Tag Archives: Indianapolis

New York, New York

My husband and I are city people, so when one of our sons moved to Manhattan, we increased the frequency of our trips to the Big Apple.

We just got home from one such trip, a long weekend in New York, and I continue to marvel at what that city has done and is doing. My son’s very spiffy apartment building is located in a neighborhood adjacent to the Hudson Yards redevelopment project–a rapidly developing part of town that prudent people avoided 15 years ago. The High Line park–a favorite walking route these days–used to be an abandoned elevated rail line. The city took an eyesore and made it into an amenity so desirable it has reportedly spurred two billion dollars of adjacent redevelopment. Despite the city’s lack of alleys, city streets and sidewalks were clean and free of garbage. Bikes were everywhere, and more are coming: the city plans to roll out the first ten thousand bicycles of a planned bike-sharing program in a couple of months. Small pocket parks are everywhere, and the ones we saw were meticulously maintained.

When I was in city hall in Indianapolis, back in the late 1970s, then-Mayor Hudnut used to say we wanted to be “a city that works.” Clearly–with all its challenges–New York is a city that works. If we are honest, it works a lot better than Indianapolis does these days.

New York’s crime rate is lower than ours. Its ability to maintain public spaces should shame us–a few years ago, the Mayor wanted to get rid of small parks that were “too hard” or “too costly” to care for, and a walk on the downtown canal is a depressing reminder that this administration doesn’t understand the importance of maintenance. The canal is one of Indianapolis’ most important amenities, and it’s being allowed to fall apart.

Public transportation? New York has buses and taxis and subways, and isn’t resting on its laurels: a new subway station is going in a couple of blocks from our son’s apartment. In Indianapolis, we can’t even manage decent bus service.

When a city is safe and well-managed and convenient, people want to visit. When it isn’t–when it is a hassle to get from one place to another, when crime rates are worrisome, when public amenities are neglected–all the SuperBowls we can host won’t make us a favorite destination.

Comments

I Told You So

There’s nothing as annoying as someone who tells you “I told you so.” It’s a taunt that’s anything but gracious. So I’ll try to throttle my desire to do just that, but it won’t be easy.

When the Ballard Administration entered into a fifty-year contract to manage the city’s parking meters with a consortium headed by ACS,  a lot of us were highly critical. The length of the contract was excessive. ACS had a horrible reputation nationally. There was really no good reason we couldn’t manage our own parking meters (other cities seem capable of doing so) and keep all the profit, rather than giving the bulk of it to ACS. The terms of the contract favored ACS over Indianapolis taxpayers.

Many City-County Councilors shared those criticisms. Even after the administration engaged in considerable reported arm-twisting, the contract was only approved by one vote–and the deciding vote was cast by then-Council President Ryan Vaughn, a lawyer employed by the law firm that represented ACS.

After the new meters were installed, we were treated to a series of press releases–uncritically accepted by the local media–telling us how well everything was going. Revenues were up! (As a cynical friend noted about one of these glowing reports, of course revenues were up; hours had been extended and rates had been raised. For this you need a contractor??)

This week, the Star (finally) examined the numbers, rather than repeating the Administration’s hype. And guess what?

The first year of Indianapolis’ 50-year parking meter lease brought doubled rates in some areas as a tradeoff for a wholesale upgrade of equipment and the convenience of paying by credit card or smartphone.

Was it worth it?

New financial data provided by the city shows its share of revenue from the vendor in 2011 — nearly $1.4 million, or 30 percent — fell well short of the city’s own projection of $2.1 million.

And the city didn’t end up seeing the full amount: After the vendor subtracted $286,000 in charges to compensate for the city closing metered spaces, often for RebuildIndy road construction work, the city pocketed $1.1 million.

The contractor, by contrast, made 3.5 million.

And we’re stuck with this bit of crony capitalism for the next 49 years. Forty-nine years of foregoing 3.5 million plus–money that could be used to pay for paving streets, improving parks or plugging budget shortfalls at IMPD.

This was a very bad deal. And I did tell you so.

Comments

Dealing with the Embarrassment

I logged onto the Star’s front page this morning, only to discover that Matt Tully had already written my intended post.

It’s embarrassing. Even those of us who hate football have to be impressed with the skill and energy and sheer hard work that has gone into SuperBowl preparations. Even those of us who disagree with the city’s persistent prioritizing of sports arenas over, say, schools and parks, have to be impressed–and considerably mollified–by the use of this particular sporting event to trigger reinvestment in the near-Eastside neighborhood. And even Indy dwellers who are urbanists with a permanent sense of our inferiority to great cities like Chicago and New York have to take pride in the ability of Indianapolis to rally thousands of volunteers, master complex logistics, and throw one hell of a party. (I just passed the amazing ice sculpture of the New York skyline that appeared overnight next to the firehouse on Mass Avenue. Very cool–in both senses of the word!)

And then there’s our legislature.

Tully compares the General Assembly to that weird cousin everyone has, and asks visitors to simply discount them. And there is certainly more than a grain of truth in that observation. Just like the weird cousin who is so fixated on his collection of Star Wars figurines he can’t carry on an adult conversation, Indiana’s lawmakers are so firmly rooted in their alternate realities they can’t be bothered to do the state’s business. After all, if they paid attention to water pollution or public transportation, who would undermine science education or ensure the proper singing of the national anthem?

That said, the spectacle that is the Indiana General Assembly can’t all be attributed to its rampant assault on science and reason. The anti-Indianapolis resentment that has long characterized our state legislature has played a prominent role, and it has been aided and abetted by a Governor who knew exactly what he was doing.

A video of a speech Mitch Daniels gave barely a year ago has been all over Facebook and local blogs; it shows the Governor disclaiming any interest in proposing a “divisive” Right to Work law, which he accurately described as something that would set off a “civil war.” Leaving aside the merits–or lack thereof–of the law itself, why would the Governor reverse himself and promote a measure he clearly knew would enrage thousands of Hoosiers at the very time the state capitol would be hosting the SuperBowl?

Hosting an event of this magnitude is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to put our best foot forward, to use our brief visibility to impress potential visitors and employers. It’s bad enough that the usual buffoonery at the statehouse is an embarrassment, potentially undermining the efforts of countless volunteers. It’s inexcusable that the Governor and Speaker–who actually do have IQs–preferred an opportunity to weaken Indiana’s few remaining unions over a chance to support the efforts of citizens who have worked countless hours to host this event.

At the end of the day and despite our sorry excuse for state government, Indianapolis will still shine. Most visitors will accept Tully’s (apt) characterization of our horrendous legislature, if they think about it at all. But those of us who live in Central Indiana need to remember who embarrassed us in February–and we need to deal with them in November.

Comments

What is Ballard Smoking?

When the dust cleared after the November elections, Indianapolis was left with divided city government. The Mayor is Republican. The Council majority is Democrat. The challenge for the next four years will be to get along–to make decent policy despite partisan divisions.

An article in this morning’s Star suggests we’re not getting off to an auspicious start.

Indianapolis has been struggling for several months to enact a smoking ban that actually has some teeth. After a couple of false starts, the Council has  produced a (bipartisan!) draft, to be voted on tonight. But according to the Star, 

“The proposal’s effect on veterans halls and private clubs has become a focal point of debate and has raised the likelihood of a mayoral veto.

As written, the proposal would give those places an exemption from the smoking ban but only with a hard choice: Keep smoking, or allow children on the premises. But not both.

Mayor Greg Ballard said Friday through a spokesman that unless the council removes the restriction on children tonight, he will veto the measure. That statement was his most forceful yet since the council resumed the years-old smoking ban debate two months ago.”

When Ballard first ran for Mayor, he promised to support a smoking ban. When actually faced with an earlier iteration, he withdrew that support, and he’s been a roadblock ever since. The question is: why? The current compromise protects children from the documented health hazards of secondhand smoke, while still allowing adults in private clubs to smoke. That seems entirely reasonable. But my question goes well beyond the merits of this particular ordinance.

If he is to achieve any of his goals, Ballard will have to be strategic in his relationship with the City-County Council. He will have to choose his fights carefully. Is this really an issue on which he wants to spend his small store of political capital? Is the American Legion’s pique so important that he’s willing to start the new term with a fight that will further divide the branches of local government and further diminish the prospects for cooperation?

Wrong on policy, wrong on process, and politically short-sighted. Welcome to the start of a long four years.

Comments

The Younger Generation

Last night, I attended a community forum sponsored by SPEA students of John Clark. John is well-known in Indianapolis–he has long been active as a public intellectual and sponsor of the website Provocate. His enthusiasm for global-local connections has clearly motivated his students.

The subject of discussion was: can Indianapolis become a “humanitarian hub”? The venue was the Athenaeum, and the room was filled with an interesting mix of Indianapolis’ residents. There were old folks like me (and a couple even older!), but mostly, attendees were in their twenties and thirties–and it soon became obvious that most of them were already deeply involved in humanitarian and nonprofit enterprises. Worried about Haiti? The experience of immigrants in Indiana? Efforts to integrate minorities into the broader community? Fair trade? These young people are working on all of these issues, and many others, with passion and realism.

The students who convened the forum asked participants to consider who should be involved in an effort to make our city an international humanitarian “hub,” and what benefits might accrue to the city from such an effort. The clear consensus was that creating such a hub should not mean trying to lure the headquarters of large humanitarian organizations–that instead it should be accomplished, if possible, by encouraging and facilitating the efforts that are already percolating among our young social entrepreneurs, and working with organizations like Kiwanis, the National Guard and many others who are already engaged in these efforts.

There was also a consensus that creating such a hub would make Indianapolis a more inclusive, welcoming city–a city that people would want to live and work in. (Others noted that changes in the Indiana legislature will be needed in order to create an “inclusive” culture. Immigrant-bashing and anti-gay measures aren’t exactly helping.)

I left the meeting feeling the way I often do after a discussion with students in my class–hopeful that the next generation will be able to clear away some of the social debris my own generation is leaving them. Americans talk a lot about values–the young people with whom I interact demonstrate the values important to a just society–compassion, personal responsibility, a recognition of what we might call social duty. They are both idealistic and realistic, and that is so encouraging at a a time when major party Presidential candidates are neither.

The class will hold its next community forum at the Lilly Auditorium in IUPUI’s Library from 7-9 on November 29th. The topic: distrust in government. (Full disclosure: I’ll be on one of the panels.)

If you are interested in learning more about these efforts, and the literally hundreds of humanitarian programs and organizations that already exist, check www.globalindy.org.  

Comments