Thank You, Gary.

It is hard to believe that we will not hear from Gary Welsh again.  His Advance Indiana blog was a true asset to the Indianapolis community.

Unquestionably, he loved a good conspiracy theory.  But, I cannot recall him applying those to local government.

He had an outstanding ability to remember people and their relationships to each other, and to events, places and policies.  His talent in this area astounded me.

He was a really good writer.  When he was frustrated, you felt it.  When he was pissed off, you knew it and why.  He could weave together a complex series of events so that it was comprehensible.

He cared about good government.  He wanted elected officials to rise to the occasion and do their jobs in the best interest of the public - not feather their friends' and donors' nests.  He held decision makers feet to the fire; whether those decision makers were in the limelight or in the shadows,  He was often disappointed, frustrated, or angry at the frequency with which personal ambitions won out over the public good.

He cared about a responsible press.  He desperately wanted real investigative journalism - which he saw as the true role of the media - to dig into the backroom deals and pay-to-play politics that run like a current through Indiana government.

He had a shit list and nearly everyone was on it, at least from time to time.  My take was that he had special relationships with a couple of elected officials who he admired for how they did their job; Christine Scales and Angela Mansfield come to mind.  He touted the journalism of Kara Kenney and Russ McQuaid.  He had high expectations, but he wasn't unrealistic.

He had a huge readership and what he said mattered.  He also had an impressive pipeline of contacts who would feed him information - stuff that either they had no way to circulate themselves, or stuff that their public position would preclude having their name tied to.

Certainly members of traditional media followed Gary; some trolling for leads.  Only rarely did he get attribution, which says more about them than about Gary.


Gary was a prolific blogger, no doubt.  He used his talents to let our community know what our government was doing and who it was benefiting.  He was passionate about it.  He did it like no other.



I like to think that Gary has taken up a spot near the Pearly Gates and is setting about critiquing the alacrity with which St. Peter allows entry to certain folks and watching closely who exactly is being given the golden harps.



Thank you, Gary.  For all that you did for our community for so long.  You made a mark and there is a void left in your passing.

There Needs to Be an Independent Investigation of the ROC Deal

Tracing the tentacles of this deal are madding.

I refer to the deal made to lease space in the old Eastgate Mall for a Regional Operations Center - in time for the 2012 SuperBowl.  The ROC was to be used as the heart of surveillance for the public gatherings - Homeland Security, IMPD, IFD central commands combined with federal agencies in one spot away from the action downtown.

The latest tentacles to be revealed were broadcast during last night's WTHR 11 O'clock news.  Sandra Chapman did an interview with Alex Carroll, owner of the facility.  He discloses that there was a secret deal with the City that involved a sizable up front payment to him, and that the City was responsible for drafting the lopsided lease agreement that puts all of the maintenance burden on the taxpayers.

Gary Welsh, over at Advance Indiana, did an excellent job of recapping the interview and putting what is known about the whole deal in perspective.  Previously, Paul Ogden described how lopsided the agreement is and that representatives of City Legal and the City Controller refused to sign off on the lease - leaving then Public Safety Director, Frank Straub, on his own (see here and here)

There must be an independent investigation of this deal.  All business conducted on behalf of the public must be made public - there can be no secret deals.  What is disclosed to the public must be accurate - officials cannot say they are making lease payments when they are paying off a loan directly.  The City may not take out a loan.  The City cannot float a bond without disclosing what that bond is to be used for and what dedicated revenue stream will repay it.

At this point it is unclear IF there was a secret deal, IF there was a sizable upfront payment and how much that was, IF there was a concerted effort to keep information from most of the Council and the public, IF there is a bank loan or a bond, and IF campaign contributions were part of the big picture.

The lease was put forth as Prop 102, 2011 with no lease details.  It originally was for 210,000 square feet, but that was reduced to 76,000 square feet before passage by the full Council on May 16, 2011.  The sponsors of the proposed lease were Councillors Ben Hunter and Mary Moriarty Adams.  The Eastgate Mall is in Hunter's district, but almost in Adams'.  At the time, Hunter Chaired the Public Safety Committee and Adams was the senior Democrat on that committee.

Below I have embedded a portion of the April 12, 2011 meeting of the Admin & Finance committee meeting - the first of two committee meetings to consider this lease.  This portion begins after Homeland Security Director Gary Coons' half hour presentation on what a ROC would be and why one was needed.  The embedded portion are the questions that the Councillors had.  Jon Mayes, Deputy Director, Special Counsel for the City responded to the questions.  It is instructive as to how little information these committee members were given initially.  Look for Councillor Barbara Malone's question of whether there any upfront fee for renovation of the facility and Councillor Jackie Nytes inquiry as to whether construction had already begun on the facility.

The answers by Mr. Mayes include that this was to be a 20 year lease, with no upfront money and all construction and renovation costs amortized in the lease payments.  Those payments were to be $1.2 million per year.  The Proposal was amended later and his statements may only refer to the introduced situation.  Construction had already begun on this site by the time the committee was given Prop 102 to consider.

There needs to be a full vetting of exactly what the arrangements were, who authorized them, and how honest everyone has been in divulging the details of that arrangement.

Results From Last Night's Council Meeting

Others reported much of this last night - see Gary Welsh over at Advance Indiana's first and second post, and Jon Murray at the IndyStar.

First, Prop 54, which was to be both introduced and heard last night, was instead sent to committee for a hearing, as is the usual procedure.  It has been assigned to the Rules committee, which will take the matter up at its March 12 meeting.  Many thanks to Council Clerk, NaTrina Debow for that information.  Prop 54 seeks to split the proceeds from the two new tax hikes between the CIB and the City (links to prop 54 and exhibit of the agreement between the CIB and OFM).

Second, Prop 48, which seeks to change the organization responsible for administering the Crime Prevention grants from the Indy Parks Foundation to the Central Indiana Community Foundation, was pulled from the agenda entirely.  Both this blog and Advance Indiana commented on the conflict of interest resulting from Council President Maggie Lewis being both the sponsor of this proposal and Executive Director of a grant recipient organization.

Third, Prop 33, which seeks to apply $3 million from RebuildIndy funds toward infrastructure improvements in the Meadows/Avondale area with the ultimate goal of enticing a grocery store to locate in the area, failed to muster a majority vote either for or against.  Democrat Vop Osili and Republican Ben Hunter were absent from the meeting.  The vote was 14 for and 13 against Prop 33.  Democrat Angela Mansfield joined all the Republican Councillors in opposing the proposal.  Since there was no majority, the Proposal is still alive and can be voted upon again at the next full Council meeting, February 25.

Could See This One Coming for Years Now

Anyone who remembers that the CIB bailout from a few years ago contained two delayed opportunities to increase taxes, knew those two taxes would be on the table.  Will someone please explain to me why we go through this charade of 'well, maybe we won't need the money'.  The city mothers and fathers never let a chance to raise taxes fall to the wayside.

Today's Indy Star holds the 'revelation' that there is intense consideration by the CIB and Mayor Vaughn and Council President Lewis, to raise the admissions tax by an additional 4% and the car rental tax by an additional 2%.  Reporter Jon Murray has a great article, and one that has a host of information in it.  Last night fellow blogger Paul Ogden commented on it over at Ogden On Politics.  This morning, Gary Welsh adds his thoughts on Advance Indiana.

The additional taxes could raise about $7 million in additional funds to the CIB each year.  The CIB was funnelling $10 million a year, $8 million of which came from property taxes through the Consolidated Downtown TIF, for the past three years.  They are now in 'negotiations' to hand over even more cash to the Pacers.  Since they continue to receive the $8 million from property taxes, an additional $7 million might leave a $5 million 'surplus' (after what I assume will be a 'negotiated' deal to continue the $10 million extra funding to the poor Pacers).

But wait - there is a new twist.  After cutting the Council budget off at the knees because the Democrats placed a $15 million PILOT obligation on to the CIB, Mayor Vaughn is apparently interested in syphoning off some of the CIB's new tax revenue for the City.  The shell game is such that the City would ask the CIB to pay for the public safety services it receives from the City; services that are now provided free of charge.  So, the City can get a new stream of tax revenue by raising taxes for the CIB.  Since the super bowl supposedly cost $4 million in public safety, this new shell game could not possibly cover the true cost of services provided to CIB-run facilities throughout downtown.

While Mayor Vaughn refused to fund recruit classes for IMPD and IFD and says the city budget must be lean, he continues to foist more TIFs on the taxpayers, push for even more corporate handouts of tax dollars, and craft ever greater sweetheart deals with multi-millionaire sports team owners.  Priorities in this City are out of whack.  Our City government has become hardly much more than an extension of the Chamber of Commerce.

What's Wrong With This Picture? - The Proposed Mass Ave TIF

Prop 15 proposes two expansions of the consolidated downtown TIF district.  A westward expansion of 604 acres, and an eastward expansion of 112 acres.  The latter is also known as the Mass Ave TIF, although about half of the acres are nowhere near Mass Ave.  The project area is less than one acre - by my calculations 0.8 acres, in fact.

But, see for yourself. 

I've actually been working on this for a few days and just waiting for one more piece.  I'll update you once I have secured that additional piece.  But, last night's maybe legal, maybe illegal, vote to push the TIF out of committee has hastened my schedule.  Helping me with information about the location of future proposed development has been Gary Welsh, author of the Advance Indiana blog and nearby resident.

I have uploaded all of these pictures in one document to Google Docs, so you can review them with as much zoom as you wish.



Proposed Mass Ave TIF - with Google aerial maps



Proposed Mass Ave TIF - outline

 

 

 

Proposed Mass Ave TIF - close up of East Area



Proposed Mass Ave TIF - close up of Mid Area



Proposed Mass Ave TIF - close up of West Area

The recommendations of the TIF Study Commission would protect the public interest by requiring disclosure of pertinent facts.  All of which would combine to address these questions:

Why this TIF?  Why this Place?  Why this Project?  Why this Footprint?

Its easy, once you see the outline of the proposed TIF, to want to know why a TIF is the best vehicle to fund the project?  Why not sell the block with the fire station and actually make money for the taxpayers to help build the new station?  Why not give the block away to the developer?

Why does the Mass Ave corridor require investment of public dollars at all?  The place is up and coming and a number of projects are already slated to begin within the next 12 months without a TIF and public dollars.

Why does this project need over 100 times its footprint to support it?  Or is the extra land included for other reasons, like setting up an extensive slush fund?  It is even said that the value of the already developed Trail Side project in the East Area will be immediately removed from the base (so current tax dollars will not continue to flow to the schools, library, etc) and included in the increment.

Indy's TIFs already cover 10% of Indy's property value.  It is irresponsible to pass this proposed TIF, or any TIF, without thorough evaluation and adjustment, if needed, or dismissal, if warranted.

[edited to add: I received a copy of the amendment to Prop 15 - it calls for excluding two properties from the TIF - 875 Mass Ave and 1201 Indiana Ave.  The former is the site of the Trail Side and the other is student housing next to the IUPUI campus.]

Bloggers Expose Roots of PR Campaign to Push Mass Ave TIF

The pressure has been mounting from the Ballard administration to push and/or extort the Council into approving 5 new TIF districts (with a 6th rumored to be waiting in the wings) before the recommendations of the TIF Study Commission are acted upon and therefore before significant details would have to be disclosed on those 5/6 TIFs.
At least part of the PR campaign has been uncovered and is now exposed by two fellow bloggers, Gary Welsh of Advance Indiana, and Matt Stone of Indy Student.
Welsh got the ball rolling (see "How To Get Your Political Nemesis To Sing Your Praises") when he uncovered the fact that Gordon Hendry, former so-called public servant, stands to see the company he works for, CB Richard Ellis, rake in over a million taxpayer dollars in commissions if the Mass Ave TIF goes in.  Hendry's wife is Jennifer Wagner who used to pen an outstanding blog of her own - Taking Down Words - on behalf of the State Democratic Party.  Ms. Wagner is now a spokeswoman for the Ds, even though her personal life seems more corrolated with her comments than does the actual positions of the Democratic Party.  Ms. Wagner has supported the obscene raises Ballard gave to his office mates.  She has supported the Mass Ave TIF.
In today's post (see "What the Hell is Grow Mass Ave?"), Stone reported some rooting around he did with domain names and the like, to expose the very new website for the newly invented "Grow Mass Ave".  Surprise, but the domain name was just registered this month by Wagner.  The website it already up and running - fast work that surely isn't pro bono. 
Back to Welsh's post today (see "Grow Mass Ave A Shill For Developers?"), Welsh propels Stone's report forward with revelations that Mass Ave business owners aren't all that thrilled with the proposed TIF or a developing plot to create an Economic Improvement District that could assess an additional tax from local businesses and residents in the Mass Ave area.  He lays out how the area has seen private investment in recent years, belying any need for public taxpayer dollars:

In the past couple of years, the corridor has seen continued redevelopment despite the depressed economic condition without the assistance of a TIF. On the north end of the corridor, Riley Area Development CDC is just completing a mixed use project, Trail Side, that involved razing a building formerly owned by Center Township and redeveloping a half block area into 69 affordable apartments with ground level retail/commercial space and off-street parking. The Cunningham Group opened up its second restaurant on the Avenue, Bru Burger, which has enjoyed great success, along with its first restaurant, Mesh. A microbrewery is slated to open up a block from the Avenue at the corner of Park and North, and a major mixed use project, which will cover almost an entire city block at the corner of Michigan and College, is slated to kick off next year without any government assistance.

Welsh also notes that the head of Grow Mass Ave, Cassie Stockamp, is not a business owner in the area, but runs the non-profit Antheneum.  The Mass Ave businesses already have an association to represent their interests.  The Ballard administration is always pulling in favorable comments from organizations that would like a little sugar, and this sounds like the case with Grow Mass Ave's Stockamp.
I'm not going to say it any better than Welsh - so here's the bottom line take home message for Indy taxpayers:

What should be abundantly clear to the public is that a propaganda machine has been put into place in an effort to steer tens of millions of tax dollars into the hands of private developers to redevelop an area that has already proven that it can sustain current and future development without ciphoning off much-needed property tax revenues from other taxing districts. Unfortunately, the mainstream media has simply been shilling for the Ballard administration and the private developers/architects, who stand to benefit handsomely from government handouts. This is an outrage when you consider that basic city services must be reduced because of the lack of revenues to finance them. The public must rise up and demand accountability from their elected officials. If Mayor Ballard gets his way, you will be paying higher property taxes on your homes, while these fat cats walk off with milliions of taxpayer dollars. Call your city councilor and the mayor's office today and demand that they represent the public's interest, not the fat cat contributors who are lining their pockets with campaign contributions, free dinners at five-star restaurants and tickets to sporting events.  

Mayor Removes Airport Director - Curiously Says Its About Economic Development

Anyone who had any reservations accepting the idea that nothing happens at the airport that the Mayor does not want to happen, need only look at the series of events that lead to the 'resignation' of John Clark as the Indianapolis Airport's Executive Director.

I first saw the news that Clark was out over at Gary Welsh's Advance Indiana blog, then the IBJ's news alert started circulating, and this morning I read more about it in the Indy Star.

Here are the dominoes.

December 16 - Michael Stayton, former President of the Airport Authority Board, announces he will step down, even though he still has two years left on his term.

December 31 - Mayor Ballard appoints Mike Wells to fill out the final two years of Stayton's term.

January 20 - Mike Wells elected President of the Airport Board at his first board meeting of this appointment.

March 10 - news reports suddenly appear of another year, more expensive trips abroad for John Clark and his top deputies.  Curiously, Mike Wells keeps using the word "I" instead of "we" or "the Board" in his statements that changes are coming.  For instance, the IBJ quotes him as saying "I'm making major changes to the travel policy".

March 19 - Wells announces immediate departure of Clark as Director.  Mayor Ballard is quoted as saying

"What I’m mostly concerned about out there is the economic development aspect of the airport,” said Mayor Ballard. "I think that’s been slow, much slower than I would have expected.

"It may have been the recession. It may have been all the economic downturn but I want to have more plans for development out there. That’s what I’m mostly focused on."

Those of you who wanted to blame Clark for announcing the cancellation of collective bargaining at the airport, which was delayed for about a month so candidate Ballard could bask in the light of a recent union endorsement - blame Ballard instead.  (see "Is Indy Airport Playing Politics For Ballard?")

Those of you who wanted to blame Clark for removing art from the airport in order to put up a garish electronic advertising screen, remember the timing.  On August 9, the removal is announced.  On August 24, Mayor Ballard swoops in to save the day.  Then, on November 30, right after the election, the art is removed.  Just in time for the 'holiday travel' season and the Super Bowl - where ads just might fetch a pretty penny.

Yes, anything the airport does leads directly back to Mayor Ballard - its a lesson John Clark has learned and its a lesson the public needs to learn.