A Third A Third A Third

While the train carrying the effort to open the K & I Bridge to use by citizens has left the station, and before this metaphorical train goes too far down the track, alphabetically speaking, while we're still in the Cs, let's consider another C. The resolution recently passed by the New Albany Common Council suggested that the effort to open the K & I  pursue "any and all means" to bring about that opening. To be sure, condemnation is one of the strategies which should be considered. But condemnation has an unsavory connotation which could lead to protracted legal entanglements which would not well serve any of the affected parties, neither New Albany and Louisville nor the railroad currently exercising control of the bridge.

Rifling through the kit bag of remedies to this conundrum another C comes to mind. This C would also require the expenditure of  legal energy, possible redefinitions and reinterpretations of property law. But it may offer a less contentious solution which would allow the citizens north and south of the river and the railroad to live amicably as neighbors. Might it be possible to condo the bridge?

Under this alternative, the Norfolk Southern would divide the bridge into ownership units of the eastern automobile deck, the western auto deck and the middle rail bed and tracks. New Albany and Louisville could jointly purchase ownership of the auto decks while the Norfolk Southern would hold ownership of the rail road itself. Just as in a residential condominium a condo association would oversee the maintenance issues surrounding the condo project. Just as in a residential condo the several owners would be responsible for the maintenance on a percentage of occupancy basis. In the case of the bridge, the railroad as the largest unit owner would be responsible for the largest share of the maintenance costs. The condo bylaws would bind the owners of the shared property to certain rules and responsibilities just as those who share ownership in a residential or office condominium.

If this is a possible structure for this project, it might prove to be a quicker path to the goal of re-opening the bridge.

 

Gratuitous Limbaugh Bashing? Why Not?

 

 

The environmentalist wackos over at The Huffington Post displayed this picture as part of a series of stupid, questionable, or laughable bits of graffiti. It was painted on some bridge, somewhere, by some stupid person who couldn't spell "dolphins", and who somehow tried to elevate his own sorry existence to a  level higher than the dolphins he ineptly attempted to disparage. Which calls to mind that fan of dolphinry, the Oxymoron.

 

 I don't know how many years ago the Supreme Ego that is Rush Limbaugh tried to elevate his sorry self above the level of his betters, the far-superior mammalian species he mocked--at least far superior to the Oxymoron*Limbaugh himself-- by stating, and I paraphrase here, "...if dolphins are so wonderful, so intelligent, why don't they have dolphin highways and go to dolphin hospitals. If they don't have them, if they can't take care of themselves, then screw 'em."

 

Perhaps Limbaugh has now wasted down to such a level that sentient beings no longer listen to his inane braying. Perhaps pointing out his past brayings is much ado about no one. But, I somehow think he still has street cred within the once-legitimate Republican party. So until the formerly-respectable party has flushed that particular floater away, he is still in the punch bowl of political discourse, still on the G.O.P.'s guest list and still a target for disparagement.  

 

 

 

*Oxymoron in the sense of one who is a moron due to his use and abuse of Oxycontin, his lack of sympathy for others who have run afoul of the law for drug related crimes and now spend years in prison, and one who forced his hired help to illegally procure drugs for his habit thus insulating his sorry soul from culpability in his crimes; all while holding himself out as a paragon of rightness in its varied meanings.

 

Literally, How About a Yard Sale?

During the 2011 campaign, in this space, I had posted several items which I referred to as a "Nudge List". The ideas were ones I hoped to convince, connive or cajole the Mayor into taking up as his ideas. Admittedly, it's a roundabout process, but a few things are in the works.

So now, in light of the current situation surrounding the County's budget, which isn't good and which is widely covered in the Courier-Journal and The Tribune, I'd like to dust off the nudge list and add another, more timely, item.

Now that the City has staked out its own course on parks, and now that a recent bond issue has begun to take shape for various recreational projects such as a pool, a sports complex, and a soccer venue, and since the County now finds itself a touch short, maybe now the City should offer to take Community Park off the County's hands and in the process help it close the budget deficit it now faces. A good price would be $2.4 million.

All citizens of Floyd County could continue to avail themselves of the park's amenities, and the County would be off the hook for maintenance. The City has demonstrated a greater commitment to the parks throughout the years, so why not buy Community Park and let the County get its financial house in order?

Driver, Can You Spare a Dime?

Last night the City Council voted 5 to 3 to uphold Councilman Phipps's ordinance against in-street collections for charities or other causes. I voted no and thought I'd explain why.

I'm normally quite in agreeance, as an incarcerated former co-worker might say, with Mr. Phipps. I'm certain his intentions are good with this ordinance. I'm not strongly committed to either side of the argument. In fact, if I had just been hit up for a donation at some street corner, I might have voted differently. And that may be the basic reason I voted against the measure. Just because my easy-mark status makes me vulnerable to gentle tugs on my purse strings, I don't want to pull the plug on all street solicitations.

I'm sure that's not the impetus behind Mr. Phipps's bill. I believe he genuinely sees it as a safety issue.

I don't see that standing in the middle of a street corner is, or should be, terribly dangerous. If people are driving so recklessly that anyone not armored with a ton or so of molded metal is vulnerable to vehicular trauma, our city needs greater help than this ordinance offers. If drivers are so surprised to see humans on a street, that tells us more about the preeminence of machines over humans, and the ordinance will not balance that equation. If people are so stupid and distracted, and hellbent on reaching their destination when driving, then the streets aren't safe for anyone.

 

Admittedly, common sense guidelines need to be followed in collections at intersections. Special attention should be taken of young participants of the bucket brigades so they don't act irresponsibly. And yes, other forms of fund raising might be favored over collections at intersections. But we should not fall into the pattern of seeing streets as a no man's land fit only for the efficient movement of cars and trucks.

I've asked for a street light to be installed on East Spring at Cost Avenue. I saw a child nearly run over there because she was exercising the level of caution one might expect from, a child. Apparently that location does not rise to the level of concern needed to earn the investment of a traffic light. A traffic light there might make that long block from Silver Street to the county line a safer place for pedestrians.

I've also asked for a street light at West First and Spring. I've almost been hit there and I've seen others almost  hit there. The response from INDOT was that it's analysis didn't show enough hazard at that intersection to inflict delay on drivers headed toward the Big Green signs of the interstate. I interpreted that dismissal to mean that absent a fatality or two at that corner, there was no need to bother motorists with  a traffic signal.

The fact is, streets are for people. Some of the people using those streets may be drivers. But the more we assign primacy to people in cars over people moving or using the streets in other ways, the longer it will take to ever arrive at a point where we reassert it is people who belong in their  city. It is people the city is built for, not cars. Since "transportation planners" long ago saw fit to route interstates through the hearts of many cities, the scales have been tilted overwhelmingly toward the automobile. I see no reason to aid or abet their mistakes. And I see this proposal as acquiescence in further relegating streets to the exclusive domain of the car.

 

If Life Hands You Lindens, Make Lindenade

At yesterday's Redevelopment Commission meeting I floated a lead trial balloon of turning the woebegone property of Linden Meadows into a water park. You may recall that years ago Linden Meadows, which is situated hard by I-64 and near Fairview Cemetery in the Valley View Court area, was on its way to becoming a major project of the New Albany Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO). The aim was to relocate good housing stock displaced by Floyd Memorial 's expansion to a nearby site, thus keeping affordable housing available for New Albany home buyers. The project foundered for numerous reasons and was recently erased from the intended relocation area as the houses in advanced stages of deterioration were bulldozed and the lots cleared.

Prior to that sad chapter the land had been a park featuring several baseball diamonds, Howard McLean Park. I live quite close to Linden Meadows and lived equally close when it was still a park. We used to take our dogs there to run. For a long time I remember seeing the park from the Interstate but never being able to figure out exactly where it was. (You may not want to go deep into the woods with me and rely on my orienteering skills to get back out.) For the superannuated readers, Howard McLean Park-remember this was in the days before Google Earth-seemed to me like the purse in Fontaine Ferry's Mirror Maze. In the hall of mirrors near the back was what appeared to be a mirror but was really a clear glass; behind the glass was an open purse with a lipstick and a wallet with a couple dollars spilling out of it. I always wanted to reach for it, but it was forever out of reach. Such to me was Howard McLean Park. And, I had several people report the same phantasmal perception of the park. Flying Dutchman Park?

Well, now there's no housing re-development and there's no park. But there is support for an aquatic center, a water park, call it what suits you, somewhere in New Albany.

The property once known as Linden Meadows is an excellent place to build a new water park. As mentioned above, the property sits close to the right of way for I-64. That alone is a huge negative for construction of new houses. Hell's Own Doorbell, the satanic Jake Brake, growls incessantly at all hours of the day or night. Such background noise is not a welcome ingredient when showcasing curb appeal.  It would matter not a bit to kids playing in a pool.

Not Linden Meadows is close to hundreds of houses with children, and many  of those children are not blessed with affluence. Building a water park in Not Linden Meadows would be an invitation to those children and their families to enjoy themselves while actively beating summer's heat, rather than retreating to an air conditioned couch in front of the television or game screen.

Not Linden Meadows is accessible by foot or bicycle for hundreds of kids. For those slightly farther away, State Street is just a couple blocks distant and is served, meagerly for now, by TARC buses. Now that New Albany controls its own parks, perhaps we can offer other modes of transportation through the Parks Department. Regardless of whether the water park is finally built at Not Linden Meadows or someplace else, it must be in a place conducive to people who don't drive or have access, because of working parents, to rides to the pool.

Also on the list for consideration as a site for the water park are three other locations: an undisclosed inner city spot, the front of Community Park, and the former Camille Wright Pool. Community Park, because of the pedestrian desert that is Grant Line road, is in my mind disqualified. Camille Wright probably would be fine since it once housed a popular pool, and it would be accessible by many nearby kids by foot or bike, but it is well-suited for infill housing.. And, of course the undisclosed location can't be considered since we don't know where it is.

So, that brings us back to Not Linden Meadows. It is located within safe, easy, reach of a lot of kids. The land, because of its noisy neighbor I-64, is not a prime house building spot. The proximity to the West End would bring welcome investment to that section of the City that is often slighted.

Not Linden Meadows is close to Cherry Valley  golf course  (it was once part of the golf course when it was Valley View). That would allow golfers to golf while other family members play in the water. When the golfer finishes the course in summer's heat a dip in the pool could be a refreshing end to the day.

New Albany has gone long enough without a pool of some sort. It's time to move toward a water park, pool or aquatic center. And, it's time to bring Not Linden Meadows full circle and return it to park status.

Muddle on, Charlie

Sometime earlier in the year, when listening to "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me" on NPR I began to notice an infectious, wonderful laugh in the background of many episodes. Finally I deduced that the laugh belonged to Charlie Pierce. Was that the same guy who'd written "Idiot America", a book I had mostly enjoyed? Somewhere along the line, I think on one of Pierce's appearances on another NPR program, "It's Only a Game", I learned that Charlie writes "The Politics Blog" for Esquire magazine.

It is in that pursuit where Pierce's genius shines brightest for me. I don't know how he does it, but he generally writes much more than I can read. And most every post makes insightful, humane, and humorous comments of depth and breadth which are a joy to read.  I cannot recommend it highly enough.

Last week, Pierce made one of the most touching points about the tragic shootings in Connecticut, as he wrote, "There's also little doubt that the primary heroes of the day were schoolteachers — public school teachers — who hid children in closets and saved their lives, and who evacuated the children, leading them out through what had become a killing field in preposterously good order in what were the last hours of their childhoods, as one of the teachers said, with devastating accuracy, to a local TV station." (emphasis added)

I don't know if Pulitzer Prizes are awarded for writing on blogs, but if such a category exists, no one more than Charlie Pierce would be a worthier recipient.

Linked below is another gem. As I look at this for proofreading, I did not include the link on the Connecticut shooting, it must be some sort of device of Pierce's blog to insert and ensure attribution . The one I intended is the one labled, "Out on the Weekend."

Read more: Connecticut Shooting And We The People - The Horror Goes On - Esquire http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/connecticut-shooting-and-we-the-people-121412#ixzz2Fn8H5LVr

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/out-on-the-weekend-12212012

Sad Days, Yet Again

Today the better angels of our nature must have wept. Certainly tears were spilled for the tragic loss of life among the victims of the gun madness in Connecticut. But because these are our "better angels", they must have also shed tears for the loss of a certain number of grains of hope in our nation.

Who can catalog the number of wanton sprees of violence loosed against our citizens in a given span of time? Since Columbine? Since the Colorado movie house shooting? Since Virginia Tech? Since Standard Gravure in Louisville?

In a few countries, which we would not likely group as our international peers, such as El Salvador, Colombia, Honduras, Jamaica, and Swaziland, guns kill more people per capita than in the U.S. But in those countries with which we most choose to compare ourselves, Canada, France, Sweden, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, among many others, citizens shooting and killing citizens is a relative rarity.

To what do we owe this bloody distinction? Is it in our DNA? Or, more truthfully, is it in our NRA?

The United States is a nation, working toward a civilization, floating on a sea of compromise. Interest groups, historically at least, have had to settle for the truism of, "a half a loaf beats no bread at all." This basic tenet of governance seems to have eluded the National Rifle Association. This group of venal lobbyers, ostensibly speaking for its general membership, is committed to drawing lines, big, bold, indelible, lines in the sand of our national debate on guns. Politicians who dare step over those lines may feel the sting of the NRA whip, which could come in the form of a Teabagger primary challenger, or perhaps worse, the withdrawal of campaign largess. Toadying politicians at the state, local, and federal, level have bent over to accommodate the blued, barrel of logic  brandished and thrusted by the NRA. Just a couple years back, local state representatives and state senators voted for the absurd proposition that gun regulation could not be permitted at the local level, thus allowing firearms to be legally borne into any public structure other than a courthouse. Today Indiana lives under that law. Thanks legislators, at least we can duck behind the stacks to dodge the lead when visiting a library.

After the Colorado movie house shooting it was common to hear,  in the wake of that event, that it was not the time to discuss gun control. In all likelihood, those same slanted voices would offer the same twisted logic in the wake of this tragedy. To those voices I can only say, "shut the ---- up". This is precisely when to address the issue of senseless slaughter in a nation whose supine leaders are captive to the malevolent forces of the NRA and its radical right wing agenda. The gun lobby seeks to prevent any measure from becoming law if it would restrict guns in any way. Constant referral to the Second Amendment as permission to establish the U.S. as a free-fire zone is illogic at its worst. The most brilliant minds of the Eighteenth Century, of which it could be argued included our founding fathers, could not have conceived of firearms with the features of modern weapons, such as automatic weapons and hundred shot magazines. I believe the Second Amendment allowed for a militia to hold arms and that was that, but even if a more liberal interpretation is granted, to an Eighteenth century mind guns were muzzle loaded, cumbersome devices which would not allow a single person to go on the type of bloody rampage that's the hallmark of modern America.

So now, today, the day of the Newtown, Connecticut murders, let us reflect on how the NRA might dial back its insanity and return to a more sensible view of guns. I would say that any long gun suitable for hunting or target shooting be allowed, but the number of rounds the gun holds should be limited. Assault weapons should be prohibited. Large magazines should be prohibited in any firearm. Pistol ownership should be legal, but the ability to carry the weapon in public should be drastically curtailed and subject to sensible, limited use. Any legal firearm should carry with it the responsibility to show mental capacity and emotional stability to allow for ownership. Some form of registration should be adopted. Firearm safety instruction should be a requirement of ownership.

At the very least, the NRA should have to prove that certain types of weapons have a legitimate place in civilization. It may be fun to shoot a machine gun or an AK-47, but what is a legitimate use for those weapons? If no honest, legitimate use can be shown, the National Rifle Association needs to back away from supporting those weapons and focus its efforts on promoting the safe use of legitimate firearms. Otherwise, the NRA needs to accept that its role in creating a free-wheeling gun culture in the USA has bloodied its hands. And, perhaps after Newtown, or perhaps after the next, or the next after that incident, the NRA will find that no amount of bluff and bluster can stop the citizens of the United States from balancing out the gun lobby's radical agenda.