Anyone who has followed my blog knows that I have long complained about my fellow Republican, Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi ignoring white collar crime and political corruption. Indiana, and Indianapolis in particular, is a cesspool of political corruption, influence peddling and pay-to-play politics.
We had an example of white collar crime being ignored earlier this year when participants in the James Penn mortgage fraud scheme, probably the biggest mortgage scam in the history of the state, were prosecuted - not by the Marion County Prosecutor, but by the U.S. Attorney's Office. I complained on my blog that the Marion County Prosecutor and state regulators knew about the victims of the Penn scam and failed to take any action.
Yesterday we had yet another action taken by the feds when the FBI seized files from the businesses of Indianapolis businessman Timothy Durham. Durham's business had been the subject of an investigation by the FBI which apparently raised enough red flags to warrant a search warrant to seize files from Durham's businesses. Durham is a big contributor to Brizzi's campaign (to the tune of $160,000 by some reports) as well as other Republicans, and is a close personal friend of the prosecutor.
One has to ask the obvious question whether that same evidence that led to the FBI's raid were on Brizzi's desk and whether he chose to overlook it. Certainly any criminal wrongdoing would not be confined to just federal law; there are plenty of state laws that would have also been violated. The burden though shouldn't just fall on Brizzi. There are state regulators who would have been certainly tipped off. Undoubtedly they too, like in the Penn mortgage fraud case, knew of problems and had complaints from customers of Durham's businesses. What action did they take?
While Democrats are celebrating over the possible fall of a big Republican contributor who may take some big name Republicans down with him, they shouldn't be. The problem of white collar crime and political corruption is that it is a door that swings both ways. Indianapolis does not effectively have a two party system. We have an elite group of government contractors, law firms, and political power brokers that controls local politics, regardless of which party controls the 25th floor or the council.
Hoosiers should not depend on the feds to clean up our messes. It is time for state and local officials to be more diligent in doing their jobs. White collar crime is real crime with real victims. Let's not forget that.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
The FBI Raid on Tim Durham's Business Offices; The Feds Act While State and Local Officials Stay on the Sidelines
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
FBI Raids Offices of Indianapolis Businessman Tim Durham
This picture on IBJ's home web page shows an FBI truck parked outside the Monument Circle offices of businessman Tim Durham's Indianapolis-based leveraged-buyout firm, Obsidian Enterprises.
I went to law school with Tim Durham. He was either valedictorian or close to it. I assisted Tim in his high class ranking by providing the foundation upon which his stellar academic ranking was achieved.
I did not know Tim terribly well in law school. He was a personable enough guy, easy to talk to. My classmates and I thought it was rather odd though when Tim, a single man in his mid-20s, suddenly started dating and quickly married an older, not overly attractive woman, who already had children. That older woman though happened to be the daughter of then City-County Council President and business tycoon Buert Servaas. When Tim parlayed that relationship (before it crashed and burned in a bitter divorce) and the connections it brought, into the opening of a business empire, my classmates and I understood Tim's strategy. He married to get ahead. Silly us. My classmates had thought hard work and being good lawyers would be our tickets to success. Tim though knew though relationships were more important to one's success.
Gary Welsh has an excellent post on the events today at Obsidian, along with links to previous stories. Likewise, IBJ has an article on the subject.
Wanted: Experienced Leadership at City Legal
The shuffling of the deck chairs on the Titanic, er Ballard administration, brings a new interesting opening. Chris Cotterill, head of City Legal, has moved over to become Ballard's Chief of Staff. That of course leaves Cotterill's old position open.
Among Indianapolis attorneys, the most consistent criticism of the Ballard administration has been the poorly run City Legal which carries the official name Corporation Counsel. Cotterill, who had only been an attorney for five years when he was appointed, simply did not have the experience for the job. The head of the extremely important litigation division of City Legal, Jonathan Mayes, only had two years legal experience when he was appointed.
Those of us who have been attorneys for a long time (I've passed my 22nd anniversary as a lawyer) know there is absolutely no substitute for experience. While City Legal is staffed by many fine attorneys with potential, most are young and need experienced leadership to guide them through the legal thicket. When the leaders of City Legal are as inexperienced, or more so, than the rank and file City Legal attorneys, it creates a huge problem.
Of course, inexperienced leadership at City Legal is no accident. I understand that Joe Loftus, partner at Barnes & Thornburg who is also on the public payroll as counsel to the mayor and lobbyist, hired every attorney over at City Legal. Loftus is no dummy. He knows young, inexperienced attorneys are unlikely to stand up to him when he gives them a questionable directive. That fact was on full display during the budget discussions culminating in the elimination of Channel 16 Rick Maultra's job. Cotterill completely immersed himself in a conflict of interest situation that was driven by Loftus' desire to help out his long-time client, AT&T. That Cotterill was perhaps violating the very city ethics rules he was supposed to help enforce didn't deter him down from helping Loftus, who was calling the shots behind the scenes.
While the promotion of Cotterill is in itself a questionable move, it does open an opportunity for Mayor Ballard to appoint a more experienced head of City Legal, someone who will show some independence and leadership. Let's hope Mayor Ballard takes advantage of that opportunity.
Among Indianapolis attorneys, the most consistent criticism of the Ballard administration has been the poorly run City Legal which carries the official name Corporation Counsel. Cotterill, who had only been an attorney for five years when he was appointed, simply did not have the experience for the job. The head of the extremely important litigation division of City Legal, Jonathan Mayes, only had two years legal experience when he was appointed.
Those of us who have been attorneys for a long time (I've passed my 22nd anniversary as a lawyer) know there is absolutely no substitute for experience. While City Legal is staffed by many fine attorneys with potential, most are young and need experienced leadership to guide them through the legal thicket. When the leaders of City Legal are as inexperienced, or more so, than the rank and file City Legal attorneys, it creates a huge problem.
Of course, inexperienced leadership at City Legal is no accident. I understand that Joe Loftus, partner at Barnes & Thornburg who is also on the public payroll as counsel to the mayor and lobbyist, hired every attorney over at City Legal. Loftus is no dummy. He knows young, inexperienced attorneys are unlikely to stand up to him when he gives them a questionable directive. That fact was on full display during the budget discussions culminating in the elimination of Channel 16 Rick Maultra's job. Cotterill completely immersed himself in a conflict of interest situation that was driven by Loftus' desire to help out his long-time client, AT&T. That Cotterill was perhaps violating the very city ethics rules he was supposed to help enforce didn't deter him down from helping Loftus, who was calling the shots behind the scenes.
While the promotion of Cotterill is in itself a questionable move, it does open an opportunity for Mayor Ballard to appoint a more experienced head of City Legal, someone who will show some independence and leadership. Let's hope Mayor Ballard takes advantage of that opportunity.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Proposed Regional Bailout of the Capital Improvement Board Flunks Economics 101
At least that's what a new task force formed by the Indianapolis City-County Council is proposing as a "solution" to the fiscal crisis faced by the Capital Improvement Board?
The notion is that the doughnut counties surrounding Marion County benefit from CIB's buildings such as Lucas Oil Stadium and Conseco Fieldhouse. Therefore, those counties need to pay up.
What is forgotten is that all but one of those counties has passed a food and beverage tax that goes in part to paying for the construction of those buildings.
Not good enough is the word from the task force. Members of the task force also want those counties to shoulder part of the burden as to the expense of operating those buildings. That notion, at least with regard to the professionals sports teams, the Colts and the Pacers, is misguided.
People who attend professional sporting events are almost all local. That is why economists, when evaluating the economic impact of professional sports, generally subtract out money spent by the locals. The reason why is simple. People only have so much discretionary income to spend. If they don't spend it on professional sporting events, they will spend it elsewhere in the community.
This is especially true when you look at residents who live in the doughnut counties. Professional sporting events in Indianapolis take discretionary spending out of their communities and relocate it to downtown Indianapolis. A father of four in Danville who decides to take his family to the game and spend $200 is not spending that money in Hendricks County. Hendricks County's restaurants, movie theatres, and other facilities lose the benefit of that $200.
Thus the task force is asking non Marion County residents to shell out more of their tax dollars chiefly for an activity - professional sports - that takes money out of their communities in favor of downtown Indianapolis. My guess is the residents of these doughnut counties are going to tell their legislators to reject this self-serving proposal.
The notion is that the doughnut counties surrounding Marion County benefit from CIB's buildings such as Lucas Oil Stadium and Conseco Fieldhouse. Therefore, those counties need to pay up.
What is forgotten is that all but one of those counties has passed a food and beverage tax that goes in part to paying for the construction of those buildings.
Not good enough is the word from the task force. Members of the task force also want those counties to shoulder part of the burden as to the expense of operating those buildings. That notion, at least with regard to the professionals sports teams, the Colts and the Pacers, is misguided.
People who attend professional sporting events are almost all local. That is why economists, when evaluating the economic impact of professional sports, generally subtract out money spent by the locals. The reason why is simple. People only have so much discretionary income to spend. If they don't spend it on professional sporting events, they will spend it elsewhere in the community.
This is especially true when you look at residents who live in the doughnut counties. Professional sporting events in Indianapolis take discretionary spending out of their communities and relocate it to downtown Indianapolis. A father of four in Danville who decides to take his family to the game and spend $200 is not spending that money in Hendricks County. Hendricks County's restaurants, movie theatres, and other facilities lose the benefit of that $200.
Thus the task force is asking non Marion County residents to shell out more of their tax dollars chiefly for an activity - professional sports - that takes money out of their communities in favor of downtown Indianapolis. My guess is the residents of these doughnut counties are going to tell their legislators to reject this self-serving proposal.
While State Workers Are Laid Off, Members of Gambling Commission Head to Vegas
I missed this tidbit in the Star a week or so ago:
I certainly applaud Governor Daniels handling of Indiana's budget during this crisis. However, there are still fiscal leaks in his agencies which need to plugged. Yelton is wrong. There is no justifying this trip in the middle of Indiana's fiscal crisis.
As the state Department of Administration laid off 33 employees Friday, some wondered why other options weren't chosen Gov. Mitch Daniels has told state agencies they can ask workers to take a voluntary furlough. Phillip Giddens, who was laid off as director of its "Greening the Government" initiative, and others questioned why the state didn't opt for mandatory furloughs and spread the pain among all workers.
Mark W. Everson, department commissioner, said the two biggest costs are utilities and personnel, and utilities are fixed: "Given that, we felt we needed to do this."
Other state employees pointed to expenditures they think are inappropriate in this economy, including a Las Vegas trip for three members of the Indiana Gaming Commission.
Ernie Yelton, executive director of the commission, said he, his deputy director and general counsel will attend the Global Gaming Exposition next week. He called it the "ultimate trade show for gaming," an important chance to get acquainted with new gaming devices and issues.
It was announced that next year will be the second year in a row that state employees will go without raises. They are also being laid off. I understood that for further belt tightening to meet the fiscal criss, Governor Daniels had frozen all but essential travel for state agencies. Yet members of the Gambling (I refusing to call it "Gaming") Commission have found a way to head off for a four day convention in Vegas on the taxpayer dime? I agree with the comments to the article that it doesn't pass the "smell test."Before, he said, he would have taken more staff and attended more events. "I have no hesitation in justifying this trip," Yelton said.
He did not have a total estimate for the four-night trip's cost, but said the flights cost about $220 and hotel rooms are less than $100 per night.
I certainly applaud Governor Daniels handling of Indiana's budget during this crisis. However, there are still fiscal leaks in his agencies which need to plugged. Yelton is wrong. There is no justifying this trip in the middle of Indiana's fiscal crisis.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Private Corrections: Cutting Corners to Increase Profits
The Indianapolis Star today raises a fuss about the Department of Corrections' pilot program in which they have decided to not serve lunch for three days a week. Meal service in Indiana's prisons is provided by a private contractor, Aramark under a 10 year, $258 million deal signed in 2005. At the time, Aramark bragged in a press release about saving Indiana $11.5 million dollars:
During the last two years, I have had a chance to learn about how private correctional companies are constantly cutting corners, endangering not only the lives of inmates, but also the general public. In Marion County, Correctional Corporation of America, out of Tennessee, runs Jail #2. Another private company, Correctional Medical Services provides medical at most of the other Marion County jails.
Some examples of problems that we have observed include:
May 2005: Through a new program to manage food service operations at 30 correctional facilities statewide with ARAMARK Correctional Services (ACS), the Indiana Department of Correction will save an estimated $11.5 million a year. Department of Correction and the Department of Administration partnered to aggressively review the Request For Proposal (RFP) to promote cost-effectiveness, efficiency and to ensure opportunities for Indiana-based, minority and women-owned businesses.The Star's angle on the story is misplaced. The DOC for cutting lunch out three days a week is not in itself a huge deal. If the Star wants a much bigger story it might take a closer look at the whole idea of correctional privatization, both in Indiana prisons and jails. The latter is even more important because most inmates in Indiana jails have yet to be convicted and are often sitting in jail awaiting trial because they simply can't afford bail.
“Operational excellence, cost-effective solutions and innovative opportunities for offenders are three elements I look for in defining the success of this business,” said J. David Donahue, Commissioner of the Department.
During the last two years, I have had a chance to learn about how private correctional companies are constantly cutting corners, endangering not only the lives of inmates, but also the general public. In Marion County, Correctional Corporation of America, out of Tennessee, runs Jail #2. Another private company, Correctional Medical Services provides medical at most of the other Marion County jails.
Some examples of problems that we have observed include:
- At Marion County Jail #2, the private jail's physician admitted cutting out a round of medication because the company was "short-staffed." For inmates who were supposed to get medication three times a day, most would only receive their medication two times a day. The practice has apparently now been stopped.
- Also at Jail #2, a CCA correctional officer reported numerous TV monitors at the jail that did not work leaving the area exposed.
- Radios at Jail #2 were reported as not working.
- Untrained, unarmed nurses have been ordered by CCA supervisors to escort dangerous inmates throughout Jail #2, again to save money on hiring and training more correctional officers.
- Numerous HIPAA violations have been reported at Jail #2, including medical intakes being done in the presence of other inmates and Spanish-speaking inmates being called in to translate for other inmates going through medical.
- Delays in inmates receiving medication in both Jail #1 and Jail #2 are common. Inmates who have prescriptions for expensive medication (like medication for HIV) often don't receive their medication in jail because it is too expensive. Private correctional nurses at Jail #2 report that they have been ordered to provide inmates with expired prescription medication or medication of other inmates who have left the facility.
- Neither CMS or CCA are made to comply with Indiana jail regulations which require that jails continue to provide inmates with their prescribed medication when they are incarcerated. Inmates are often switched to cheaper medication than what they've been prescribed.
- Razor blades at Jail #2 have been left out in open wastebaskets where they are fished out and made into weapons by inmates.
- Inmates at Jail #2 burn holes in glass windows then lower string to friends on the ground. The friends attach contraband that is then pulled into the jail.
- Contrary to the claims of Sheriff Anderson, I have confirmed that numerous violent inmates are being sent by the Sheriff's Department to lower security Jail #2, which jail houses inmates in a dormitory type fashion. This includes inmates who have already been convicted of violent felonies and others who are charged with serious felonies like rape. Inmate attacks at Jail #2 are not uncommon.
As with any private contractor, it is essential that we have public officials who will force private contractors to comply with their contracts and the law. Marion County Sheriff Frank Anderson has demonstrated time and time again that he has no intention of making private contractors comply with their contracts or the law. Considering the safety problems at Jail #2, a hostage situation there is inevitable. The only question is when.
What the Star is missing in its report is that this appears to be another failed privatization effort involving a long-term (10 years) given to a vendor. Aramark entered into a contract to provide meal services to inmates. If the company is not living up to its contract, it should be cancelled. Taxpayers and inmates should not have to bear the brunt of the failure of a private vendor to deliver services as promised.
Friday, November 20, 2009
The Star Advocates Lavish Public Spending On the Arts, Points to Carmel's Civic Theatre Boondoggle as Example of Good Public Spending
Today the Indianapolis Star editorializes about the need for more spending on the arts and laments the loss of the Indianapolis Civic Theatre to Carmel. The thrust of the editorial "Don't Let Curtain Fall on the Arts" is summed up in a quote from the editorial:
Second, the Star's citing professional sports investments as an analogy for why it makes economic sense to pour money into the local arts also fails basic economics. People who attend professional sporting events are typically local people spending their discretionary income. If they spend their money on going to the Pacers game or to the Indianapolis Symphony, that is money they don't spend to take the family out to the movies or to dinner. You don't have an increase in spending with the professional sports or the arts. You're simply moving around the spending.
Finally, it is mystifying why the Star would write an editorial praising the Carmel Regional Performing Arts Center as a good example of public spending while completely ignoring all the problems and scandals that have been associated with that project. Mayor Brainard low-balled private contributions to the Arts Center, leaving taxpayers picking up the tab. Further, he, his attorney and the city's spokesperson were put in control of the private foundation to run the Arts Center. I explained this set up in an earlier column.
For the Indianapolis Star to cite Mayor Brainard's Carmel financial misadventures as an example Indianapolis should aspire to is a frightening thought.
Carmel Mayor Jim Brainard contends that investing in the arts is a sound economic development strategy. "It's important to have cultural amenities, just like it's important to have professional sports teams,'' he told The Star's Jason Thomas.First, I'm not at all certain why the Star believes that Mayor Ballard has somehow shortchanged the arts. Arts spending continues unabated. The City continues to pour millions into the Arts Council of Indianapolis which acts as a distribution mechanism for local arts spending. As I have pointed out previously, only a small percent of our tax dollars paid to the Arts Council actually makes it to the artists. (See additional column on this topic as well.) Most of the money is spent on the Arts Council salaries, other administrative costs or stashed away in investments, which now total several million dollars.
That's an argument that Brainard's counterpart in Indianapolis, Greg Ballard, needs to hear and understand. While Carmel appears to be aggressively targeting Indianapolis' cultural institutions, the leadership in this city remains complacent.
Second, the Star's citing professional sports investments as an analogy for why it makes economic sense to pour money into the local arts also fails basic economics. People who attend professional sporting events are typically local people spending their discretionary income. If they spend their money on going to the Pacers game or to the Indianapolis Symphony, that is money they don't spend to take the family out to the movies or to dinner. You don't have an increase in spending with the professional sports or the arts. You're simply moving around the spending.
Finally, it is mystifying why the Star would write an editorial praising the Carmel Regional Performing Arts Center as a good example of public spending while completely ignoring all the problems and scandals that have been associated with that project. Mayor Brainard low-balled private contributions to the Arts Center, leaving taxpayers picking up the tab. Further, he, his attorney and the city's spokesperson were put in control of the private foundation to run the Arts Center. I explained this set up in an earlier column.
A troublesome twist to this public-private setup is that Carmel Mayor James Brainard is one of the founding directors and an officer in the Carmel Performing Arts Foundation. [Foundation director Nancy] Heck, also a founding member, is the City's spokesperson. A third officer/founding member is Douglas Haney, who is Carmel's attorney. Heck and Haney both receive their positions through appointment by Mayor Brainard, as do a majority of members of the Carmel Redevelopment Commission.Taxpayer money is being used to pay new artistic director for the Performing Arts Center, Michael Feinstein, a $500,000 (maybe more) annual salary. It is not clear though that Feinstein is going to actually have much time to earn that salary. As the IBJ notes:
Feinstein won't have any time of course. Carmel is using at least a half million dollars of taxpayer money to purchase Feinstein's name under the guise of his doing work in running a facility, work he is never going to do. (Which raises interesting ghost employment issues since tax dollars are being used to fund Feinstein's salary.) Because Feinstein is not going to be available to do the work, Carmel taxpayers are having to pay $200,000 more for an executive director to actually run the Carmel Arts Center.It looks like Michael Feinstein, the high-profile Artistic Director of the Carmel Performing Arts Center, will have a busy 2010.
His show "All About Me" will be opening on Broadway in March. It's his first Broadway bow since 1990's "Michael Feinstein in Concert: Piano and Voice." More on the show from Playbill.com.
Feinstein also owns his own NYC club, Feinstein's at Loew's Regency and, according to his website, will be serving as Director of the Popular Song Series for Live at Lincoln Center.And that's not all. He's also now working on a proposed Broadway musical version of "The Thomas Crown Affair." Plus he's prepping a globe-trotting PBS TV series, "Michael Feinstein: Man on a Mission."
The question, of course, is: How much time will he have for Carmel?
For the Indianapolis Star to cite Mayor Brainard's Carmel financial misadventures as an example Indianapolis should aspire to is a frightening thought.
Speedway's Speedzone: Is The Westside Town Constructing Indianapolis' Newest White Elephant?
This year, talked to several residents of Speedway and attended a meeting where town planners discussed the Speedzone redevelopment. There seems to be a virtually unanimous sentiment that redevelopment is needed to revitalize the town. It is the details of the planned redevelopment, however, that have sharply divided the town.
The Indianapolis Star this morning explains the benefits that the advocates of the plan believe will bring to the westside town:
Much of the redevelopment hopes revolve around the construction of a Speedzone racing theme park. The idea is that, with the racing park, Speedway will attract tourists 12 months out of the year. Daytona's racing park is cited as an example of where it has worked successfully.
First of all, last time I checked the city of Daytona was on the Atlantic Ocean in Florida, which state has warmer weather all year around and is already a tourist destination. Second, there is actually some dispute whether the Daytona racing park has worked. Nonetheless, that has not prevented supporters from plowing forward with the Speedzone portion of the project.
Color me as a skeptic. I don't buy for one second that a racing theme park is going to bring tourists to Speedway for 12 months of the year. People are not going to hop on a plane during the middle of winter to fly to Indianapolis just for the purpose of participating in the racing-themed activities provided at the Speedzone.
As is the tradition in Indianapolis, massive public spending is being used to try to leverage the private sector to open its wallet. That is a mighty dangerous road to go down. While there is merit to government spending to improve infrastructure, a definite need in Speedway, when government seeks to directly aid and direct private development, the effort usually fails. Subsidizing private development skews the course of normal economic development. If businesses are not willing to risk their money on a project, that is because they don't see the project as being profitable.
While I wish the residents of Speedway the best, I am doubtful that this project will succeed.
The Indianapolis Star this morning explains the benefits that the advocates of the plan believe will bring to the westside town:
The development will involve taking several homes and businesses through eminent domain and closing of several roads. This includes the closing of Georgetown Road between 25th Street and 16th Street to create a linear park to a serve as a buffer to the track.Thursday's ceremony, attended by nearly 100 people, was the kickoff for the town's $500 million revitalization effort.
Planners envision a vibrant Main Street with sidewalk cafes, high-end restaurants, race-related experiences and improved shopping options in renovated building fronts.The plan also calls for new office buildings, a multistory parking garage and new lighting, landscaping and pedestrian-friendly pathways.
Civic leaders believe their public investment will help trigger $263 million in private funds throughout the 400-acre redevelopment site directly south of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway at the corner of 16th Street and Georgetown Road.
An estimated 2.5 million square feet of new, mixed-use space will be available in the redeveloped area.
Financial consultant Crowe Horwath estimates the project will create more than 2,000 jobs and a 10-year economic boost of $5.2 billion.
Local leaders expect the redevelopment to complement the racetrack, making the area a destination for visitors and a source of pride for residents and business owners.
"The future of Indianapolis is taking our strengths and building around them," David Wu, policy director for Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard, said during Thursday's groundbreaking. "So what would make more sense than to build up the areas around where the 'Greatest Spectacle in Racing' is held?"
Much of the redevelopment hopes revolve around the construction of a Speedzone racing theme park. The idea is that, with the racing park, Speedway will attract tourists 12 months out of the year. Daytona's racing park is cited as an example of where it has worked successfully.
First of all, last time I checked the city of Daytona was on the Atlantic Ocean in Florida, which state has warmer weather all year around and is already a tourist destination. Second, there is actually some dispute whether the Daytona racing park has worked. Nonetheless, that has not prevented supporters from plowing forward with the Speedzone portion of the project.
Color me as a skeptic. I don't buy for one second that a racing theme park is going to bring tourists to Speedway for 12 months of the year. People are not going to hop on a plane during the middle of winter to fly to Indianapolis just for the purpose of participating in the racing-themed activities provided at the Speedzone.
As is the tradition in Indianapolis, massive public spending is being used to try to leverage the private sector to open its wallet. That is a mighty dangerous road to go down. While there is merit to government spending to improve infrastructure, a definite need in Speedway, when government seeks to directly aid and direct private development, the effort usually fails. Subsidizing private development skews the course of normal economic development. If businesses are not willing to risk their money on a project, that is because they don't see the project as being profitable.
While I wish the residents of Speedway the best, I am doubtful that this project will succeed.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Indy's Newest White Elephant?: Welcome to the New Marriott
Not sure how many people saw WTHR Mary Milz's story on the trouble filling hotel space in Indianapolis and the possible impact of all those hotel rooms in the new Marriott:
Of course, last year Indianapolis' City-County Council approved a hike in hotel taxes to give Indianapolis the highest hotel/sales tax in the country. Now the concern is being sounded that Indianapolis may not be able to fill its downtown hotel rooms when the new Marriott came on line. Gee, who could have seen that coming?Indianapolis - It's the largest hotel in the state. The new JW Marriott is set to open in early 2011, but it's already raising some concerns about keeping it and other hotels full in a struggling economy.
If you're downtown, you can't miss it. Construction crews recently topped off the new JW Marriott and they're just a couple of months from finishing the three other Marriott hotels, which open in February.
"We've already booked those up for the Final Four," said Jeremy Stephenson, REI Investments.Stephenson told city planners the project is on time and on budget. All told, Marriott Place will add 1,600 rooms to downtown Indianapolis. That's a 30-percent increase.
The new hotel's opening will coincide with the expansion of the convention center, which is meant to bring more business to the city.
But the opening of the complex comes at a time when existing hotels are struggling to fill their rooms. Thanks to the economy, business at downtown hotels is down 14 percent over last year.Even the races didn't quite fill the stands or the rooms.
"There's certainly some uneasiness. That's a lot of rooms coming into Indianapolis," said Phil Ray, Greater Indianapolis Hotel and Lodging Association.
Ray, who represents downtown hotels, says in the short-term it will be tough.
"It's one of those things where we know we'll have to work hard to fill in the gap and get more creative to bring people downtown," he added.
That means more pressure on the people who work to draw conventions here.
"Cities are doing more to entice conventions and they're cutting better deals. We have to try to respond in the competitive arena by coming up with our own packages," said Bill Benner, Indianapolis Convention and Visitors Association.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Star Does 180 Degree Turn; Now Demands Fair Elections
My what delicious irony. Today, the Indianapolis Star runs an editorial calling for redistricting reform so voters can have fair legislative elections
This is just over two weeks after the special referenda elections that took place across Marion County. In that election, Health & Hospital wrote a referendum question regarding the new Wishard Hospital that didn't bother to tell voters that they would be building a new hospital funded by bonds backed by property taxes. Nor did the question bother to mention how much H&H would be borrowing. One would think the editors at the Star would be outraged by the intentional misleading of voters by H&H, but think again. The Star uttered hardly a word in protest.
Then we have the questionable need for a special election for these referenda and the over $1 million cost to the taxpayers to put it on. The Star offered no criticism to this waste of tax dollars.
Then we had those supporting the Wishard and school referenda using public, i.e. taxpayer resources to promote their positions. The Star offered not one word of criticism over this abuse of tax dollars.
The Wishard PAC files a highly questionable report showing only three individual contributors to the campaign, but over $1 million from two non-profit corporations. The expenditure side only shows one payout, to a PR firm. You would think that this report would raise questions about proper disclosure and possible tax violations. Certainly it raises a red flag. The Star remains silent.
Then you have Election Day, where paper ballots were used and the Clerk's Office was totally dependent on the count reported by poll workers. In 42 of the 590 precincts there was a unanimous vote reported in favor of the Wishard referendum. In 29 more there was only one "no" vote reported. Typical results in these precincts include 179-0, 148-0, 193-1, 162-1. Those 71 precincts produced a margin of 3671-29, an astonishing 99.2% to .8% edge. For most newspapers, those results would raise a red flag as to whether there were discrepancies between the results reported by poll workers to the Clerk's Office and the actual ballot totals. While it obviously wouldn't change the Wishard result, it could raise major concerns about the accuracy of future paper ballot counts. But for the Star, which spent the last two months being little more than a cheerleader for the Wishard cause, it didn't even cause an eyebrow to furrow.
From beginning to end, the Star's editors expressed no interest in the fairness of the referenda special election. Now the Star does a 180 degree turn and opines for redistricting reform so voters can have fair legislative elections.
I'm sorry, but the mark of a real reformer is someone who argues for good government and fair elections even when doing so is against the ends they would like to achieve. Selective ethics are bad ethics. It is something the Star needs to learn.
This is just over two weeks after the special referenda elections that took place across Marion County. In that election, Health & Hospital wrote a referendum question regarding the new Wishard Hospital that didn't bother to tell voters that they would be building a new hospital funded by bonds backed by property taxes. Nor did the question bother to mention how much H&H would be borrowing. One would think the editors at the Star would be outraged by the intentional misleading of voters by H&H, but think again. The Star uttered hardly a word in protest.
Then we have the questionable need for a special election for these referenda and the over $1 million cost to the taxpayers to put it on. The Star offered no criticism to this waste of tax dollars.
Then we had those supporting the Wishard and school referenda using public, i.e. taxpayer resources to promote their positions. The Star offered not one word of criticism over this abuse of tax dollars.
The Wishard PAC files a highly questionable report showing only three individual contributors to the campaign, but over $1 million from two non-profit corporations. The expenditure side only shows one payout, to a PR firm. You would think that this report would raise questions about proper disclosure and possible tax violations. Certainly it raises a red flag. The Star remains silent.
Then you have Election Day, where paper ballots were used and the Clerk's Office was totally dependent on the count reported by poll workers. In 42 of the 590 precincts there was a unanimous vote reported in favor of the Wishard referendum. In 29 more there was only one "no" vote reported. Typical results in these precincts include 179-0, 148-0, 193-1, 162-1. Those 71 precincts produced a margin of 3671-29, an astonishing 99.2% to .8% edge. For most newspapers, those results would raise a red flag as to whether there were discrepancies between the results reported by poll workers to the Clerk's Office and the actual ballot totals. While it obviously wouldn't change the Wishard result, it could raise major concerns about the accuracy of future paper ballot counts. But for the Star, which spent the last two months being little more than a cheerleader for the Wishard cause, it didn't even cause an eyebrow to furrow.
From beginning to end, the Star's editors expressed no interest in the fairness of the referenda special election. Now the Star does a 180 degree turn and opines for redistricting reform so voters can have fair legislative elections.
I'm sorry, but the mark of a real reformer is someone who argues for good government and fair elections even when doing so is against the ends they would like to achieve. Selective ethics are bad ethics. It is something the Star needs to learn.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
The Outlook for Republican Fortunes In Congressional District 7; Could Carlos May Pull Off an Upset?
Last night, Carlos May, Republican candidate for the 7th District Congress, stopped by the monthly meeting of the Republican Liberty Caucus. It was my first chance to meet Mr. May. He's an impressive, energetic young man. As a former candidate myself, I always admire people who are willing to thrown their hat into the ring. Unless you have been a candidate, I don't think you can properly appreciate the amount of personal sacrifice involved in running for office, especially in a district that requires an enormous amount of work.
As a former candidate, someone who has worked on several campaigns and taught campaign strategy, here is my take on the district.
THE DISTRICT: Unlike many Republicans, I don't see the 7th District as unwinnable. Yes, it would take a good candidate, a lot of luck and an aligning of most of the planets, but it is winnable, especially in the upcoming mid-term election which history tells us will provide a backlash against the Democrats
Hopefully, Mr. May has done some homework studying the numbers in the district. A good campaign does not view the election as one big war, but rather a precinct by precinct battle. The goal (for a Republican candidate) is to move the numbers from the Democratic side of the equation to the Republican side. To understand the numbers in the district you compare apples to apples, oranges to oranges. Presidential election years have much higher turnout than other years. Turnout rates can make an enormous difference on outcome. 2008 gets compared to 2012. 2006 gets compared to 2010.
If Mr. May does this, he will find some encouraging news. The district is more Republican in off-year elections like 2010. In the last comparable election, 2006, the margin of victory for Julia Carson was 74,750 to 64,304. That is about 23 1/2 votes per precinct when you spread out the victory margin to the now 445 precincts that make up District 7. If Republican challenger Eric Dickerson could have flipped just 12 votes in each precinct his title would have been "Congressman." That is even before you consider that history says 2010, being the first mid-term election for an incumbent President, will be a great year for the out-party, the Republicans.
Here's some discouraging news, however. Julia Carson historically ran below the Democratic baseline. In other words there were Democrats who would vote straight ticket, except to scratch to vote against Julia Carson. There is little evidence Republicans, on the other hand, scratch for Julia Carson or even for Andre Carson. Andre though is showing signs of being a better candidate than his grandmother though. In 2006, Julia Carson received 53.7% of the vote, about the same total as Democrats running county-wide, which included several heavy Republican areas not in the 7th district. By 2008, Andre Carson was running several points ahead of those county wide candidates, winning 65% of the vote when compared to the Democratic county-wide baseline of 60%. Andre Carson won in 2008 by over 80,000 votes. He probably ran at about the 2008 baseline for District 7.
2008 could well turn out to be an aberration. Certainly 2006 is the appropriate yardstick since it is the last comparable election in terms of turnout. A wise candidate though would set the bar high enough that there is room for error. Mr. May should target changing the election results by 40 votes each precinct, which would require a flipping of 20 votes for each of the 590 precincts. That is a doable task.
REACHING OUT TO COUNTY ORGANIZATION REPUBLICANS: Outside of doing so to get by slating, Mr. May would be wise to not spend a great deal of time seeking the endorsement of county GOP leadership, who for lack of a better term, I will call "The Old Guard." While the Old Guard likes to have their rings kissed, they will offer him not one lick of help. Worse yet, they will become an obstacle. They will tell donors the 7th District is not winnable and to not contribute to a May candidacy. They have done that to other 7th District candidates and did it to mayoral candidate Greg Ballard in 2007. Before he stabbed them in their back almost immediately upon his election, Ballard's support came almost exclusively from the Republican Reform wing of county party. The Old Guard wanted nothing to do with him until the end when they saw the numbers switch. The Republic Reform wing of the local GOP has grown even larger, more outspoken and more organized, than it was in 2007.
THE NEW MEDIA: One good thing that is in favor of outsider, underfunded candidates like Mr. May is that the cost of candidates to reach out to supporters and potential voters has plummeted in the past decade with such advances as email and social networking sites. Further, even for paid media, there are now a number of cheap alternatives. In my 2000 House campaign, we were running cable TV spots for, literally, just a few dollars per spot. (I was fortunate in that my brother is a TV producer so it didn't cost me to produce the spots.) While the cost of cable advertising has risen, it is still much cheaper than the regular network advertising. While TV viewers have turned off network television, they have increasingly tuned into to cable television networks. Yet political candidates are still old school - buying incredibly expensive network TV spots that are seen by fewer and fewer voters. That's the only game they know.
CONCLUSION: I think Republicans have to be realistic about the difficulties in District 7. But realism does not include a conclusion the district is absolutely unwinnable and to simply write it off. The key is to write a winnable game plan and then to methodically execute it. And a little luck along the way wouldn't hurt.
As a former candidate, someone who has worked on several campaigns and taught campaign strategy, here is my take on the district.
THE DISTRICT: Unlike many Republicans, I don't see the 7th District as unwinnable. Yes, it would take a good candidate, a lot of luck and an aligning of most of the planets, but it is winnable, especially in the upcoming mid-term election which history tells us will provide a backlash against the Democrats
Hopefully, Mr. May has done some homework studying the numbers in the district. A good campaign does not view the election as one big war, but rather a precinct by precinct battle. The goal (for a Republican candidate) is to move the numbers from the Democratic side of the equation to the Republican side. To understand the numbers in the district you compare apples to apples, oranges to oranges. Presidential election years have much higher turnout than other years. Turnout rates can make an enormous difference on outcome. 2008 gets compared to 2012. 2006 gets compared to 2010.
If Mr. May does this, he will find some encouraging news. The district is more Republican in off-year elections like 2010. In the last comparable election, 2006, the margin of victory for Julia Carson was 74,750 to 64,304. That is about 23 1/2 votes per precinct when you spread out the victory margin to the now 445 precincts that make up District 7. If Republican challenger Eric Dickerson could have flipped just 12 votes in each precinct his title would have been "Congressman." That is even before you consider that history says 2010, being the first mid-term election for an incumbent President, will be a great year for the out-party, the Republicans.
Here's some discouraging news, however. Julia Carson historically ran below the Democratic baseline. In other words there were Democrats who would vote straight ticket, except to scratch to vote against Julia Carson. There is little evidence Republicans, on the other hand, scratch for Julia Carson or even for Andre Carson. Andre though is showing signs of being a better candidate than his grandmother though. In 2006, Julia Carson received 53.7% of the vote, about the same total as Democrats running county-wide, which included several heavy Republican areas not in the 7th district. By 2008, Andre Carson was running several points ahead of those county wide candidates, winning 65% of the vote when compared to the Democratic county-wide baseline of 60%. Andre Carson won in 2008 by over 80,000 votes. He probably ran at about the 2008 baseline for District 7.
2008 could well turn out to be an aberration. Certainly 2006 is the appropriate yardstick since it is the last comparable election in terms of turnout. A wise candidate though would set the bar high enough that there is room for error. Mr. May should target changing the election results by 40 votes each precinct, which would require a flipping of 20 votes for each of the 590 precincts. That is a doable task.
REACHING OUT TO COUNTY ORGANIZATION REPUBLICANS: Outside of doing so to get by slating, Mr. May would be wise to not spend a great deal of time seeking the endorsement of county GOP leadership, who for lack of a better term, I will call "The Old Guard." While the Old Guard likes to have their rings kissed, they will offer him not one lick of help. Worse yet, they will become an obstacle. They will tell donors the 7th District is not winnable and to not contribute to a May candidacy. They have done that to other 7th District candidates and did it to mayoral candidate Greg Ballard in 2007. Before he stabbed them in their back almost immediately upon his election, Ballard's support came almost exclusively from the Republican Reform wing of county party. The Old Guard wanted nothing to do with him until the end when they saw the numbers switch. The Republic Reform wing of the local GOP has grown even larger, more outspoken and more organized, than it was in 2007.
THE NEW MEDIA: One good thing that is in favor of outsider, underfunded candidates like Mr. May is that the cost of candidates to reach out to supporters and potential voters has plummeted in the past decade with such advances as email and social networking sites. Further, even for paid media, there are now a number of cheap alternatives. In my 2000 House campaign, we were running cable TV spots for, literally, just a few dollars per spot. (I was fortunate in that my brother is a TV producer so it didn't cost me to produce the spots.) While the cost of cable advertising has risen, it is still much cheaper than the regular network advertising. While TV viewers have turned off network television, they have increasingly tuned into to cable television networks. Yet political candidates are still old school - buying incredibly expensive network TV spots that are seen by fewer and fewer voters. That's the only game they know.
CONCLUSION: I think Republicans have to be realistic about the difficulties in District 7. But realism does not include a conclusion the district is absolutely unwinnable and to simply write it off. The key is to write a winnable game plan and then to methodically execute it. And a little luck along the way wouldn't hurt.
My Brizzi Speculation
Over at Indianapolis Times, blogger Terry Burns engages in speculation about the future of two term Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi. In the comment section, blogger Chris Worden of IPOPA express the opinion that there is a 90% chance Brizzi is in the hunt of re-election.
It is a close call, but I think it is less than 50-50 that Carl Brizzi will run for a third term. I don't buy the suggestion made by Terry Burns - the Carl Brizzi is having trouble finding a job in the private sector. I have no doubt that, given Brizzi's contacts, he could land a well-paying job in the private sector, either at a law firm or in the business world.
The reason why I that Carl Brizzi won't seek a third term is that elected officials are by nature risk-adverse. Someone in office generally doesn't taken on challenges that are an up-hill battle. They wait for an opening and then go through that opening.
In 2002, when Brizzi first won, the Republicans still had a slight majority in the county and won the countywide offices.. By 2006, the county's electorate had changed enough where the Democrats had a significant majority county-wide. Brizzi was the only Republican county-wide candidate able to scale the hill and get elected.
By 2008, there was a 20% split in the base vote, with Democrats winning county offices by a whopping 60-40 margin. While those numbers were pumped up a bit by Obama's presence on the ticket, I think it's fair to say the partisan divide in the county will be no better than 55-45 in 2010, maybe closer to 56-44.
In 2006, Brizzi took advantage had an unqualified candidate opposing him and still barely won. Democrats are not going to make the same mistake in 2010 and nominate someone without a significant criminal law background.
Again, elected officials are risk adverse. Brizzi has already shown he can scale the hill once. Why not go out a winner and bide some time looking for other opportunities? That to me makes a lot more sense than trying to run the county-wide gauntlet again.
If Brizzi does decide against running, then the question has to be asked why he waited so long to declare. If there is a slating battle early next year, a candidate is not going to have much time to get known. That leaves any candidate he and/or the county chairman should choose to support at a decided advantage over any competitor. Therein might lie the real reason for the delay in the Brizzi announcement. Then again, I could be wrong.
It is a close call, but I think it is less than 50-50 that Carl Brizzi will run for a third term. I don't buy the suggestion made by Terry Burns - the Carl Brizzi is having trouble finding a job in the private sector. I have no doubt that, given Brizzi's contacts, he could land a well-paying job in the private sector, either at a law firm or in the business world.
The reason why I that Carl Brizzi won't seek a third term is that elected officials are by nature risk-adverse. Someone in office generally doesn't taken on challenges that are an up-hill battle. They wait for an opening and then go through that opening.
In 2002, when Brizzi first won, the Republicans still had a slight majority in the county and won the countywide offices.. By 2006, the county's electorate had changed enough where the Democrats had a significant majority county-wide. Brizzi was the only Republican county-wide candidate able to scale the hill and get elected.
By 2008, there was a 20% split in the base vote, with Democrats winning county offices by a whopping 60-40 margin. While those numbers were pumped up a bit by Obama's presence on the ticket, I think it's fair to say the partisan divide in the county will be no better than 55-45 in 2010, maybe closer to 56-44.
In 2006, Brizzi took advantage had an unqualified candidate opposing him and still barely won. Democrats are not going to make the same mistake in 2010 and nominate someone without a significant criminal law background.
Again, elected officials are risk adverse. Brizzi has already shown he can scale the hill once. Why not go out a winner and bide some time looking for other opportunities? That to me makes a lot more sense than trying to run the county-wide gauntlet again.
If Brizzi does decide against running, then the question has to be asked why he waited so long to declare. If there is a slating battle early next year, a candidate is not going to have much time to get known. That leaves any candidate he and/or the county chairman should choose to support at a decided advantage over any competitor. Therein might lie the real reason for the delay in the Brizzi announcement. Then again, I could be wrong.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Cheering for the Colts, Pacers While Holding on to My Wallet
Big game last night. The Colts were up against their nemesis, the New England Patriots. The Colts won 35-34 thanks in no small part to the Patriot's coach Bill Belichick's brain fart he had when he had the bright idea to go for it on 4th and 2 from the Patriot's own 28, with a 34-28 lead and 2:08 left int the game. The win gave the Colts a perfect 9-0 start to their season.
The Indiana Pacers meanwhile appear to have turned the corner. The team has now won four straight games, including a win this weekend over the Boston Celtics, one of the best teams in the Eastern Conference over the last two seasons.
I love sports and have always cheered for the Colts and Pacers. However, given the attitude of the owners of the two teams it has become increasingly difficult to remain a fan the past few years. This past year, when the Capital Improvement Board and the good people of Indianapolis were looking for a way out of the CIB's budget crisis, Irsay turned his back on the City. While Indianapolis taxpayers have transformed Irsay from a millionaire into a billionaire with the sweetheart Lucas Oil Stadium deal. Irsay does not appear to appreciate it in the slightest. During negotiations, he would not even throw a bone to the city that has made him fabulously wealthy.
This morning I heard a radio broadcaster bragging about Irsay's charitable offer of donating $1 to United Way for ever person who attended the game last night. That amounts to a whole $67,476. Once the United Way's six figure salaried administrators take their cuts, there might be $476 left over to be distributed to actual charities.
A billionaire like Irsay contributing $67,476 to charity is like me flipping a shiny nickel into the Salvation Army kettle this Christmas and then holding a press conference to brag about it. The $67,476, however, is in line with Irsay's other less than charitable offerings. In 2008, when the eastside of Indianapolis was hit with a tornado and southern Indiana experienced flooding, Irsay coughed up a whole $50,000 for the twin catastrophes...on the condition, of course, that the public would match that amount.
Across town, while the Simons, the owners of the Pacers, have proven to be better corporate citizens than Irsay. However, they too are trying to get deeper into the pocket of the Indianapolis taxpayers. Supposedly "negotiations" that could result in the taxpayers picking up $15 million in operating cost at Conseco, a building for which the Pacers get all the revenue, are "intensifying." The Simons saw the sweetheart deal the City gave the Colts, and want a similar deal. Actually it would be even better. While the CIB, i.e. the taxpayers, actually foot the bill to run Lucas Oil Stadium, at least they get 1/2 of the non-Colts revenue form the building. With Conseco, the Pacers get all of the revenu off the building, yet they now want taxpayers paying for the operation of the building.
When you're winning, it is easy to look the other way from the poor behavior of the team owners. It is doubtful Irsay's arrogance and ingratitude toward the people of Indianapolis would be tolerated were he were not putting a Super Bowl caliber team on the field year after year. But eventually Manning will retire and the golden age of Indianapolis professional football will end. One only hopes that, by then, Irsay has learned to become a better citizen of the community he has proven to be thus far.
Cheering for the Colts and Pacers would be easier if the owners of those teams were not so committed to screwing over Indianapolis' taxpayers to make themselves wealthier. Excuse me if I don't clap at the victory over the Patriots last night. I have to keep one hand free to hold onto my wallet.
The Indiana Pacers meanwhile appear to have turned the corner. The team has now won four straight games, including a win this weekend over the Boston Celtics, one of the best teams in the Eastern Conference over the last two seasons.
I love sports and have always cheered for the Colts and Pacers. However, given the attitude of the owners of the two teams it has become increasingly difficult to remain a fan the past few years. This past year, when the Capital Improvement Board and the good people of Indianapolis were looking for a way out of the CIB's budget crisis, Irsay turned his back on the City. While Indianapolis taxpayers have transformed Irsay from a millionaire into a billionaire with the sweetheart Lucas Oil Stadium deal. Irsay does not appear to appreciate it in the slightest. During negotiations, he would not even throw a bone to the city that has made him fabulously wealthy.
This morning I heard a radio broadcaster bragging about Irsay's charitable offer of donating $1 to United Way for ever person who attended the game last night. That amounts to a whole $67,476. Once the United Way's six figure salaried administrators take their cuts, there might be $476 left over to be distributed to actual charities.
A billionaire like Irsay contributing $67,476 to charity is like me flipping a shiny nickel into the Salvation Army kettle this Christmas and then holding a press conference to brag about it. The $67,476, however, is in line with Irsay's other less than charitable offerings. In 2008, when the eastside of Indianapolis was hit with a tornado and southern Indiana experienced flooding, Irsay coughed up a whole $50,000 for the twin catastrophes...on the condition, of course, that the public would match that amount.
Across town, while the Simons, the owners of the Pacers, have proven to be better corporate citizens than Irsay. However, they too are trying to get deeper into the pocket of the Indianapolis taxpayers. Supposedly "negotiations" that could result in the taxpayers picking up $15 million in operating cost at Conseco, a building for which the Pacers get all the revenue, are "intensifying." The Simons saw the sweetheart deal the City gave the Colts, and want a similar deal. Actually it would be even better. While the CIB, i.e. the taxpayers, actually foot the bill to run Lucas Oil Stadium, at least they get 1/2 of the non-Colts revenue form the building. With Conseco, the Pacers get all of the revenu off the building, yet they now want taxpayers paying for the operation of the building.
When you're winning, it is easy to look the other way from the poor behavior of the team owners. It is doubtful Irsay's arrogance and ingratitude toward the people of Indianapolis would be tolerated were he were not putting a Super Bowl caliber team on the field year after year. But eventually Manning will retire and the golden age of Indianapolis professional football will end. One only hopes that, by then, Irsay has learned to become a better citizen of the community he has proven to be thus far.
Cheering for the Colts and Pacers would be easier if the owners of those teams were not so committed to screwing over Indianapolis' taxpayers to make themselves wealthier. Excuse me if I don't clap at the victory over the Patriots last night. I have to keep one hand free to hold onto my wallet.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
The Future of the City Market
As it is right across the street from my law office, the City Market is sometimes a lunch destination for me. I use the word "sometimes" instead of "often" because the food at the City Market is almost always overpriced and bland.
Instead, if I have time, I prefer to drive for 10-15 minutes to dine at one of the many fine ethnic restaurants that have sprung up on or near Lafayette Road on the northwest side of the city. Nothing beats the $5.95 lunch special at the Saigon Restaurant, which is located at 3103 Lafayette Road. The Saigon is not the only ethnic restaurant in the Lafayette Road strip. There are also restaurants featuring Mexican, Egyptian, Guatemalan, another Vietnamese, Pakistani, Indian, Liberian, and Salvadoran cuisine. In that Lafayette Square area you also have Ethiopian, Chinese, Japanese, Peruvian and Cuban restaurants.
Of course those restaurants, which generally offer authentic cuisine served by recent immigrants from their respective countries, could never afford the steep rent at the City Market or anywhere downtown for that matter. Apparently neither can Constantino's which is on its way to being evicted for unpaid rent. Constantino's, by providing fresh fruits and vegetables at reasonable price, was the epitome of the type of vendor those at the City Market has been trying to attract. According to its website, the City Market Foundation declares:
There are business formats that would undoubtedly work at the City Market. A health club probably would do very well with thousands of city employees right across the street. A day care might also succeed. Likewise, certain chain restaurants would probably flourish. But trying to turn it back into what it was in the past, an open market where people can purchase "fresh meats, cheese, produce and breads," is simply a recipe for continued failure.
Instead, if I have time, I prefer to drive for 10-15 minutes to dine at one of the many fine ethnic restaurants that have sprung up on or near Lafayette Road on the northwest side of the city. Nothing beats the $5.95 lunch special at the Saigon Restaurant, which is located at 3103 Lafayette Road. The Saigon is not the only ethnic restaurant in the Lafayette Road strip. There are also restaurants featuring Mexican, Egyptian, Guatemalan, another Vietnamese, Pakistani, Indian, Liberian, and Salvadoran cuisine. In that Lafayette Square area you also have Ethiopian, Chinese, Japanese, Peruvian and Cuban restaurants.
Of course those restaurants, which generally offer authentic cuisine served by recent immigrants from their respective countries, could never afford the steep rent at the City Market or anywhere downtown for that matter. Apparently neither can Constantino's which is on its way to being evicted for unpaid rent. Constantino's, by providing fresh fruits and vegetables at reasonable price, was the epitome of the type of vendor those at the City Market has been trying to attract. According to its website, the City Market Foundation declares:
I like history as well as anyone. But sometimes nostalgia for the past obscures reality. Like Moody Meats which earlier this year left the City Market, Constantino's sells products not well suited for those who come to the building. The fact is most patrons of the City Market are, and will be for the foreseeable future, downtown employees who primarily work 8-5, Monday through Friday. They never were going to go grocery shopping on their lunch hour and take their groceries back to their offices for the remaining four to five hours of work. The City and the Foundation that runs the City Market needs to stop romanticizing the past and be realistic about its future. When, instead of the free market, government tries to determine economic winners and losers, we taxpayers end up subsidizing failure. That's what has happened with the City Market.Established in the 1800’s as a market that the community relied upon for their daily staples of fresh meats, cheese, produce, and breads, City Market will once again offer this shopping experience to its customers.
There are business formats that would undoubtedly work at the City Market. A health club probably would do very well with thousands of city employees right across the street. A day care might also succeed. Likewise, certain chain restaurants would probably flourish. But trying to turn it back into what it was in the past, an open market where people can purchase "fresh meats, cheese, produce and breads," is simply a recipe for continued failure.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Whatever Happened to Mayor Ballard's Republican Blog Defenders?
While Republicans Gary Welsh at "Advance Indiana" and I are obviously not happy with the elitist, anti-reform direction Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard's administration has taken, we used to be able to count on our views on the local political scene being contradicted by Republican bloggers at "Circle City Pundit" and "Frugal Hoosiers." It's been a long, long time though since either blog has tried to defend our Republican Mayor.
The only Republican blogger who today seems to ever sing the praises of our Mayor is Abdul at Indiana Barrister." I'm not sure with Abdul though that his support is so much a belief in our Mayor as it is a desire to be on the side he thinks is at that moment winning.
Perhaps the Mayor may want his campaign people to start an Indianapolis Times-type blog. Over at IT, it does not matter what crime Democrats commit, it will be dutifully ignored. On the other hand, no matter what the Mayor does, it is cited as a "failure of leadership." (Which is of course the Democrats' 2011 theme if Ballard is re-nominated.) You'll notice that IT rarely attacks the substance of Mayor Ballard's policies. The reason why is that Mayor Ballard is duplicating the big-spending, tax-increasing, conflict of interest and ethics ignoring policies of his Democratic predecessor, Bart Peterson. That's why there are so many Republicans angry at Ballard. They thought they helped elect a reform-minded Republican in November 2007 only to find the Mayor committed to giving the old-Guard Republicans one last chance to loot the taxpayers before they are permanently put out of power in 2011.
Just some Friday afternoon observations. Talk amongst yourselves.
The only Republican blogger who today seems to ever sing the praises of our Mayor is Abdul at Indiana Barrister." I'm not sure with Abdul though that his support is so much a belief in our Mayor as it is a desire to be on the side he thinks is at that moment winning.
Perhaps the Mayor may want his campaign people to start an Indianapolis Times-type blog. Over at IT, it does not matter what crime Democrats commit, it will be dutifully ignored. On the other hand, no matter what the Mayor does, it is cited as a "failure of leadership." (Which is of course the Democrats' 2011 theme if Ballard is re-nominated.) You'll notice that IT rarely attacks the substance of Mayor Ballard's policies. The reason why is that Mayor Ballard is duplicating the big-spending, tax-increasing, conflict of interest and ethics ignoring policies of his Democratic predecessor, Bart Peterson. That's why there are so many Republicans angry at Ballard. They thought they helped elect a reform-minded Republican in November 2007 only to find the Mayor committed to giving the old-Guard Republicans one last chance to loot the taxpayers before they are permanently put out of power in 2011.
Just some Friday afternoon observations. Talk amongst yourselves.
Preying on the Addicition of Gamblers
Yesterday the Indiana Supreme Court heard the unique, for Indiana, issue of whether casinos have a responsibility to prevent compulsive gamblers from hurting themselves. The Star reports:
It is a tough question and, for me, would turn on whether the casino managers knew about Kephert's gambling addiction when they began pursuing her business. If they knew Kephert had a gambling addiction, had inherited a $1 million dollars, and then intentionally went out and pursued her to gamble while armed with that knowledge, to me that would take the issue outside of personal responsibility and place at least some liability on the shoulders of the casino. I realize this won't be a popular position with my conservative friends, but I have a low tolerance for businesses which, for financial gain, target and prey on an individual's problems.
There is nothing I believe in more than personal responsibility. However, that does not give a license to businesses, which are well aware of a person's problems, to try to exploit those problems for financial gain. The law takes a dim view on scam artists conning our elderly out of their life savings. We don't give bars a pass on liability when bars continue to serve someone who the bar knows is intoxicated.A lawyer for a Tennessee woman who says the former Caesars Indiana took advantage of her gambling addiction told the Indiana Supreme Court on Thursday that Hoosier casinos have a responsibility to prevent compulsive gamblers from hurting themselves.
"The law protects the sick. It protects the helpless," Evansville attorney Terry Noffsinger told the justices.
Casinos have an implied duty not to prey upon players who can't control themselves, he told the justices in Indianapolis, even though court rulings elsewhere have held that casinos don't have to shield compulsive gamblers.
As a result, the casino industry and gambling law experts are watching the Indiana case closely.The court heard about 45 minutes of arguments by casino lawyer Gene Price, Louisville, and Noffsinger, who is representing Jenny Kephart, an unemployed suburban Nashville resident.
The justices appeared skeptical of arguments, with some questioning why the casino doesn't have an obligation to customers, while others asked how far the courts should intervene in casino business practices.
A ruling is expected next year.
During a night of gambling in March 2006, Kephart said she lost $125,000 at the Harrison County riverboat, now renamed Horseshoe Southern Indiana. The casino sued Kephart after she failed to repay the money it loaned her to play blackjack.
Kephart countersued, claiming the Harrah's-owned boat aggressively pursued her with meals, limo rides and classy lodging, knowing she was addicted and had a $1 million inheritance.
It is a tough question and, for me, would turn on whether the casino managers knew about Kephert's gambling addiction when they began pursuing her business. If they knew Kephert had a gambling addiction, had inherited a $1 million dollars, and then intentionally went out and pursued her to gamble while armed with that knowledge, to me that would take the issue outside of personal responsibility and place at least some liability on the shoulders of the casino. I realize this won't be a popular position with my conservative friends, but I have a low tolerance for businesses which, for financial gain, target and prey on an individual's problems.
Crime Prevention Recepient Charged With Crime; Will This Cause Council To More Closely Examine Non-Profit Grant Recepients?
News out of the eastside is that the head of a group charge with helping at-risk you has been charged with a crime.
Byron Alston, who runs "Save the Youth, Inc." is a supporter of Mayor Greg Ballard and earlier this year received a $90,000 "crime prevention" grant. According to a WISH-TV report, the allegations are that Alston offered a woman a job in exchange for sex. When she refused he supposedly performed a lewd act in front of her. According to another woman, Alston, in a separate incident, grabbed her and put his hands down her pants.
WISH -TV also reported that Alston, when he was in his late 20s, was charged in Hendricks County in 1990 with criminal deviate conduct, battery with bodily injury, and being a habitual offender. According to Hendricks County Clerk's Office that case ended with a plea bargain.
While Mr. Alston deserves the "presumption of innocence," these non-profits that feed at the taxpayer trough are deserving of much, much closer scrutiny. Too many are just shell organizations set up simply for the purpose of extracting government grants and enriching those who run those organizations, while using the false pretense of trying to help their community. Even the non-profits that are legitimate often provide lavish salaries and benefits to themselves before the first dollar reaches those the non-profit is supposed to help.
On the most recent tax return available, 2007, Mr. Alston reported that his group took in $95,871 in revenue. Salaries and benefits, which almost exclusively went to Alston, amounted to $54,135. $14,435 went to "occupancy, rent, utilities and maintenance." The address though for the organization is 9664 Gulf Lake Drive, which is a residence. One has to ask the obvious question about whether taxpayer money was being used to pay Mr. Alston's living expenses.
But these "obvious questions" are never asked. Every year our Mayor and our Council dutifully turns over our tax dollars to non-profit corporations that claim to be serving some need in the community. No one ever asks questions about how these organizations are run, the types of salaries and benefits they pay themselves, and how much actually trickles down to the cause for which they money was designated. There is no sort of oversight to see if the money is spent appropriately.
While the thought is having the private sector perform these more charitable tasks is more efficient than the public sector, it isn't if the public sector does not do its job of monitoring who receives our tax dollars and how that money is spent.
Byron Alston, who runs "Save the Youth, Inc." is a supporter of Mayor Greg Ballard and earlier this year received a $90,000 "crime prevention" grant. According to a WISH-TV report, the allegations are that Alston offered a woman a job in exchange for sex. When she refused he supposedly performed a lewd act in front of her. According to another woman, Alston, in a separate incident, grabbed her and put his hands down her pants.
WISH -TV also reported that Alston, when he was in his late 20s, was charged in Hendricks County in 1990 with criminal deviate conduct, battery with bodily injury, and being a habitual offender. According to Hendricks County Clerk's Office that case ended with a plea bargain.
While Mr. Alston deserves the "presumption of innocence," these non-profits that feed at the taxpayer trough are deserving of much, much closer scrutiny. Too many are just shell organizations set up simply for the purpose of extracting government grants and enriching those who run those organizations, while using the false pretense of trying to help their community. Even the non-profits that are legitimate often provide lavish salaries and benefits to themselves before the first dollar reaches those the non-profit is supposed to help.
On the most recent tax return available, 2007, Mr. Alston reported that his group took in $95,871 in revenue. Salaries and benefits, which almost exclusively went to Alston, amounted to $54,135. $14,435 went to "occupancy, rent, utilities and maintenance." The address though for the organization is 9664 Gulf Lake Drive, which is a residence. One has to ask the obvious question about whether taxpayer money was being used to pay Mr. Alston's living expenses.
But these "obvious questions" are never asked. Every year our Mayor and our Council dutifully turns over our tax dollars to non-profit corporations that claim to be serving some need in the community. No one ever asks questions about how these organizations are run, the types of salaries and benefits they pay themselves, and how much actually trickles down to the cause for which they money was designated. There is no sort of oversight to see if the money is spent appropriately.
While the thought is having the private sector perform these more charitable tasks is more efficient than the public sector, it isn't if the public sector does not do its job of monitoring who receives our tax dollars and how that money is spent.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Corporation Counsel Vastly Underestimates Potential Legal Liabilities Facing the City
Recently the Indiana State Board of Accounts published their review of the audit report prepared by KPMG, LLP for the City of Indianapolis covering the period from January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007. While I had glanced through the report earlier, an alert reader of this blog pointed out the following gem on page 74 of the report,which I had overlooked:
Further, the second part of the clause talking about "pending lawsuits" seems to contradict the first part. Then within the second part, they say there is a "reasonable probability of an adverse outcome" but then say no money has been set aside for these lawsuits because "the loss is not probable." What?
An attorney active in city politics told me awhile back that the City does not set aside money for lawsuit settlements or judgments. Apparently he's wrong. From the audit, it would appear that the City put aside a whole $2,432 for settlement/judgments in the "various lawsuits" pending against the City. Obviously the ultimate bill is going to be much, much higher than that. It is unfortunate KPMG and the State Board of Accounts did not throw a red flag on this section of the report.
15. Contingent Liabilities and CommitmentsI am not aware of any law limiting municipality liability to $500 per person and $5,000 per occurrence. I can only suppose that this is instead a reference to insurance limits. Aggregate liability for a municipality is $700,000 per person per occurrence under Indiana law If there are several plaintiffs, then it can go as high as $5 million.
A. Various lawsuits are pending against the City. In the opinion of the City's Corporation Counsel, the aggregate potential loss on all outstanding litigation was estimated to be $2,432. This amount has been accrued for in the Internal Service Fund. This opinion concurs with the Indiana law limiting the liability of municipalities to $500 per person and $5,000 per occurrence. Additionally, the City is a defendant in various lawsuits for which management has determined that there is a reasonable probability of an adverse outcome. No accrual has been made in the financial statements for these items, which approximate $179, as the loss is not probable and estimable.
Further, the second part of the clause talking about "pending lawsuits" seems to contradict the first part. Then within the second part, they say there is a "reasonable probability of an adverse outcome" but then say no money has been set aside for these lawsuits because "the loss is not probable." What?
An attorney active in city politics told me awhile back that the City does not set aside money for lawsuit settlements or judgments. Apparently he's wrong. From the audit, it would appear that the City put aside a whole $2,432 for settlement/judgments in the "various lawsuits" pending against the City. Obviously the ultimate bill is going to be much, much higher than that. It is unfortunate KPMG and the State Board of Accounts did not throw a red flag on this section of the report.
Mortgage Fraud Accomplice Gets Three Years; Need for Real Estate Regulatory Reform
Yesterday, Timothy A. Brown was sentenced to 37 months in federal prison by U.S. District Court Chief Judge David F. Hamilton in Indianapolis. Brown had pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud and one count of money laundering.
Brown participated in an extensive mortgage fraud scheme that involved hundreds of homes. The mastermind behind the scheme, Robert A. Penn, has already pled guilty and is also awaiting sentencing.
It would be easy to pack ourselves on the back and say "job well done" for putting these folks behind bars. But that would omit some troubling facts. These individuals would have escaped any punishment had the feds not stepped in, using federal criminal law, to bring them to justice. Our Marion County Prosecutor's Office, though well aware of the scheme, failed to prosecute.
That's not unusual. Many county prosecutors simply do not feel comfortable prosecuting scams related to highly complex real estate matters. That is why, as I have preached many times before, we need a special unit to investigate and prosecute these types of crimes, or at the least to lend assistance to prosecutors who want to take up the cause. Anyone who thinks these are 'victim-less"crimes should go view the neighborhoods where the Penn mortgage scam was unleashed.
Second, we can't overlook how state regulators dropped the ball. Indiana has a plethora of offices that regulate real estate matters. When I was head of the Title Insurance Division at the Department of Insurance, we regulated title insurers. The Attorney General's Office regulates appraisers, while the Secretary of State regulates mortgage brokers. The Department of Financial Institutions regulates lenders. And the list goes on.
Most of these agencies knew fairly early on about the Penn scheme. Yet very little action was taken to discipline those involved. In particular, the Attorney General's Office frustratingly and mystifying would usually refuse to take any sort of action against those they regulate. While the Secretary of State's Office was better when it came to regulating mortgage brokers, that office suffered from high turnover and a lack of personnel which really understand how complex real estate transactions work.
Also, there was a lack of communication between the agencies on real estate regulation that hampered any comprehensive regulatory effort. While at the Title Insurance Division, we always tried to communicate with other agencies. But many times we would not know about action taken by the Attorney General's Office or Secretary of State until we read it in the paper. In fact, on one occasion it came out in the newspaper that another agency had identified a title insurance agent for alleged misconduct when in fact the agency's inexperienced regulators simply did not understand the real estate transaction and the title insurance agent's role in it. He simply had not done anything at all wrong. We at the Title Insurance Division had to spend several hours trying to educate the regulators about the role of a title insurance agent.
As with prosecution of mortgage fraud, we need a comprehensive regulatory effort. The patchwork of regulators does not work. The Penn mortgage scheme, which devasted entire Indianapolis communities, clearly shows that.
Brown participated in an extensive mortgage fraud scheme that involved hundreds of homes. The mastermind behind the scheme, Robert A. Penn, has already pled guilty and is also awaiting sentencing.
It would be easy to pack ourselves on the back and say "job well done" for putting these folks behind bars. But that would omit some troubling facts. These individuals would have escaped any punishment had the feds not stepped in, using federal criminal law, to bring them to justice. Our Marion County Prosecutor's Office, though well aware of the scheme, failed to prosecute.
That's not unusual. Many county prosecutors simply do not feel comfortable prosecuting scams related to highly complex real estate matters. That is why, as I have preached many times before, we need a special unit to investigate and prosecute these types of crimes, or at the least to lend assistance to prosecutors who want to take up the cause. Anyone who thinks these are 'victim-less"crimes should go view the neighborhoods where the Penn mortgage scam was unleashed.
Second, we can't overlook how state regulators dropped the ball. Indiana has a plethora of offices that regulate real estate matters. When I was head of the Title Insurance Division at the Department of Insurance, we regulated title insurers. The Attorney General's Office regulates appraisers, while the Secretary of State regulates mortgage brokers. The Department of Financial Institutions regulates lenders. And the list goes on.
Most of these agencies knew fairly early on about the Penn scheme. Yet very little action was taken to discipline those involved. In particular, the Attorney General's Office frustratingly and mystifying would usually refuse to take any sort of action against those they regulate. While the Secretary of State's Office was better when it came to regulating mortgage brokers, that office suffered from high turnover and a lack of personnel which really understand how complex real estate transactions work.
Also, there was a lack of communication between the agencies on real estate regulation that hampered any comprehensive regulatory effort. While at the Title Insurance Division, we always tried to communicate with other agencies. But many times we would not know about action taken by the Attorney General's Office or Secretary of State until we read it in the paper. In fact, on one occasion it came out in the newspaper that another agency had identified a title insurance agent for alleged misconduct when in fact the agency's inexperienced regulators simply did not understand the real estate transaction and the title insurance agent's role in it. He simply had not done anything at all wrong. We at the Title Insurance Division had to spend several hours trying to educate the regulators about the role of a title insurance agent.
As with prosecution of mortgage fraud, we need a comprehensive regulatory effort. The patchwork of regulators does not work. The Penn mortgage scheme, which devasted entire Indianapolis communities, clearly shows that.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Extending the $8,000 Credit for First Time Home Buyers, Offers New $6,500 Credit for Existing Homeowners
Jeff Swiatek of the Indianapolis Star reports on the effect Congress' extension of the $8,000 credit for first time home buyers is having on the city's real estate market.
One of the lessons we should take from this downtown in the real estate industry is that owning a home is not for everyone. I am afraid that, in our zeal to get the real estate market going again, we are dooming ourselves to repeating the current foreclosure crisis down the road.
A federal tax credit for first-time homebuyers extended by Congress last week and approved by President Barack Obama could increase home sales in Indiana.While the lagging real estate industry certainly needs a shot in the arm, I am afraid we have forgotten the lessons we should have learned. While home ownership is something that is good, we should not forget that we ended up with an unprecedented number of foreclosures because there were so many loan programs out there that put folks into homes they could not afford, with little in the way of an equity stake in the property. Our own federally-subsidized Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae played a role in that over-extension of credit. Once nestled in these homes, the owners, who were already overextended, refinanced repeatedly taking every drop of equity out of their homes simply to pay their bills.
The tax credit, $8,000 for a first-time homeowner, was set to expire Nov. 30. Obama's signature extends it to April 30 and provides a new $6,500 credit to people who have owned and lived in a home for at least five consecutive years of the past eight years and now want to buy another home.
David Caveness, senior vice president of Carpenter Realtors in Indianapolis, said the credit is essentially worth more in Indianapolis because its homes are priced among the lowest of the 60 largest metro areas in the country.
"So, by theory, it should impact us the greatest -- the credit is a bigger part of the purchase price," he said.
Indiana is among a handful of states with an average listing price of less than $200,000. The $8,000 credit covers a larger chunk than it would in pricier markets.
"That would reimburse a good portion of your down payment," said John Holmgren, spokesman for the California Association of Mortgage Brokers.
...
One of the lessons we should take from this downtown in the real estate industry is that owning a home is not for everyone. I am afraid that, in our zeal to get the real estate market going again, we are dooming ourselves to repeating the current foreclosure crisis down the road.
Monday, November 9, 2009
CIB Likely to Accept $27 Million Loan from State, Will Give the Money to the Pacers
The Gang That Can't Shoot Straight, i.e. the Capital Improvement Board, met again this afternoon. The big news out of the meeting was that the CIB likely is changing its mind and will accept the $27 million loan from the state, which loan is to be doled out in $9 million yearly increments. The Indianapolis Business Journal reports:
Let's summarize. The CIB wants to borrow $9 million every year, for the next three years, at an interest rate of 5.25%, and will likely give that money, plus $6 million more of taxpayer money, to the billionaire Simons, the owners of the Pacers, for a total of $15 million per year. This is all so the CIB, i.e. the taxpayers, can pick up all the operating costs on Conseco Fieldhouse, even though the Pacers, and not the taxpayers, get ALL the revenue on events that take place in the building.
Oh, and have I mentioned that there is no "right to renegotiate" the deal after ten years as indicated in the IBJ article? The right is a "right to terminate" which only occurs if the franchise is 1) losing money; 2) is going to be sold; and 3) is going to be relocated to another city. Even if those three conditions are present, the penalties for the Pacers to exercise that right are enormous, and the first year would likely run something in the neighborhood of $165 million. It is only near the end of the 20 year contract that the penalties fall enough that the Pacers could realistically threaten to terminate.
The article notes that the CIB continues to "negotiate" with the Pacers, which "negotiations" apparently have been going on for more than a year. I'm not sure why the CIB should negotiate with the Pacers at all given they have no leverage to force a renegotiation of the contract. Nonetheless, any time the CIB says it is "negotiating," one thing is for certain: taxpayers need to grab hold of their wallet because the CIB plans to give away the taxpayers' money.
The Indianapolis Capital Improvement board likely will accept a state loan providing $27 million over three years to help shore up its fragile financial situation.
Members of the not-for-profit that operates the city’s professional sports venues and the Indianapolis Convention Center will vote next month on whether to accept the assistance, or risk losing the initial $9 million installment this year.
“We ought to go ahead and borrow it,” CIB Treasurer Ann Lathrop told the board Monday afternoon.
Lathrop last month hinted that the organization’s bleak financial situation had improved to the point that it may not need the initial $9 million, which would save the CIB from paying 5.25 percent in interest charges.
The not-for-profit is on target in 2010 to turn a $47 million budget deficit into a surplus—additional money that could be used in negotiations with the Indiana Pacers over Conseco Fieldhouse operating costs.
The CIB expects to improve its finances by making $26 million in cuts this year. It also is poised to collect roughly $11 million more in annual revenue, and it avoided payment on $25.5 million in debt-service reserve payments.
Yet, it’s still unclear whether the CIB, which operates the city’s professional sports venues, as well as the Indianapolis Convention Center, will absorb $15 million next year in Conseco Fieldhouse operating costs.
A provision that allows the Pacers to renegotiate their lease after 10 years could trigger the additional cost, in order to keep the team in the city. An agreement has yet to be reached, although CIB officials continue to negotiate with the team, CIB Vice President Pat Early said.
“We’ve done nothing to deal with Conseco Fieldhouse yet,” he said. “One way or another, that may require money we don’t have in the budget. We still haven’t resolved all the open issues.”
...
Let's summarize. The CIB wants to borrow $9 million every year, for the next three years, at an interest rate of 5.25%, and will likely give that money, plus $6 million more of taxpayer money, to the billionaire Simons, the owners of the Pacers, for a total of $15 million per year. This is all so the CIB, i.e. the taxpayers, can pick up all the operating costs on Conseco Fieldhouse, even though the Pacers, and not the taxpayers, get ALL the revenue on events that take place in the building.
Oh, and have I mentioned that there is no "right to renegotiate" the deal after ten years as indicated in the IBJ article? The right is a "right to terminate" which only occurs if the franchise is 1) losing money; 2) is going to be sold; and 3) is going to be relocated to another city. Even if those three conditions are present, the penalties for the Pacers to exercise that right are enormous, and the first year would likely run something in the neighborhood of $165 million. It is only near the end of the 20 year contract that the penalties fall enough that the Pacers could realistically threaten to terminate.
The article notes that the CIB continues to "negotiate" with the Pacers, which "negotiations" apparently have been going on for more than a year. I'm not sure why the CIB should negotiate with the Pacers at all given they have no leverage to force a renegotiation of the contract. Nonetheless, any time the CIB says it is "negotiating," one thing is for certain: taxpayers need to grab hold of their wallet because the CIB plans to give away the taxpayers' money.
IPOPA's Chris Worden Hits Home Run On Wishard Analysis
Just when I thought every Democrat in the city, save Pat Andrews, was willing to overlook the tactics employed by the Wishard folks in support of the referendum, along comes an incredibly articulate analysis put forward by Indianapolis attorney Chris Worden who runs the blog, Indianapolis' Painfullly Objective Political Analysis.
He hits the ball out of the park. Chris voted for the referendum, but he is fair, objective and unbiased in his analysis of the facts involved and the tactics used by the Wishard people. The Indianapolis Star's reporters and editors, who ignored those facts and tactics lest they interfere with the Star's cheerleading efforts, could learn a thing or two about journalism from Chris.
Chris' take on the Wishard referendum is a must read. I just wish I had seen it earlier.
He hits the ball out of the park. Chris voted for the referendum, but he is fair, objective and unbiased in his analysis of the facts involved and the tactics used by the Wishard people. The Indianapolis Star's reporters and editors, who ignored those facts and tactics lest they interfere with the Star's cheerleading efforts, could learn a thing or two about journalism from Chris.
Chris' take on the Wishard referendum is a must read. I just wish I had seen it earlier.
Star Editorial Lays Groundwork for Pacer Handout
You knew it was coming. First, on Friday it was a puff piece written by Erika Smith of the Indianapolis Star in which she discussed how great Conseco Fieldhouse has been for economic development of downtown. I discussed it on my blog.
This morning is an editorial from the Star which suggests keeping the Pacers is of paramount importance. Although the editorial stops short of endorsing $15 million per year from taxpayers to the Pacers, it is clear that the Star's editorial board is leaning toward taxpayers shelling out more money because "keeping the home team has to be a priority. " Let's not even consider for a second all those academic studies which show professional sports subsidies are a bad investment.
With the Wishard referendum, the Star's editors were adamant about overlooking certain facts that might contradict their editorial position in support of the measure. It appears to be the same thing with the request by the Pacers that the taxpayers pick up their $15 million in operating costs while they rake in all the profit on the building. I have done an extensive review of the Pacers-Conseco Fieldhouse Contract, the Pacers do not have some right just to walk away from their 20 year contract at the conclusion of the 10 year anniversary. The Early Termination provision in the contract is only triggered if 1) the team is losing money; 2) the Simons are selling the team; AND 3) the team is relocating to another city. Even then, the penalty for early termination is enormous, as I outlined in my blog. It is only near the end of the 20 year contract that the penalties for early termination drop enough to make it a reasonable option for the Simons to pursue.
The Pacers have zero leverage to demand that the taxpayers pick up their operating expenses on Conseco Fieldhouse. Nonetheless, this is just an "inconvenient fact" that the Indianapolis Star's editorial board and the Capital Improvement Board are all too willing to ignore in their zeal to dole out even more taxpayer money to a billionaire sports team owner.
This morning is an editorial from the Star which suggests keeping the Pacers is of paramount importance. Although the editorial stops short of endorsing $15 million per year from taxpayers to the Pacers, it is clear that the Star's editorial board is leaning toward taxpayers shelling out more money because "keeping the home team has to be a priority. " Let's not even consider for a second all those academic studies which show professional sports subsidies are a bad investment.
With the Wishard referendum, the Star's editors were adamant about overlooking certain facts that might contradict their editorial position in support of the measure. It appears to be the same thing with the request by the Pacers that the taxpayers pick up their $15 million in operating costs while they rake in all the profit on the building. I have done an extensive review of the Pacers-Conseco Fieldhouse Contract, the Pacers do not have some right just to walk away from their 20 year contract at the conclusion of the 10 year anniversary. The Early Termination provision in the contract is only triggered if 1) the team is losing money; 2) the Simons are selling the team; AND 3) the team is relocating to another city. Even then, the penalty for early termination is enormous, as I outlined in my blog. It is only near the end of the 20 year contract that the penalties for early termination drop enough to make it a reasonable option for the Simons to pursue.
The Pacers have zero leverage to demand that the taxpayers pick up their operating expenses on Conseco Fieldhouse. Nonetheless, this is just an "inconvenient fact" that the Indianapolis Star's editorial board and the Capital Improvement Board are all too willing to ignore in their zeal to dole out even more taxpayer money to a billionaire sports team owner.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Columnist Dan Carpenter Analyzes Media Role in Referenda Elections, Ignores Star's Failures to Address the Issues and Speak Out for Fair Elections
Dan Carpenter's column appears today with a discussion of the referendum process. Dan and I have been on the same side of a lot of issues. He's written favorably with regard to our legal challenges over the RCA Dome action and the Pan Am $6 million giveaway. Today though he drops the ball. Here is a paragraph from that column.
Contrary to Carpenter's slam about the blogs, it was the blogs, particularly Advance Indiana, which raised legitimate issues about the Wishard referendum that the Star insisted on overlooking. Although the Star criticized those blogs for raising those issues and Carpenter suggests they were filled with "bombast" and "bogeymen," the Star never once refuted any of the facts that Advance Indiana's publisher Gary Welsh and others raised. The Star's response was simply to ignore, ignore, ignore and, of course, to engage in yet more cheerleading.
Today on the editorial page is a notice of how the state's newspapers, including the Indianapolis Star, have joined together to fight for "major ethics reform in the General Assembly." Yet this is the same Indianapolis Star which flat-out refused to criticize public officials use of of public, i.e. taxpayer resources, to support a "yes" vote on the various referenda this past election. This is the same newspaper that looked the other way as the Wishard PAC produced a questionable campaign finance report which showed a receipt of only three indviduals contribitutions ($125 total) and over $1 million from two non-profit corporations. The Star also failed to give more than passing criticism to the Wishard folks writing a referendum question that failed to inform the voters they were building a new hospital or how much they would be borrowing in bonds backed by the taxpayers.
In the Wishard debate, the Star made it clear time and time again, that the "ends" (the passage of the referendum) were so important that they were going to overlook any dishonest means used by Wishard supporters to achieve those ends. The Star repeatedly had opportunities during the Wishard referendum to speak out for good government and fair elections. Instead the Star took a pass. Now it wants to be taken seriously as a fighter for ethics reforms. I am sorry but ethics are not "situational, " something that can be ignored when the cause is "good." We need to insist on honest government and fair elections, across the board, on every occasion, even when doing so hurts a cause we may want. That's a message that unfortunately the Star's editors and columnists like Dan Carpenter and Matthew Tully do not seem to understand.
Rare is the voter who could assess that warning one way or the other; which raises a problem with the direct democracy process. People will not be informed in many cases, particularly on something as abstruse as a school budget. The official explanations always will be suspect. The media, except in high-profile cases such as Wishard, won't get that deep into the issues. Remonstrators will fill their blogs with bombast and bogeymen.By "media" Carpenter is, of course, referring to his own Indianapolis Star. The suggestion that the Star got "deep into the issues" regarding the Wishard referendum is a laughable contention. The Star did little other than act as a cheerleader for a "yes" vote, penning an incredible five editorials in favor of the referendum, While Star reporter Dan Lee started to ask probing questions regarding the project and the role of Health & Hospital, those questions suddenly stopped in favor of puff pieces written by Lee and other Star reporters. This was yet another example of the Star's role as watchdog being usurped by television reporters. Reporter Norman Cox of WRTV did a couple of brilliant lengthy pieces where he asked the difficult questions the Star steadfastly refused to address in its news coverage.
Contrary to Carpenter's slam about the blogs, it was the blogs, particularly Advance Indiana, which raised legitimate issues about the Wishard referendum that the Star insisted on overlooking. Although the Star criticized those blogs for raising those issues and Carpenter suggests they were filled with "bombast" and "bogeymen," the Star never once refuted any of the facts that Advance Indiana's publisher Gary Welsh and others raised. The Star's response was simply to ignore, ignore, ignore and, of course, to engage in yet more cheerleading.
Today on the editorial page is a notice of how the state's newspapers, including the Indianapolis Star, have joined together to fight for "major ethics reform in the General Assembly." Yet this is the same Indianapolis Star which flat-out refused to criticize public officials use of of public, i.e. taxpayer resources, to support a "yes" vote on the various referenda this past election. This is the same newspaper that looked the other way as the Wishard PAC produced a questionable campaign finance report which showed a receipt of only three indviduals contribitutions ($125 total) and over $1 million from two non-profit corporations. The Star also failed to give more than passing criticism to the Wishard folks writing a referendum question that failed to inform the voters they were building a new hospital or how much they would be borrowing in bonds backed by the taxpayers.
In the Wishard debate, the Star made it clear time and time again, that the "ends" (the passage of the referendum) were so important that they were going to overlook any dishonest means used by Wishard supporters to achieve those ends. The Star repeatedly had opportunities during the Wishard referendum to speak out for good government and fair elections. Instead the Star took a pass. Now it wants to be taken seriously as a fighter for ethics reforms. I am sorry but ethics are not "situational, " something that can be ignored when the cause is "good." We need to insist on honest government and fair elections, across the board, on every occasion, even when doing so hurts a cause we may want. That's a message that unfortunately the Star's editors and columnists like Dan Carpenter and Matthew Tully do not seem to understand.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
NCAA Shoves Aside Lucas Oil Stadium Suite Holders For Final Four
The Indianapolis Business Journal reports on a disagreement between Lucas Oil Stadium suite holders and the NCAA:
It's great that the Colts' Irsay and the CIB do not lose their suites during the NCAA finals. We wouldn't want to kick the elites out of their cozy suites at The Luke.
I agree that the NCAA is more than a little hypocritical regarding demanding ordinances against scalping tickets while scalping the Lucas Oil Stadium suites on the open market.
Left out of the article though is the fact those suites are not owned by the Colts. They were built and are owned by taxpayers through the CIB. It is bad enough that the CIB gave away all the revenue from those suites to the Colts. Now we find out that on the few occasions when those Colts' leaseholders don't occupy the suites and they're going to be leased out on the open market for the NCAA final four, we taxpayers still get absolutely nothing from those suites that we own.
Finally, I find it very interesting this little tidbit: "The NCAA’s Shaheen wouldn't disclose the number of suites involved or how it was determined which suite holders were affected." Someone needs to remind Mr. Shaheen that those suites are public property and the NCAA's ability to scalp those suites is outlined in a public contract.. The notion that he or his organization can avoid disclosure regarding how they end up leasing those publicly-owned suites is pure nonsense.
Lucas Oil Stadium suite holders are upset that the NCAA is taking their suites for the men’s basketball Final Four in April and reselling them on the secondary—or scalpers—market.
Suite holders see the practice as inconsistent with the hard line the NCAA has taken against ticket scalping.“I am disgusted by the hypocritical behavior of the NCAA in saying one thing … then scalping suites out the back door,” said a Lucas Oil Stadium suite holder who spoke on the condition he remain anonymous.
The college sports association has asked for local ordinances at the sites of Final Fours prohibiting ticket scalping and has implored fans and ticket brokers not to seek profit by charging inflated prices for NCAA event tickets on the secondary market.
Several upset suite holders contacted by IBJ declined to speak out publicly because of the Indianapolis-based NCAA’s vast community connections.
Greg Shaheen, the NCAA’s senior vice president of basketball and business strategies, said suite holders at the time they bought their suites were made aware of language in their contract stating the suites are not guaranteed for Final Fours. The same is true for the 2012 Super Bowl.
Shaheen said the last time the Final Four was played here, in 2006, some suite holders in the old RCA Dome had to forfeit their suites. Though the practice of taking suites isn’t entirely new, he said it’s happening on a wider scale this year.
Shaheen said there is an incorrect perception that money from suite sales is lining the NCAA’s pockets.“One hundred percent of suite revenue is going to host-committee expenses,” he said.
“The NCAA is not getting this money.”Susan Williams, president of the Indiana Sports Corp., which is heading up the host committee for next year’s Final Four, confirmed that the NCAA is pledging up to $4 million toward local operating expenses.
“This is money that before we had to go out and raise on our own,” Williams said. “It was time- and resource-intensive, so we’re happy to have this financial assistance.”But whatever the NCAA gives to the local host committee doesn’t represent all the revenue from suite sales. The NCAA’s corporate hospitality partner, California-based RazorGator, keeps some of the proceeds.
The NCAA hired RazorGator in 2007 to market and sell hospitality packages for men’s Final Fours. Financial terms of its deal with the NCAA were not released.
...
In 2006, RazorGator told IBJ it was offering ticket and hospitality packages for $2,000 to $10,000 per person. Those sales, sports business experts said, generate $8 million to $12 million for RazorGator at each Final Four, and the NCAA would presumably get a cut of that as part of its deal with the California firm.
The policy of confiscating suites for the Final Four could be felt by suite holders for years to come. The NCAA signed a deal with city officials in 2004 to put Lucas Oil Stadium—with its massive size and myriad suites—on a five-year Final Four rotation through 2039.
Indianapolis Colts, the original seller of the suites, sent out letters in October telling many of the 137 stadium suite holders they would not have the option of using their suite for the Final Four.
The NCAA is offering those suite holders the choice of getting on a waiting list to purchase a suite for the event or buying tickets as close to their suite as possible.
“I have to get on a waiting list for the possibility of paying an inflated price for a suite—maybe my own suite?” mused the suite holder. “Something’s not right with that.”
NCAA officials refused to give suite holders any guarantee on the location, size or cost of the suite that might become available to those on the waiting list.Colts officials declined to comment.
...
It’s not clear how much RazorGator is asking for Lucas Oil Stadium suites. An operator in the company’s sales department told a caller inquiring about 2010 Final Four suites that pricing wouldn’t be available until December. RazorGator executives did not return calls seeking comment about the company’s relationship with the NCAA.
During the last two Final Fours, RazorGator charged hundreds—or even thousands—of dollars over face value for tickets. Some tickets listed online were going for 15 times the face value. For 2010, the face value of tickets for sale to the public—all upper level—are $160 and $180.
As part of its packages, RazorGator is offering tickets starting at $455 for upper-level seats and up to $3,864 for lower-level seats. Some hospitality offerings are rolled into that price, but additional hospitality offerings are available for a hefty surcharge.
...
Another suite holder who declined to be identified due to business and community ties to the NCAA and the Colts said he was especially upset at the way “local suite holders had been treated after all this community has done for the non-profit NCAA,” adding that loyal local companies were being shut out of their suites in favor of “preferred partners” of the NCAA.
Suite holders whose suites aren’t available to them for the Final Four are further angered because they have not been given a reason why some companies are getting the option to use their suites and others are not.
The NCAA’s Shaheen wouldn’t disclose the number of suites involved or how it was determined which suite holders were affected.
He said many of the suites taken by the NCAA are used for its corporate and broadcast sponsors and member schools.
He also noted that Lucas Oil Co., which is the facility’s title sponsor, Colts owner Jim Irsay and the city’s Capital Improvement Board will have access to their suites.
....
It's great that the Colts' Irsay and the CIB do not lose their suites during the NCAA finals. We wouldn't want to kick the elites out of their cozy suites at The Luke.
I agree that the NCAA is more than a little hypocritical regarding demanding ordinances against scalping tickets while scalping the Lucas Oil Stadium suites on the open market.
Left out of the article though is the fact those suites are not owned by the Colts. They were built and are owned by taxpayers through the CIB. It is bad enough that the CIB gave away all the revenue from those suites to the Colts. Now we find out that on the few occasions when those Colts' leaseholders don't occupy the suites and they're going to be leased out on the open market for the NCAA final four, we taxpayers still get absolutely nothing from those suites that we own.
Finally, I find it very interesting this little tidbit: "The NCAA’s Shaheen wouldn't disclose the number of suites involved or how it was determined which suite holders were affected." Someone needs to remind Mr. Shaheen that those suites are public property and the NCAA's ability to scalp those suites is outlined in a public contract.. The notion that he or his organization can avoid disclosure regarding how they end up leasing those publicly-owned suites is pure nonsense.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Star Offers Puff Piece on Conseco Fieldhouse, Writer Flunks Economics 101
Today's Star brings us writer Erika Smith going out of her role as technology columnist to pen a piece exalting the economic benefits of Conseco Fieldhouse which celebrates its 10 year anniversary this month.
It's hard not to get by the faulty assumption that there is great development going on around Conseco Fieldhouse. There, in fact, has been little development in the immediate area surrounding Conseco. Nevertheless, if Erika Smith turned her column into an economics professor, she would get a failing grade for suggesting the Fieldhouse has spurred economic development in the City. Most of the people attending Conseco, especially for Pacers' games, are local. Money spent at the games or in the business venues in the vicinity is discretionary spending. In other words, if they are spending those dollars at Conseco, that means they're not spending that money to go out to a restaurant or to take the family out for a movie. There is no net gain of spending in the community. Rather those discretionary dollars are simply being moved from one part of the city to another.
That is exactly why when they evaluate the economic impact of sports stadiums, most economists subtract out spending by local residents. While Smith can't be expected to do that, she should have at least noted in the article that these businesses supposedly thriving downtown from spending by local residents are benefiting from dollars being taken away from businesses outside of downtown. That is Economics 101.
See also:
Advance Indiana: Friday, November 06, 2009 Star Propaganda Campaign To Promote New Pacer Subsidy Kicks Into Gear
Ogden on Politics: Friday, August 21, 2009 Dispensing With the Lies Told About the Simons' Right to Terminate the CIB-Pacers Conseco Fieldhouse Contract
What a nice puff piece for Conseco Fieldhouse. It comes at exactly the same time that the Pacers are demanding that the Capital Improvement Board, i.e. taxpayers, pick up the $15 million annual bill for operating costs on Conseco Fieldhouse. Since the CIB is already giving the Pacers all the revenue off the building, one would think it would be ridiculous to consider even paying these operating costs. Nonetheless, the CIB, author of the Colts-Lucas Oil Stadium sweetheart deal, is in the business of making the ridiculous dreams of billionaire sports owners dreams come true. Watch for a push in the weeks ahead to renew the Pacers' request for $15 million from the CIB. Oh, wait, the Pacers never requested that. Wink, wink.You'd never know it today, but 10 years ago, before the neon-trimmed bars, before the valet parking, before the families toting Indiana Pacers memorabilia across Pennsylvania Street, the south end of Downtown was a pretty vacant place.
Old office buildings dominated the landscape even as restaurants and bars popped up to the west, closer to then-4-year-old Circle Centre mall.
Conseco Fieldhouse helped change all that.
It gave people reasons to visit the southeast side of Downtown, and lots of businesses have shot up to take advantage of that.
"The addition of Conseco Fieldhouse really led to stretching some of that revitalization over to the other side of Meridian (Street)," said Terry Sweeney, vice president of real estate development for Indianapolis Downtown Inc.
Today, restaurants such as Fogo de Chão, Adobo Grill and Mo's reap the benefits of an arena that draws thousands and hosts about 250 events every year.
Shawn Giarmo, assistant general manager at Fogo de Chão, said the months-old Brazilian steakhouse definitely sees an influx of customers when there is something going on at Conseco.
"Most people when they come Downtown stay closer to Illinois (Street), Meridian (Street) and that area," he said. "And for people to venture off even a little further east, they usually have to have a destination."
Nearby bars also have found success with a steady stream of customers. The Pub, Coaches Tavern and Howl at the Moon are older bars with a lifeline to Conseco Fieldhouse, while Scotty's Brewhouse is a recent addition to the area.
"You have existing businesses that have succeeded and prospered," Sweeney said. "And you have businesses going in a building where there were no businesses before."Scotty's Brewhouse opened its Downtown location -- the second in Indianapolis and the fifth in Indiana -- in January.
Scott Wise, president and CEO of the chain, said he chose the location at 1 Virginia Ave. because it was a little "off the beaten path" and because it was close to Conseco Fieldhouse."I saw kind of a future for development over there," he said.
Although all that development hasn't materialized yet, the sales from people attending events at Conseco Fieldhouse have been more lucrative than expected.
For example, on a weekday night, a concert or a Pacers game down the street can double the sales at Scotty's Brewhouse. On a normally busier Friday or Saturday night, an event at Conseco will boost sales by about 25 percent, Wise said.
"We felt that events would be a big deal," he said, "but I think we underestimated just how much of a big deal."
The same is true for The Pub and the Courtside Convenience store, both across Pennsylvania Street from Conseco Fieldhouse.
"During a lot of events, our business picks up 30 or 40 percent," said Gordon Cocke, operating owner of both businesses, as well as Blu nightclub on Meridian Street.
May, June and July are generally slow months at the arena, and sales at The Pub can drop 60 percent, he said. Sales at Courtside Convenience fall, too, when there are no events at Conseco.
"Conseco, it really helped complete a very good entertainment and hospitality package," Sweeney said.
It's hard not to get by the faulty assumption that there is great development going on around Conseco Fieldhouse. There, in fact, has been little development in the immediate area surrounding Conseco. Nevertheless, if Erika Smith turned her column into an economics professor, she would get a failing grade for suggesting the Fieldhouse has spurred economic development in the City. Most of the people attending Conseco, especially for Pacers' games, are local. Money spent at the games or in the business venues in the vicinity is discretionary spending. In other words, if they are spending those dollars at Conseco, that means they're not spending that money to go out to a restaurant or to take the family out for a movie. There is no net gain of spending in the community. Rather those discretionary dollars are simply being moved from one part of the city to another.
That is exactly why when they evaluate the economic impact of sports stadiums, most economists subtract out spending by local residents. While Smith can't be expected to do that, she should have at least noted in the article that these businesses supposedly thriving downtown from spending by local residents are benefiting from dollars being taken away from businesses outside of downtown. That is Economics 101.
See also:
Advance Indiana: Friday, November 06, 2009 Star Propaganda Campaign To Promote New Pacer Subsidy Kicks Into Gear
Ogden on Politics: Friday, August 21, 2009 Dispensing With the Lies Told About the Simons' Right to Terminate the CIB-Pacers Conseco Fieldhouse Contract
The Marion County GOP Eats Its Young
This morning at my dentist's office I ran into "Shelly, " who was working there as an office manager. Shelly had been active in Republican politics in a township on the westside. I asked her if she was still involved in Marion County Republican politics. She said "No."
That piqued my curiosity. Shelly had been an incredibly energetic leader of that township YR's club. She was very popular and membership in the township's YR club boomed to astonishing numbers during her tenure. It was obvious that her club was the ideal starting point for many young Republicans to take an active role in that township's GOP, becoming the future precinct committeemen, ward leaders and elected officials.
I asked Shelly what happened. She told me that the party leaders did not want her and she eventually quit. The township she had been active in has long been dominated by an "old boys network". While the old boys network does allow women, they weren't interested in a bunch of young, energetic Republicans who might have their own ideas about things.
I understood. Been there. Done that. I have the t-shirt to prove it.
On my way out, the receptionist asked for my card. She had heard from Shelly that I was active in Republican politics and she wanted to be too. She was about the same age as Shelly was when she headed up the YR group. She was enthusiastic and eager to be involved. I'll certainly help her any way I can. I just hope she doesn't end up having her spirit crushed. We Marion County Republicans cannot continue to eat our young to keep the old boy network alive.
That piqued my curiosity. Shelly had been an incredibly energetic leader of that township YR's club. She was very popular and membership in the township's YR club boomed to astonishing numbers during her tenure. It was obvious that her club was the ideal starting point for many young Republicans to take an active role in that township's GOP, becoming the future precinct committeemen, ward leaders and elected officials.
I asked Shelly what happened. She told me that the party leaders did not want her and she eventually quit. The township she had been active in has long been dominated by an "old boys network". While the old boys network does allow women, they weren't interested in a bunch of young, energetic Republicans who might have their own ideas about things.
I understood. Been there. Done that. I have the t-shirt to prove it.
On my way out, the receptionist asked for my card. She had heard from Shelly that I was active in Republican politics and she wanted to be too. She was about the same age as Shelly was when she headed up the YR group. She was enthusiastic and eager to be involved. I'll certainly help her any way I can. I just hope she doesn't end up having her spirit crushed. We Marion County Republicans cannot continue to eat our young to keep the old boy network alive.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Final Count in on Election 2009; Wishard Referendum Scores An Astonishing 99.2% Vote in 71 Precincts
The Marion County Clerk's Office is showing all the precincts as having reported. Let's go over some of the more interesting numbers.
In 42 of the 590 precincts there was a unanimous vote reported in favor of the Wishard referendum. If you toss out the precincts with less than 20 votes to focus on those more statistically significant, there were 28 precincts with 20 or more votes that reported a unanimous vote. The larger ones include:
Ward 29, Precinct 15 179-0
Ward 27, Precinct 06 148-0
Ward 19, Precinct 03 134-0
Ward 23, Precinct 05 118-0
Ward 01, Precinct 03 112-0
In 29 precincts, there was only one "No" vote cast. If you drop out the ones with less than 20 votes as being statistically insignificant, you have 23 precincts that report only one "No" vote. The larger ones include:
Ward 1, Precinct 7 193-1
Ward 23, Precinct 7 162-1
Ward 6, Precinct 2 146-1
Wash., Precinct 38 117-1
Ward 1, Precinct 2 108-1
There were 71 precincts that were unanimous or had only one "No" vote. In those 71 precincts, the Wishard referendum won 3671-29, an astonishing 99.2% to .8% victory.
In paper ballot elections, the Clerk's Office works off of vote totals that are reported to them by campaign workers. They would only look at the actual paper ballots in the event of a recount, which obviously isn't going to happen in this case.
It does raise an interesting point. The integrity of elections have always depended on Republicans and Democratic campaign workers watching each other. What happens when there is a referendum that the organization of both parties is supporting?
In 42 of the 590 precincts there was a unanimous vote reported in favor of the Wishard referendum. If you toss out the precincts with less than 20 votes to focus on those more statistically significant, there were 28 precincts with 20 or more votes that reported a unanimous vote. The larger ones include:
Ward 29, Precinct 15 179-0
Ward 27, Precinct 06 148-0
Ward 19, Precinct 03 134-0
Ward 23, Precinct 05 118-0
Ward 01, Precinct 03 112-0
In 29 precincts, there was only one "No" vote cast. If you drop out the ones with less than 20 votes as being statistically insignificant, you have 23 precincts that report only one "No" vote. The larger ones include:
Ward 1, Precinct 7 193-1
Ward 23, Precinct 7 162-1
Ward 6, Precinct 2 146-1
Wash., Precinct 38 117-1
Ward 1, Precinct 2 108-1
There were 71 precincts that were unanimous or had only one "No" vote. In those 71 precincts, the Wishard referendum won 3671-29, an astonishing 99.2% to .8% victory.
In paper ballot elections, the Clerk's Office works off of vote totals that are reported to them by campaign workers. They would only look at the actual paper ballots in the event of a recount, which obviously isn't going to happen in this case.
It does raise an interesting point. The integrity of elections have always depended on Republicans and Democratic campaign workers watching each other. What happens when there is a referendum that the organization of both parties is supporting?
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Unanimous Precinct Votes Pile Up for Wishard Referendum
The Marion County Clerk now lists 498 of 590 precincts as being in. By my count, I'm up to 24 precincts that had unanimous votes for the Wishard referendum, by a total of 1602-0. The largest one-sided vote listed is 179-0 in Precinct 29-15.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
