Hospital Radio.

We've been listening to Stacy Mitchell, co-director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, for much of this blog's existence. During that 15-year period, Amazon has become the tail that wags the dog, with Apple, Facebook, and Google competing to be the flea with the second-place trophy.

One rather wishes that a few of those delusional Republicans in mid-prattle about "competition" could explain how monopolies and free markets can co-exist. They can't. Perhaps that's why they're so quiet -- but it doesn't have to be that way.

And the Democrats? Don't get me started on their cowardice in the face of monopolistic entities like these.

Amazon Is a Private Government. Congress Needs to Step Up, by Stacy Mitchell (The Atlantic)

Reining in the tech giants will help restore American democracy.

 ... The hearing was one of the final steps in the subcommittee’s bipartisan, yearlong probe into whether Amazon and three other tech companies—Apple, Facebook, and Google—are abusing their market power to thwart competition and entrench their own dominance, and if so, what Congress should do about it. The committee is expected to release its report in early September, and it could well be damning. The report may call for regulating the tech giants’ behavior, splitting them up into smaller companies, or both.

Despite all of this, Amazon’s share price barely budged after the hearing, suggesting that Wall Street harbors little fear that anything will come of the investigation. The very next day, Amazon announced record profits ... these developments illustrate the challenges facing lawmakers who want to rein in the U.S.-based tech titans. Even if they can put forward a convincing case that, for instance, Amazon is unfairly crushing small companies, most Americans can hardly imagine that the government will act, or even that it can.

The problem isn’t just that Amazon employs more lobbyists than the U.S. Senate has members. It’s that the machinery of government has been dysfunctional for so long that Americans forget it even exists. This is especially true when it comes to questions of how the economy is structured. Both political parties long ago abdicated their responsibility to be a check on the accumulation and the abuse of private power. Americans who believe this deference to big business is unwise have been conditioned to see ourselves as helpless.

snip

For that reason, what happens next in the investigation is crucial. The committee’s work is that of a democracy rediscovering its capacity to determine how the economy should operate—and how to hold the powerful accountable to the law. Its ultimate outcome will speak to two of the most consequential economic questions Americans face. One is whether a handful of tech giants will continue to wield outsize power over our commerce and communications. The other is whether we’re still capable of governing ourselves.

snip

The burden is on the subcommittee to show Americans that what Amazon and the other tech giants are doing is both wrong and harmful. Armed with witness statements and internal company documents, the subcommittee and its staff are framing an argument: Although these companies may still produce the occasional innovative product, they’re not nearly as inventive as they would have us believe. Rather, they have achieved their extraordinary reach through raw power. The tech giants have become gatekeepers, and they exploit that control to advance their own interests. At the hearing, the subcommittee members translated the sometimes-arcane language of antitrust law into words everyone understands. They talked of spying, stealing, and bullying.

Stuff 'em all: Republicans AND Democrats enabled the PPP chain-feeding bailout debacle.

Spare me.

If you're an indie operator rushing to perform fellatio on Shake Shack -- a $1.6 billion company -- for returning the PPP loan money Republicans AND Democrats bestowed upon it, consider the fine print in the designer chain's mea culpai last week.

Shake Shack was fortunate last Friday to be able to access the additional capital we needed to ensure our long term stability through an equity transaction in the public markets. We’re thankful for that and we’ve decided to immediately return the entire $10 million PPP loan we received last week to the SBA so that those restaurants who need it most can get it now.

Which is precisely what Shake Shack might have done in the first place, seeing that PPP was supposed to be for businesses without financing options like this.

At the end of the week Ruth's Chris Steak House spewed similar bilge during the course of giving back its $20 million. So did an insipid salad chain called Sweetgreen (huh?), Harvard University, and maybe a few others.

The main point: The two-party system is responsible for bailouts that help huge corporate monoliths first, and small indie businesses almost not at all.

And, huge corporate monoliths are greedy bastards that should be eliminated from the face of the earth. Death both to chains and the two-party system.

I hope you enjoyed my TED clenched fist.

White House, GOP face heat after hotel and restaurant chains helped run small business program dry, by Jonathan O'Connell (Washington Post)

With program out of money, backlash prompts executives at Shake Shack to return $10 million loan.

The federal government gave national hotel and restaurant chains millions of dollars in grants before the $349 billion program ran out of money Thursday, leading to a backlash that prompted one company to give the money back and a Republican senator to say that “millions of dollars are being wasted.”

Thousands of traditional small businesses were unable to get funding from the program before it ran dry. As Congress and the White House near a deal to add an additional $310 billion to the program, some are calling for additional oversight and rule changes to prevent bigger chains from accepting any more money.

Ruth’s Chris Steak House, a chain that has 150 locations and is valued at $250 million, reported receiving $20 million in funding from the small business portion of the economic stimulus legislation called the Paycheck Protection Program. The Potbelly chain of sandwich shops, which has more than 400 locations and a value of $89 million, reported receiving $10 million last week.

Shake Shack, a $1.6 billion burger-and-fries chain based in New York City, received $10 million. After complaints from small business advocates when the fund went dry, company founder Danny Meyer and chief executive Randy Garutti announced Sunday evening that they would return the money.

They said they had no idea that the program would run out of money so quickly and that they understood the uproar ...

ON THE AVENUES: It's a tad premature to sing the healing game.

Fear is an incompetent teacher.
-- Jean-Luc Picard

I don't make it a habit to quote from science fiction, or for that matter television in general seeing as I watch it so very seldom. It so happened that as I began writing, occasionally glancing up from the laptop, I saw Admiral Picard say these words only because my wife was watching the current series with closed captioning; otherwise I'd have heard nothing owing to wearing headphones and listening to Van Morrison's wonderful 1997 album, The Healing Game.

Down those ancient streets
Down those ancient roads
Where nobody knows
Where nobody goes
I'm back on the corner again
Where I've always been
Never been away
From the healing game

The brass section begins playing a riff as the song rounds the final turn and heads for the finishing line, and the passage bears a striking resemblance to "I Can't Get Started," the old popular song popularized by the epochal swing era trumpeter Bunny Berigan. He died in 1942, felled by cirrhosis of the liver.

Three years after Berigan's premature departure, V-J Day at last arrived, and America set off on a series of postwar victory laps lasting until the "Greatest Generation's" box office acme in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The remorseless actuarial tables took their toll, and their kids, the baby boomers, have found it difficult to recall the lessons of WWII and the Great Depression preceding it.

Subsequent generations are too busy simultaneously working three or four gig economy jobs to notice much about history.

That's too bad.

Presently there is a pandemic afoot, which isn't close to being concluded by any stretch of the imagination, but already it will be remembered by future generations for this news item documenting public outreach that was found necessary by the police department in Newport, Oregon.

"It's hard to believe that we even have to post this. Do not call 9-1-1 just because you ran out of toilet paper." 

---

We know there are numerous factors helping to explain why the centuries-old Romanov dynasty was successfully overthrown in 1917 by an otherwise motley crew of ragtag Marxists.

The Russian Empire was making baby steps toward economic viability, but was rotten to the core when it came to the abilities of its ruling class. Like a celiac loose in a bakery, Tsar Nicholas II rushed into the one situation guaranteed to irreparably weaken his grip: Total war, in the form of World War I, a mind-numbing conflagration that exposed every socio-economic fault line in Russia and created whole new opportunities for cultural collapse.

There were two revolutions in Russia in 1917. The first occurred in February (according to the Julian calendar), toppling the already tottering tsar. A provisional government was formed, and it announced a series of comparatively liberal reforms.

However, the briefly powerful Alexander Kerensky failed to properly read the room, and Russia remained "in" the war in the face of overwhelming public sentiment for peace. Society continued to crumble, and in November the numerically inferior Bolsheviks -- the Commies -- welded superior leadership with the broad support of workers and peasants (many of them attracted by V.I. Lenin's brilliant "campaign" slogan of Peace, Bread, Land) and overthrew the provisional government.

Now, where was I?

Ah, yes, the coronavirus, Covid-19, which seeks a vulnerable host for the purpose of self-perpetuation, and could not have found a better candidate than our disunited states of dystopia. 

Still, as Russia proved more than a century ago, opportunism need not be restricted to a virus. Mega-corporations, capital accumulators and the 1% show no visible compunction when it comes to seizing the moment to fleece the rest of us, again and again, and we can't rely on either major political party for usefulness when both suckle the very same teat.

The late Gore Vidal (1925-2012) was the subject of a documentary called The United States of Amnesia, released in 2014.

A curious condition of a republic based roughly on the original Roman model is that it cannot allow true political parties to share in government. What then is a true political party: one that is based firmly in the interest of a class be it workers or fox hunters. Officially we have two parties which are in fact wings of a common party of property with two right wings. Corporate wealth finances each. Since the property party controls every aspect of media they have had decades to create a false reality for a citizenry largely uneducated by public schools that teach conformity with an occasional advanced degree in consumerism.

Are these advanced degrees in consumerism serving us well in a time of flattened curves and social distancing, or are we revealed to be inhabiting a failed state, dragged into the abyss not only by four decades of Hayek's neoliberal claptrap -- a destructive form of social engineering as or more offensive than what Lenin foisted on the Russians -- but more ominously, our own inability (read: unwillingness) as individuals to have an semblance of a clue as to exactly who are oppressors are?

Fetch me my pitchfork, ma -- well, just as soon as we all make it out of quarantine.

---

For the second week running I sat down and churned out a column on the fly. Good, bad or indifferent, I'd resolved to try going a whole year without column reruns, and this makes three months. Interestingly, as wordy as I can be, the preceding clocked in at almost exactly the number of words (900) that used to serve as my limit when BEER MONEY ran in the pre-merger New Albany Tribune. Strange days continue to find us, and will during the weeks ahead.

---

Recent columns:

March 19: ON THE AVENUES: If it's a war, then the food service biz needs to be issued a few weapons. We need improvisation and flexibility to survive the shutdown.

March 12: ON THE AVENUES: Keep calm and carry on.

March 5: ON THE AVENUES: I've got the spirit, but lose the feeling.

February 27: ON THE AVENUES: There is a complete absence of diversity among regular News and Tribune columnists.

Dan Canon with electoral prescience: "What do you think you can win by starting with your compromise number?"

In the latest installment of THE UNFUCKING OF THE MIDWEST (at LEO), Dan Canon explains a phenomenon that I always thought should be obvious. To end a negotiation positively, one has to begin it properly.

This is why folks who consider themselves "liberal" or "left" currently find themselves occupying a tar paper shack off in Center Right Land.

Why Republicans win at negotiating… and moderates lose.

In our civil justice system, 99% of all cases settle before trial. Sometimes for a little money, sometimes for a lot. As such, we lawyers end up doing a lot of negotiating. So much, in fact, that we tend to take for granted the basic principles of skillful dispute resolution: Calculate the midpoint and try to subtly pull your opponent away from it. Don’t bid against yourself. Make the other side think they’ve won something. Imagine you’ve got a client who wants to leave a negotiation with $50,000. Your opponent’s starting offer is $5,000. You don’t start negotiating at $50,000 — that’s your compromise number. You’ve just set your client up to resolve the case somewhere in the $20,000 range (that being the midpoint between your number and your opponent’s).

Instead, you start at $150,000. That signals to the other side that your final number is somewhere in the $70,000 range. If they spend an entire negotiation thinking that they need to pull you away from $70,000, landing on $50,000 seems like a big victory for them, even though that’s exactly what your client wanted. You made them think they won something. Say it doesn’t go that way, though. Say the other side puts on the brakes at $40,000 — lower than you would have liked. That’s still much higher than $20,000 and, therefore, much better than you could have done if you had used your ideal number as your opening offer.

Students and clients often ask: Why not just be honest? Isn’t it better to just put your cards on the table, say what you want and say “take it or leave it?” But it doesn’t work that way. Protracted negotiation is not about honesty or dishonesty; it’s a psychological process. It’s about anticipating — and hopefully changing — your opponent’s expectations along the way. You may have to adjust your own expectations, too. In fact, your expectations might be adjusted whether you like it or not, because what seems realistic at the beginning of a negotiation is often totally unrealistic by the end.

In the coming months, a complex set of negotiations will be playing out among candidates vying for all kinds of elected positions. And while a government full of lawyers is not nearly as much fun as one full of fighter pilots, actors, optometrists and radio hosts, I wish some of our Democratic candidates (and incumbents) could at least brush up on the basic principles of negotiation. What I would like them to ponder this cycle is: What do you think you can win by starting with your compromise number?

Reich: "Democrats cannot defeat authoritarian populism without an agenda of radical democratic reform, an anti-establishment movement."

"I was part of a Democratic administration that failed to fix a rigged system – I know our current president is a symptom of our disunion, not its only cause."
-- Robert Reich

I'm confused. Reich's analysis appears to be broadly correct, but nonetheless, I still feel the pressing need to take a shower. I asked Jeff Gillenwater for his thoughts.

Yes. A few quibbles - marking the erroneous white working class bit again - but generally correct. An overwhelming majority of “professionals” are complicit, hoarding opportunities and not standing up while outwardly claiming to be very liberal just as long as the financial and social order favors them. As a country, we’re not in overall possession of the self-awareness, intelligence, and fortitude to own up to that. While actual discrimination remains a serious problem, much of the virtue signaling lately serves the same role as “but I have a black friend” did previously. It’s more cover than impetus for genuine self-reflection within realistic social and economic frameworks.

Reich says: "Democrats cannot defeat authoritarian populism without an agenda of radical democratic reform, an anti-establishment movement."

And, as I write, these same Democrats are frantically undermining radical democratic reform in a desperate attempt to install a fully complicit nitwit like Joe Biden as the party's candidate.

The Democratic Party's engorged elites never learn; on second thought, that's a redundancy.

Why Democrats share the blame for the rise of Donald Trump, by Robert Reich (The Guardian)

... In the fall of 2015, I visited Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Missouri and North Carolina, for a research project on the changing nature of work. I spoke with many of the people I had met 20 years before when I was secretary of labor, as well as with some of their grown children.

What I heard surprised me. Twenty years before, many said they’d been working hard and were frustrated they weren’t doing better. Now they were angry – angry at their employers, the government, Wall Street.

Something very big happened, and it wasn’t due to Sanders’ magnetism or Trump’s likeability
Many had lost jobs, savings, or homes in the Great Recession following the financial crisis of 2008, or knew others who had. Most were back in jobs but the jobs paid no more than they had two decades before, in terms of purchasing power.

I heard the term “rigged system” so often I began asking people what they meant. They spoke about flat wages, shrinking benefits, growing job insecurity. They talked about the bailout of Wall Street, political payoffs, insider deals, soaring CEO pay, and “crony capitalism”.

These complaints came from people who identified themselves as Republicans, Democrats and independents. A few had joined the Tea Party. A few had briefly been involved in the Occupy movement ...

Enough Absurdity: "Neoliberal globalization and Third Way politics are plainly not up to the task, and the historical Left has, for the most part, gone missing."

"After almost three years of Trumpian rule, it has come to this. The worst American president ever, along with a bunch of embarrassingly servile flunkies, are calling the shots; while the opposition party’s establishment is working overtime to stifle changes that would undo the conditions that made Trumpism all but inevitable."
-- Andrew Levine

And yet still I'm told by "left" centrists (is that contortion possible?) that if I don't publicly support one of their Democratic presidential candidates -- any candidate, whether his or her platform jibes with my own world view or not -- then I'm guilty of abject failure to properly resist Trump.

Pfui. Why is it that I'm always the one who must alter my dictates of conscience/consciousness to suit the Lighter Shade of Republicans? Why must my principles be the ones forever mutable?

I'm no longer sure it matters. This circling of the drain began long ago, and the cycle probably will be compelled to play out. Circa the year 1987, writer Gore Vidal spoke briefly and eloquently about the reality of the day.

The last best hope of earth, two trillion dollars in debt, is spinning out of control, and all we can do is stare at a flickering cathode-ray tube as Ollie “answers” questions on TV while the press, resolutely irrelevant as ever, asks politicians if they have committed adultery. From V-J Day 1945 to this has been, my fellow countrymen, a perfect nightmare.

Pretty much, dog. Pretty much right now.

Enough Absurdity: Time To Get Smart, by Andrew Levine (CounterPunch)

... We got into this fix because our political and economic elites never quite figured out how to execute a soft landing in a world in which “the American century” was becoming undone by demographic changes, geopolitical exigencies, and the increasingly evident dysfunctionality of our overripe capitalist system.

Neoliberal globalization and Third Way politics are plainly not up to the task, and the historical Left has, for the most part, gone missing. Thus, a large segment of the general population is left without constructive means for addressing a host of justifiable grievances.

A reconstructed Left is the solution, but its first intimations are still in their infancy. This could change quickly, for better or worse, but for the time being, there is just not enough there there.

And so, all over the world, “populists,” rightwing nationalists essentially, have rushed in to fill the void, just as their counterparts did nearly a century ago, after the revolutionary upsurge that followed the Bolshevik revolution sputtered out, only to be swamped before long by forces of darkness even more odious than the ones now on the rise.

This process has been in the works at least since the dark days of the Reagan administration; it has taken its toll in both the Republican and Democratic parties, causing them to drift, or, in the Republican case, to gallop to the right.

The idea that, in America, there is only a middleclass has been another casualty of these on-going transformations. Thus, it has become harder than it used to be to deny the existence of a ruling class, or to deny that, at least in some quarters, working-class politics has revived.

As they say, “what goes around comes around.” There are two reasons, though, why the stakes are a little different this time around, and a lot more urgent ...

In Britain's elections, as in American ones: We'll awake "to find one of these horrors in charge."

Photo credit: The Economist article.

I was asked, "How is Donald Trump viewed throughout your travels?"

To be honest, it didn't come up.

There were instances of anti-Trump in graffiti-rich Ljubljana, and a couple of folks in Slovenia mentioned Melania Trump, born in 1970 during Yugoslav times in the Slovenian city of Novo Mesto (near the border with Croatia). She grew up in a town called Sevnica and began her modeling career prior to Slovenia's independence in 1991.

It's worth noting that had Melanija Knavs grown up in any of the other communist countries in east-central Europe where the orthodoxy was more rigid than Yugoslavia's relatively less restrictive Titoist variety, she probably wouldn't have had a head start in the late 1980s. Interestingly, her father was a member of Slovenia's atheistic League of Communists, but had his children secretly baptized Catholic.

In short, I find the institution of "First Lady" very strange, and Melania far more interesting than Donald, but to each their own.

Meanwhile in Great Britain, a dismal election campaign is about to conclude, and The Economist is flustered. The Liberal Democrats won't win, and yet consider the possibilities for lesser parties in a parliamentary system to influence the outcome, an option we're denied by the American fixation with a two-party system that exists nowhere in any statutory or constitutional sense.

That's why I detest the two-party system more than any single representative of it, including Trump -- and yes, I'd almost surely vote Labour.

Our election endorsement: Britain’s nightmare before Christmas ... A divided country faces an election that will tear it still further apart (The Economist)

British voters keep being called to the polls—and each time the options before them are worse. Labour and the Conservatives, once parties of the centre-left and -right, have steadily grown further apart in the three elections of the past four years. Next week voters face their starkest choice yet, between Boris Johnson, whose Tories promise a hard Brexit, and Jeremy Corbyn, whose Labour Party plans to “rewrite the rules of the economy” along radical socialist lines. Mr Johnson runs the most unpopular new government on record; Mr Corbyn is the most unpopular leader of the opposition. On Friday the 13th, unlucky Britons will wake to find one of these horrors in charge ...

"Deval Patrick Is Everything That’s Wrong With the Democratic Party."

"Maybe five or ten years ago, Deval Patrick might have been the best Democrat that our dismal system could have produced. But that’s no longer the case. The time for guys like this has passed."

And by extension, this is why it's so very difficult to find a reason to vote for Democrats. The two party system is a reeking cesspool.

Deval Patrick Is Everything That’s Wrong With the Democratic Party, by Liza Featherstone (Jacobin)

Former Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick’s resume reads like a dystopian novel about the nihilism and brutality of contemporary capitalism. He should leave public life forever.

The donor classes do not want Bernie Sanders to be president. Most of them don’t want Elizabeth Warren, either. They’d prefer someone who doesn’t have much to say about wealth distribution, whether in the form of taxing the rich, or big programs like Medicare for All and the Green New Deal. Their most electable option in this vein — at least as measured by primary and general election polling, as well as occasional, if fleeting, resemblance to a sympathetic human being — is obviously Joe Biden. Unhappily for them, Biden is also a chucklehead. Terrified that the Left might win, the titans of industry have a plan: Deval Patrick.

Like Pete Buttigieg and Kamala Harris, Patrick, the former governor of Massachusetts, is the extremely disappointing progeny of a radical father. (Pat Patrick, a jazz musician, played with Sun Ra’s band, The Arkestra.) That’s probably the coolest thing about him.

The enthusiasm for Sanders and Warren at the grassroots — as well as for progressive and socialist local and Congressional candidates nationwide — might suggest a sea change, a popular desire to grapple seriously with the problems caused by capitalism. Deval Patrick, until recently an executive at Bain Capital, is a flagrant insult to that popular uprising. He is a cherished asset of the fossil fuel, private equity, and subprime mortgage industries, which are some of the worst phenomena that contemporary capitalism has produced. What’s next, a member of the Sackler family?

Though news coverage insists on characterizing his entry into the primary as “sudden,” it seems that a few members of the ruling class have been working on his campaign for a while. Since 2018, OpenSecrets News reports, big donors, especially in private equity, have been pouring money into Deval Patrick’s PAC, putting his campaign in an advantageous position. Even in October 2018, more than a year ago, the PAC, called Reason to Believe, was far outperforming PACs of other candidates considering a 2020 run. Most of the money came from one private equity mogul: Dan Fireman, a billionaire golf enthusiast ...

#FreeDistrict3: Is a two-party political duopoly "fit for the purpose of representing and reconciling the diversity of opinions in a modern and complex country?"

This article is about the Conservative and Labour parties in Great Britain, but the parallels with Republicans and Democrats in America are obvious. Particularly at the grassroots level, why are parties even necessary?

#FreeDistrict3 

Why the sickly ugly sisters of our politics deserve to suffer the splits, by Andrew Rawnsley (The Guardian)

Once broad churches, both the Tory and Labour parties have become increasingly sectarian. Breakaways will be the result

If they did not exist, would we invent them? Given the chance to start from scratch, would Britain regard the Conservative and Labour parties, the two old and ugly sisters of our politics, as the best we can do? Are they fit for the purpose of representing and reconciling the diversity of opinions in a modern and complex country? And for offering it a choice of decent governments? A growing number of us have been saying not and for a long time.

Even before Brexit split both parties and scrambled voter allegiances, much of the electorate was expressing its dissatisfaction with the big two. The Tories have not won a solid parliamentary majority since 1987. The last Labour leader who was not called Tony Blair to secure a healthy Commons majority was Harold Wilson in 1966.

The number of voters who enthusiastically identify as red or blue has been in long-term decline. Party membership has also been shrivelling. The Tories, who once boasted that they were a million strong, bump along at around 100,000. Labour enjoyed a trend-defying surge in its membership during the Ohhh Jeremy Corbyn phase of his leadership, but that is going downhill as the magical uncle turns out not to be so wondrous after all.

It is true that the big two can still gather up a lot of votes. After decades of decline in their combined vote share, it blipped up at the last election. But I don’t think that truly indicated renewed enthusiasm for either of them. It was a false positive induced by an electoral system that compels many voters to make a forced choice between the unappetising and the inedible. It doesn’t mean that these nose-holding voters like what’s put before them. The current choice on offer is so disdained that, when pollsters ask who would make best prime minister, Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn are regularly beaten into second and third place by Neither. More than half of the electorate say their views are not properly represented by the existing political parties.

Many politicians can’t stand the parties they represent. Some actively and publicly rage about what has become of them. I cannot recall a period in my lifetime when so many MPs have expressed so much disgust and despair with the state of their own parties. For every Tory who expresses agony about what Brexit has done to the party they used to love, there is a Labour MP voicing anguish about what Corbynism has done to the party that they have spent a lifetime serving ...

The Strong Towns no-gimmicks approach truly is a "third way" for the city of New Albany because it crosses political boundaries.

Tony Beard drew this.

"Out there is someone who maybe disagrees with you on politics, but that person has a shared vision with you on making our cities, towns, and neighborhoods stronger. We need each other."

Lots of what I've been writing in this space since 2015 reflects what the movement's founder Charles Marohn calls the Strong Towns approach.

The Strong Towns approach is a radically new way of thinking about the way we build our world. We believe that in order to truly thrive, our cities and towns must:

+ Stop valuing efficiency and start valuing resilience;
+ Stop betting our futures on huge, irreversible projects, and taking small, incremental steps and iterating based on what we learn;
+ Stop fearing change and start embracing a process of continuous adaptation;
+ Stop building our world based on abstract theories, and start building it based on how our places actually work and what our neighbors actually need today;
+ Stop obsessing about future growth and start obsessing about our current finances.

But most importantly, we believe that Strong Citizens from all walks of life can and must participate in a Strong Towns approach—from citizens to leaders, professionals to neighbors, and everyone in between. And that means we need you.

Marohn is honest about the challenges of broadening his organization's appeal among women and minorities, but he also identifies an area of unequivocal success. When I say there is a third-way policy position in communities like ours, this is precisely what I'm referring to.

Living with the Other, by Charles Marohn (Strong Towns)

 ... There is one place, however, where Strong Towns has a level of diversity that is as rare as it is powerful among American organizations in 2019: ideological diversity. We have people who enthusiastically identify as politically left-of-center, and we have people who enthusiastically identify as right-of-center. When Strong Towns supporters get together, it is this crazy mix of people we don’t see in other places. We don’t occupy the center—this is not a movement of moderates. It’s something different.

I’m convinced that is the key to our rapid growth and long-term success. You can be passionate about fiscal responsibility and small business and love Strong Towns. You can be passionate about equitable transportation and environmental stewardship and love Strong Towns. And that love can be authentic because we can meet those shared goals with a Strong Towns approach. It’s not a gimmick, and the people coming here understand that.

We’re entering into what I anticipate will be the craziest, nastiest, most media-manipulated, dysfunctional campaign season any of us will hopefully ever be subjected to. Regardless of your political point of view, you are going to be pummeled with messages designed to fill you with outrage at the other. Some of it might be true, and your outrage might be justified, but much of it will be half-truths designed to mobilize you to action. There will be less and less room for context and nuance.

I’m not asking you to change your opinions. I’m not asking you to moderate your point of view. I’m not even asking you to equivocate and accept any opposing viewpoint as equally valid. All I’m asking you to do is to recognize that the greatest strength of our movement is our unique ideological diversity: that out there is someone who maybe disagrees with you on politics, but that person has a shared vision with you on making our cities, towns, and neighborhoods stronger. We need each other.

In our discourse, Strong Towns advocates must try to be the peacemakers. The ones who turn down the volume. We can disagree without the hate. We may even extend an assumption of good intentions, and hope for the same in return. We might be pleasantly surprised.

Psychologist Jonathan Haidt shared a New Years Resolution for our age. I think it is the standard all Strong Towns advocates should strive to follow:

I will give less offense (i.e., be more polite)

I will take less offense (i.e., give others the benefit of the doubt)

I will pass on less offense (i.e., not be the sort of retweeter Russian trolls want me to be)

I have not always met this standard. It’s difficult, and I’m all too human. Today let’s promise each other that we will strive to do so, and then let’s hold each other accountable.

As an addendum: For those readers puzzled by the fact that Roger the Flagrant Social Democrat finds it easier to chat substantively with local Republicans than many (though not all) Democrats, consider the possibility that local Democrats most enamored of the imperial Gahan approach to top-down patronage-disguised-as-infrastructure-improvement -- which itself is a refutation of the Strong Towns approach -- are rejecting my message because of this dissonance, and not any significant difference when it comes to left/liberal social justice and human rights issues.

That's because there are no differences between us when it comes to social justice and human rights issues. But too many local Democrats are unwilling to give due, detailed diligence to the Gahan personality cult's claims of brilliant fiscal management, which plainly is an illiberal and ruinous bait 'n' switch. Republicans see THAT part quite clearly.

As Marohn observes, the Strong Towns approach bridges a gap. It's an approach suitable for the city as a whole, especially the historic core, and if you're a voting resident of the 3rd district, you'll be hearing a lot more about this as the months pass.

Save your Darwinian drivel for another time, and urge Senators Young and Braun, and Representative Hollingworth, to be accountable to their constituents.

Fact is, 800,000 unpaid federal workers are being held hostage not by one man, but by America's wretched two-party system. In any other facet of our lives, being given a "choice" between two options would be laughable, and yet we continue to accept one or the other of two entities that both suckle the same teat of accumulated wealth for sustenance.

Want to be independent? I hate to be a buzzkill this early in the year, but first, you have to think independently.

Those of you hugging the Darwinian ledge on the far right side of the aisle, who currently chortle with glee at the prospect of at last achieving Saint Grover Norquist's cherished wish to drown government in a bathtub, are displaying even less empathy toward fellow human beings than usual -- which is saying something.

You're seemingly fine with expediently eliminating "non-essential" jobs by starving job holders, when the jobs were created by ... wait for it ... the two-party duopoly. Can you explain to me why this process cannot be a process, rather than collateral damage suffered by de facto hostages, and for a reason (a wall) that has nothing whatever to do with your "small government" mantra?

Doesn't it contradict this mantra?

My friend Amanda wrote at Fb. My boss Joe was spot on: enough is enough.

---

So today my husband- the FBI agent one who is currently working without pay- was told if we miss another paycheck due to the shutdown we lose our vision and dental insurance. Yeah.

I phoned my congressional representatives Senator Young, Congressman Hollingsworth and Senator Braun. I've emailed them before. This time I invited them to dinner.

Not one of them seems to care about out situation. Nor do them seem to want to respond to me or my family, their constituents.

If you can, give them a call & tell them your displeasure in their inability to even call or email back those of us who are affected by their actions. You might want to throw in that they need to do their jobs when my husband is doing his without pay. Their phone numbers are below. Let them know Amanda Beam sent you.

(And please be nice to those answering the phone. Sen. Young and Rep. Hollingsworth's staff were very kind and did a great job. I even told them to go grab a beer. Sen. Braun's assistant made ME want to grab a beer.)

Senator Young: 202-224-5623

Senator Braun: 202-224-4814

Representative Hollingsworth: 202-225-5315

Choosing between Donald Trump and Jeff Bezos is like the choice of Pabst or High Life. It's no choice at all.

Center of the target.

Trump's enemy is not your friend: why we shouldn't defend Amazon, by Thomas Frank (The Guardian)

Why must we choose between the worst president of our lifetimes and one of the most rapacious corporate enterprises in the country?

... Confronting concentrated, autocratic economic power is what Democrats used to do. It was the definition of the species. They fought against monopolies in oil and food and transport that ripped off producers with one hand and consumers with the other. But now it’s Trump who, in his clumsy and authoritarian way, is trying to swipe that legacy.

I am making a tricky point here, so let me be clear: I don’t like Amazon, and I don’t like Donald Trump either. I would approve enthusiastically if a president started enforcing antitrust laws, but that’s not what Trump is proposing to do. What we are being offered instead is a choice between the worst president of our lifetimes and one of the most rapacious corporate enterprises in the country. And, eagerly, we are lining up with one or the other.

This in turn seems to me an almost perfect representation of the wretched choices available to Americans these days, as well as the megadoses of self-deception we are swallowing in order to make them. It is everything that is wrong with our politics, and it extends from the most sweeping matters of state right down to the individual reader.

The brutal conclusion:

And this is where we are now in the world’s greatest democracy. We have the billionaire Republicans, with their bigotry and their war on all things public, and the billionaire Democrats, with their oblivious ideology of globe and technology. To the common people, assembled in all our majesty, the momentous question is posed: who do you hate more?

Democrats complete the Sanders purge, thus remaining dead to me.



The Democrats remain dead to me, and the Republicans are dead to me, too. A grand total of two types of soup on offer, and me with my fork.

---

Tom Perez Narrowly Defeats Keith Ellison for DNC Chair, by John Nichols (The Nation)

To succeed, Perez must ally with the grassroots activists who are more concerned with principles than with partisanship.

---

'Incredibly Disappointing': Democrats Choose Tom Perez to Head Party, by Andrea Germanos (Common Dreams)

DNC 'chose to continue the failed Clinton strategy of prioritizing wealthy donors over the activist base'

---

The Wrong Way to Rebuild the Democratic Party, by Leah Hunt-Hendrix (Politico)

Democrats need to embrace a new vision. That means dumping the failed leaders of the past—including David Brock.

"A debate between Clinton, Trump, Johnson, and Stein would represent an even greater improvement."

The argument for debate inclusion is simple, logical, and accessible to even the most partisan among you; the 15% poll threshold is purely arbitrary, we need broader political engagement, not narrower, and if a third party or independent candidate is able to land on enough state ballots to theoretically have a chance of winning, what's the issue?

Apart from the needs of the two-party duopoly, that is.

Jill Stein Should Be Part of a 4-Way Presidential Debate, by John Nichols (The Nation)

Even those who do not back third-party contenders should recognize that open debates are vital for robust democracy.

 ... But this is an uncommon year in American politics. Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson has already getting close to the political high ground where a third-party candidate is treated as seriously as the nominee of one of the two major parties. And Stein is climbing as well, having just appeared on CNN for a prime-time special highlighting her candidacy. Stein’s progress is significant because, in order to have a real debate in American politics, it is vital to include voices from across the political spectrum.

A debate featuring Democrat Hillary Clinton, Republican Donald Trump, and Johnson would represent an improvement on what we have seen in recent presidential races.

A debate between Clinton, Trump, Johnson, and Stein would represent an even greater improvement.

Henderson ethics, schMETHics: Matt Oakley challenges the Floyd County power duopoly. Matt Oakley loses. Turn the page.

On Tuesday evening, county government's entertainment cauldron threatened to approach full boil. It didn't, and the crisis of adulthood passed, but the squirming was chuckle-worthy.

Seems that council member Matt Oakley had announced his determination to shine a light on star prosecutor Keith Henderson's ethical lapses ...

Matt Oakley's assessment of the prosecutor's ethical breakdown doesn't stop with Keith Henderson.

 ... and precisely because other county government operatives were complicit in the containment effort, there was little chance Oakley's resolution would succeed, and it died for lack of a second from any one of the council's four Republicans (Oakley's probably a Maverick Independent by now) and two Democrats.

But of course it died. There is nothing a two-party power duopoly resents more than someone standing outside the fixed system of elites, peskily suggesting that those reposing within the circled wagons undertake the reform of themselves.

Trust me. I know this.

Even the nominal council "Democrats" were having none of it. Brad Striegel and Tom Pickett stared off zombie-eyed into the distance, and why not? Purported Democrats always have played a prominent role in county council's dysfunction, which may or may not be cured by an influx of hospital sale cash. Dixiecrat-wing (nut) heavies Ted Heavrin and Larry McAllister merrily pinched the feeding tube for decades, and were venerated by the self-styled urban Rockefeller "liberals."

On rare occasions one is covered with glory, but more often in dog poo. City council wouldn't police Dan Coffey, and county council will leave Henderson to his own devices, which we can only hope will be culminate in disbarment.

With those Baptist hospital proceeds burning holes in the pockets of all involved, who needs to be reminded about ethics?

Floyd County prosecutor won't have to pay back cash; Resolution asking Keith Henderson to repay legal fees fails, by Papa (Hanson Hole Puncher)

NEW ALBANY — A resolution demanding Floyd County Prosecutor Keith Henderson pay back $27,539 in funds used for his legal fees died for a lack of a second Tuesday night at the Floyd County Council meeting.

Councilman Matt Oakley introduced the resolution. He said Henderson received two payments, for $10,000 and $17,539, for his own personal legal fees and those funds should be repaid.

WITHIN CITY LIMITS: Episode X, A Look Ahead to 2019.

WITHIN CITY LIMITS: Episode X, A Look Ahead to 2019.

By Nick Vaughn, Guest Columnist

My past few articles have been about national politics; ironically, outside of our city limits. I thought that it would be fitting that this week, I completely ignore the Republican National Convention, and take a look ahead to the City Election in 2019. I am going to throw out some way-too-early predictions, do some issue analysis, and even possibly make some endorsements.

Who will be running for Mayor?

The showdown for Mayor of New Albany will be a competitive one, I foresee. I will start off by saying that I do not think Jeff Gahan will be running for a third term (because he really shouldn’t be), three 4 year terms is slightly unprecedented, only one Mayor has served more than two consecutive terms.

C. Pralle Erni served from 1948­-1963, enough time to make any follower of Jeffersonian Democracy shiver. (By the way, I found this cool excerpt about Mayor Erni from a book by Gregg Seidl, which you can read here. Beware though, annexation is mentioned!) So, although there is precedent for Gahan to run for a third term, I do not think he will. He will have been much too busy running for State Senate the preceding year.

So who will be running for Mayor? Well, on the Republican side I think there are three obvious candidates who would be formidable in a Mayoral campaign. They are listed in likelihood of winning: Dr. Al Knable, Dave Barksdale, and Dave Aebersold. It should be noted that in the 2015 City Election, Dr. Knable received 3,403 and Mayor Gahan received 3,527. A great showing that I think proves the popularity of Dr. Knable in a citywide election. But don’t count out the Daves either. They received 3,365 (Barksdale) and 3,012 (Aebersold), respectively, enough to easily dispose of their Democrat opponents. Oh, and if you want to reminisce a bit about 2015, you can view the Summary Report here.

Each Republican Councilman has a lot to be excited about with regard to their vote totals and Mayoral aspirations (if they have any). The Democrats, not so much. While they hold a slight majority on the City Council, none of the Council Members really scream “I could win in a race for Mayor!” The obvious choice on the Democratic side based on office rank would be Pat McLaughlin, Council President, but that just makes me giggle.

Greg Phipps, to me, could make a decent run at it, but does he have the name ID outside of his safely Democratic District? And who runs for that seat if he decides to vacate it? It seems to me that each member on the Democratic side would create a domino effect by vacating their seat to run for Mayor. All that being said, the Mayor’s Office is ripe for the taking for Republicans.

What about the City Council?

Obviously, the big question mark is under what party, if any, does Dan Coffey run? In my opinion, I am not sure it really matters which party because I think it will be very hard to find a candidate to run against him ... again. As Dale Bagshaw would say: “That’s almost un-American to have someone run unopposed.” I agree Dale! Regardless, Coffey is a renegade and will be fighting his fights no matter what party.

Like the Mayor’s Office, the other City Council seats are ripe for the taking by Republicans. Last election showed that Republicans can win in the City, and Democrats should be scared. District 6, 5, 3, and 2 are the most likely to flip this time around. Not sure who will be running in those Districts, but I do know the key to winning for the Republicans. The silver bullet that will put each incumbent out of office (at least in those numbered Districts).

It is ... Two-­Way Streets.

For what will be 8 years in 2019, Greg Phipps has said that we will fight for Two­-Way Streets (where feasible); Scott Blair will abstain, I’m sure; and Bob Caesar hasn’t fought for them at all. This is why I think 2019 will be a Republican wave. Those that I named have been inactive on Two-­Way Streets, when some said they would act. Some don’t want them. Some just haven’t cared to mention anything about them.

If the Republican candidates rally around this issue and have a good message on other important issues like a transparent government, curbing poverty, and fiscal responsibility, I think that the 6th, 5th, 3rd, and 2nd Districts will flip Republican. To point out, Two­-Way Streets are something some Republican
candidates have supported in the 2015 election, most notably Dr. Knable, who could lead the party in rallying around a great platform that would prove successful in the fall.

Democrats, be scared. Republicans, be ready and able. New Albany, GET OUT AND VOTE! 2019 is right around the corner!

And as always, I leave you with the quote of the day:

“ ... there will be a giant sucking sound​going south.” (to Greg Fischer’s house ... ) ­ -- Ross Perot

Two entrenched political parties are the problem, not the solution.

Photo capriciously cribbed from the interwebz.

It's a long read, and worth it.

We've already had lengthy discussions on social media about the points herein, and as the days pass, my determination is solidified. I've spent too many years voting "against" one side even when the other sickened me. It won't happen again.

If I can't be "for" one of the two major political parties, both of which are rotten and monetized to the core, then there are alternatives. The sooner we reject the two-party duopoly, the better. I don't need national examples to assist this conclusion. The local ones work just fine to inspire revulsion.

This article is an epiphany for me, but as the author notes, it's an expression of personal conscience. Vote as you will, according to your conscience.

To Leave the Future Open: On the False "Choices" of Election 2016, by Kay Whitlock (Truthout)

Something's hidden behind the curtain of the looming 2016 presidential election that the national leaders of both entrenched political parties don't want us to see.

It's the future.

Not just the near future, but the one that will ripple on into history, the one that will do so much to define the age in which we're living. It's the ideas and vision that will frame and shape and animate that future, which has two possible trajectories. One future undermines possibilities for starting to dismantle structural forms of racial, gender, economic, and disability-related violence and for realizing a much truer exercise of democracy while the other strengthens them.

That's why I'm #notwithher when I cast my vote in November 2016.

I've already said publicly I will not vote for Hillary Clinton if she's the nominee of the Democratic Party. This is not a decision made lightly.

But it is the only right decision for me ...

The Baylor for Mayor meme, November 3: Election Day and a few words from Drew Curtis.

Drew Curtis, founder of Fark.com and a candidate for the governor of Kentucky, offers an excellent essay about what he's learned on the campaign trail. There are many analogies with New Albany, and in fact, my only major regret this year is that I was unable to make it to the Public House in September when Curtis was there. Please click through and read the complete piece. It's a must.

Someday, Tech Will End Our Dumb Two-Party System, by Drew Curtis (Wired)

I NEVER THOUGHT I’d run for public office.

Of course I never thought I’d found an irreverent news site called Fark.com, run it for 16 years and counting, write a book, fight off a patent troll, go to business school at age 38, and do dozens of other things. But even two years ago I would have considered myself the furthest thing from a politician.

Nevertheless tomorrow, when Kentucky voters head to the polls, they will see my name on the ballot, as an Independent candidate for governor.

My friends thought I was insane to do this—why take on a year’s worth of tedious work to fight for a job taking on problems that likely can’t be fixed? Well, like pretty much all of us, I feel like the political process isn’t representing our interests. A couple of parties dominate the process, limiting choice and grappling for power instead of trying to solve real problems. But at Fark, I have seen how effective the Internet can be at taking down entrenched gatekeepers and empowering regular people. So this year, I decided to see if I could harness that power toward changing politics.

I based my run on a theory: that the Internet and social media have finally made it possible for a third party candidate to win. Regardless of how things turn out, I’m convinced I was absolutely correct. And I’m also convinced you’ll see more candidates like me in the near future. As a matter of fact you should consider being one of them. To help you in your run, here are some lessons I’ve learned along the way.

The Baylor for Mayor meme, October 14: Ideas, not political party machines.

From August 14, 2015:

ON THE AVENUES: It’s time to purge two-party politics and tie the community together.

ON THE AVENUES: It’s time to purge two-party politics and tie the community together.

ON THE AVENUES: It’s time to purge two-party politics and tie the community together.

A weekly web column by Roger A. Baylor.

I’m running for mayor of New Albany as an independent candidate in order to provide voters with a choice.

It’s as simple as that.

It is my core conviction that locally, we have a two-party system standing for very little in terms of coherent platform principle, apart from doing whatever is necessary to preserve its shared monopoly of power.

Republicans have the county, Democrats the city, and while professing an inability to speak on behalf of Republicans by virtue of not being one, I can truthfully say that as a lifelong left leaner who is liberal, progressive and entirely unembarrassed about it, the upper echelons of the Floyd County Democratic Party have become completely unglued. They may say things vaguely in keeping with their professed affiliation, but actions (and inactions) always speak louder than mere words.

It took them three months to comprehend and approve a street piano. ‘Nuff said, except there is far, far more.

Again and again during Jeff Gahan’s term, I’ve waited for this self-described Democrat to do something remotely democratic, to illustrate an open and public understanding of his party’s core concepts as they pertain to the legacy of leaders like Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Baines Johnson, of the New Deal, and the Great Society, and to pay them more than periodic lip service.

But Gahan has been a profound, crushing disappointment, seemingly viewing himself first and foremost as a celebrity, a concert promoter and a theme park operator, perhaps an amalgam of Elvis, PT Barnum and Walt Disney, seeking to buy affection by incessantly pointing to the many nice things he’s purchased on credit, to be paid by the grandchildren of his current fans.

Sound bites and catch phrases always are substituted for substance. Surrounded by a closely knit group of self-interested handlers, Gahan babbles about the “business of residency,” “ripple effects,” and “where you should be,” showing nary a hint that he comprehends to any appreciable degree the ongoing, degraded condition of large tracts of urban space comprising his imagined Magic Kingdom.

Obviously Gahan venerates Louisville’s mayor, Greg Fischer, whose shameless glorification of crony capitalism and corporate welfare handouts rival those of Ronald Reagan. If it’s not big and expensive enough to warrant a self-congratulatory plaque, it’s not worthy of a moment’s consideration. At least Fischer has the panache to play a rock star on television.

Meanwhile, Gahan fancies himself a Democrat.

What has he done to address the first fundamental need, as opposed to his laundry list of TIF-bond-funded wants?

What has Gahan’s City Hall done for the people in New Albany who need help the most?

Has Gahan exhibited the slightest indication that he knows these people even exist, apart from offering them bread and circuses?

It would not surprise me at all for a Republican to govern in this fashion, and therein lies a basic truth: Gahan has behaved in so thoroughly a Republican way that if you are a Democrat, and genuinely believe in the principles espoused by the Democratic Party nationwide, then the only candidate in this race who can be relied upon to govern as a Democrat, democratically, is the Independent.

That would be me, and to repeat, I’m running for mayor of New Albany as an independent candidate in order to provide voters with a choice. Otherwise, we have none … especially if you’re a Democrat.

As a city, we cannot afford four more years of Jeff Gahan, but the rot is considerably deeper than fiscal, and those tens of millions of dollars in bonded debt he has accumulated during his sole term.

From the inception of this blog in 2004 to the present day, the Democratic Party machine has remained pre-eminent, with Gahan himself burrowed deeply within the apparatus, and yet almost everything positive accomplished during this time has come in spite of the party machine, not because of it. It is exhausting to wrestle progress from the cold, dead hands of big fish in small ponds, and yet each step of the way, it’s been the default mechanism in New Albany.

Many of us are sick of this, and it must change.

I truly believe there are alternatives to the same tired civic rituals, practiced by the usual underachieving political suspects, and which come down to three priorities. If aggressively implemented, I contend they can tie this community together and help New Albany achieve its potential.

Transparency
Infrastructure
Empowerment

Last week I promised to elaborate on ten “bullet point” Baylor for Mayor platform planks, but after much thought, I’ve decided to stop at seven. They’re inter-related, which points to something else of importance: When government acts, it should try whenever possible to multi-task and connect its actions and aims to best achieve multiple positive results. Doing so is the best use of money and time, and it doesn’t take a business person to know it. You do it in your own homes and workplaces.

City Hall can do it, too.

Honesty in government
This is job one. Jeff Gahan’s City Hall has been the least transparent in recent memory, and the consequences have been crippling. Daily information has been safeguarded like crown jewels, and far too many decisions have been taken by appointed boards, rather than elected officials. Public input has been rendered inert, either by calculated infrequency (the aquatic center and accompanying $20 million parks bond, and the Coyle site giveaway) or sheer organizational ineptitude (the three Speck meetings). It does not help that public meetings (Board of Works, Redevelopment) dealing with important decisions are held at inconvenient times for working people, and that we do not harness widely available electronic mediums to film and disseminate them.

Consequently, in the interests of greater transparency, I’ll dedicate the necessary resources to ensure robust two-way communications and conversations between the city and its citizens. My aim is equal governance and a level playing field, and so I will promote transparency every single day at City Hall, not every now and then. Finally, I will commence a deep cleansing of management level personnel in City Hall. New thinking is needed to stimulate the “same old, same old” management culture, which is in-bred and unresponsive. We’ll take applications, interview candidates, and find new talent, because our city employees already work hard. They need bosses who work smart.

Budget sanity
I support a sane, sustainable budget, something that is not currently being provided by Democrats, and which is not to be considered an exclusive province of the GOP. I will not sacrifice long-term budgetary sustainability for short-term glitz and glitter. On the one hand, Gahan’s astronomical bonded debt will be with us for decades to come, placing an ever greater strain on his illusory budgets. On the other, a Zurschmiede administration’s budgetary model would be that of Republicans in Floyd County government: Starvation rations, bread made from sawdust and the occasional corn husk. Disneyland versus North Korea? These are not the only two choices. It’s going to take an independent candidate like me to find truth between the extremes – and I will, because our real infrastructure needs will require investment.

Fix infrastructure
Maintaining the city’s public infrastructure and effectively utilizing our physical assets isn’t sexy. It’s essential, and it’s also about every single day, not every now and then. Like much of America, New Albany has neglected these fundamental needs, and yet they are the conditions that matter most right where you live. Everything else we do as a city extends from strong fundamental physical infrastructure: Streets, sidewalks, sewers, storm water and many more similar functions, big and small. These tasks comprise the city’s bones and blood.

Two-way streets are the perfect illustration: Speck them to spec, and watch as street design and expanded walkability support and enhance other measures already aimed at bolstering neighborhood revitalization, property values and independent business success – rather than actively work against them in a cloud of semi-trailer fumes and vehicular speed. It is my contention that quality of life cannot be imposed from the top down, but must rise from the grassroots up. Without better infrastructure management, this is not possible. We’ll analyze these areas from the ground up, and plan for success by design – every day, not every now and then.

Ordinance enforcement
Equal governance and level playing fields cannot be attained without consistent and principled ordinance enforcement, as applied professionally and separated from petty politics. To cite just one example, the city of New Albany still does not have a rental property registration and inspection program in the year 2015.

Here is another: Parking ordinances are enforced in some places and not others – and no one knows where the non-enforcement line is drawn. On one block, blocking the notoriously inefficient street sweeper earns you a ticket. On the next, cars are parked on the sidewalk as we look the other way. It is hypocrisy to have laws and selectively enforce them, and it is lunacy to have no laws at all covering basic human habitation of living space. It’s time to begin moving toward a government of law, not variable political whim, and it is sad that we’ve waited this long to even start.

Local economy first
There is a “boilerplate” arsenal of economic development incentives, abatements and secret handshakes that seldom if ever apply to small, local, independent business operators, builders and developers, who have been the engine of growth in New Albany at a time when old-line companies like Pillsbury are departing, and the existence of River Ridge in Clark County is making it harder to replace them. As mayor, I will put New Albany first by nurturing grassroots economic development initiatives, and spreading risks and rewards, because I believe that economic development begins right here at home, with the empowerment of our own people and a level playing field for independent local businesses.

Locally-owned businesses activity encourage recirculation and a multiplier effect, wherein more money spent locally stays in the local economy, and for a longer period. I think we can position ourselves to thrive in the changing regional economy by exploiting market niches, but it will require thinking outside self-imposed boxes, and investing in economic development by fundamentally improving our infrastructure, not building plaque-ready water parks and pandering. It’s about priorities, after all.

Democracy & social justice
Human rights are a non-negotiable mandate, whether Dan Coffey thinks so or not. Respect for human rights and freedoms, democratic principles and social justice must start with the city’s employees and appointees, who must be accountable to the very highest standards in protecting and defending the civil rights of every person in this city. City Hall also must do what it can to be cognizant of institutional racism, discrimination, poverty, income inequality, homelessness and other social issues. We cannot pretend these problems don’t exist here, and I will not pretend to have all the answers. What I can promise to do is listen long and hard, and act on what I hear. It’s about starting a dialogue, and since the two major political parties have refrained from doing so, an independent mayor will get it done.

Two way streets NOW
Gahan’s bizarre fear and timidity aside, the arguments have been made, the overwhelming fact-based evidence presented, and the case effectively closed. There is no reason whatever not to implement the Speck downtown street network proposal in its entirety at the first opportunity, toward which purpose the use of TIF bonds actually would be a fitting and proper exercise, as two-way streets would increase safety, decrease crime, and directly assist in the revitalization and quality of life of a downtown area of approximately 120 square blocks, while not impeding reasonable use of these streets by commercial vehicles.

Once Speck’s directives have been accomplished, we can begin harnessing the same principles to the corridors within the beltway, as incorporating the city’s original suburbs off State Street, Grant Line Road and Charlestown Road. I’m often asked whether I “care” as much about Klerner Lane (as a random example) as downtown. I do. Know that my business meal ticket remains a pizzeria and brewery on Plaza Drive on the north side, and that our development patterns in these areas do not preclude connectivity elsewhere.

---

This is enough for the moment, but there is so much more:

• The importance of community oriented policing.
• Infill housing to remediate intemperate demolition.
• Public art.
• Recognition of placemaking and urban design principles.
• Hiring a full-time grant writer to help fund projects.
• Internet connectivity as an aspect of vital infrastructure for people.
• The importance of historic preservation.
• Trees, shade and green thinking.

Transparency means that we’ll be having a constant conversation about the city.

Infrastructure is the fundamental propriety for things.

Empowerment is the basic prerequisite for people.

These themes are the ties that bind, and precisely because they’ve been undervalued by the two-party system, they’re ripe for improvement. It's true that as an independent mayor, I'll have no political party structure at my back, but surely this is liberating, not constraining. We'll work with those willing to work, of all political party affiliations, or none.

Thanks for reading, and your support is appreciated.

---

Recent columns:

August 10: ON THE AVENUES SPECIAL EDITION: When it comes to the RCI, can the RDA opt out of the RFRA?

August 6: ON THE AVENUES: Money is the ultimate bully.

July 30: ON THE AVENUES: Homegrown New Albany, but not in a good way.

July 23: ON THE AVENUES: A citizen's eloquent complaint about the parking debacle at River Run reminds us that planners and brooms go hand in hand.

July 16: ON THE AVENUES: Louisville Beer, then and now ... and cheers to Rotary.

July 9: ON THE AVENUES: A mayoral petition as prologue to history.