Category Archives: Local Government

New York, New York

When I told a coworker that I was coming to New York for the weekend, he shuddered. He hasn’t ever been there, he said, but he hates big cities.

I LOVE big cities. And therein lies a political challenge for those who would be mayor. We talk about the need for our candidates to demonstrate a vision for the city, but we have very different ideas about what sort of vision we’re looking for.

The virtues of urban life that seem so off-putting to many people–and so appealing to me–are multiple: the diversity of the people (and the tolerance for difference that is a necessary consequence), the multiple thriving arts scenes, the great public transportation, and the endless choices of everything–neighborhoods, retail establishments, food.

With all of this, of course, comes a certain anonymity, which delights some people and deeply troubles others. The virtues of community, which are accessed more easily in smaller cities and towns, have to be actively created in larger cities. And the mix of people–diverse in beliefs and attitudes as well as religion, skin color, national origin and the like–creates a culture that celebrates messages and behaviors that would be upsetting or shocking in smaller venues. (For example, we were able to get tickets to Book of Mormon–a smash hit–only because my nephew “knows people.” We loved it, but I imagine its irreverent message about all religion–not just Mormonism–would be received differently in more pious venues.)

What is our vision for Indianapolis? I doubt there is much consensus. Even people in my downtown neighborhood are divided about the virtues of urbanism; some still want the big lawns and low densities of suburban life, just closer to the city’s core. They fail to recognize that supporting the amenities they do want requires the urban characteristics they don’t.

We are in the middle of electing a new mayor and council. Ideally, we would evaluate all the candidates on two separate measures: their visions, and their capacities to achieve those visions. The best elections, from the standpoint of us voters, would offer us equally qualified candidates with competing visions. My colleague could vote for the person whose vision of Indianapolis is pastoral; I could vote for the candidate promising more urbanism. Unfortunately, we rarely get that sort of choice, and this election is no exception.

For mayor, we get to choose between a feckless incumbent whose management skills are invisible and whose vision of urbanism is a faux Chinatown, and a candidate with demonstrated management skills whose vision–better education, public safety and economic development–is solid, but hardly soaring.

Well–there’s always an occasional weekend in New York.

Comments

Ballard Strikes Again

Is Mayor Ballard trying to give people reasons to vote for Melina Kennedy?

The Administration is spending a part of the proceeds from the sale of the water company to demolish unsafe, abandoned houses. Most of us have no problem with that–but, just as with the “if it moves, pave it–but only during rush hour and don’t check with the utilities” program–the administration has decided to use a mallet when a flyswatter is called for.

As news reports have noted, the City has greatly increased the number of structures being demolished, and the pace of demolition. In its haste, the Administration has decided not to bother with pesky procedures like checking with the affected neighborhoods, insuring that the buildings slated for demolition are structurally unsound, or checking on the historical or architectural significance of the targeted structures.

A few days ago, the City demolished a park structure in the Butler Tarkington area designed by noted architect Ed Pierre. To add insult to injury, they announced plans to replace it with a $200,000 pre fab “toilet facility.” The neighborhood wasn’t consulted, and many Butler Tarkington residents are furious.

As Ericka Smith wrote in her Star column this morning, once a building is gone, so are the neighborhood’s options. Once a historically significant building is gone, it’s gone–once a structurally sound structure is eliminated, so is the potential for its reuse. That doesn’t mean you never tear anything down; it means you do your homework first.

Decisions made by each administration limit the ability of future generations to shape our city. That’s why it is so important that those decisions be made thoughtfully, and in consultation with those affected. The Ballard Administration seems oblivious to that reality.

Comments

Parking Meter Delusions

According to media reports, in last night’s debate between Melina Kennedy (no relation!) and Greg Ballard, the Mayor strongly defended his record. He cited crime reduction (a claim that can be considered true if you count only certain crimes, and ignore those annoying statistics about aggravated assaults and the like) and the privatization of parking meters.

Excuse me? Let’s deconstruct that. We are supposed to re-elect Ballard in gratitude for his decision to give away control of our parking infrastructure and some 60% of the fees we would otherwise earn for the next fifty years?

The ability to control meters may seem inconsequential, but it isn’t. Decisions about parking are a significant element in all sorts of development decisions; the ability to “bag” meters without penalty during downtown construction is a cost-control measure important to developers and others. It has been estimated that the city’s deal–which requires compensating ACS when more than a certain number of meters are bagged–added over a million dollars to the construction costs of the Cultural Trail.

When many of us protested the decision to contract away the lion’s share of parking revenues that would otherwise flow to the city, we were told that we needed the “expertise” of ACS–that the city couldn’t finance and manage its meters without the help of a sophisticated mega-corporation. (Evidently, the disastrous experiences of cities like Chicago that had entered into similar deals was considered irrelevant by Mayor Leadership.)

The bottom line, according to the Ballard Administration, was that it was necessary to trade a lot of city control and money for competent, experienced management.I thought that was a bad deal, but I assumed we would at least get the competent management. Evidently, I was naive.

Yesterday, in my Media and Policy class, a student raised the issue of how poorly local media had covered the administration’s privatization of the water company and parking meters. That led another student to complain that she had received a ticket despite having paid the fee–and was helpless to prove her payment since the meters don’t dispense receipts.

Her complaint opened a floodgate. Out of the 23 students in class, no fewer than 8 of them reported similar problems. Several had attempted to complain–complaints that, as one put it, were “blown off.” One student who had paid with a credit card was told the only way she could get a refund was to bring in her Visa bill. Another reported that her credit card was charged twice; when she tried to get the improper extra charge removed, the response was “how do we know you didn’t park twice?”

So, Mayor Ballard, let me understand this: I am supposed to vote to re-elect you, not despite the fact that you gave control of our parking and millions of our dollars to a company that is doing a crappy job, but because you did so?

Whatever it is you’re smoking, I’d like some.

Comments

The Tortoise and the Hare

Okay–this isn’t a very good analogy, but it’s the best I can come up with on a rainy Monday morning.

Today’s Star editorial–with which I strongly agree–reminded me of Eric Hoffer’s observation that the true measure of a civilization isn’t what it builds, but how well it maintains what it builds. Maintenance requires the skills of the tortoise–a steady, persistent attention to what needs to be done. Not flashy, like the hare, but reliable.

The editorial contrasted the money and energy being expended on Georgia Street upgrades for the Super Bowl with past projects like Pan Am Plaza that are now suffering from neglect.  Not too long ago, I commented here about the deplorable condition of the canal–another expensive and important amenity that is suffering from deferred maintenance, despite the fact that it is heavily used.

We are heading into political season, and we’ll hear a lot from candidates about their new ideas and bold plans. We need to hear from them about their intentions to polish existing jewels, and how they will propose to maintain what taxpayers have already built. To put it bluntly, I’m much less interested in building a faux Chinatown than I am in repairing the deteriorating bridges along the canal.

It’s not glamorous, but I’m with Hoffer–it’s the real test of leadership.

Comments

Update: Keystone Kops, Spin Edition

Apparently, once the Mayor’s office recognized their problem–granting income tax credits to organizations that don’t pay such taxes-they scrambled to “explain” what they “really meant” –although the language of the press release was hard to spin. What they “really meant” was an incomprehensible (and if I understand what they are now saying, which I certainly may not) legally improbable credit to be extended to the EMPLOYEES of these tax-exempt organizations. The credit to the employees would encourage existing organizations to move to Indianapolis and somehow help these organizations improve education. To be charitable, this is nuts. An established organization is highly unlikely to pick up and move its operations and employees to Indianapolis in return for a promise that its employees will get a tax credit.

More disturbing than this desperate effort to spin what was an obvious gaffe, however, was the non-coverage of the issue by the Star. The paper simply printed the plan-as subsequently ‘spun’–pretty much without comment. Rather than fact-checking the assertions, or noting the discrepancies, it simply reported that there were two competing plans, Ballard’s and Kennedy’s, and the basic outlines of each, with no context, no analysis, and seemingly no recognition of issues raised by either plan.

Maybe the paper should have kept a couple of those senior reporters they laid off.

Comments