.jpg)
Over at the friendly NABC blog...I mean NA Confidential, Bluegill raps on and on about the aggressive administration that residents have longed for for years. He laments the future retirement of those in positions that have the "institutional knowledge and experience in successfully navigating bureaucracy, particularly the type of state and federal funding and compliance rules that circumscribe what we're able to accomplish with what's too often the only money we have (or are allowed to use due to uncooperative councils)." I have several question to insert here. First, wasn't this administration in power not so long ago? Do we not know what was and was not accomplished the first go around? The people in positions may have knowledge and experience, but what has really been accomplished? What connection to Mayor England do you have and/or why do you defend him so vigorously?
Now we all know that I don't actually "live in the city" of New Albany. With that said, I love this place. It really pains me to see the non-action and the insignificant grandstanding by all in this government. I haven't heard a new idea from any of them...ever. Maybe I am not listening. Maybe I am right. Somebody from the "city" tell me why you put up with cronyism and incompetence?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
First, wasn't this administration in power not so long ago? Do we not know what was and was not accomplished the first go around?In some if not most cases, the people I'm referring to predate the first England administration. The fact that they've continually gotten things done in what has often been a leadership vacuum is my point.
The people in positions may have knowledge and experience, but what has really been accomplished?Lately, off the top of my head:
paving on State and Market, reconstruction and paving of the industrial park, rebuilding of Daisy Lane (partial, should finish this year I think), substantial progress on New Albany's portion of the Greenway, miles of sidewalk repair and replacement, reopening of Spring Street Hill, many emergency repairs to homes of the elderly and disabled, Scribner Place, downtown/riverfront plan, amphitheatre, beginning stages of city GIS system, neighborhood market study, working on expansion of industrial park, secured substantial funding for two-way street conversion, completed hundreds of pages long application for Neighborhood Stabilization Program funding potentially worth over $6 million.
That's all within the past two to three years with a largely combative Council and while barely touching the general fund, if at all. It doesn't include the people outside of city staff to whom I referred, nor more routine duties like working on zoning and tax abatement issues.
What connection to Mayor England do you have and/or why do you defend him so vigorously?I didn't say anything about Mayor England in the paragraphs you reference. With one small exception during which I think I said something along the lines of "nice to meet you" circa 1993, I'd never spoken to Doug England before a "Meet the Candidates" event during his most recent campaign and I spent most of that evening talking to Pete Lyons, a downtown business owner and then Republican council candidate.
I have no connection to England now other than occasionally seeing him around town and at public meetings. Like a lot of other people, I share my opinions with him when I get the chance. I've never spoken to him on the phone or been in his office.
I (barely) helped some of the staff with small parts of the market study and the NSP application, as did others. I would've actually liked to have been more involved.
Other than that, I occasionally email them questions and/or my take on city issues or see them out in town. Sometimes they agree with me, sometimes they disagree, and sometimes they're too busy to answer for days on end.
The fact that people spew such ridiculous innuendo when what I mostly do is try to point out facts and ask questions (the very same thing I did during the Garner administration) is very much a part of the city's problem.
You'll kindly note that rarely does anyone refute me with any sort of rational, fact-based counter argument (IAH being an obvious exception), but instead rely almost purely on innuendo and personal attacks. Even asking questions like you did is fairly rare.
Like I said, correct me on facts if I'm wrong. I've got no beef with contrary opinions based on facts. But if you want to be a gossip monger, don't expect a kind response.
Daniel,
While Bluegill and I have been disagreeing some lately, that doesn't mean that I don't agree with many of his positions. I would dare say that the opposite is also true. Even where we differ, the difference usually is fairly minor. It's not right and wrong. We are not polar opposites because we are not "polar" people.
Now to your question of why NA puts up "with cronyism and incompetence."
People don't know, don't care, feel powerless. Any one or a combination. You see the voting percentages. Zoning issues may fill the Council chambers but as soon as their issue is over, out the door. Sex issues may fill the Chambers but once done, out the door. Smoking issue filled the Chambers, but again, out the door.
Most meetings, at best, there are 6or so spectators, meaning anyone not directly involved with the city. Highwayman and myself are almost always there. NA, Bluegill and Bookseller are often there. Do the math. It's pathetic.
While I know that we don't agree on much politically, I doubt that we disagree on the need of citizens to take more responsibility for their government.
Mark
Thanks for the comments, both of you. I agree with more involvement, I just don't understand the cronyism toloeration.
First, this mayor said he wouldn't need to hire an economic developer. Strike one. He used funds for an "emergency" purchase of a rescue boat to appease the FD. Really? Strike two. Now he pushes through raises with the consent of the council? Swing and a miss.
Expose it, clean it up, then do it better.
Post a Comment