Tag Archives: Ballard

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 Emperor’s Nonexistent Clothes

I’ve been trying to avoid the dueling ads and other ephemera that inevitably accompany a mayoral campaign, so I didn’t attend the first debate between Mayor Ballard and Melina Kennedy. But now, three people (2 Democrats and 1 Republican) have reported to me that–in the process of defending his record–Ballard several times insisted that he was “the first Mayor” to do something: the examples reported to me were addressing issues in the police department and promoting the City nationally and internationally.

Excuse me? Can we spell hubris? Or perhaps cluelessness?

I served in the Hudnut Administration, so I had a front-row seat for Hudnut’s efforts to address issues in the police department. And those issues were considerably more fraught than today’s.

The assertion that Ballard’s junkets to international destinations were necessary because before that, few people had heard of Indianapolis, is not only delusional, it’s just plain offensive. (Hell, if nothing else, the Speedway put Indy on the map when Ballard was in diapers.) During the Hudnut Administration, we used to collect newspaper stories from around the country and world praising Indianapolis as a city on the move. Both Goldsmith and Peterson generated extensive media recognition for the city–far more than we have seen during the Ballard Administration.

Ballard isn’t even the first Mayor to sell off city assets and reward political supporters with government contracts. Goldsmith did that.

Mayor, if you want to defend your own record, fine. We’ll each decide whether we think it’s defensible. But if you really believe that you are the first mayor to do what mayors are supposed to do, if you are willing to ‘diss’ your predecessors in order to build yourself up, you don’t deserve a second term.

Those clothes you think you are wearing are invisible to the rest of us.

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

I Don’t Know Whether to Laugh or Cry…..

Yesterday, Mayor Ballard released his  “Five-Point Plan” for improving education in Indianapolis.

The timing of this release had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that his opponent in the upcoming election has been hammering him for totally ignoring the issue for the past four years. Nosiree! The administration has been laboring over this plan for months and months. And don’t you believe that just because the plan hasn’t been finished until now (okay, it hasn’t even been mentioned until now), that means the Mayor hasn’t been doing great and wonderful things for local education. They even list those great, wonderful “successes” in the press release. Let’s see…he has “received” lots of applications for new charters under the program his predecessor developed, and he changed the program’s name from Office of Charter Schools to Office of Education Innovation. He “secured” grants (doesn’t say what for) of “up to” 1.4 million dollars, which-let’s be honest here, fellows-is a pretty paltry amount. And my personal favorite, he “made eight charter school renewal decisions.” Wow.

The list of “accomplishments”–none of which seemed to involve actually getting results of any sort–was somewhat pathetic, but when I got to the actual plan, I had to check to be sure I wasn’t reading the Onion.

The very first point of this plan–I am not making this up–is to “offer an income tax credit to nonprofit education reform organizations that locate in the city.”

Read my lips: nonprofit organizations don’t pay taxes.

Now, anyone in Indianapolis who is sentient and paying attention has recognized the limitations of our accidental Mayor, but this one boggles the mind. One of the major jobs of any mayor is to manage the budget. Big city, small village–it doesn’t matter. Job one is figuring out how to pay for jobs two through infinity, and that requires at least a kindergarten-level understanding of who pays taxes. In Indianapolis, we have long struggled with the issue of nonpayment of property taxes by nonprofits, because we have so many of them. It has been the subject of numerous “blue ribbon” committees, studies, etc. For the Mayor to be unaware that nonprofits don’t pay income taxes either (that’s basically the reason they are nonprofits) is simply unfathomable.

It’s bad enough that Ballard labored (so he says) for months over a “plan” that betrays his total lack of comprehension of the nuts and bolts of the city he presumably runs, but where the hell was his staff? What sort of people has he chosen to surround himself with, if a gaffe this enormous got by them?

Anyone who has been reading this blog knows I’ve not been a fan of this Mayor. He has shown little comprehension of the implications of his administration’s policies, and despite his  assurances in campaign ads that he’s “not a politician,” has played hardball politics by blocking satellite voting sites and his willingness to turn a blind eye to ethical questions surrounding the parking meter giveaway. But this time, the emperor’s lack of clothes has been made dramatically–and frighteningly–clear.

Even the Onion couldn’t top this.

Comments

Fall Housecleaning Time

This is the weekend I have scheduled for my fall housecleaning. It always makes me feel good go through the pantry, closets and other nooks and crannies that I can easily ignore during most of the year-those places that only get “the treatment” during the spring and fall cleaning rituals.

Which reminds me that November is coming, and with it, the opportunity to do some political housecleaning as well.

I thought about our desperate need for such civic housecleaning when I heard a caller to a radio show explain that the President’s jobs plan was ridiculous–not because it wouldn’t work, or was otherwise ill-conceived–but because we shouldn’t be spending money we don’t have. The nation, he proclaimed, should do what individuals do, and live within our means. (Ok, you can stop laughing now and read on.) The host, to his credit, asked the caller if he had a mortgage? A car payment? “Well, that’s different,” was the response.

Exactly. In fact, in the wake of the President’s speech (hell, for the past several years!) we have been treated to the antics of assorted elected buffoons who not only don’t have answers to our problems, but don’t know what the questions are.

The question is not whether we should spend money on Program A.  That’s a question that cannot be answered without several preliminary inquiries. Is this an investment–our house, the country’s infrastructure–or is it an operating expense, like rent or highway maintenance? As any businessperson will tell you, you borrow for the former but not the latter. What are the consequences of spending for the proposed purpose? What are the consequences of not spending for it? And if the benefits of spending outweigh the benefits of not doing so , will Proposal A achieve the desired results?

It’s bad enough that large numbers of otherwise reasonable citizens don’t understand that, but it is truly appalling when our elected officials don’t grasp the most basic elements of public or economic policy. (And yes, Mike Pence, I’m looking at you. And a lot of others.)

It’s time to do some housecleaning. And that housecleaning actually should be modeled on the process we use in our own homes. Housecleaning doesn’t mean a wholesale “throw the bums out” catharsis. When we clean a closet or drawer at home, we sort: we throw out the stuff that is no longer useful or wearable–the stuff that’s taking up space we need for better, more useful stuff. And that’s what we need to do for the next several Novembers. We need to get rid of the lunatics and egomaniacs, obviously, but we also need to retire the nice-enough people who are simply in way over their heads (yes, I’m looking at you, Mayor Ballard). But voters of both parties also need to understand that whatever the wingnut of the day may be telling us, we don’t throw someone out simply because we disagree with them. (Yes, I’m looking at you, Richard Mourdock.) There are plenty of people who will engage in thoughtful and informed analysis and simply reach different conclusions. We should opt for competence and intellectual honesty, not uniformity. To stretch my analogy past the breaking point, we need to throw out those high fashion shoes that have killed your feet ever since you bought them, and keep the comfortable ones that aren’t quite so flashy and  “in.”

Take it from someone who is in the middle of fall housecleaning.

Comments