.

July 12, 2012: ON THE AVENUES REWOUND: River View's sweet dreams are not enough.

Here Massey "reaches out" to Redevelopment (and the public) in a piece wisely deemed by the newspaper as "opinion."

NEW ALBANY — Mainland Properties responds to recent NARC decision

... Mainland Properties understands that Mr. (Adam) Dickey may have questions about the development, and we invite him to meet with us to explain our progress. If he has questions about the draft option, we encourage him to work with the NARC attorney to address his concerns. Of course, we regret that Mainland Properties was denied the opportunity to speak on our behalf at the Tuesday meeting, as we very well may have been able to avoid an outcome that belittles our efforts over the years and undermines public confidence in the redevelopment approval system.

Fortunately, given the ease with which these issues can be addressed, we see no need to issue a new RFP, and encourage NARC members to reconsider their position at the next meeting. It could hardly be in the interests of the City of New Albany and its citizens to recommence a process that is likely to take years to reach fruition when a “shovel ready” project sits at their doorstep. Such a capricious decision would send a terrible message to businesses contemplating investing in the community.

2011 Highlights & Lowlights: Picking and rewarding the River View winners.

"Seriously, what does that man think he's going to find in a dumpster, except garbage?"
-- from the posting, "Beautiful People Alert" (June 19)

---

During the past year, a month's worth of daily NAC postings (at least 34 in all) were devoted to the proposed River View development project, in which the city of New Albany would provide a group of presumably penniless investors with $12-15-18 million (is there a number, really?) of publicly funded collateral in the form of a parking garage, which in turn is necessary for the group to borrow the money necessary to build expensive for-profit condo units atop it, with the whole ball of "Korbel gurgling" twine to be erected on perhaps the most significant slice of waterfront property left in downtown New Albany.

I tried to show them how much transformative brewing capacity could be purchased for a few measly million tax retention dollars, but it only made the messenger even more toxic.

Speaking for myself, I already feel the tickle of the trickle, because believe it or not, at a public meeting staged to fluff the stuff, one project backer actually referred to this process of TIF-inspired "economic development" as trickle back -- as in gravy, not gravity -- prompting one wag to rename the proposal Reaganomics Platz (later, we mischievously redubbed it Trickle Platz).

Surely the most revealing aspect of the predictable year-long spectacle was the decidedly non-demure eagerness of another penniless entity, Develop New Albany, to rush headlong into a headlock of a deeply political economic development proposal, when previously the organization could not bring itself to take a principled stand on proposals to toll existing transportation infrastructure to enable the ORBP boondoggle, out of a fear of appearing to be political and annoying local elected Mitch Daniels disciples: Mr. Haney, DNA support "trickle back" from River View.

The ensuing stench became even more wonderfully and delightfully odiferous, approaching Louisiana dimensions, as our merry civic connect-the-dots game played itself out through the year. We now see the very same DNA stalwarts who’d been designated to carry City Hall's rapidly dulling spears profiting from federally-provided featherbed monies pouring into the Midtown neighborhood stabilization effort, even as they propel the eager abandonment of DNA's supposedly anti-political stance, thus immersing the organization in rotgut TIF-disbursement politics designed to create a purely for-private-profit condo project standing to benefit yet other DNA stalwarts, while throughout it all, a whole lot more downtown houses than those currently being rehabbed with Federal stabilization monies might be upgraded with the same bucks required to enable upscale condos in a market pitifully unlikely to support them.

So, how do we pick the winners?

With other people’s money, that’s how.

Newspaper editorialists detect "political component" in Windstream's skedaddle. Unfortunately, it's the wrong one.

I've been as strident a critic of the current council as anyone.

And, yes, the Windstream Technologies notion of green wind turbines might well be the next great idea. In theory, I like it.

Just the same, under the current rules of the game, the proposal that our city play bank to a private company without money or credit of its own came with many more risks than most such interventions, to such an obvious extent that the administration itself was tapping the brakes to take a closer look. It was fitting and proper for both branches of government to dig deeper. I'm glad they did.

Obviously, Windstream was in a hurry and skedaddled, primarily because in some fashion as yet unknown, North Vernon offered it a quicker and better deal. Seems the enraptured suitor was playing the field, widely, and accordingly, there's a good chance that posterity will judge New Albany's caution as justified under the circumstances.

Why marry the first one who comes along, anyway?

OSIN disagrees, yet again advising injudicious risk-taking in economic development. The newpaper's editorial board has traveled down this path before with reference to the River View development: "In order to grow and attract businesses, governments sometimes have to take a leap of faith, and provide incentives."

I don't entirely disagree, other than to say that if we're serious about breaking banks, let's do it right.

If the economy is bad enough to justify governmental intervention in River View and Windstream, perhaps a detailed examination of the structural iniquities of American capitalism is merited, and the degree of governmental involvement heightened somewhat beyond the smaller comparative potatoes of foundational parking garages and $3.7 million high-risk loans to Californians.

EDITORIAL: No winds of change a shame

NEW ALBANY — On the same day Windstream Technologies decided to take its $3.7 million expansion investment elsewhere, the New Albany Redevelopment Commission elected to spend $35,000 to save a historic house at 703 E. Eighth St. that’s partially collapsed.

These two issues are very different, but ironically New Albany leaders were looking to resurrect the past on the same day it appeared they shunned a potential key component of the city’s future — jobs.

Council endorses trickle-back economics in River View vote.

Last night, some crowd members sported red "yes" badges. Seriously, why not green? Wouldn't the symbolism be better than suggested by red? Were the buttons left over from Professor Erika's last yard sign campaign?

At any rate, the council embraced trickle back economics: River View rolls along in New Albany; $53 million development deemed TIF worthy by New Albany council.