After the loving: Long live the once and future King, and pity those bar owners who know so very little.

To fully and accurately document the reason why Jeff Gahan officiously ordained the removal of my considerable bulk from last evening’s shambolic city council proceedings, one would be compelled to chronicle at length Gahan’s recent inexplicable descent into legislative incoherence and his growing, almost medieval personal animus toward anyone with the temerity to note publicly that this particular successor to King Larry seems to be wearing ever fewer articles of clothing when appearing on the street.

Or, as I observed even as I was being removed, precisely how and why Gahan has traversed the territory between onetime relevance (now been there, done that, and swapped the t-shirt with Dr. Harris) and the vicinity of the dark side – where his political mail is now delivered and presumably going unread.

At any rate, it is a task that would require far more than a minute, which after a grand spanking total of one (1) public hearing on the matter of smoking within the New Albany was all the time accorded to the numerous sincere and cooperative residents crowding into a meeting room impossibly tiny in the best of times, and utterly unsuited to the three ring circus that Gahan knowingly permitted to devolve (and deprecate) on Thursday night.

If Gahan genuinely cared about the public, which convened to oppose the city's chihuahuan smoking ban (later approved by identical 5-4 votes) to the tune of around 40 speakers to 13 (by the council’s own past standards of selectivity, far more than the minimum needed to defeat the most rock solid of rezoning proposals), the meeting would have been held in a larger room on another continent, but then it would have been necessary to actually listen.

How unspeakably tedious that would have proven, hence proceedings as usual.

What struck me was that those in attendance opposed to the smoking ban for the most part graciously accepted Gahan’s one minute solution, when they really should have asked why an issue second only in vitriol to abortion and the sad history of Southern slaveholding deserved such short shrift, but nonetheless, good natured compliance was the norm.

Unfortunately, the same could not be said of the professional lobbyists in the room, those for-pay consultants that the flip-flopping ban proponent Dan Coffey formerly accused of being unreliable when comapred to his own vast reserve of knowledge on matters ranging from tobacco to kitchen utensils. Perhaps for this very reason, Coffey sat stoically and mostly silently last night, gently nuzzling his Bazooka Joe divinity degree and playing championship notepad dots while the paid pros droned far past Gahan’s purely random time length meter to the council president’s purely calculated obliviousness.

Yes, but wait. Who am I -- who are we -- to question any of Jeff Gahan’s strategies and tactics? Didn’t we get the council mantra memo, which decrees that freedom of speech in New Albany is dependent on running for office and being elected? Perhaps NAC’s loyal readers should share the frequent joy experienced by this blog’s editorial team, wherein elected officials berate us and dismiss criticism both from ourselves and the electorate in the same terms that most people denigrate houseflies or maggots, under the curious dictum that we’re mere annoyances and couldn’t possibly understand what it’s like to actually perform before the public for pay … or, as one of them recently put it, if a citizen has not run for office, said citizen should know enough to stay quiet, and barring that, ask for de facto permission before speaking aloud to the world.

Strange, isn’t it, how writing skill and the inability to respond in kind unnerves elected officials ... but, as always, I digress.

Meanwhile, understand that the straw finally breaking this camel’s/voter’s back was a five minute (at least) display of condescension from one of the paid lobbyists, who refrained from using science to illustrate the threat to workers posed by second hand smoke (award yourself a Gahan for Mayor '11 button if you dimly recall the time when SHS was the ostensible purpose of the ordinance, if entirely obscured by last evening’s theatrics), but instead aggressively attacked the pub owners present for knowing far less about the nature of their businesses than he and his statistics do.

Still wondering why I don’t blush when using terms like “health fascist”? Wonder no more.

I concede that this angered me. It still does. Had Gahan the simple courage to enforce his own rules (or, for that matter, the city’s), the lobbyist would have spoken far fewer words in a minute than in the five he was accorded, although to be honest, the words were tantamount to inadmissible, but then again, this is an illegally elected council that can’t or won’t redistrict itself in a city that can’t or won’t enforce its own laws, so what the hell: Consistency? That’s something they do over in them socialist countries after using the toilet, right?

There has been no eagerness to discuss the reality that those bar owners who stand to be hurt the most by the smoking ban are those who cater to a lower personal income strata, which itself is populated by more smokers than higher income levels. In short, the same people in need of protection from carnivorous slumlords are being told by Gahan and Co. that it’s more important to save them from themselves (save them from smoking in a bar) first and foremost, and then the rest of the public health issues will be addressed later – hey, trust us; we can’t pave the streets or resolve centuries-old sewer disputes, but we can publicly scoff at your vice even if it requires in excess of a minute … and, by the way, bar owners who have remained in business by knowing what their customers want mustn’t forget that an out-of-town dude in a bad suit always knows far more about the needs of their clienteles than they do.

One of our readers (I believe it was Ruthanne, but I may be mistaken) previously supplied the answer to the final piece of this bizarre puzzle in a blog comment. Bar owners, did you know that after this particular rug has been pulled from beneath your feet by the Ga-hanannies in local government, and should the unthinkable occur and your business actually close as a result of your no longer being able to cater to your customers, that when all is said and done, it was your own fault?

That’s right, guys and gals. According to the stats lovingly compiled by the suits from Indy, Atlanta and Tirana, you failed for one of two reasons. Either you were incompetent to begin with, or you were ready to retire, anyway. Get it? Before last evening, how many bar owners understood how very little they’ve ever comprehended about their own business matters? It’s a wonder you ever remained open in the first place, seeing how little you know. Must have been the conspiratorial nicotine in those butts, eh?

Don’t you feel better about yourselves now?

Sorry, but it’s all bullshit, plain and simple, and probably even Jeff Gahan and John Gonder – for that matter, even the saintly Jamey Aebersold -- know it, but in the end, science played next to no part in the smoking spectacle, which was about little more than creative sociological condescension and Gahan’s pathological eagerness to hang his political hat on it.

So, I snapped my fingers, King Jeff glared, and the animus was on. Rest assured, it will remain. I’ll let All4Word tell the rest of the story. His account is trustworthy. I was too busy trying to fathom the irony of the council president's empty seat to document the ejaculation.

----

For the early a.m. record: I suspect that Mr. Baylor knew he would be "ejaculated" from the meeting, but proceeded with his protest nonetheless.

A gentleman who is paid to advocate for public health (prohibitions of smoking in enclosed public spaces) attempted to squeeze in an encyclopedia-full presentation into the mandated ONE MINUTE limit imposed.

While almost no one complied, and while President Gahan wasn't particularly vigorous in enforcing his limit, this lobbyist not only presented much information quickly, but read aloud a letter from Lexington, Ky.'s vice-mayor - a man who owns 86 non-smoking franchise restaurants.

At long last, Mr. Baylor objected vocally to the filibuster. (I wanted to hear what he had to say, but I'll admit he went very long past the time limit.)

RAB, at first, politely inquired as to why this particular gentleman was being allowed to go on and on. Once Mr. Gahan identified the source of the outburst, the die was cast.

Roger escalated his complaint with each of Gahan's shoutdowns, accusing the council president of bias and favoritism and ultimately demanding of the speaker an answer to "Did you PAY for this (preferential treatment)?"

Perhaps the tipping point was when the speaker said, in effect, that the restaurateurs and tavernkeepers were gullible doofuses who were not just expressing their fears and honest opinions, but were rather the dupes of a cabal of their industrial lobbies and the tobacco companies, parroting cooked data sets as facts.

In fact, many were citing cooked or nonexistent data and expressing earnest fears and opinions.

IMHO, the speaker's accusations were permissible argumentative rhetoric - rhetoric similar to that often employed even here and more often at the trog blogs.

But to even imply that Roger was the dupe of a corporatist conspiracy (and though he was not named like other publicans, the implication/accusation was pointedly aimed a business owners opposed to the ban) was undoubtedly the last straw.

In effect, NAC's senior editor changed his game plan when the opportunity was presented. A more important point needed to be made, and he made it.

Roger dared Gahan to "ejaculate" him, and while it was unfortunate that it happened in the presence of Mrs. NAC, and more unfortunate that it meant the Publican would miss the official debate, it was Roger's choice.

Rest assured, our hero extracted every second of possible drama from the moment. The expulsion held the pomp and circumstance of a royal procession, with appropriate barbs disseminated throughout the recessional.

Roger was even accorded the honor of expulsion through the NORTH doorway, the hallowed ground of the privileged class.

I've always maintained that there is no shame in civil disobedience if you are willing to pay the price for it - arrest.

Fortunately, the disobedience was civil, so detention was not required, although I fingered my wallet for bail money, just in case.

Wife looks on appalled as senior editor ejaculated from meeting by President Gahan.

Yes, it's true. I was tossed, and the smoking ordinance passed by identical 5-4 votes.

Had I been permitted to speak, and managd to restrain myself by not pointing out that the council president's standard of fairness has sunk even lower than the subterranean bar of Larry Kochert's, I'd have said this. Note that I composed as the meeting progressed, and it's a bit sloppy. Still, for the record ...

---

Some of you may disagree, but I’m a fairly bright guy. You may dislike me, but you can’t deny that our business is a success. I think I know what my clientele wants. After all, I’m there. Paid anti-tobacco lobbyists aren’t able to make that distinction as well as I can.

Well, anyway, the council President has gotten exactly what he wanted. Why he ever wanted it remains a mystery for the ages, but there it is: Strife. Annoyance. Resident against resident. Person against person. Perhaps we might discuss abortion, or Islam, or maybe the prospects for the Kentucky Wildcats, or some other topic slightly less divisive than that of workplace smoking.

You know, it’s really crowded in this room. Apparently there was an absence of forethought on the part of the council. Perhaps it might have occurred to someone that this controversial of an issue might generate more than the usual number of people to comment.

It’s a shame, really. If the second hand smoking science is legitimate, is it really so simple that it can it be distilled into one solitary public meeting and minute’s worth of comments each from the public?

And yet a council that can’t accomplish other so-called progressive reforms – can’t even get started on matters ranging from street repaving to redistricting to rental property regulation and reform – can move this quickly on smoking in a barroom. It’s staggering.

Why this public health consideration, and not others?

Dr. Harris made a fairly good point about the voice of the people. According to the council’s own time tested precedent when it comes to zoning considerations, the biggest group in attendance always wins. By my account, we're somewhere around 40 against the ban and 13 for. That's enough to overturn any subdivision approved by the Plan Commission.

Let's see where it gets us tonight, and whether this council will be as hypocritical on this point as it is on public health.

All this smoking hullabaloo, and Pat Harrison's tow-in lot, too.

Yesterday I noted in a comment that by pressing ahead with a smoking ordinance in spite of voluminous evidence that the community in general desires concrete action on real issues rather than the symbolic smiting of the Tobacco Menace, one thing is achingly certain.

Council President Jeff Gahan apparently sought a (more) bitterly divided community, and now, that's exactly what he has delivered.

Er, thanks for that, Jeff. Now that it's here, what should we do with it?

Why CM Gahan believes that a city divided stands to assist him in "progressively" resolving the immense list of more pressing matters remains a mystery for the ages, but at least the 42 out of 50 NABC employees who already smoke will be protected from themselves, leaving unanswered the question of who will protect us from a council with such an incredibly skewed perception of what might actually be done to further the cause of New Albany … and, furthermore, how Gahan’s prioritization remotely qualifies as leadership.

The bright side? We’re not listening to Dan Coffey pontificate on abortion.

As I predicted long ago, the Greatly Unnecessary Smoking Debate of ’08 has loosened the demons within and turned citizen against citizen.

We’ve seen a local doctor berated by ranking Indiana healthcare bureaucrats and his own hospital’s management because he had the temerity to exercise his freedom of speech and publicly differ with the smoking ordinance.

Like terminal cancer patients flying to Myanmar for cold papaya presses in the absence of hope, we’ve seen local hospitality operators scrambling for a fleeting glimpse of an exemption, an exception, a grandfather clause, or something that might enable them to stave off the indignity of chasing longtime customers into the street – where those customers stand in full view of the shambolic rental properties and the numerous public health issues pervasive within, which the council continues to ignore while pursuing the smoking chimera.

We’ve laughed aloud as local postmen berate the extravagant liberal nanny faction of the council and praise the "Price is Wrong" antebellum wing as truly representative of Democratic principles, then stop in mid-sentence to hastily qualify the assertion -- well, no, I reckon Dan Coffey doesn’t fit very well into that nasty liberal side of things, naturally avoiding the obvious question: Why is Coffey, a perennially nattering nabob of negativism, a paragon of everything opposed to the way of thinking that prefaces a smoking ordinance, now posing angelically as the Blevins Memorial Swing Vote on the side of the fives?

What sort of fix is this, anyway?

We continue to see unpaved streets, unkempt properties, unlimited caviar and champagne for the slumlords, understaffed police and unrequited demands for some semblance of action pertaining to the major building blocks of a civil society, all of them gahanly tossed to the wind in favor of the concrete action best designed to attract Louisville’s television crews.

A bit of eyeliner goes along way on the tube – trust me.

Little wonder that the smoking ordinance’s council proponents, with the sole noble exception of John Gonder, have remained mum throughout. Something so suddenly crucial … and yet precisely one (1) public hearing was provided. Something so essential to the economic growth of New Albany, and yet not a soul has yet been able to answer the question of how the council’s tactical choice of smoking abatement fits into an overall strategy for civic business redemption.

The entertainment value? Second to none.

See the mayor’s looming shadow in the corner if the vote remains 5-4. Watch the elected officials squirm as the requests for exceptions and exemptions come flooding in and the council members are asked to play God by deciding which employee’s health is worth protecting, and for how long, when measured against voting intentions and the inexorable hum of those video cameras whirling, whirling, whirling.

The ultimate question has yet to be asked.

Think back to the lessons of the past in New Albany (ignoring that they’re never, ever learned), and recall that no matter the topic – NASCAR, apple pie recipes, “American Idol,” science fiction novels, quantum physics or the sex life of 17-year cicadas -- residents can rest easy, safe in the knowledge that some one, somewhere, will find a creative way of linking the topic at hand to the sewer utility.

Forever and always, we return like pre-programmed lemmings to the waste products of the citizenry, coursing lazily through a system that numerous generations of local politicians seeking reelection above all else intentionally neglected, refusing to expend dollars and political capital, and inevitably transferring the day of reckoning to future generations.

How does workplace smoking impact the sewer utility? You just know that somewhere, somehow, there’s a connection. Me? I believe the next step in the gahanic master plan has something to do with defecation.

Wait – never mind.

He already been there and done that ... right atop the redistricting ordinance.

----

Here’s Dick Kaukas’s C-J coverage:
New Albany City Council to vote on smoking ban; Backers, foes press New Albany council, by Dick Kaukas (Courier-Journal)

Photo credit: Chris D

A random thought: After an evening's pints.

After reading today's comments, especially Jon's ( at long last, recognition), I've come to an epiphany.

I realize that it isn't a perfect analogy, but in large measure, the smoking ban ordinance debate has been to me what the Scopes Monkey Trial was to H. L. Mencken.

It may be good, and it may be bad, but it is what it is. I plan on speaking tomorrow night, something I haven't done since Dan Coffey attacked reading and education back in '05.

You'll see a list to the right of matters crucial to the city of New Albany. You'll note that workplace smoking is not among these topics. Readers, if you will, please let me know what I've missed on this list. I'll read the list aloud ... and see if maybe -- just maybe -- council president Gahan blushes.

Either CM Price or Yankees great Yogi Berra said, “A smoking ban is ninety percent mental. The other half is physical.”

As previously threatened, the Tribune recently conducted a phone survey about the proposed smoking ban.

Reporter Daniel Suddeath’s on-line story yesterday about the survey contained this management insight from his boss, Steve Kozarovich (publisher and executive editor).

Kozarovich said the survey is unscientific and the newspaper had no intention of generating support for one or the other.

Thanks for that clarification. Unscientific surveys seem somehow to symbolize every shred of the smoking to date, so the more the merrier, I guess.

Now, on to the link.

Phone survey reports residents favor New Albany smoking ban, by Daniel Suddeath (News and Tribune).

THE RESPONSE

• 369 people answered a phone survey conducted by The Tribune.

• 210 (57%) support the proposed ban

• 118 (32%) oppose the ban

• 41 (11%) are undecided

Results of a smoking ban survey conducted by The Tribune show a majority of respondents favor the proposed restrictions. Calls were made to more than 1,000 residents in New Albany, with 369 people agreeing to participate and stating they are a city resident and older than 18 years of age.

For an interesting (though bone dry) insight into the telephone survey business’s thought process when it comes to the prevalence of cell phones and the concurrent decrease in land lines, go here.

Meanwhile, Suddeath unfairly ignores our fervent eagerness to read gems of wisdom from Councilman Cappuccino, and instead interviews John Gonder and Steve Price, one of whom manages coherence.

See if you can guess which one.

Two council members on opposite ends of the spectrum shared confidence in the survey. “[The results] would kind of jive with what we’ve been told,” said Councilman John Gonder, who voted in favor of the ban on first reading.

Councilman Steve Price voted against the ordinance earlier this month and plans to do the same Thursday. He said the results of the survey aren’t surprising.

“You have to understand most people don’t smoke and don’t go to your clubs and bars,” Price said. “My point was the way it is now, I just like freedom of choice.”

Wow.

Wonder what he means by that?

Readers?

Local government as carpet burn remover?

I’m always suspicious of Internet testimonials from anonymous quarters. Nonetheless, here’s one from at-large councilman John Gonder’s blog ("Smoking Ordinance") that provides a bit more grist for the muddy scrum.

---

I am writing to express my opinion and experience with the smoking ban in Louisville. I own a restaurant with bar and am thrilled with the ban.

I know that the focus of New Albany’s ban is worker protection and I believe we have taken steps to protect our staff and our customers. I know we have fewer sick days due to respiratory ailments.

I know too our customers still thank us for the ban. I don't worry about seating children near the bar because of the smoke cloud that used to be there. Older patrons who used to vehemently complain about the smoke no longer do so. No one else seems to mind stepping outside to smoke and there are no complaints.

I do not believe the ban has hurt my business and could say it has helped. I would continue no
smoking should the city do away with its ordinance.

An added bonus--I paint less often and wash windows less. There are no burns in my carpet.

If Dublin, Ireland and New York City can do away with indoor smoking, so can we. These cities have long cultural traditions of smoky bars and yet have seen the light. Even New Orleans prohibits smoking in restaurants. Are we not as forward thinking as these places? Are we less concerned about the health and safety of our employees?

Thanks for the forum and good luck in passage of the ordinance.

---

When I first read these thoughts, there was an immediate and visceral reaction that I believe is quite relevant to the smoking discussion in New Albany.

Prior to the implementation of Louisville’s smoking ban, had there been a preexisting law requiring the restaurant owner quoted above to permit smoking?

Obviously not, but you’d be forgiven for thinking so by reading his or her account. To be blunt, why didn’t the owner in question act to eliminate the scourge of indoor smoking before the city intervened to make the action (or in this case, inaction) moot? There was no law against taking those carpet burns out of the equation. Why the timidity?

In fairness, the same question might be asked of me or any other restaurant/bar owner, with a crucial difference: I’m not publicly expressing gracious relief at finally being given governmental cover for something I might have done of my own impetus all along, if so resolved.

Note yet again that customer satisfaction is not the basis for proposed anti-smoking legislation here or elsewhere, but be aware that there is some measure of personal frustration in having spent the past three years reconfiguring my own establishment to please our customers (market forces -- remember those?) by providing expanded non-smoking seating, and in doing so, succeeding in large measure without recourse to the carrot-less stick wielded by a suddenly militant city council.

Small wonder, then, that to engage in debate about smoking is to be forced to reckon at some juncture with the concept of individual responsibility. It may not be the only angle, but it is one that matters. There is indeed a slippery slope to be navigated

I still haven’t received an answer to my query from the restaurant owner quoted here, although CM Gonder quickly responded with a deft defense of the writer's position that thoughtfully referenced virtue, freedom, Civil Rights and human bondage in a manner that would elude the understanding of at least two of his fellow council persons voting against the smoking ordinance. That is appreciated, though not in the same fashion as when coming straight from the horse’s mouth.

That's okay. I can easily guess where it came from.

Yesterday at work, we looked again at options for coping with a smoking ban in the sense of constructing comfortable “most weather” (i.e., rain and cold) outdoor smoke break facilities that comply with Indiana state alcohol laws and local fire codes. My co-conspirator Lloyd agreed to undertake the research, and what we learned is that our compliance expense in the short-term probably will be at least $2,000, and perhaps as much as double that sum. I’ll split the difference, and peg it at $3,000 for a temporary solution.

Multiply that by the number of establishments in the city (not in the county, which will be unaffected by the smoking ban), and you’ll arrive at a figure that hints at the cost of the legislation as incurred by at least some of my brethren in the business. I do not cite this as an objection, merely as a fact.

Too bad there is not a concept of carrot to accompany the stick in this matter. For some local operators, the money required to cope could well be a deal breaker.

Inaugural Volksfest coming to Clay Street in Louisville this Saturday, August 23.

From the press release:

VOLKSFEST 2008: Presented by BBC and The Taprooom, New Albanian Brewing and O'Shea's

Saturday, August 23, 2008 ... 2:00 p.m. - Midnight.

On Saturday, August 23, 2008 two great breweries of Kentuckiana come together to present a fest of the people -“VOLKSFEST” 2008! Festivities are from 2:00 p.m. -midnight and will include German food, a German theme movie plus live local rock n roll!

BBC & New Albanian Brewing will be blocking off Clay Street between East Market & Main and will be spicing up a usual sleepy Saturday downtown scene. This event is open to the public and is FREE, with proceeds from food and beer to benefit Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, St. Vincent DePaul Society and Louisville Film Society Educational Arm.

Drink, Drink Bier—beers to be served will include a strong line-up of five micro Oktoberfest brews, and other special craft beers hand-selected by Louisville's “godfather of beer” Roger Baylor himself. Food will be prepared and served by local favorites O'Shea's, Monkey Wrench and Café Lou Lou, featuring: Dogs, Brats, Kraut, German Potato Salad and Big Soft Pretzels.

The “VOLKSFEST” will also feature a movie awards ceremony hosted by 48 Hours Film Project, which, will take place at dusk and will be followed by a dual screen showing of the German classic “Das Boot” presented by Louisville Film Society. German entertainment will be from 2 pm to 4 pm, and then local bands will take the stage to keep the evening rocking.

All ages are welcomed so everyone will want to be downtown for a fest of the people … VOLKSFEST 2008!

For further info on the VOLKSFEST call BBC at 502-419-2412 or 502-584-2739

Quid pro quo: Just 'cause you feel it doesn't mean its there.

It's a new week, and there are waters in need of muddying. Fortunately, I'm just the right man for the job.

To begin, and speaking personally, I’ve not once differed with the science that prefaces the city council’s “out of nowhere” workplace smoking ordinance. Me? I accept it.

At the same time, I accept that numerous hazards exist in daily life, both at home and in the workplace. It is perfectly legitimate for us to discuss how these risks are to be prioritized for the greater good of the community, to discuss these matters aloud, and to expect our elected officials to periodically emerge from the bunkers of their own making to join the conversation. It seems like a minimum standard of accountability, doesn't it?

As such, I‘ve argued that in terms of prioritizing personal risks and the city’s needs, the pro-ban council bloc’s choice of workplace smoking as the opening salvo in a campaign (real or imagined) of quasi-progressive reform for the city of New Albany is misguided and borders on the tragic, especially since far more pressing issues await the council’s attention -- and the current council has shown no more coherence than the previous one when it comes to consistency in pursuit of goals.

Furthermore, I have made the case that when the observations of science (why second hand smoke is injurious) meet the customarily greasier imperatives of politicians (the iron necessity of re-election), standards of admissible evidence quickly morph into something far broader than those cherished by the stricter legal minds among us.

To wit, while anti-smoking advocates cite science, and pro-smoking defenders cite freedoms, I’ve chosen to cite politics and the observable political precedent ... and as such, contrary to the opinions of our visiting lawyers, when the discussion turns to politics and politicians, the previous history and inclinations displayed by these politicians are absolutely germane to the topic at hand.

Absolutely.

----

Even after morning coffee and a brief perusal of the world headlines, for one to take an honest look at the political implications prefacing the city council’s Thursday smoking ordinance vote is very much like being compelled to watch one of the “faces of death” videos. You see it and are disgusted, and then you want to turn away in abject revulsion … but somehow cannot, and soon you're wondering when the liquor stores open for business.

With the first reading vote in favor of a smoking ordinance clocking in at 5-4, the unlikely swing voter becomes none other than Dan “Wizard of Westside” Coffey. That's only marginally less frightening than George W. Bush with his paw on the button.

Much has been made of the Wizard's seeming conversion to the anti-smoking ranks. I’ll only buy into it if the council chamber is thoroughly screened for raw onions and paring knives prior to any of Cappuccino’s future filibustering oratory.

Straight up: If you believe that Coffey isn’t playing his swing role for all it’s worth, and if you believe he is sincere in this sudden and unprecedented conversion to tenderhearted concern for the downtrodden low wage workers that reside in the district he congenitally neglects, all I can say is that you have not observed his council demeanor over the past few years.

Something about defecating like a duck -- and we're not talking AFLAC here.

Whatever the nature of Coffey’s current set of theatrically self-aggrandizing precepts, they’re vitally important in light of the fact that if we accept as gospel the at-large councilman John Gonder’s version of events – the smoking ordinance as a mere prelude to sweeping progressive legislation in the far more significant area of rental property regulation and code enforcement – then we must consider the circumstances and ask a perfectly plausible question.

If “progressive” reform is the strategic goal, and a smoking ordinance a chosen tactic toward that destination, in what way does the council’s smoking fixation further the ultimate aim (among others) of bringing slumlords to heel?

I’m afraid that as of yet, we have no coherent answer beyond Gonder’s own admission that he would not have chosen smoking as the “first” step along the path of progressive enlightenment. Who actually did choose it, and why? Gonder has this to say:

I never asked who brought this issue forward. My sense of it is that since the previous council had let this bill languish, Jeff Gahan wanted to resurrect it.

For the perpetually self-interested Coffey to be the swing vote in any piece of legislation styled as progressive in the barest of coherent terms surely foreshadows imminent doom, probably at the expense of something on the horizon that is far more progressive (and hence, meaningful to greater numbers of citizens) than a ban on workplace smoking.

That’s because in terms of political capital, Coffey’s cooperation on smoking undoubtedly comes at a steep price. What future consideration is being swapped in return for his crucial vote on smoking?

How does this further the cause of rental property reform, an isue of public health and safety that dwarfs tobacco?

To rely on Coffey, bar none the least principled of all local politicians, for anything at all short of crisply barbecuing the bologna is to echo the words of the Peter O’Toole character in the movie “My Favorite Year.”

You can depend on Dan Coffey – he’ll always let you down.

And yet, what amounts to the progressive bloc in city council (itself a debatable proposition, but offered here for the sake of the argument) now depends on Dan Coffey to pass the smoking ordinance – and to judge from long years of experience, Coffey will either renege on the payback or mutate it beyond recognition when the times comes to pass the basket.

The same is true of smoking ban proponents in the community. When the time comes to tackle a truly important public health issue – sub-standard housing and the reign of local slumlords – will any of the smoking ban proponents be there on the front line with good intentioned politicians like Gonder?

The Health Department?

The eccentric do-gooders?

The professional health fascism lobbyists?

Don’t hold your breath. They’ll get what they wanted on the one issue that matters to them, then melt away as fast as an April snowfall. At least it will free the council to abandon rental property reform quickly and then turn back to the sewers for another two to three years of impotence.

In short, the smoking ordinance is “one off” in council political terms, and as such, it is a grave tactical error indicative of sadly misplaced strategic priorities. It will not assist the prospects for rental property reform. It is having the effect of rallying against rental property reform precisely the same people who’d have to be brought on board to achieve the curtailment of the slumlord presence.

----

Once again, due praise to John Gonder for coming forth and joining the discussion in the blogosphere.

Too bad the same can’t be said for Coffey, Pat McLaughlin, Bob Caesar and Jeff Gahan.

How’s that list of exceptions coming along, anyway?

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?

Amazing, isn’t it?

Ask Pat Harrison about this, and she’ll respond – presumably with a straight face – that amassing hundreds of rental properties for the ostensible purpose of charging renters a fee to inhabit them, and retaining the leftover cash (commonly referred to as "profit") is somehow not the same thing as a business venture, and should not be regulated.

She has yet to divulge whether entering into such a "non-business" contract to accept payment for the daily use of a piece of property she owns should be defined as a hobby, charitable service or sexual fetish. Being perverse at heart, I’m guessing the latter.

What other crazed, biochemical impulse could possibly lead her to publicly differ with standard, accepted English usage?

All of this has quite a lot to do with the city council’s Greatly Unnecessary Smoking Debate of ’08. There’ll be more to say about this later, but for now, here’s my viewpoint:

(a) Undeniably, both workplace smoking and slumlord proliferation pertain to public health.

(b) Of the two public health issues, curtailing slumlord proliferation through rental property regulation and overall code enforcement stands to be of greater benefit to all, as opposed to merely some, city residents.

(c) Assuming (as CM John Gonder informs us) that there indeed exists a city council voting bloc that is genuinely concerned with public health issues (not so fast, Dan Coffey – your conversion to tender concern is a transparent ruse), it has been a potentially critical tactical mistake to select workplace smoking as the first public health task to be addressed, primarily because it will alienate the same people who must be brought aboard when it’s time to bring slumlords to heel.

As the only pro-ban council member with the courage to venture into the blogosphere and engage in discussion, Gonder has assured his readers that meaningful rental property reform will be achieved shortly, and that we should give the present council time to facilitate the kneecapping of slumlords -- something that, given the proclivities of past New Albany councils, will be regarded as miraculous when and if it finally occurs.

Meanwhile, precious political capital is being expended to achieve the smoke-free workplace and permit Jamey Aebersold to once again play Hughie's.

Will enough remain in the council’s collective wallet to ensure the long overdue regulation of Ms. Harrison’s non-business fetish?

REWIND: "The Ballad of Ronnie Drew" draws to a close with the Irish folk legend's death.

Late Saturday night I googled “Dubliners”, the venerable Irish folk band, in the hope that their 2008 tour schedule might include European environs in September.

Scanning the results, I was crestfallen to see something posted only moments before: Dubliners’ folk hero Drew dies (Guardian)

There's a wonderful Irish appreciation here: Memories of a bearded prophet who remained a real aul Dubliner; The oceanic thunder of Ronnie Drew's voice stilled my childish play from a young age (Independent)

And so another iconic musical legend has passed, and with his departure another shred of my carefree youth exits as well.

You may remember my writing about Ronnie Drew earlier this year. Here’s the reposting.

---

It's St. Patrick’s Day, and with it those tasteless annual outbursts of shamrock-mounted hokum and green-colored beer that the genuine Irish themselves somehow manage to tolerate with good humor and grace, although the fact remains that the vast majority of American revelers on amateur’s (day and) night out never give a thought to the history and culture of the island.

(See ERIN GO BLAH, posted last year at my beer blog.)

If there’s a drop of Irish blood in me, I can’t prove it, and yet raw facts never stood in the way of a good story or a good song, and during the handful of times I've counted myself fortunate to visit Ireland, it was an absolute imperative to stop, smell the malt and learn. If you haven’t been there, try to go. Listen, and let the place grab you.

It seems that everyone in Ireland has a tale to tell or a tune to sing, and I suspect that the country's recent prosperity hasn’t changed the paradigm one single bit. To listen to our native tongue spoken like the Irish do is both magical and downright sensual, and it’s damned hard not to love a people with poetry running so vivdly through their veins.

And so I’ve tried to love the Irish while detesting the way that St. Patrick’s Day has come to symbolize the very worst about the American custom of distorting reality for the sake of commercialism, and it has seemed to me axiomatic that I’d not experience anything to melt my heart come March 17, but as so often is the case, a piece of music has gotten my attention and it won’t let go.

Specifically, it is a loving tribute to Dubliners founder Ronnie Drew, the grand old man of Irish folk music, who has been suffering from cancer. Participants include U2, the Dubliners, Shane McGowan and Sinead O’Connor. Yes, the sentimentality is way over the top, but it is accompanied by a sincerity that moves this cynic to the bar for another Guinness. Enjoy the video, and remember: Friends don’t let friends drink green beer.



Direct link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGNxz7zeU10

Councilman John Gonder: Unafraid to publicly discuss the smoking ban.

At-large councilman John Gonder has accepted NAC's challenge to engage in public dialogue about the smoking ordinance, and I respect him for doing so. Visit John's blog to join the discussion:

Smoking Ordinance

Why doesn't the council's Pro-Bloc face the public with its smoking ban reasoning?

It occurs to me that New Albany’s Greatly Unnecessary Smoking Debate of ’08 hasn’t been much of a debate at all, at least where the public is concerned.

When all is said and done, and if the city council stumbles through second and third readings of the ordinance next Thursday, all of it will have come down with precisely one -- one – (1) -- public meeting on the topic, and with public speaking/discussion sessions during only two actual council meetings.

As we know, council protocol for public speaking time limits citizens to five minutes. However, this being New Albany, the limit is rarely universally enforced. I’m betting that this coming Thursday, it will.

Apart from at-large councilman John Gonder, who contributed a comment to NAC on Thursday, the council's Pro-Bloc seems uninterested in public dialogue of any sort. We can only speculate as to why it has refrained from facing voters en masse in the way that fellow council members Steve Price, Jack Messer and Diane Benedetti did earlier in the week when explaining their opposition to the ban.

To be sure, irony abounds in 3rd district councilman Steve Price’s decision, at long last, to take an interest in a cause beyond his preferred hobby of voting against things for kicks.

Because Price long ago placed concrete shoes on the notion that he’ll ever give a damn about actually improving his neighborhood, virtually any cause will suffice as evidence of a pulse, and while smoking rights isn’t the noblest available, credit him with the chutzpah to go out, beat the bushes, and rally people to his flag. Price may not grasp the science involved, and in this, he’s far from alone. But he’s exposed his neck.

Here, strangely, the Siamese Councilmen finally part ways. While utterly clueless as to cause and effect, Price’s “freedom for the people” stance is fully consistent with his five-year-long regressive council nap. On the other hand, Dan Coffey’s flagrant hypocrisy, while mildly progressive in some obscure way, can’t be playing very well on the West Side with the nicotine-inspired voters he routinely patronizes.

Meanwhile, with precious little public input, the Pro-Bloc apparently has no plans to greet the people and defend their position, even if the occasional surreptitious cocktail party with our area’s professional health fascism lobby can’t be ruled out.

As I stated yesterday, color me not only skeptical, but contemptuous. When all this newly minted concern for public health coalesces into unified opposition to New Albany’s time-honored slumlord entitlement program, I’ll be a believer. When I see the health department, the drug task forces and Coffey passionately defending the right of the public to basic living standards, I’ll be a believer.

Until then, it’s a random spinning of the “we really care” wheel, and I’ve no choice except to muddy the scrum.

Logically speaking, all businesses should buy state tobacco licenses and become retailers, right?

Yesterday’s post about New Albany’s ongoing Greatly Unnecessary Smoking Debate of ’08 generated a plethora of comments, and I’d say that more than a few cans of worms were opened.
Council smoking farce: I'm taking it personally, too.

I read the essay aloud last evening on New Albany Now (blog talk radio), and Randy Smith provides this link if you wish to hear the spoken word.

Today, let’s focus on the comments generated yesterday. On the topic of the proposed ban’s effect on business, Ruthanne wrote:

Many businesses close because they were already struggling and/or the owners were ready to retire or move on.

Recall that in yesterday’s piece, I wrote:

The impact may indeed be short-term for my own business, but in an uncertain economy, and with consumers beset by rising prices, who among us should be forced by legislative fiat to make such a short-term sacrifice?

Quite frankly, the more I thought about Ruthanne’s comment last evening, the more puzzled I became. There is no way of knowing whether her “struggling … ready to retire” statement is true or not, although I’ve heard it repeated often by the pro-ban lobby both here and elsewhere. One thing that strikes me is that anyone repeating it without forethought may well have never owned a business.

As an example, the owners of the B & B tavern recently moved from Main Street to a new location, the former Stan's. I don’t know them personally, and they don’t run the type of tavern I favor, but those two points matter very little. It is clear from their comments to the Tribune that they believe the vast majority of their clientele to be smokers, and given the necessity of any business owner knowing his or her market, they obviously included this observation – this market research – in their plan of operation.

Also, they've just moved to the new location. Anyone who knows anything about such matters realizes that whether starting up fresh or moving, it's a big challenge for a business at the beginning.

Now, with little warning, the owners of the B & B are being told that their smokers will not be welcomed inside. There isn’t much space at the site to build a grandiose outside area, as might be possible at my own business, and anyway, they may not have any cash left to do it after the move.

So, having established that they're "already struggling" because they've only recently started anew, and now that they’re being given a not-so-gentle governmental shove, what are we to conclude if they can’t make it?

That they were struggling, anyway?

With the unspoken corollary: They must not have been very good business people, anyway.

Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me, although I could be mistaken. Furthermore, if ban proponents are going to shrug at places like the B & B, and blame its ensuing economic misfortune on it and not the legislators yanking the rug from beneath its feet, all the while trusting that respectable people like Sam Anderson and Roger Baylor need only spend more of their bountiful money to cope with the effects of the ban, then I believe we have steamed full throttle back into elitism, plain and simple.

---

I'll confess that in order to make the following somewhat coherent, I've had to miss a few contexts on the fringe. Readers are welcomed to check back with yesterday's thread to view the overall ebb and flow. Ruthanne made the case for an exemption.

Bluegill wants no exemptions. The only one I'm aware of is tobacco stores. Unlike other businesses, the sale of tobacco products is their sole purpose. Tobacco is, after all, still legal. There are no children admitted and second-hand smoke is not an issue, as non-smokers/tobacco users would not be patronizing such a store.

My blogging partner Bluegill answered.

Whether or not non-smokers are present is not an issue, unless you're regulating preference rather than workplace safety (and claiming that smokers are less worthy of protection).

To be honest, if Kaiser's hadn't been here so long, I don't think that provision would have been included. Even Tommy pointed out that his exemption was bollocks.

The fact that some of the council smiled and nodded as if to say "you're welcome" when he said thanks for exempting his family from the law was a pretty pathetic display of either contempt for equality or supreme ignorance.

BTW, if tobacco is the root of all the problems you say it is, why, of all people, should the council single out the family that makes its living by selling it for exemption? Shouldn't they be trying to drive them from our midst in the interest of public health and medicare savings?

Not all tobacco users smoke and there are plenty of other businesses besides tobacco stores where all or a majority of the employees smoke. How many separate but equal situations do you want to endorse? ...

... At this stage of the game, not a single council member gets it. Make it fair or don't do it. Given the majority's constant CYA maneuvering, I guess we shouldn't be surprised.

Maybe we should get Jamey Aebersold to advocate for code enforcement. Do the Kaisers own any rental property?

Bluegill continued to explore elitism.

You all can argue as much as you want but, as long as the ordinance contains the type of exceptions and exemptions that (councilman) John (Gonder) has already voted for once, the ban isn't about public health. It's about personal preferences.

If it's about public health, then all workers must be protected and not just some, unless John and others would like to explain why some lives are worth more than others. That's what the proposed ordinance says, and that's elitist.

He went on to elaborate:

What a lot of this boils down to is the ability to pass ordinances at little to no financial cost.

Like many other ordinances on New Albany's books, the smoking ban (no matter how it's written) is destined to fail in implementation because there's no one to enforce it.

Hell, ban walking and we can all wave to each other as we pass on the sidewalk, just like we've always done.

We'll know the majority of the council is sincere about anything having to do with public health when they agree to pay for enforcement.

We'll know they're sincere about the law at all when they agree to legally and equitably redistrict and at least act like the foundation of democracy means anything to them.

Until then, ANY law they pass will be a matter of saying that everyone should be required to follow the rules except them.

If that's not hypocritical and elitist, what is?

And, Bluegill concludes:

Whether or not an exemption filled ban could withstand a direct legal challenge (and I don't think it could based on the (Louisville) precedent that Roger mentioned on-air) is only part of the picture.

If smoking ban foes are clever enough, they'll also challenge this council's authority to enact any legislation.(Better to do it now than to wait for the slumlords to do it.)

In order to rebuff that challenge, the council would have to prove that their authority was granted through a legal election process. They can't really do that.

I'm intrigued, also, by Randy's on-air assertion that if an exception was made to the ban, he'd immediately insist that he, too, be granted the sovereignty to decide the smoking issue for his own business. But, he says here in print that he supports the ordinance as written.

Why do the exemptions in the current ordinance not matter? Or why would new ones matter more or less?

Re: the vote argument- I would hope that most sensible citizens and, quite frankly, our attorney friends especially, would spend their time and talents arguing that everyone should be treated equally under the law rather than trying to justify why they're not.

Then again, Jerry Ulrich may have more job security than anyone in town. The way things are going, the next vote might be to dedicate EDIT money to the council's legal defense fund.

Louisville Vanguard Cinema event TONIGHT!

The backers of Louisville Vanguard Cinema are holding a fundraiser tonight, and NABC beer will be available.

It's the first event for the embryonic "local dine-in, drink-in, dual-screen independent cinema," which at the moment is a concept waiting for backing. It's also NABC's first official Kentucky appearance since being approved for distribution in the Commonwealth through the River City wholesaling house.

I wrote about the cinema project a couple months back: Coming soon: Louisville Vanguard Cinema ... and good beer there, too.

Council smoking farce: I'm taking it personally, too.

You may agree or disagree with what I write, but you can’t say I didn’t warn you when it comes to the misbegotten direction of New Albany’s Greatly Unnecessary Smoking Debate of ’08.

As reported in yesterday’s Tribune, on Tuesday evening three of the four council persons voting against President Jeff Gahan’s cynically calculated smoking ordinance met with opponents of the ban, and public discussion began in earnest as to a politically expedient softening of the ordinance’s reach.

In blunt terms, this means that the council Nay-Bloc’s appearance, while well intentioned, duly initiates the process of harried last-minute horse trading for exemptions and exceptions to the ordinance’s scope. Once in progress, this bargaining will have the effect of dividing the opposition against itself – surely playing to the ultimate goal of the council’s Pro-Bloc – while placing the council itself in exactly the position I predicted it would be.

The council will be playing God, which of course fits snugly within the confines of Dan Coffey’s Bazooka Joe divinity school diploma, but should frighten the living daylights out of the rest of the city of New Albany and anyone else as close as Pyongyang and Zimbabwe.

Here’s how.

When the topic of exceptions and exemptions comes up, one must remember that the conceptual basis of the argument against indoor smoking is secondhand smoke, and its health effects on humans. The smoking ban lobby's case hinges on secondhand smoke in workplaces only, and not on individual freedoms and consumer choice, considerations that have been proven to be capable of bypassing when there is an overarching concern for workplace safety.

(As an aside, I've always found it odd that if this is indeed the case, OSHA as yet does not purport to regulate workplace smoking. But I digress.)

As temperatures rise, and with the jockeying for placatory exemptions and exceptions soon to resemble an outdoor volleyball match between drunken sand crabs, the council will be asked to decide which employee better deserves protection in the workplace -- the waiter in the smoke-free restaurant dining room, or the bartender barely visible behind nicotine clouds? Naturally, there is a hazmat electoral corollary. Which of the two is likely to cast a ballot … and in which direction?

Of course, this Solomon-like distinction (health, not votes) is an impossible one for any mortal to make, and far more so for a council congenitally challenged by the fundamental precepts of scientific evidence and logical consistency – dare I say, by the very precepts of higher education itself.

At the same time, there is an eerie scent of political co-dependence in the air. It is an open secret that Mayor Doug England is considering a veto of the council’s smoking ordinance, but the mayor is a politician, too, and until the lung damage credits are blithely swapped around in the council chamber, he’ll be unable to gauge the political efficacy of a veto. The vote last week was 5-4 on a first reading, meaning that if the totals hold through second and third tallies, at least one council person saying “nay” would have to flip over to the “aye” side for 6-3 veto kill.

Will he veto, or won’t he? Only the Shadow knows (and I don’t mean Carl Malysz, campers).

Pondering these many sub-topics, the question to me remains one of sensible proportion in the context of smoking as one of many potential problems faced by the city during tough economic times.

By most accounts, the council’s August 4 work session on the general topic of code enforcement, substandard housing and rental property regulation – essentials for any public official claiming (sans hypocrisy) to be concerned about public health – went swimmingly.

At the same time, the intellectual vacancy of Dan “Wizard of Westside” Coffey’s ability to now be for public health (workplace smoking) and against it (rigorous code enforcement) simultaneously is far more indicative of the council’s previous habits of non-thought than could possibly be rectified by one election cycle and the overdue departure of professional wannabeen “policrites” like Larry Kochert.

The Floyd County Department of Health stands similarly exposed, at least in my mind. As reader Ecology Warrior recently pointed out, local health officials find it somehow far easier to stridently support the smoking ban than to take responsibility for helpfulness on mosquito (West Nile, anyone?) eradication.

I may be mistaken, but I can’t recall the department taking a coherent position on the myriad public health issues engendered by uncontrolled slumlords and substandard housing in the traditional absence of code enforcement. The same can be said for the various “drug” eradication bureaus and free-lance health crusaders.

Will they be there to lend their concerned voices to the imperatives of public health and safety when the topic turns away from bars and restaurants, which after all are indicative of voluntary discretionary spending on the part of the citizenry, and toward prying long overdue rental property reforms from the cold, dead hands of the likes of Pat Harrison, owner of as many rental units as George W. Bush has malapropisms?

I’ll not be holding my breath on that one. Surprisingly enough, the reason for my skepticism was best stated by a pseudonymous commenter at Mrs. Baird’s blog:

Most of the people that vote these bans into law simply see this as a chance to "stick it" to smokers, whom they view as second class citizens, and it's personal.

Yep, and the key word here is personal.

Once introduced in ordinance form, the anti-smoking argument on behalf of objective science always mutates into one of personal preferences -- of what I like versus what you like.

Wouldn’t it be wondrous to see, for once, the righteous indignation of nanny health fascism focused against the slumlord class’s perpetual enrichment from substandard housing, and the same city council's long-held refusal to address it?

Hey, Dan Coffey: Is the health of a low-income busboy who can choose to work at any number of establishments more important than that of a low-income family, wedged into a vermin-ridden hole for too damned much money each month, but lacking reasonable options?

If you answer “no”, then I trust we’ll be seeing you at the forefront of the rental property regulation campaign, right?

Right.

In the end, I admit to being too sensitive to the historical precedents of the prohibitionist instinct in America. After all, my career in beer, along with my natural barroom habitat and chosen workplace, was once declared illegal, overnight, by virtue of legislation stemming from mostly well-meaning people fatally infected by the contagion of over-zealous virtue.

And, I’ll admit to having become, at long last, genuinely angry about the brazen and persistent hypocrisy of elected officials who’ll merrily sweep other public health concerns under a rug, sneer openly at the Constitutional principle of fair representation, and ignore literally dozens of pressing civic needs to embark upon a purposeless Jihad that will doubtless inflict economic hardship on my own business and my brethren in it.

The impact may indeed be short-term for my own business, but in an uncertain economy, and with consumers beset by rising prices, who among us should be forced by legislative fiat to make such a short-term sacrifice?

Until the council’s concern for public health is uniform and distributed across the city’s shoddily regulated expanse, this amazingly urgent smoking ban impetus should be viewed for what it is, and that’s diversionary, hypocritical, elitist bunk.

Indeed … the silence from the council's Pro-Bloc is fairly deafening. Can any of you step forward to differ with me?

SEJ on its way: Central city park to host festival Saturday, August 16.

The S. Ellen Jones Park is playing host to its first ever neighborhood festival this Saturday from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. with free food, music, fun activities for the kiddos, and health screenings for those of us not quite up to the 3-on-3 basketball tournament. Booths will be scattered throughout the park at 600 E. 11th Street and on 13th Street between Elm and Oak Streets.



A map for your convenience:



With numerous worthwhile renovation activities happening in the downtown business district, it's easy to overlook non-commercial interests within the larger revitalization scheme. Our local entrepreneurs certainly deserve their share of credit but it's the business of people that ultimately decides a city's lot.

And when it comes to people, I'm challenged to present a better example of a good friend, neighbor, and community builder than Ted Fulmore, the principal organizer of the SEJ festival. Whether it's historic preservation, modernist architecture, low-income housing, or simply getting together for a good time, Ted's just flat out been as solid a citizen as one could hope for.

Though he's far too gracious to not share the credit with those who've helped transform his wish to reality, this festival was his idea and he's done the work necessary to make it a good day for everyone in his and surrounding neighborhoods.

I'd like to personally thank the many volunteers and organizations who've helped. I'd also like to suggest that everybody else thank Ted, for Saturday and every day that he puts his considerable skills to work for us.

Don't forget to cut the cards.

I’ve been away, so let me get the Demo reshuffle straight.

Marcey Wisman replaces the departing Randy Stumler as Floyd County Democratic Party chairman. That’s good … and even progressive.

Ted Heavrin is appointed to Stumler’s county council seat. That’s Neanderthal, and an indication that the party’s traditional Luddite instincts haven’t been purged entirely. In effect, the functionaries have reversed the will of the electorate in 2006.

The bummer in all this is that Suellen Wilkinson lost out, and with her loss, a chance to become something truly progressive is tossed out the party’s window in favor of the tried, true and unimaginative. A former high ranking state Demo chair in Wisconsin, or a previously rejected local lifer? Depressing, indeed.

And, finally, Brad Striegel will run for the at-large seat. He’s an unknown quantity, and so that one’s a wash.

In the end, the Demo’s game of musical chairs is an improvement over Dan Coffey’s platform of innuendo, fabrication and barbecued bologna. Now, all we need to be convinced is a stated party platform of progressive principles and ideals.

I’ll be hopeful, but not at all holding my breath. The local Democratic Party functions as Lucy Van Pelt, leading us to believe that we'll be kicking the football before yanking it away at the last moment.

A side note.

Okay, so you were looking for missing comments earlier last week. They come to me as e-mails, and I have them. When there's time, they'll be reposted.

Oh yeah ... we're back.

What Ed said.

In response to a general lament about poor transportation planning, reader Edward Parish said:

You need not have to be in Europe for such a bike gig, I'll be off to Portland, OR, in September and will have TRIMET to get to and fro from the airport and many other venues. Also, San Francisco has many of the same options; life without a car.



About Portland, Oregon, from the Preservation Institute:

During the 1960s, Portland was a city with serious economic and environmental problems.

Today, Portland is an economic and environmental success story. It is so successful that the Wall Street Journal, which is not usually known for its environmental advocacy, has called Portland an “urban mecca” that city planners from all over the country visit to learn how they can control sprawl, reduce automobile dependency, and build lively and attractive pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods.

When Portland decided to tear down the Harbor Drive freeway, the city made one of the key decisions that transformed it into a national model for effective city planning.

Between 1970 and 1980, Portland made a number of decisions that transformed the city by moving from automobile-oriented development to pedestrian and transit oriented development. The most important were:


* Pioneer Square: In January, 1970 the Portland City Planning Commission voted to deny a permit to build a 12 story parking structure on Pioneer Courthouse Square. The site had been occupied by a two-story parking structure, and it is now an attractive, pedestrian oriented plaza.


* Harbor Drive: In May, 1974, the state of Oregon closed Harbor Drive so it could use the land to build Tom McCall Waterfront Park, which would open up the waterfront to pedestrians, creating an important amenity for downtown.


* Mount Hood Freeway: In summer, 1974, the Portland City Council killed the Mount Hood Freeway and instead used the freeway’s federal funding to build the downtown transit mall, eastside light rail, and other transit projects. This freeway was part of a plan to criss-cross Portland with freeways, drawn up by Robert Moses, and killing it also killed all the freeways that were to follow.


* Comprehensive Land Use Plan: On October 16, 1980, the City Council adopted the Portland Comprehensive Land Use Plan, which established an urban growth boundary to stop sprawl and concentrated new development around public transportation stops.

The comprehensive plan is the best known of these decisions. But tearing down Harbor Drive and replacing it with Tom McCall Waterfront Park was also a key step in transforming Portland from a freeway-oriented city to a pedestrian oriented city.



About Louisville Metro, from the Brookings Institution:

The region has been building a lot of roads lately. The number of new lane miles in the Louisville urbanized area increased by 20.1 percent between 1990 and 2000, resulting in a 15.8 percent increase in roadway miles per capita. The region’s per capita road construction far outpaced that of key peer regions.

Consequently, the number of miles being driven in the Louisville urbanized area far out-paced population growth in the 1990s. Population grew by 3.7 percent in the urbanized area between 1990 and 2000. However, the total vehicle miles driven(VMT) in the region increased 34.4 percent over the same period. This contributed to a 29.6 percent change in miles driven per capita in the Louisville urbanized area. Most of this increase took place early in the decade as VMT rose only 6.4 percent from 1995 to 2000.

The increase in VMTs translates to greater traffic congestion. The percentage of congested lane miles in the region remains moderate in absolute terms, but it increased from 36 to 55 percent between 1990 and 2000. During that same period, the number of “rush hours”(the time during the day when the roads are congested) nearly doubled, increasing from 3.8 hours per day to 7.0. As a result,the total costs due to congestion increased by 509 percent from 1990 to 2000 to over $335 million per year, which is among the highest total costs for any medium-sized metro area in the nation.

Lesson from Louisville: Building more roads leads to more driving and more congestion, not less.

Lesson from Portland: Stop building more roads.

Portland photo of where the expressway used to be: Wikipedia Commons, posted by user Cacophony.

Park to ride, ride to live.

NAC's senior editor will head home this weekend from a jaunt around the Great Lakes states that included brewery visits (damn him), the Great Taste of the Midwest beer festival (damn him), and a Radiohead concert (triple dog damn him). If we lived in a country that hadn't spent the past fifty years decimating its transportation infrastructure, he could've done it all without need of a car.

His return from a previous European excursion prompted the following words:

I biked from the suburban Vienna pension to the underground, loaded the bike on it, and debarked a kilometer from Westbahnhof station. The bike was loaded onto an express train for a seven hour journey to Frankfurt central station, walked around the corner to a waiting hotel, then walked back the same route early this morning. I put it on an S (suburban) train, and got off at the airport. The bike was repacked, with a switch in Cincy. Back in Louisville, there was a theoretical possibility of finding TARC connections to New Albany, and without the case, I might have pedaled home.

But you know the rest of the story: Diana picked me up, and home we went. How much again are we planning on spending to build more bridges for more traffic, and more sprawl requiring more bridges ...

As is, we struggle to get across town.

Imagine my teeth gritting, then, to read in the Evening News/Tribune this morning that Jeffersonville is making headway in implementing a TARC park and ride, beginning construction in anticipation of bus routes rather than blithely waiting for some regressive coalition to force it upon them like so many bridges.

TARC park and ride work to start soon by David A. Mann

It's not that I'm not happy for them. It's just that I'd like to be happy for us, especially since many of us have been suggesting the exact same thing for New Albany for so long. Becoming a transportation leader would do more to propel the city toward full blown revitalization than any of us could individually, helping to make us a city of choice for those with means and giving those of lesser means opportunities for choice. Our chance to be first may be diminished but our chance to be better isn't.

Get out and enjoy this beautiful day in our walkable downtown. Just remember how nice it could be to share it with others - if they could get here without thousands of dollars of personal investment.

Highwayman on England: The first six months.

Lloyd "Highwayman" Wimp's View From the Highway blog has done a little first semester grading of our current administration with particular regard to code enforcement and housing safety. His well-timed analysis takes a generally positive view while inquiring as to why it is that citizens are left to work to find out if our government is working.

All in all I’d have to give Mayor England & staff a hats off for their efforts and encourage them all to continue moving forward. It appears to me we’re making progress albeit unhailed.

This brings me to question why that is. Why do we the public have to find out about these forward advances quite by accident? Why do we continually have to dig through the rubble to find that acorn?

Why don’t our leaders take the lead & solicit our support by letting us in on the secret? Why isn’t the ever present press reporting these actions?

Mayor England's 1st Semester Report Card

Check it out and let us know what you think.

CoolTown Studios 101 - a placemaking primer.

Last night's Carnegie event was a success. If I were smart enough to explain exactly what triggered in my head watching images of a petite, Glasgow-based artist blasting holes in embroidered pheasants with a carbine rifle (think traditional feminine refinement juxtaposed against crude violence), I'd ask the senior editor for a raise.

Then again, if I were as smart as one of the other artists she referenced who tore down a boat storage shed along a river, used the lumber to build a new boat, paddled it down the river to another town, and then busted up the boat to rebuild the shed in a new location, I'd be the senior editor.

Barring that, I should probably just write about dinner.

It was actually better. Better not because of the food and drink, but because a whole group of smart, creative people sat around a table immediately after having been inspired by another smart, creative person who joined us.

There were working artists, a museum curator, a museum director, an artist-in-residence program director, an art professor, an environmental consultant, and some who qualified as more than one of the previously mentioned. Your author was at least smart enough to sit in the middle. Even that, though, was mostly due to Mrs. Author, who kindly saved me a seat while I retrieved a couple pairs of old work jeans that are now headed for recycling as part of an art project.

Each person at the table had things they wanted to accomplish. Each knew some of the others but not all. An hour later, everyone was closer to both. Email addresses were exchanged. Resources are being shared. Further resources will be sought jointly. No tribalism. No turf. The regionalism long touted by moribund institutions was birthed in an evening by people whose chief transportation concern was expressed as a desire to be able to ride their bicycles across the river.

All we have to do is that a thousand more times or so and people will come to expect it of us.

By way of explanation, I'll turn you over to CoolTown Studios, who've sat in the middle a lot. Their work is shared here under a Creative Commons license.

How do you crowdsource the evolution of a retail district?

This is a question I'm often asked - how can crowdsourcing help develop and/or revitalize a commercial district, especially a natural cultural district?

It starts with preparation, understanding crowdsourcing as a solution to a 'cloud problem', and recognizing the importance of third places, scenes and events. Read more about their roles here.

The first action step involves establishing a creative community, which will then crowdsource the scene for the district, such as arts and entertainment, fashion, music, high-tech, multimedia, green/triple bottom line businesses...

The second step results in having the group, now known as a beta community, identify ten third places that they feel are both missing/needed and necessary to establish the scene. This is followed by identifying VIBEs to run each of these businesses, and crowdsourcing a loyal customer base to ensure success from opening day.

The third step has the group crowdsourcing events at both the business and district scale that attract that critical mass of people essential to ongoing economic and cultural prosperity, filling the venues and establishing not only a scene, but a community and a heritage.

CoolTown visual guide to crowdsourced placemaking (PDF)

Tonight at the Carnegie: Scottish installation artist Yvonne Mullock.

From a release:

The Carnegie Center will host an exciting program on Wednesday, August 6th at 6:00 pm. Scottish outdoor installation artist and Bernheim Fellow, Yvonne Mullock, will address the change in how contemporary artists interpret their inspiration from nature. During her talk, Yvonne will use her own work and that of other contemporary artists to explore approaches to landscape. For more information about Yvonne Mullock, please visit her website at http://www.yvonnemullock.co.uk/index.htm

This program is in conjunction with the Carnegie Center's current landscape exhibition "Sidney D. Crosier: Hoosier Art Pioneer (1858-1930)." You are invited to enjoy the talk and stay after for refreshments and a chance to view the exhibition.

Please join us for this unique opportunity.

I had the pleasure of meeting Yvonne last Friday and the C-J's Diane Heilenman ran a nice piece about her in the most recent Sunday edition - Our links to nature move artist.

I, for one, am looking forward to hearing more about contemporary landscapes, pigeons in leather, and deer in camouflage from someone with a keen mind and a bit of a Scottish brogue.

'Stag Hood' photo courtesy of the artist.

If you've been a slumlord for more than 100 years, are you exempt?

My father used to sit at the breakfast table huffing down the day's third cigarette while he warned me not to smoke. My grandfather's admonition came from a hospital bed. Dad quit a few years later and is happily still around to drop the occasional missive. Grandpa never came home from the hospital.

I suppose that's a personal way of saying that McLuhan was right. The medium is the message.

In much the same way, a council whose majority still refuses to follow the law laid it down for others last night, passing the first reading of a public smoking ban, five votes to four with Price, Benedetti, Messer, and Zurschmiede voting nay. It was disappointing for some, gush-worthy for others, and surprising to just about everyone.

It should be mentioned that Tommy Kaiser took to the podium to thank the council for exempting his family from the law as tobacco retailers will play by different rules than seemingly every other business in town. Apparently, none of the death and disease statistics quoted and misquoted last evening apply to people who work in that industry. Either that, or the council has decided that their lives aren't worth saving.

Smoking ban? There are so many false claims made by both proponents and opponents that I guess you've got to grab on somewhere and hope for the best. So be it. Get rid of the exceptions and it's equitable. Keep them or add to them and the courts will (and should) decide yet another matter in our community. With enforcement being nearly impossible as the current ordinance is written, it may not matter anyway.

What really does matter is that the council's newfound zeal for public health continues into matters that stand to have a more profound effect on the city and its inhabitants. Nearly 50 percent of the houses in New Albany are rentals, operating as businesses outside the bounds of regulation.

I've never had to call 911 to report smoking related disturbances, although I suppose I could soon. The same can't be said for an unregulated rental market that takes advantage of those who can't do better and provides safe haven for those who won't. The last time I called about a property on my block, the dispatcher described the rental as "the same old place" and informed me I was the third caller that early, early morning as if I'd just won a radio contest. The problem is obvious and has been during several council iterations.

To that end, I mentioned a particularly problematic and vociferous landlord to a council member last night and was assured that her very negative business practices were well understood. They should be. If esoteric reports from oncologists are fodder for council decisions, a walk down the street shouldn't be too much to ask.

The only thing left is to determine whether or not this council has the will to stand up to the inevitable lobby of such deceitful, uncaring opportunists. A refreshingly constructive discussion of rental property regulation during Monday's work session provided evidence that they might. If they do, the smoking ban may come to be seen as a first step in reorienting ourselves toward a healthier future. If they don't, we may as well lay back down, tether ourselves to breathing machines, and wait for the coroner to pronounce our cause of death as proving the critics right one too many times.

Smoking ban gets first OK, by Dick Kaukas of the Courier-Journal

Front burner.

The New Albany City Council will consider an ordinance tonight after just one public hearing that would ban smoking in places of employment as a matter of public health. The meeting's at 7:30. There will no doubt be expressions of outrage. Television crews will probably be there.

At 6:00, there will be a council work session during which only a portion of the time will be devoted to housing inspection and code enforcement along with other issues. There will no doubt be expressions of cowardice. Television crews probably won't be there.

Here's to our health.

Morning fires keep NAFD busy

New Albany fire sends man to hospital

Fire damages New Albany home

Bad wiring caused New Albany house fire

Morning fire damages two New Albany homes

All news stories from the Tribune within the past year. Photo credit: Indian Health Service, ihs.org.

Time for a brief holiday pause.

My first Great Taste of the Midwest was a year ago, and the sequel begins on August 9th. It's hard to imagine a better craft beer festival (hundreds of regional beers) in a better place (blue city, blue state).

In point of fact, I need a break. We're driving up and back, and taking the opportunity to visit some friends and breweries in Indy, Michigan and Wisconsin along the way.

Bluegill will be here, and perhaps a guest writer or two. See you in a week.

Degeneracy redefined: McCain, Wal-Mart slime Obama.

There is a certain satisfaction to be derived from the public meltdown of your ideological enemies, whether they’re John McCain’s slew of quasi-racial and cultural epithets hurled in the general direction of Barack Obama, thus confirming the degeneracy of the Republican nominee, or the fact that Wal-Mart, a corporation deserving of confinement in the Hague and subsequent trial for crimes against human dignity, is regularly exposed as flouting the democratic principles that so many of its customers presume to espouse.

McCain will be gone soon, and over the years, we’ve enjoyed exposing Wal-Mart and the cluelessness of its shoppers, as when Bluegill trenchantly noted the presence of labor union stickers on cars in the company’s humongous parking lots.

Read. Print. Distribute. Live. Repeat.

It’s especially relevant now that the union-fearing Bentonville management is openly preaching anti-Obama politics to its employees.

Wal-Mart warning managers of labor bill

We’ve never ceased reminding readers that there is a high cost to low price, as when NAC joined Destinations Booksellers way back in 2005 in screening Robert Greenwald’s movie of the same name.

Speaking of Wal-Mart, as the movie release date draws nearer, Bentonville begins circling the wagons.

Americans being, well, Americans, suggests that huge retail chains and big boxes won’t be going away any time soon. The important thing to remember is that they be kept in their place, and that as we contemplate the ongoing renewal of downtown New Albany, we bear in mind that when in doubt, pursuing development strategies that are the polar opposite of Wal-Mart’s preferences generally will yield the best results.

Contrarianism and individuality are to Bentonville what daylight and the crucifix were to the Transylvanian count. We must remake downtown into something very, very weird.

Hypocrisy meter nudges "tilt” as council’s smoking ordinance is revealed.

Confirmation of the city council’s intention to waste time and energy on a smoking ban comes from the morning newspaper.

New Albany Council to consider smoking ban, by Dick Kaukas (Courier-Journal)

The New Albany City Council will take up a proposal next week to ban smoking in all enclosed public places in the Southern Indiana city, including bars and restaurants.

The measure would exempt private clubs that have no employees but would ban smoking in clubs that have workers, and whenever a club invites the public to an event.

In the context of New Albany history, the key sentences come a bit later in reporter Kaukas’s article.

Under the proposal, "private clubs" are defined as recreational, fraternal, patriotic, political, athletic and other organizations.

No specific clubs are listed, but Elks lodges, VFW halls and similar groups presumably would be covered.

The ordinance paperwork, which can be viewed here (it’s a very large .pdf) defines an employee both as paid and as volunteer help, the latter presumably applying to private clubs exempted from taxation by the Feds.

The document defines “bar” as a place where alcoholic beverages are served on premise, and then later notes that one aspect of a “private club” is that the serving of alcoholic beverages is incidental to its operation.

However, if I’m not mistaken, the state of Indiana makes no such distinction when it expects establishments to apply for licensing. Clubs have different licenses, but they have licenses nonetheless, and if someone is serving drinks, that person must have a permit. If that person has a permit, then he or she is bartending according to the state’s legal definition. All of this strongly implies that the council’s use of “incidental” is superfluous.

I may be wrong about the preceding, but whether volunteer or paid, club employees are in fact employees, and if you buy alcoholic beverages wholesale and sell them retail, you are in fact acting as a bar.

Why the private club pandering? Any specific club, Mr. Gahan? Is there any reason for providing such shaky exemptions? Is the political clout of VFW members more significant than that of restaurant owners? Help us understand your motives. Why the unprecedented speed on smoking when the city's greater needs languish atop your desk?

The ordinance gets better.

Enforcement would be the responsibility of the New Albany city attorney or someone designated by the city attorney.

Penalties would include fines of not more than $50 for people who smoke in prohibited areas and up to $100 for a first violation by a business owner or manager who "fails to comply" with the ordinance.

The fines would increase to not more than $200 for a second offense in a year, and not more than $500 for each additional violation in a year.

‘Nuff said on these provisions. Will a smoking ordinance be treated in the same way as enforcement of minimal standards of health and safety in the city’s proliferating rental properties, which is to say that it occurs in a breach the size of Massachusetts – a creative way of saying “hardly at all” – or will there actually be teeth?

The sops already being thrown toward "private clubs" suggest that enforcement will be selective, if it's even attempted.

Pay close attention to the council’s calendar for the coming months, and note whether this miraculous conversion to deep concern over public health ever gravitates to the places where people pay slumlords to live. History suggests it will not, because like ones before it, this council fears the rental property owner. Unlike councils before it, some members of this one view the smoking ban as a relatively painless way to appear progressive while remaining regressive when it comes to similar proposals in more difficult terrain.

To focus attention on one aspect of public health and safety to the exclusion of others, especially when the reasons for doing so have less to do with genuine concern than the ease with which legions of paid lobbyists can help to divert public attention from congenital inadequacies in other legislative areas, goes just a bit deeper than mere hypocrisy.

It’s the stuff of dilettantes.

The shoe fits. CM Gahan and a handful of others are wearing them. Stay tuned for the Great Trans fat ban of '09 ... and a renewal of the Slumlord Entitlement Act.