This Barksdale campaign yard sign is misplaced and needs to be moved ASAP to a better location. BTW, we have a suggestion.

This yard sign placement is egregious, don't you think?

Ah, but the Reisz Mahal Luxury City Hall, which Barksdale's critical fifth council vote enabled, is a much better location for political self-advertising when it comes to surveying the at-large councilman's legislative legacy of extravagant expenditures for wants, as opposed to needs.

All those bright, shiny, nicely perfumed objects,  and yet somehow we still have so many neighborhood properties like this one on Oak Street in Greg Phipps' 3rd council district.

Barksdale doesn't do much to help in these messy situations, and neither does Phipps, who also voted to rescue city employees from inhumane air-conditioned workspace.

The neighbors living around this house are struggling to contain the blight, without much help from the city.

Maybe if they were government workers ...

Amid Gahan's penchant for opulent municipal luxury, do we even have a word for this vista at 1730 E. Oak Street?

GUEST COLUMN: Councilmen on Reisz: "You have a duty to treat public money as the public’s money. You can’t just spend it on what you WANT."

This commentary is contributed by Randy Smith, owner of Destinations Booksellers. 

---

A fictional council member of a Second Class City in Indiana:

· I WANT to give taxpayer money to a church. Sorry, it’s not allowed under the constitutions of the United States and of Indiana.

· I WANT to give taxpayer money to a charity. Sorry. Indiana has given the trustee the ability to levy taxes for such purposes. They have not given it to you. Go talk to the trustee.

· I WANT to give taxpayer money to the schools. Sorry. If you hadn’t given up the authority to levy taxes for schools years ago, it could be done. But you did and you can’t.

· I WANT to create a public transit system with public money. Sorry, you gave that authority and all available revenues to TARC.

I WANT a new city hall. Hmmm. Do you have a need for new space? Is the space you have too small or is it unusable? Do you have financial obligations that make that too expensive? Do you have a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers that overrides what you WANT?

Guess what? If you want a new city hall, it’s not illegal. In the current circumstances, it’s evil, but it’s not illegal. Considering the vastly inflated costs, there are almost certainly individuals who can be indicted, and even if I’m wrong, it stinks to high heaven.

You have a duty to treat public money as the public’s money. You can’t just spend it on what you WANT.

Now, if you want to raise your personal pay packets, I might just come down and speak in favor of it. It certainly would improve the talent pool at election time. Then, if you WANT something, you can spend YOUR money on it. If you want to preserve old buildings, you can invest YOUR money. If you have a pet charity that involves, oh, let’s say backpacks, you’ll have extra money you can donate. Gosh, I guess if you want to give money to a church or a school, you’ll be able to.

But keep your hands off my money.

No Democrat, no Republican, no independent is looking at next year’s municipal election and saying, “You know, if those Democrats would just demolish half of all public housing, I’ll vote for them.”

No Democrat, no Republican, no independent is looking at next year’s municipal election and saying, “You know, if those Democrats would just build a new city hall, I’ll vote for them.”

Votes matter. Machines don’t. You may think you’re invulnerable from defeat. You are not. Ask the people you replaced if they thought they were popular, if they were sure they would win reelection. You may say, well, I’m a Democrat in a Democratic district. So long as I play along with the machine, I’ll be safe.”

You may be saying to yourself, “This is New Albany. This is Indiana. There won’t be any newly energized voters looking to lop off the heads of incumbents.”

You may be saying to yourself, “I’m giving up my seat after next year, but at least my name will be on the plaque for a city hall that should last a while. This ‘yes’ vote will be my legacy.”

It’ll be your legacy, alright. It will haunt you. It will diminish your reputations. This is but another in a long line of decisions made in the shadows – most of it was even kept from this body, although I can’t speak to how many private conversations with particular councilmen led to this vote.

Why do we need new space for city hall? Because Jeffersonville and Clarksville got new ones? Why are we renting such an enormous amount of space? Because the city civilian staff has tripled? Why are we choosing the Reisz warehouse? Because the developer took decision-makers on a junket to Keeneland with paid escorts? Why are we paying such an exorbitant rent when we don’t have to?

How much more are we going to pay in utilities? Who is going to perform and pay for the maintenance of this ancient building? How is security going to be handled? Are we going to replicate the guarded entrance and metal detectors at the current site? New furniture is a given, but how much MORE furniture will be needed for triple the space? Will there be a vast public hall available for public meetings, government or community? Will that public hall be designed for the broadcasting of official meetings and with a sound system that allows all in the hall to hear? Will the building have public wi-fi and will it be strong enough to accommodate hundreds?

The building exists. It is old. But in the words of Councilman Barksdale, does it even meet the criterion of “contributing?” Why have we not had a vigorous discussion of this warehouse’s historical significance? There are many buildings that have been torn down, much to the regret of historic preservationists LIKE ME. Most were torn down because the city wanted them gone, or at least, were willing to let them be. Who says this building is about to be torn down? Jeff Gahan? What the hell does Jeff Gahan know about historic preservation? Does he even give a fig?

I don’t think even one councilman is urging this building be torn down. In fact, I believe every member is in favor of the building being put to an adaptive reuse. The city can prevent demolition and if they won’t, the council can defund the administration until they comply with the council’s wishes. They can make the position of mayor an unpaid position. They can impose new restrictions on the RDA and RDC until they comply with the council’s wishes.

If every single member were in favor of this expensive relocation, would the Reisz building be the place to move?

Mr. Barksdale is so clearly compromised in this matter that he must abstain from voting, particularly if he stands ready to provide the fifth “yea” in a 5-4 vote. David, have you come to some sort of accommodation with Mr. Coffey whereby he can provide the fifth vote? How about with David Aebersold? Councilman Blair? President Knable? And if there are not even 4 “yes” votes without you, don’t tarnish your integrity. Tonight, I don’t ask you, David, to vote against this boondoggle. I insist, however, that you have such obvious conflicts of interest that you must abstain. Give up your seat temporarily and march to the podium as a citizen with a special interest and make your best advocacy case. But don’t pretend you are objective.

A 4-4 vote will set the stage for a reasonable exploration of ways to reclaim the Reisz building and to determine if a relocation of city administrative offices is wise.

NAC Guest Columnist Randy Smith: "Don’t Rush to Build Outdoor Swimming Pool."

For analysis of the 'Bune's editorial take: see Before the meeting, let's think about differing qualities of life. Thanks to Randy for writing.

---

Don’t Rush to Build Outdoor Swimming Pool

As a person of a decidedly communitarian bent, I’m usually one of “them people” who are first to call for public funding of projects and facilities that both benefit the public at large and whose costs can best be borne by the taxpayers as a whole. That is, usually I’m for it.

But I’m filled with dread at the thought that we’ll wake up some Tuesday or Friday morning and discover that the New Albany City Council and Mayor Jeff Gahan have put this community into debt to build an outdoor swimming pool.

The administration estimates that an outdoor water recreation facility will cost in the neighborhood of $9 million. Mayor Gahan has already asked the Horseshoe Foundation of Floyd County to divert a portion of their charitable giving to help foot the costs of a swimming pool.

It appears that the city wants to float a bond of about $20 million to build an outdoor pool facility, multiple fields for the local Little League affiliate, and a soccer complex at the inner-city Binford Park.

But do the people of New Albany need, or even want, a new outdoor pool? As we blow through the second decade of the 21st Century, is building a swimming pool a legitimate and equitable use of tax money?

One might say that if the nearby casino wants to pay for it (an unlikely prospect, but who knows?), then the city should immediately accept the money and build an outdoor swimming pool. I contend that even if a benefactor were to cover some or all of the costs, New Albany would be better served to spend that money on something other than an outdoor pool.

Those who might say this is a premature voice in opposition just don’t know how New Albany government works. Rather than persuade us, the mayor is relying on a long-past and little-contested campaign as his mandate to build a pool to replace the Camille Wright facility. I hardly think the voters saw Mr. Gahan’s election campaign as a referendum on whether we should go $20 million in debt for recreation projects, or even as a vote to sever the city parks from the joint city-county system.

And nothing says that the city council will do any more than the bare legal minimum before authorizing the issuance of municipal bonds to fund what may well be an obsolete project from day one.

Both Clarksville and Jeffersonville have outstanding outdoor aquatic centers. With the amount of money being proposed for a new pool in New Albany, the city could provide free admission at and free transportation to either of those facilities for every likely user of a new city pool—with no additional annual operating or capital costs, to boot.

A “spray park” along the riverfront or even multiple such parks scattered strategically around the city would be a better use of tax dollars. Let’s face it. In this day and age, an outdoor swimming pool is an albatross and I believe it’s a wasteful public expenditure.

It’s time to start a long public conversation about this to build a consensus on whether we need or even want a new outdoor pool in New Albany. Unless we have that, and unless people let their representatives know that they don’t want a new pool, my nightmare may become a costly reality. And for goodness sake, there’s no need to rush this decision. I don’t think a bond referendum would stand a chance of passing public muster, but a council that listens only to its own counsel might believe otherwise.

Note: I put a lot of skin into the game supporting the public investment in the YMCA and New Albany-owned indoor aquatic center. My wife and I fought for it politically and also made a significant (for us, at least) financial contribution toward its construction.

What's your Gahan administration wish list for 2013?

Tell Santa Claus and NAC readers what you'd like to see from Year Two of Jeff Gahan's mayoral administration.

A coherent housing strategy? 

Completed (a beginning would suffice) streets? 

Water park where the Annex used to be, or not? 

Let us know, either through comments here, at Facebook, or private messages.