Last week’s ROCK column has generated two combative letters from Tribune readers, and today the slightly delayed Coffey column is running. As for the latter, I appreciate the opportunity to work with publisher Steve Kozarovich. I added a disclosure, and he added an editor's note. I like my original title better ("Hot toadstools and cold cappuccino"), but you can't win 'em all.
Here are the relevant links.
BAYLOR: Coffey’s conduct unbecoming (January 29)
LETTERS (Malone on ROCK): Jan. 29, 2009
LETTERS (Womack on ROCK): Jan. 29, 2009
BAYLOR: ROCK ‘n’ role playing (January 22)
I’m delighted that my columns are generating such responses, which can only enhance the local debate and promote public discussion of the issues therein.
Among other diversions, Mr. Malone accuses me of “avoiding the issue being debated” before avoiding it himself and attempting to answer the question, “which culture is ROCK seeking to reclaim?” with this answer:
The culture ROCK is attempting to reclaim is one (however imperfect) in which a common sense understanding of decency is understood by both the legal class and the working class.
Note that in argumentation, an appeal to “common sense” is itself a fallacy, precisely because it is often the case that matters formerly taken for granted as uncontested evidence of common sense (slavery, the subjugation of women, infanticide) now can be seen as usually foolish and often harmful – which is why I asked the question in the first place.
Reader Womack is funnier in his rebuke, lamenting my sending him running to his dictionary, and invoking the cartoon characters of the Chicken Hawk and Foghorn Leghorn to chide members of the (presumably liberal) intelligentsia for defending what he regards as the indefensible, i.e., indecency in the form of Theatair X. Neither Malone nor Womack attempt to define what decency and indecency mean in the context of reclaiming something that also isn't defined.
Dictionaries, please.
As for the Coffey Agonistes piece today, all I ask is that anyone planning on attending Monday’s city council meeting ... please bring a video camera.
As stated previously, I plan on using the full five minutes of my non-agenda speaking time to offer a heartfelt homily on something or the other as yet undetermined. It will tug the heart, tease the brain, induce laughter in the gallery and offer the council president the irresistable opportunity to gavel me away from the podium and exact his revenge. It would be nice to have such a moment captured on film and displayed prominently on this page.
In fact, for so long as Coffey’s latest outrage goes publicly unaddressed by his trembling political peers, I suggest that as many of us as possible attend and be prepared to speak.
After all, there’s no such thing as too much information, is there?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
As for Mr. Malone’s letter, I’m heartened to hear that ROCK’s primary interest is government accountability, rule of law and maintaining property values. New Albany faces many challenges on these fronts, including:
- rental unit inspections and certification;
- historic preservation (proven tool to increase property values);
- the adaptive reuse of the former Baptist Tabernacle Building;
- funding of the Greenway project;
- façade grants program for downtown; and
- maintenance of our city parks.
ROCK mobilized 50 supporters to the last council meeting where “2 Horseshoes” was discussed. I look forward to seeing 50 more ROCK members at council meetings when other ordinance enforcement and property value issues are discussed, least we think the organization is primarily fixated on sex.
Right on, brother. I've stated the same here on numerous occasions, and not a peep from the organization that reader Womack characterized as Foghorn Leghorn.
Talk about missin' 'em.
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!
When pigs fly.
You know, I personally wouldnt give a nickle for rock.
Do I like strip clubs, and adult stores, no, I do not. My answer to that, I dont go to them, period.
How much of the money this group is spending to wage war on sex could go to helping persons who are in true need of help?
And outside of that where the hell else could a 50 year old crack momma find work outside of the peekshow booth?
I have no problem with ROCK if they want to fill the city council meetings with “rule of law” zealots. True “rule of law” zealots might be just what NA we needs. In your response Roger, might I suggest you invite them to attend the next city council meetings where “rule of law” issues are discussed? While ROCK leadership might be obsessed with sex, let the concerned ROCK reads put up of shut up; have they built up a strawman or do they really care about anything other than sex?
Excellent point, but in fact, I believe they surely are obsessed with sex to the exclusion of all other "rule of law" issues.
I agree wholeheartedly with the invitation idea, and soon will be forming another organization to be called ROCK LOBSTER, which will pinch the one-issue monoglots 'til they squeak.
Aside from overall theocratic motivations, my favorite part of their whole pornography stance is that it should be limited because the men they know can't control themselves when provided access to it.
If we could just get women to keep their clothes on, we men wouldn't have to spend so much of our time resisting their evil temptations.
I suppose I should be surprised all the heathens I know manage to not pay for sex everyday.
Yeah, I quit when they starting giving me change back!!!(vbg)
Back to Coffey:
Clarksville is taking proactive steps to thoughtfully redevelop the Colgate plant
Jeffersonville is studying a $100 million hotel/convention center project. And this is in a city with 10,000 fewer residents than New Albany.
Coffey, who is on both the common council and the redevelopment commission, insists that NA is broke, and cannot afford projects of even a much smaller scale. Not only does he insists that we cannot study redevelopment projects, but he immediately cuts off anyone who begins to discuss any type of city role in redevelopment projects, including those that would not necessarily costs the city a penny.
I have two questions for Mr. Coffey:
1. How can Clarksville and Jeffersonville afford to at least study ambitious projects while New Albany cannot?
2. Why are we not even allowed to discuss city participation in redevelopment projects?
I’ve heard of examples where Louisville developers interested in New Albany projects have come before the redevelopment commission. Mr. Coffey, instead of listening first to the proposal, lectures the developer to not ask for a city “hand out.”
As a counter example, Louisville leased 4th Street Live to Cordish Group for one dollar. No matter what you may think of the tenant mix at 4th Street, the city’s move unleashed $70 million in private investment that undoubtedly has increased property values, and thus property tax revenues, in the surrounding area. Louisville then discussed purchasing several more blocks of land for Cordish to expand.
For Museum Plaza project, the city is encouraging approximately $350 million in private investment by agreeing to make $90 million in infrastructure improvements including rerouting 7th Street and moving the flood wall. The deep pocketed developers are personally on the hook for the city’s improvements if the building never is built, minimizing risk to the city.
I’m hardly suggesting that New Albany should make such large commitments to entice private developers. I’m not saying that the CityCenter or Museum Plaza projects are good or bad. However, city involvement is what developers receive in other communities. Imagine a developer’s shock to instead receive a tongue lashing when offering to invest in our community. Needless to say, none of these Louisville developers came back for a second tongue lashing.
The fault lies in two places: with the Mayor and with the council. The Mayor appoints three members to the redevelopment commission and the council appoints two.
The council’s silence acquiescence to Mr. Coffey’s appointment to the redevelopment commission at a minimum empowered him to move forward with his anti-development, anti-developer rhetoric. The Mayor has refused to appoint development conscious members who can at a minimum speak against Mr. Coffey or better yet out vote him. Redevelopment commission meetings often are a monologue.
None of the Mayor’s redevelopment commission appointees (or council appointees) have redevelopment backgrounds. None appear to be familiar with the major redevelopment programs available. None to my knowledge have sought to educate himself or herself on what has worked in other cities. As far as I can tell, none has done anything other than attend the occasional meeting, to further redevelopment in our city.
Have we considered that getting press for roughing up your opponents in a bar and referring to yourself as a copperhead might actually earn votes? (joking...sort of...)
Funny you should mention that, Brandon. We were just talking about whether there are still literacy requirements to vote.
Did the copperhead vote for himself?
I thought it was rather insulting that the Tribune felt it was necessary to post a disclaimer under your fist column, yet did nothing of the sort when it came to Peggy DeKay's anti-athiest diatribes.
Point taken, B.W., but the end game of this particular endeavor is the truth, whether comfortable, uncomfortable, etc.
Officials will either step up and state the truth or we'll have made no progress. It's really up to Carl Malysz, John Gonder, and Stan Robison in this situation.
It's no big news that they were witnesses.
Post a Comment