Sen. Mike Young and his "Priorities"

I got an email from our illustrious state Senator Mike Young, he of the government-funded law degree. Anyway, included in that email was this little gem:

Like Senate Republicans, Gov. Holcomb is working to bring more high-paying jobs to the state, further develop a 21st century skilled workforce, support education and help protect our at-risk children.

As both readers of this blog know, I have a high opinion of Gov. Holcomb. However, I found this statement to be a bit of a stretch:

• Maybe I'm dense, but I'm not sure how continuing the bankrupting of labor unions through Right to Work laws "is working to bring more high-paying jobs to the state." It seems to me, it's working to ensure that the jobs in this state are low paying. I understand (if disagree with) the rationale for this. However, just own it!
• "Further develop a 21st century skilled workforce" sounds to me like "make the government pay to train workers that companies won't themselves pay to train." Why is it the government's job to make sure that companies have trained workers? Can't the companies train the workers themselves, the way they used to?
• "Support education" by continuing to siphon money to charter schools
• "Help protect our at-risk children" by having yet another "study commission" on how to improve DCS without actually giving it the money it needs.

Senator Young, please don't insult our intelligence any more.

Further, I actually followed the link on the quote; I have more thoughts on that, which I will post tomorrow.

Economic Development Question

I hear often about "economic development" plans from localities that are essentially subsidizing private projects via tax dollars, either directly by backing bonds or indirectly by giving tax deferrals. Either way, these subsidies amount to millions of dollars spent by localities in furtherance of private industry.

Two examples of taxpayer-subsidized projects come to mind: Lucas Oil Stadium and the Wilshaw development. I have said before that if the Town of Speedway wants public parking, it should just build a parking garage instead of borrowing the money to build one, lending that money to a developer, then leasing the garage to the developer in exchange for revenue from the garage. It's a rube goldberg device.

I also hear justification for Lucas Oil Stadium in the form of "look at how many jobs it creates" with all of the hotel, restaurant, convention, etc., traffic created by the facility.

I suppose my big question is this: Why don't we just directly invest in those jobs by doing things like hiring teachers? Paying for their health insurance? Hiring construction workers to build better roads? (the NW corner of 465 comes to mind, but that's just because I commute past that area every day).

In a nutshell, it appears that there is a bipartisan consensus that government spending to create jobs is OK. In that instance, why settle for low-wage ALICE ("asset limited income constrained employed") jobs? Why not go for good middle-class jobs with benefits? It seems that we could do so if we cut out the middle man, i.e. Jim Irsay or Loftus/Robinson.

Just a thought.

Never Overlook Progress

Speedway has come a long way in recent years. While it is very easy to point out shortcomings and lament imperfections, I was reading through some old case archives and came across this:

A man was sentenced Wednesday to 85 years in prison for killing and robbing a guest at a motel where he worked.

Joseph Pryor had been convicted of murder and robbery in the October 2005 death of James Santelli in the Super 8 Motel in Speedway.

Police said Pryor, a maintenance worker at the motel, used a wooden coat hanger to stab Santelli, 45, of Palatine, Ill. A wooden coat hanger was found sticking out of Santelli's neck, authorities said.

Pryor admitted to stealing cash and tools from Santelli, a construction worker, police said. Pryor tried to cover the crime by pouring Listerine over evidence and sold the tools to a pawnshop, police said.

I note this particular matter because the civil suit that followed this crime wound up setting a rather important precedent in Indiana law.

May Mr. Santelli rest in peace, and may Mr. Prior find forgiveness some day. However, may Speedway work diligently to ensure that it never again becomes a home to dodgy "hooker hotels" that wind up having these kinds of violent crimes therein.

Hard Cases & Bad Law

If someone wants to worship God in accordance with Catholic beliefs, no problem.

If someone wants to marry a person of the same sex in accordance with his/her affection and preference, no problem.

If someone wants to run a company in accordance with his/her religious values, no problem.

The problems arise when these three situations (and countless others) intersect. For example, if the Catholic works at a law firm and refuses to do work on a divorce case, what then? If a Catholic owns a child care center and does not want his/her employees to publicly "flaunt" their homosexuality, does that mean that all employees have to live in "the closet" or risk losing their jobs?

This is the genesis of the phrase, "Hard cases make bad laws." For example, we certainly have the right to wear t-shirts with statements on them, but does a student have the right to wear a "Bong Hits for Jesus" t-shirt, to school? The Supreme Court said yes, but does that mean that the student should wear that shirt?

I ramble all of this in light of a story I read recently in the Indianapolis Star. Here are some excerpts:

Students, parents and alumni are rallying behind a Roncalli High School guidance counselor who they say may be fired after administrators found out she was married to a woman.

The south-side Catholic school and Archdiocese of Indianapolis defended their position regarding Shelly Fitzgerald after her supporters began criticizing the school on social media over the weekend.

"As role models for students, the personal conduct of every teacher, guidance counselor and administrator and staff member, both at school and away from school, must convey and be supportive of the teachings of the Catholic Church," Roncalli officials posted on the school's official Facebook page Sunday night.

This has implications galore. For starters, if the counselor can't be fired, is that not an infringement on Roncalli's First Amendment rights? If the counselor can be fired, isn't that an infringement on the counselor's 14th Amendment substantive due process rights, particularly given that Roncalli receives public money?

As the title says, hard cases make bad laws. I don't think that the guidance counselor should be fired, as a function of what is right and wrong. I'm not sure as to whether the counselor can be fired, as a function of what is legal.

I would, however, advise Roncalli to tread lightly. While Indiana, presently, is shoveling public money to religious schools, the political worm always turns, particularly when you taunt fate and encourage the worm to turn. How many more schools doing something like this would eventually result in a revolt against the idea of giving our tax money to schools that aren't accountable to our constitution? If religious institutions can't follow our laws, in accordance with their stated religious mission, perhaps we shouldn't expect them to . . . perhaps we shouldn't fund them.

Of course, on the other hand, if Roncalli is forced to hire and retain employees who it sees as antithetical to its mission, how long before it and other schools like it turn their back on voucher programs and essentially say, "There are too many strings attached. We'll go back to the old way of doing things."

Again, hard cases make bad laws. When you mix the public and private sectors, it is really important to properly delineate between those functions that are governmental functions (and thus subject to all of the laws, regulations, and (yes) the Constitution, and those functions that are non-governmental.

About that Curtis Hill

Not only is he a creepy groper, drug warrior, and the worst kind of attorney (prosecutor), he also wastes our money on stupid partisan snipe hunts:

Last month, judge Sarah Evans Barker approved a consent decree reached by plaintiffs Common Cause Indiana and the Indianapolis NAACP and the defendant, the Marion County Election Board.

In a filing Tuesday, the attorney general argued that the consent decree cannot replace an election board's legal requirement to decide unanimously to create in-person early voting sites.

 For those following at home, the backdrop to this is that state law requires unanimity among the members of a county election board in order to open up new voting sites. The Marion County election board has consistently lacked such unanimity, as the Republican members of such board have repeatedly and consistently refused to agree to open new voting sites . . . seemingly part of the ongoing project to protect against voter fraud discourage voting.

Anyway, the county election board got sued. They eventually settled and agreed to put new voting sites in. Of course, Mr. AG had to come along and do anything he could to help his team distract from his own problems.

Marion County’s decision to open additional voting centers is being contested by Attorney General Curtis Hill, but the Marion County Election Board disputes his assertion that the agreement to offer more early voting sites is contrary to Indiana law or that the board lacked a unanimous vote.

A consent decree settling a lawsuit over access to early voting was approved by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana in mid-July in Common Cause Indiana et al. v. Marion County Election Board, 1:17-cv-1388.

Hill, on behalf of the state, is challenging the consent decree that opens additional satellite voting centers in Marion County for the 2018 general election. He filed a motion Tuesday asking the federal court to withdraw the agreement. The board last month announced six early-voting sites around Indianapolis would be open in time for November’s mid-term election.

OK. What is Mr. Hill's reasoning for bringing a lawsuit, paid for by the taxpayers of Indiana, whose general purpose is to prevent those same taxpayers from being able to vote (without waiting in line for what tends to be, by most estimates, "forever")?

Hill’s office also argued “it is not in the public interest for a federal court to enter, enforce, and monitor a consent decree that dictates the operation of state-run elections.” Further, the AG’s office said the public interest is “jeopardized by the removal of (Defendant Election Board’s) minority leverage in the political process.”

You know, the candor of that is quite surprising. What is the AG talking about when he mentions "minority leverage in the political process?" Well, that's just what was mentioned above: Republicans wanted to make sure that voting remained inconvenient in Indianapolis, presumably to drive down turnout of what is viewed as a "liberal" electorate. You will note that polling places in rural locales far outnumber, on a per-capita basis, those in liberal urban locales.

Anyway, as to the two objections, I will let the Article III Judge Sarah Evans Barker have the honors:

The State argues that the consent decree is contrary both to state law as well as the public interest. Neither objection has merit.

That is nice judge speak for, "Get the hell out of my courtroom you clown." However, at least we can rest assured that, at least for a few minutes, AG Hill wasn't ass-grabbing all over downtown, as is rumored to be his style.

 

Gambling & Motorsports

The Supreme Court recently ruled that the national ban on sports gambling, with the exception of Nevada, is unconstitutional.

OK.

I am not a gambler, so it really has little effect on me. I have heard the arguments that casinos and gambling outfits are deleterious to communities, but I am skeptical. As a general rule, when it comes to local activity, I prefer to let people do what they want to do. If they want to gamble, then they can gamble. I do hope that people bet with money they can afford to lose, but I say the same thing about people running up bar tabs, credit card debt, etc.

What I wonder about, though, is what effect that will have on motorsports, particularly the Indy 500. How much would it add to the fan experience if you could go and place bets, not only on the winner but also first to wreck, first to pit, most laps led, top-5 finishers, trifecta, slowest finisher, top speed, etc.

I don't have hard numbers to back it up, but I am given to understand that outside of the 500, IndyCar is having financial problems. I have also heard many rumors that the 500 itself is experiencing generally declining attendance. As I said, this is what I've heard, not what I've researched.

Anyway, perhaps auto racing will have somewhat of a renaissance because of this. What do you think?

Classic Indiana "Legislation"

My first law job was in Chicago, and it dawned on me that the dynamic in Illinois is essentially reversed from that in Indiana. In Illinois, Chicago essentially makes all decisions for the rest of the state, and the rest of the state just has to deal with it.

Contrarily, in Indiana, it has always seemed to me that the rural portions of the state make the decisions that the people of Indianapolis (and to lesser extents, Ft. Wayne, Evansville, South Bend, etc.) just have to deal with it.

Well, today I got an email from my state Senator Mike Young (boooo!). The notable portion of the legislation he touts:

Through the program, the Indiana Department of Transportation matches up to $1 million when localities invest in road and bridge repairs. Counties with populations below 50,000 and cities and towns with populations below 10,000 receive a 75/25 percent match, while counties with populations greater than 50,000 and cities and towns with populations greater than 10,000 receive a 50/50 percent match. 

So, to be clear, our Senator pushed through and now touts legislation that he presumably voted for that punishes his own constituents for having the temerity to live in a populated area, that he represents.

This is classic "kids gloving" the rural areas. Are they unable to pick up the tab for their own roads? I thought they were supposed to be "real Americans" who wanted the government to "leave them alone." I thought that Indianapolis was full of takers, per our state representatives? Why is it that the state picks up considerably more, proportionately, for roads in small counties? Add to that the fact that there are fewer people in such small counties, and we have a state government that spends considerably more per person who uses a road on rural routes than on urban ones.

Of course, it's not as though Indianapolis needs the money or anything, as anyone who's driven our pothole-riven roads will aver.

Will someone please run against this empty suit, Mike Young, and give us some real representation?

Employee Theft

I know that there has been a lot of local consternation regarding some alleged thefts from the Town of Speedway over the past few years. The two stories I have heard, in particular, involve the Redevelopment Commission and the Fire Department. I make no present comment on the veracity of those stories. However, I do write today to hearten my fellow Sparkplugs and note that we're not alone:

Two former Indianapolis Local Public Improvement Bond Bank employees have been charged with theft and insurance fraud by the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office after being accused of taking funds totaling nearly $400,000 from the bond bank.

Jacqueline Fitzgerald, 54, is charged with six counts of theft and two counts of insurance fraud, and Monica Durrett, 56, is charged with five counts of theft and one count of insurance fraud. While employed at the bond bank, the employees are believed to have claimed inappropriate benefit leave payouts and carried insurance on ineligible dependents. Fitzgerald also allegedly received unauthorized bonuses and incentive pay.

Fitzgerald and Durrett were fired from the bond bank in June 2017 after some of their alleged actions were discovered.

Both former employees had enrolled grandchildren in their employer-provided health insurance despite not being legal guardians of those children, according to a probable cause affidavit.

Fitzgerald was allegedly paid $170,000 during her last year of employment despite her annual salary being $57,523. She also arranged to be regularly paid for dozens of hours of benefit leave in addition to her normal paycheck.

Durrett also allegedly received inappropriate benefit leave pay. 

As tempting as it may be to blame Speedway's problem on something specific to Speedway, unfortunately, this problem appears to be rooted in human nature, not in Speedway.

 

Taking the Ball and Running

I love Indianapolis as a whole nearly as much as I love Speedway. It constantly perplexes me, however, that there isn't much that's particularly memorable about Indianapolis, food wise. For a long time, I have believed that perhaps that is because Indianapolis is a test market for regional or national restaurant corporations; they test new concepts here and have sufficient budget to both be able to fail without financial catastrophe while simultaneously setting an artificially high bar for survival for local concepts.

Recently, I read a great piece in the Urbanophile that made me question whether I had thought this entirely through. The piece discusses the diverging fortunes of Nashville Hot Chicken and Hoosier Breaded Pork Tenderloin.  I highly encourage anyone to click through and read the entire article. A few snippets should you forego the opportunity to click through:

First, about Nashville "Hot" Chicken:

In other words, it’s possible that this dish has been around a while in some form in the local black community, but what we know today as the Nashville hot chicken is from the 70s or 80s. A Midwestern reader with longstanding family ties to Nashville told me a while back that at least through the 1990s he never heard hot chicken mentioned there. I read that Nashville hot chicken is now supposedly popular around the south, but having spent extensive time in Alabama 10-15 years ago, I never once came across it there.

I have no reason to doubt this analysis, but then again I'm not from the South. I don't recall ever hearing about Nashville Hot Chicken until just a few years ago, though.

Now, as to the Hoosier Tenderloin:

the pork tenderloin is fairly ubiquitous in Central Indiana, where it is on practically every bar and grill menu. 

I can attest to that. I don't know how long the pork tenderloin has been ubiquitous in Indianapolis, but it's been at least the entire time I've lived here (since 2003).

The question, of course, is:

Why was Indianapolis unable to do with the tenderloin what Nashville did with hot chicken?

His answer, essentially, is that Indianapolis doesn't even try.

I again and again see that Southern cities start with little to nothing, and yet what they do have they treat as the greatest things of all time. As illustrated by Nashville hot chicken, they’ve also looked at their often neglected black community as a source of local cultural identity.

The Midwestern cities not only fail at this consistently, they typically don’t even try. There are tons of regional food products in the Midwest – Chicago style dogs, St. Louis pizza, etc. – but other than Chicago’s deep dish pizza, they have been dramatically underexploited in the marketplace even as these cities say that they are very keen to raise their brand profiles.

Interesting.

Being a litigator (and thus having nothing whatsoever to do with tourism, or the friendlier side of humanity generally) I don't really know what to say about this. Nonetheless, it is worth considering. It also gets me a-thinking about what it is, aside from racing, that Speedway hangs its hat on. I get that the 500 is, in the immortal words of Joe Biden, "a big f**kin' deal." Nonetheless, what is the "thing" about Speedway during the other 350 or so days per year? Food? Festivals? Sport? Music?

Speedway Super Center: Horrible Design = Horrible Traffic

Anyone who lives in Speedway knows that the Speedway Super Center (home of Kroger et al) seems to be custom designed to simultaneously waste space and create traffic jams. As I've noted before, I live in the Meadowood Park area, and the access point to this shopping center (Parkwood Dr.) probably could not be designed worse even if you tried.

Of course, I (quite clearly) do not own this property, nor am I an elected official, so my input on what happens there is minimal (if it exists at all). Nonetheless I recognize that the Speedway Redevelopment Commission will sooner or later have to tackle this property and, as such, I have a few suggestions.

First, let's recognize that the Speedway Super Center will not ever look like Main Street. It was originally built in a different era, for different needs. Main Street was designed to be just that: a main street, where commercial activity could be centrally located for those who lived in the immediate vicinity. The Speedway Super Center, on the other hand, was designed to be a shopping center to which people would drive from many miles. If you ask me what the best-case scenario of the Speedway Super Center is, post-redevelopment, I would point to Clay Terrace in Carmel or Metropolis in Plainfield.

These endpoint goals are for another day, though, because I just want to discuss traffic. Here is an aerial view of the area I'm referencing:

Aerial view of Speedway Super Center. 25th Street, more or less, runs  across the top; Lynhurst is on the right, and you can't see H.S. Rd. on the left.

A few things about this design stick out to me:

1. The parking design is really terrible.

Here is what I'm talking about:

Notice that this is essentially the main artery going East/West through the north end of this shopping center. It is important for traffic to move freely through there, yet it is designed to require pedestrians to cross the artery.

Another view of the same general area:

This is a bit further down. Note that one can't get to the nearest grocery store without driving along this route; again, it's not thoughtfully designed.

It doesn't have to be this way. Some thoughtful redesign of this parking/traversing area would vastly improve the experience there.

Below is a picture of one random portion of Clay Terrace:

Note that there is parking along the building, and the degree to which that seems to change the character of both the walkways and the driving lanes.

The "traffic" through the mall is less obstructed, parking is easier, and the walkways are friendlier. In fact, we have already deployed this tactic in Speedway:

So, my point as to the parking and the layout of the Speedway Super Center is that the buildings themselves don't need to be rebuilt. I am agnostic as to their condition, but I believe that their location lends itself just fine to some redesign that would make the area considerably nicer.

2. The streets are poorly designed.

The thoroughfares of the area should cross at different points. Again, here is an aerial view of what I'm talking about.

You can see that I've superimposed on the area where the major intersections are. I think that the middle one, especially, needs work.

Imagine for a moment if the traffic flowed through the area like this:

You can see, in orange, where I've superimposed a roundabout within the existing area. The part of Parkwood Dr. that goes through the shopping center would be transformed by a roundabout, further south. This would enable more of the curbside parking discussed in point #1 above, and would render this thruway considerably more pedestrian friendly.

3. Green Space Helps

I note that nearly every place in the world worth being has something growing there; perhaps the plants and trees know something we don't. Anyway, given that the parking lots there are, quite literally, never full, wouldn't it be worth it to put some green space in there? Some place where the citizens of Speedway could enjoy a cup of coffee and a book, or perhaps simply read the newspaper or have lunch? Green space makes everywhere better,even the Speedway Super Center.

So there it is; three things that could be done on the "reasonably" cheap that would make a world of difference for the Speedway Super Center. I have heard that the property owner is a pretty good corporate citizen; I see that they've dumped a bunch of money into the eastern portion of this development.

Here's to hoping for the best!

Accounting

In legalese, the term "accounting" means that somebody entrusted with funds must provide an explanation as to how those funds were used. In other words, the entrustee must "account" for all of the money. It's a pretty simple concept once you think it through.

In light of that, I will quote a blog post from Indy Tax Dollars, in full:

A little over a month ago it was announced that a move was afoot to establish a downtown Economic Improvement District which would tax property owners in the Mile Square (area bounded by East, West, North and South streets).  The funds would be used for problems not being adequately handled by current municipal budgets.

The subject is brought to mind again by an on-line IBJ story about VisitIndy (VI), and that organization’s fiscal boast.  For 2016, according to a report commissioned by VI, visitors to the city had an economic impact of $5.2 billion, and $719 million in additional state and local taxes.  (No division given as to state and local.)  This following substantial increases in previous years.

We know nothing about the report authors but we admit to a visceral suspicion about the accuracy of such glowing essays when they are being paid for by the subjects of said essays.  But let us assume the numbers are accurate.

Then, does not the question arise, "Where do all those dollars go?"  How do these figures connect with the need for downtown property owners to volunteer a heavier tax burden on themselves?  Why did the original story about the EID refer to the city as "cash-strapped?"

Why would it not be reasonable to be able to check on the amounts of dollars, and at the same time place a significant part of the burden on the most direct recipients of those revenues?

We believe this could be done by adopting something similar to our earlier suggestion of a Revenue Increment Tax - RIF. A huge proportion of that $5.2 billion comes into the city via members of the hospitality industry - food, beverage and lodging operations.

Surely the increase in revenues, at the time of a Super Bowl, an NBA All Star Game or a convention of thousands for instance, could be compared to revenues of a like period in other times for the application of an RIF plan.

Should we not make a more direct connection between revenues generated by sports franchises and the dollars handed back to them as incentives to remain here?

Very important points in a discussion that we, as a community, are notably NOT having.

Richmond Hill Explosion - update

I recall watching the Richmond Hill debacle unfold as I was finishing up law school and wondering whether I, or someone I know, would wind up representing anyone associated with it. For those who don't recall, this was the house on the south side that blew up and essentially leveled all of the surrounding houses and damaged the rest of the neighborhood.

I also recall working in Ft. Wayne while the trial was going on . . . it got venue'd out of Marion County due to the press coverage. Anyway, the Indiana Lawyer updated today as follows:

Mark Leonard, the man convicted in the massive 2012 Indianapolis house explosion that killed two in the Richmond Hill subdivision, has died at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility, a spokesman for the Indiana Department of Correction confirmed Tuesday. He was 48.

Leonard and his brother, Bob, were convicted on a slew of charges after they caused a natural gas explosion at the home of Monserrate Shirley, Leonard’s girlfriend. The explosion killed Shirley’s neighbors, Jennifer and Dion Longworth, and damaged or destroyed dozens of homes in the neighborhood on Indianapolis’ far south side.

Bob and Mark Leonard each were sentenced to life without parole. Shirley was sentenced to 50 years in prison.

story continues below

Earlier this month, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Mark Leonard would not appear before them again after denying transfer to his challenge of one of his numerous felony convictions.

I take no satisfaction in untimely deaths of anyone, be they Mark Leonard or Jeffrey Dahmer. It is for that reason that I disagree with the death penalty. 

Mr. Leonard, methinks you were not given sufficient earthly penalty, but I am neither a judge nor the Almighty. I suspect you have bigger questions you have to answer now. Best of luck, and my God have mercy on you as I hope he has mercy on all of us. 

YIMBY

I think that most people have heard of the term "NIMBY." This stands for Not In My Back Yard and generally refers to those who want to remonstrate or otherwise impede development. Further, it reflects the idea that many people are perfectly fine with developing property so long as that property is not to close to their own homes.

There is a movement in other cities, in response to NIMBYism, called YIMBY, i.e. Yes In My Back Yard.

Count me in. I would like to see development in my backyard. I want to see Wilshaw built, particularly if it is not dominated by parking structures. I want to see increased bus routes between Speedway and every other part of the city. I want to see a train connecting the airport to downtown via Speedway. I want to see condos built around IMS for wealthy racing team owners to stay in, hopefully for more than just a few weeks in May. I would like to see more bars and restaurants open throughout Speedway, not just on Main St. I want to see the Speedway Supercenter (i.e. the Kroger development) grow like gangbusters. I would like the McGilvery's development to fill in, whether it is with liquor stores, bible stores, health clubs, or whatever.

Along those lines, I love the International Marketplace on W. 38th Street! In a city that is dominated by chain franchise restaurants and stores, it is so refreshing to see all of those independently owned and operated restaurants and other businesses. I try to patronize them as often as I reasonably can.

As I wrote a long time ago, the traffic that comes along with these developments is evidence that people actually want to be here. That is a good thing. If there is no traffic and considerably more parking than would ever reasonably be required, that is evidence that our home is not worth visiting to those who don't live here. That is a bad thing!

PLEASE in my backyard! Maybe instead of YIMBY we should call people like myself PIMBYs.

Colts' Next Coach

Generally, I refrain from posting much about sports, largely because most of the people I know have forgotten more about sports than I'll ever know. Don't get me wrong, I like to drink beer and watch football as much as the next guy; I just have no idea how to make my team win more and/or the hated Patriots/Steelers (there are many more, but I'll limit it to two today, as I'm talking about the Colts, and straying too far from the AFC is just a distraction).

Anyway, I saw this unfortunate headline in today's Indianapolis Star: "Josh McDaniels nearing deal to become Colts' new head coach." Oh Lord help me.

For starters, I readily concede that the hated Bellichick is probably the greatest coaching talent in a generation. However, his coaching "offspring" have been far from impressive. Let's take a look at some past examples before we assess the enormity of the mistake that the Colts are about to make.

Past Belichick assistants:

• Eric Mangini - remember all of those winning seasons the Jets put together from 2006 - 2008? Me neither; the internet tells me he went 23-25. How about the 10-22 record in two seasons with the Browns? Underwhelming.
• Speaking of the Browns, how could we forget Romeo Crennel? Recall that from 2004-2008, the Browns had the "advantage" of having Bill Bellichick's "defensive guru" coaching them. This advantage translated into a record of 24-40 in his four years in Cleveland. Thereafter, proving that NFL coaches "fail up" more than most other professions, Coach Crennel went 4-15 in a season and change in Kansas City.
• Speaking of "advantages" conferred on the teams that are blessed to have former Bellichick assistants, who could forget Charlie "decided schematic advantage" Weis? He was paid nearly $20m to take Notre Dame to 35-27. Hardly elite level coaching, it seems. He was then paid $2.5m/year to coach the Kansas Jayhawks (football team, for those who didn't realize they had one) to a combined record of 6-22 over the course of three seasons. (Note, Coach Weis got paid for five years, even though he got fired after three).

I could certainly go on. Rest assured, there are some bright spots, such as Nick Saban, who reportedly called working for the hated Bellichick "the worst years of my life." Coach Saban also, and famously, was not nearly as successful in the NFL as he has been at the collegiate level.

Anyway, on to Josh McDaniels. What do they have to say about him in Boston?

His last foray away from Foxborough did not go as planned; a hot start with the Denver Broncos (6-0 first six games) quickly dissolved (5-17 final 22 games) and was surrounded by controversy around a videotaping scandal. His cup of coffee with the St. Louis Rams did not go down smoothly, either, as the Rams finished the 2011 season (his lone season with the team) with the fewest points per game and second-fewest yards per game in the NFL.

Well, to be fair, Boston sports fans are notorious a$$holes, so we can expect their media to be much the same. What about dispassionate observers?

The Pats have by far the best offense in the NFL this year, and while Brady is insanely great and he has one of the greatest TEs in history to throw to, 1)Brady’s 40 and 2)Brady obviously gets more of an edge from clever gameplans, exploiting matchups, etc. than say Rodgers or Wilson or Stafford. At least within the context of Belichick’s system — a big caveat, to be sure — he’s very good at his job. And while he was an abject disaster in Denver he was very young and absurdly given personnel control; it’s entirely possible that he’s matured.

Still, he’s not only failed once as a head coach, he even failed as an OC outside of New England. 

Well, that's a bit better I suppose.

At the end of the day, all we can do is speculate. I am speculating that this coach, much like Coach Pagano and Coach Caldwell before him, will fall short. Perhaps its the pessimist in me; I am a lawyer after all.

So, in closing, here's to hoping for the best (and preparing for the worst). Happy MLK day! 

Transit Innovation

I want to clarify what I mean by "transit innovation." As an initial matter, I would prefer to have an underground train system throughout, at the least, the center of Indianapolis. Alas, it is very difficult, if not impractical, to get "there" from "here." That is why I am a fan of transit innovation. We are not stuck with a binary choice between spending billions of dollars on a train system and continuing to use the automobile for every trip.

There are alternatives.

These alternatives come in forms such as bus routes; biking routes; embrace of golf carts; walkable development.

I am not wed to any of the above ideas, nor have I dismissed other ideas that I didn't mention above. My point is that we cannot continue to expect that simply paving more roads will solve the problems that we will face as a growing community. We need to think practically about how we (a) maintain property values, not just in Speedway but in Indianapolis generally, and (b) how we marshall public resources for the best outcome (i.e. do we spend more money on roads, or do we try something else? Which option will result in the maximum amount of utility and human happiness?).

Aspirations for 2018

I hate resolutions. I'm not generally a resolute individual. However, I do like to believe that I am an aspirational person. With that in mind, I offer aspirations for 2018:

1. Reform of Occupational Licensure Requirements

I am not a conservative, so I am told, but nothing erodes freedoms more than economic regulations that can deprive one of his ability to make a living and feed his family. It matters not to me whether one makes his/her living braiding hair, making dog treats, doing paralegal work, or coding medical bills. I don't see that a license is necessary to do any of this, much less a license that necessitates thousands of dollars in training that an employer used to provide(s).

Instead of having a highly trained and mercenary work force, we instead have the same work force with large tuition debt hanging over them; we have made society worse. Let's stop doing that. Instead, how about we allow people to pursue a livelihood without throwing up gratuitous barriers.

As a final note on this point, I can't help but think that so many occupational licensure requirements are simply "incumbent protection rackets." For example, the fact that an English teacher who is fully certified in Michigan has to sit through a battery of tests in Indiana to teach English is nothing but a protection racket for IN English teachers (a member of such group as I used to identify). Requiring thousands of dollars in gratuitous and unnecessary "training" to become a hair stylist merely serves to limit the universe of hair stylists and drive up the cost of stylist services. This makes everyone except incumbent stylists poorer: consumers pay more, aspiring stylists can't get into the industry. I could go on and on about this, as there are so many useless occupational licensing requirements it makes one's head spin.

2. Minimization of Land Use and Zoning Regulations

I view land use and zoning regulations, to a lesser extent, in a similar vein as occupational licensure requirements. Zoning does nothing but make incumbent landowners wealthier in most cases. Why can't someone who owns a home on Lynhurst open a public business there? What about on 15th St?* I also think that if someone is so inclined, he should be able to buy a parcel on Main St. and build whatever the hell he wants on it so long as he is not bothering others with his use of his own property. Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas. I fully recognize that some in this community don't necessarily see eye to eye with me on this. I do sincerely hope we can all agree to disagree.

3. Decriminalization of Harmless Behavior

There is a concept in the law known as "standing." It essentially says that you can't bring a lawsuit unless you can show a few things, including that you, the complainant, have been harmed. Generally, the enforcement of a law is presumed to be in the public interest, conferring standing on the prosecutor's office.

What if the elimination of the criminalized behavior is not in the public interest? What if enforcement of certain laws creates more of the undesirable behavior that we seek to eliminate in the first place?

The War on Drugs is the first thing that comes to mind. Unless a prosecuting authority can demonstrate that an actual human being was harmed, the prosecution should fail as a matter of policy. If there is an arms-length transaction, who really cares what is exchanged? Particularly with respect to marijuana, who cares? If an adult, who has full agency and freedom, decides to spend his hard-earned money on some pot, who cares? Why do we then tax that same adult to hire police and build prisons so that people who participate in this exact same behavior can become wards of the state? What in the hell are we doing?

Another example is prostitution. I certainly have a problem with human trafficking and the like, but again with the arms-length transaction . . . if a woman wants to sell an hour of her time doing "whatever" for a considerably larger amount than she could otherwise command for an hour of her time, who am I to say that I know better? I grant you that if there were "ladies of the night" "plying their trade" in Meadowood Park, my position would be different, as the entire community would be harmed in such an instance. However, if she sells her goods for three hours per night, out of her own home, what business is it of mine?

I could go on, but I think that the point has been made. Enough expenditure of public resources on morality crusades, which brings us to the next point . . .

4. Judicious and Equitable Use of Public Funds

I could go on for some time about this, whether we are talking about using public money to finance a private developer's parking garage or using public money to finance enforcement of some theocrat's version of morality, enough is enough.

Along those same lines, I know that there has been considerable discussion of late of the antics of Scott Harris vis a vis the Redevelopment Commission and the State Board of Accounts. Is it too much to expect to have the system, from which Mr. Harris repeatedly embezzled thousands of dollars, to institute reforms? Is it too much to require that anyone who handles public funds post a performance bond? I don't think so, but I'm not on the Town Council. Perhaps we should ask them.

Additionally, as pertains "equitable" use of public funds, can we think long and hard about who benefits from public expenditure and whether they need it? Don't get me wrong, I am thrilled that IMS is here and I recognize that it is the lifeblood of Speedway, if not Indianapolis. Nonetheless, I don't think that IMS needs taxpayer handouts any more than Mr. Billionaire/3 and 13/$750m stadium Jim Irsay needs our money, or the Simon family needs our money. Somehow, they all manage to get my tax money; I guess they need that money more than I do? I am perfectly happy to see my tax money spent to maintain and improve Speedway's schools, roads, sidewalks, parks, etc. I'm happy to see public money go to having free meals for poor kids when school isn't in session. It grates me a bit when those who are wealthy beyond my wildest dreams have their hands in the public till. Have you no shame?

5. Forward-Looking Use of Public Resources

This is the flip side of the "use of public funds" wish. I am given to understand that the Speedway Redevelopment Commission presently owns approximately $5m worth of real estate, primarily near the intersection of Crawfordsville Rd. and I-465. To those on the SRC, PLEASE think ahead when you determine what to do with this property. I do not believe that time is of the essence when it comes to alienating and developing that property; getting it right is of primary importance.

I am sure that a developer is more than willing to put a medical office park there. Woo frickin' hoo. Isn't that what was initially at the development just northwest of Crawfordsville/Lynhurst? Look at what a blight that is now. If you want to see more examples, just drive around Indianapolis and look at all of the initially-profitable-but-now-blighted medical office parks around the city. They're useful for perhaps 10 years as Class A office space, then they become Class B, eventually turning into essentially garbage office space, suitable for very little except for exceedingly cheap rent.

I am similarly sure that a developer would be willing to build a regular office park there. I believe that the same dynamic applies that applies to medical office parks. Office buildings retain their value when they are in desirable places, i.e. on the Circle, on Mass Ave., etc. Perhaps an office building would retain value on Main St., but even that is questionable.

I could sit here for hours and list all the things I don't want to see there. What would I like? Frankly, I don't know; an outdoor concert venue would be wonderful but I question whether it would be viable.

CONCLUSION

I write this post not as a rant but as an aspiration for the new year. As I am not an elected official in any capacity, there is very little I can do about these things other than apply pressure to public officials. That is one of the beauties of Speedway. I am one of only about 12,000 people who live here. Compare this to a citizen of Indianapolis, who is one of roughly 864,000 people who live there. As far as I can calculate, that means that I have 72X the influence in Speedway that I would have in Indianapolis.

As 2017 (a truly horrible year that I am happy to see close) fades into memory, I can reflect on my good fortune to live in a community such as this one and do my best to see to it that Speedway continues to thrive and improve. Here's to 2018; Cheers!





* As with most of these ideas, there is a legitimate end point even if I can't explicitly state where that is. I do not believe that food regulations should be eliminated, nor do I think that someone should be able to open another Crystal Clean in the middle of a residential area. I do, however, think that people should be able to do business in more places than they currently can. Also, I believe that some occupational licenses are necessary. I prefer that my healthcare provider be trained in providing healthcare. Unfortunately, however, so many of these licensure requirements have become rackets designed solely to protect the incumbents in the market at the expense of new entrants and a dynamic market.

"Disrespecting" the Flag

Here is a story about a contracted ref for a North Central H.S. volleyball game walking out on his contract after becoming so upset by a teenager taking a knee for the anthem. I suppose this is what happens when we go all in on "divisiveness" and decide to armor up, choose sides, and fight amongst ourselves. In the world of litigation, we call this "staking out a bargaining position." Of course, in the world of litigation, all controversies must end, eventually. However, as to this story, I found a few points to be illuminating:

Jim Saddler is sorry. That’s the first thing he wants you to know. Not sorry for being angry — he’s still pretty angry — but for the way he handled his anger when he saw a volleyball player kneeling during the national anthem. 

Kudos to Mr. Saddler, as an initial matter. He understands, perhaps in a way that Pres. Agent Orange, VP Empty Suit, Speaker of the House Eddie Haskell, Senate Majority Leader Doublechin, (see what I did there, giving Trumpian names?) and so many others don't, that we are supposed to be the adults. Our children are watching the way we interact with each other and will imitate it. Let's try to give them a good template. Well done in your penitence, Mr. Saddler. Hats off, if only for that.

As to the merits of your position, well . . .

That’s why when he saw a North Central girls varsity volleyball player kneeling before an Oct. 9 match he was supposed to line judge, he couldn’t stay and do his duty.
He was barely able to contain his anger when he saw fans “sitting on their butts” during the national anthem, but once he saw the player on a knee, he had to leave.
Saddler calmly walked to the scorer’s bench, turned in his flag, then approached the North Central coach to inform him why he couldn’t stay.

Well, Mr. Saddler, I suppose that is your right. However, this article addressed a few important points:

1. Neither the kneeling teenager nor Mr. Saddler's actions have anything to do with the First Amendment, as has been pointed out on this blog ad nauseum. The First Amendment has to do with government actions, not private ones. That a private individual chose to kneel,  and another private individual chose to walk out of the occasion, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the First Amendment.

2. Mr. Saddler had a contractual obligation to referee the game. Punctas sans servandas, "promises are to be kept." Whether Saddler was paid $1 or $1m to ref the game is immaterial; he had a contractual obligation and he breached the contract. Between Saddler and the girl who knelt for the Anthem, Saddler is the one who is in the wrong. He breached a contract.

3. Saddler identifies himself as a vet, and the article goes on to describe his service as a flight attendant aboard Air Force One. I don't want to go too far out on a limb here, but I do not believe that all vets are created equally. 

If you're a combat veteran, I believe that you deserve every bit of the respect that you are given, ten times over. One of the reasons I did not join the military after 9/11 is that I am deathly afraid of dying, particularly in a violent manner. To the combat veterans of the world, you have my undying (no pun intended) respect. 

To non-combat veterans, I appreciate your service too, but let's not fool ourselves into believing that your service stateside or in Germany or Japan is the same as the Marine who took Fallujah. There are a lot of people who work for the government, with crappy pay and worse working conditions; teachers come to mind, as do social workers. 

Bottom line: When it comes to the kneeling-for-the-anthem "controversy," perhaps we should all just chill out a bit.

Did Luke Kenley just compliment Barack Obama?

Luke Kenley, longtime state senator from Noblesville and staunch Republican, was quoted as thus in the Indianapolis Star by conservative mouthpiece Tim Swarens:

In 2008, when the Great Recession hit, the state was sitting atop healthy budget reserves. Then the nose dive began. "We burned through about $2 billion in 18 months," Kenley said. "It was the federal stimulus that helped us avoid deeper cuts to education."

You tell me. 

Be The Change

I attended the meeting of Concerned Citizens and Business Owners of Speedway at the American Legion on Georgetown Rd. yesterday. I'm not sure what to say about it. Karlee Macer was there. She's nice I guess, though I could have done without her comment about how she is a Democrat, but she has common sense. Uhhh. What about being a Democrat necessarily implies that you don't have common sense, and what about being a Republican necessarily implies that you do?

Anyway.

I noticed that there was a lot of general griping about how people don't feel as though they are being properly respected by their town councilors. (I do note that one gentleman, to his credit, had a specific complaint about the town council's procedures).

I would say two separate things about this:

First, if your town councilor does not pay you the mind or attention that you think s/he ought to, unseat him/her. It's really that simple. If your ideas/demeanor/instincts are superior, you should be able to defeat your town councilor. Take a page from the Tea Party and get people together to protest. Hang out in front of Kroger on Saturday afternoon and at Charlie Brown's on Saturday morning and talk to people.

Be the change.

Second, as to the gentleman's (very well done) criticism regarding the town council's procedure, that too is a political problem that is to be solved with political means. The gentleman asked Rep. Macer if there was some sort of state law that could be passed to require that town council meetings be conducted a certain way, and I couldn't disagree with that approach more. I don't want some know-nothing state representative from Fort Wayne or Buck Creek coming into Speedway and telling us how to run our community. I do, however, want to see a competitive political environment in Speedway.

Be the change.

I've written before, and I will reiterate, that we get the political representation we deserve. If 51% of Speedway's voters automatically vote for the Republican on the ballot, regardless of who it is or what they know about that person's past, agenda, etc., then the Republican candidate will win, regardless. If the Republican candidate only has to ensure that she stays in the good graces of a half dozen Marion County Republican Party officials, then she could not care less (literally) about what the people of Speedway think. After all, why should she? As long as she gets on the ballot with an R next to her name, she is guaranteed victory. Everyone else can go pound sand.

If you don't approve of the way that Speedway is run, be the change. Talk to the candidates. Talk to your neighbors. Protest the town council, if you want. They have publicly noticed meetings. Conduct a protest march down Main St. if you want.

As a final note, to all those who talk about their disapproval of the Redevelopment Commission . . . if you feel that nobody listens to your complaints about the Redevelopment Commission, and you feel like it is going to do what it wants to do despite popular opinion, then perhaps you are misreading public sentiment. Perhaps the Redevelopment Commission is doing what it does because of popular opinion. My general impression is that people support the Redevelopment Commission's (imperfect) efforts. If they didn't, the SRC would not have the mandate that it does.

Here we go again

I couldn't help but notice this polished turd in today's Indianapolis Star.

Once again, our local leaders (who plead poverty when it comes to such luxuries as police, schools, and street lights) are lining up to throw bags full of cash at well-heeled corporate leaders. This time, it is Amazon that Mayor Joe Hogsett of Indianapolis (he of the "insiders who rig our system and steal our tax dollars" ads) and Mayor Scott Fadness (fiscal conservative, right?) of Fishers are tripping over themselves to "lure" with our tax dollars.

An excerpt or two from the Star:

The two cities that have been the most successful at luring technology companies to Indiana are making a combined pitch to win Amazon.com Inc.'s prized second headquarters.

Indianapolis Mayor Joe Hogsett and Fishers Mayor Scott Fadness on Monday announced they are collaborating with other state and regional economic development officials to submit a proposal to Amazon. The mayors said they will emphasize Central Indiana's existing tech ecosystem, its growing business climate and a plethora of available real estate sites in a proposal that is due Oct. 19.

It is nice that the local Gannett franchise Indianapolis Star at least buries the lede in order to spare us "little people" from the ugly truth of what our government is doing in this "combined pitch." Alas, the lede can't be buried forever:

Hogsett and Fadness said they would look to Gov. Eric Holcomb and the Indiana Economic Development Corp. for leadership, including discussions about tax incentives, while hoping those officials would agree that metropolitan Indianapolis would make the best home for Amazon.

Nice euphamism: "tax incentives." I suppose when I went to keggers in college, the host was providing "beverage incentives" for people to show up, right?

More from the story:

Hogsett and Fadness declined to discuss their own appetites for tax breaks. 

So, the Star buries the lede and only mentions in passing that this is all about a big tax giveaway. Then, it credulously reports that our leaders "declined to discuss their own appetites for tax breaks" and leaves it at that. Where is the outrage from our local paper, demanding that Hogsett and Fadness explain themselves and their willingness to give our tax dollars away to a corporate entity that doesn't need them?

A small modicum of actual "reporting" would probably have revealed this element of Amazon's "search" for a new headquarters' site:

Among the criteria Amazon will use to determine where its second headquarters will go is everything you'd expect: a large-enough population, good schools, solid public transportation.
And, inevitably, tax breaks. Loads and loads of tax breaks.

"Incentives offered by the state/province and local communities to offset initial capital outlay and ongoing operational costs will be significant factors in the decision-making process," said Amazon's request for proposals. "The initial cost and ongoing cost of doing business are critical decision drivers." 

 I couldn't say it any better than U.S. News & World Report already did:

In a perfect world, every state and city would just agree not to throw any money at Amazon, and make the company choose the home of its next headquarters on the merits of place alone. But of course that's not going to happen; too few lawmakers are willing to take a stand for fiscal sanity, and too many are willing to undercut everyone else for the chance to be at a ribbon-cutting. So no matter which city Amazon ends up choosing, the internet giant itself is going to be the real winner, and the taxpaying public is going to lose.

 Can someone, just once in my lifetime, say NO to the well-heeled interests? Just once?