Why I Support Transit Innovation

Speedway has been around for a long time. The houses are old. The land has a lot of history, to put it kindly. While my neighborhood was initially seen as green field development at the edge of Indianapolis, that is no longer the case. Some 40 years after my house was built and 100 years after Main St. and IMS were built, these things are about as near Monument Circle as much of anything else. Don't forget; Monument Circle is the spiritual, if not physical, center of the State.

Speedway will never again be the newest suburb with the newest houses. That ship has sailed. I tend to believe that Speedway must, imperatively, capitalize on its assets while it still can. I read an old piece in the Urbanophile that discussed the life span of suburbs:

When you offer an older, inferior version of the same basic auto-oriented product as the suburbs, but with higher taxes, don’t expect many takers.

I think that is the essence of it; Speedway can either be the "older, inferior version" of Carmel, Avon, etc., or it can be the place where you can live and be connected with the remainder of Speedway as well as downtown Indianapolis. Frankly, I could not care less if they construct something out to the east side; I don't live there and rarely go there (if I can help it).

This goes along with my previously expressed beliefs and thoughts about golf carts and bike paths through Speedway. Urbanism is the key, people. We are not a green field suburb anymore. We can either be a part of "slumburbia" or we can remain a bona fide neighborhood set inside of a great American metropolis. We can embrace our urban nature or fight and deny it. As I say with so many things, the choice is ours. We get the future we deserve.

Trickle Down

I can't take credit for this cartoon, as I didn't draw it. It is, however, quite awesome:

Happy New Year.

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.

More Feeding at the Trough

Senator Brandt Hershman (R-Buck Creek) is leaving the Indiana legislature to go to work as an "attorney" in Barnes and Thornburg's Washington, D.C. office.

A quick look through Sen. Hershman's biography  reveals a man who was first elected to the Indiana legislature in 2000. Thereafter, and while serving in the state legislature, Sen. Hershman advocated for small government all the while attending law school on the government's dime (Todd Young, anyone?). Apparently, small government and self reliance is good for all of us "little people," but when it comes to getting perks from the government, Sen. Hershman exempts himself from his pious urgings regarding self reliance.

Now, of course, having spent nearly two decades in the Indiana statehouse, building connections with the largest law firms in the state (including but not limited to Barnes & Thornburg); after using the state government to pay for his law school (a nice $75,000 gift); after repeatedly cutting taxes on large law firms' corporate clients; after piously proclaiming that he works "for the people," "doing the people's business" for all of these years, he takes a job at one of said large law firms' D.C. office.

Does Sen. Hershman have any experience actually practicing law, as opposed to writing it?

Does Sen. Hershman have any reason why he should practice law in D.C.?

Is Sen. Hershman actually going to practice law in D.C. as opposed to doing that other thing that nobody likes to say out loud (psst, "lobby")?

When will we wake up and realize that these so-called "conservative" lawmakers that we routinely send to our state legislature are serving nobody's interests except their own and their corporate masters'? Don't get me wrong, I have no problems with someone making a living; however, when he makes his living in a manner that is absolutely counter to his public proclamations, it's the hypocrisy of the whole thing that irks me so much.

For anyone interested to know who has bought Sen. Hershman, and for how much, the list of his donors is here. It would be interesting to see how his donor list overlaps with his future lobbying activities, wouldn't it?

Roundabout Musings

A few thoughts on roundabouts:

1. I saw a news story about all of the roundabouts in Carmel. Apparently, the number of automobile accidents where someone is hurt and requires ambulance transport has decreased by 75%, in real terms, since the late 1990s. By way of comparison, recall that the population of Carmel has increased significantly, yet the number of serious injury accidents has decreased significantly. Anyone who says that roundabouts don't increase public safety is making an assertion that is at odds with the evidence.

2. I think that the Speedway roundabout has significantly improved the intersection of 16th/Crawfordsville. Now, I fully recognize that there are those in the neighborhood bounded by 25th/Lynhurst/Crawfordsville/Georgetown who lament the closure of Georgetown Rd. For two reasons, I can't really speak to the merits of their concerns: I don't live in that neighborhood and thus don't experience their concerns firsthand; and I did not live in Speedway prior to the closure of Georgetown Rd. What I can say, however, is that prior to the closure of Georgetown Rd., the 16th/Georgetown/Crawfordsville intersection was approximately the least desirable place one could think of to go. That intersection is now considerably more aesthetically pleasing and presents a much more favorable and positive image of Speedway.

3. I have heard that the OSCNA is lobbying to put a 40' flag pole in the middle of that roundabout. Really?!?! Do we need another large American flag flying in Speedway? Don't we have enough of them? By my count, we have such flag poles in front of every one of the six schools; in front of the Town Hall; at the track; in front of Allison Transmission; etc. Why not try to do something a bit unique and/or creative? Perhaps we could do a joint deal with IMS and put a huge replica of the Borg-Warner trophy in there? How about a large piece of public art? I used to live in Grand Rapids, MI, and they have "the calder" downtown. These are the kinds of things that make cities and towns unique places to go or generic places to go through. In my own opinion, yet one more 40' flag pole makes that roundabout the kind of generic unremarkable place that one simply goes through; a representative piece of art that embodies Speedway would go a long way towards announcing to the world that Speedway is a unique place to spend time and money.

Meadowood Park Tree Clearing - Well Done!

I wrote a few weeks ago about how proud I am that the Town of Speedway was taking steps to address the dead-tree problem in Meadowood Park. Well, the problem has been addressed.

I can't congratulate our Town officials, including the town council and our town manager Jacob Blasdell, enough. I believe I was told one time that those dead trees represented a $200,000+ project to be tackled. I wouldn't be surprised, as they took more than 50 trees out, but I really don't know.

Anyway, thank you to the powers that be for addressing actual problems (as opposed to made up problems or speculative problems that don't exist yet, if at all . . . no need to go borrowing trouble when you have plenty of it already).

Well done and thank you from a grateful citizen.

As a final note, I saw that the new parks and recreation director is selling "commemorative" trees with plaques for $250. I would definitely encourage anyone with the means to buy one of these, if for no other reason than the ability to come back in 20 years to see a plaque with your name on it next to a beautiful mature tree. Along those lines, I think that a commemorative brick sale would be a good revenue generator for the Town, but that is a post for another day.

More thoughts on Smug Satisfaction

I have been thinking a lot about the moment where one of Pres. Trump's judicial nominees struggled to answer questions that most first-year law students could address, and I think the problem isn't really with the fact that so many of these nominees don't have trial experience.

Think about the "trial experience" line for a moment. Who, with the kind of gold-plated credentials necessary to get an Article III judicial nomination, would have extensive trial experience? The only people I can think of are career prosecutors, and the last thing we need is more prosecutors on the bench or, for that matter, in positions of power, period. For example A of the misguided notions that career prosecutors hold onto, facts be damned, see our present attorney general, Mr. Curtis "never saw a 'tough-on-crime' policy he didn't like" Hill.

We need more judges with a breadth of experience and understanding in the, dare I say it, real world. Neither Ivy Leaguers nor prosecutors can speak much to the experience of the guy who had a tough time making ends meet and decided to sell a dime bag to supplement his income. The more we refuse to understand the dime bag guy's experience, the more misguided and counterproductive we will be in our efforts to enforce the law and pursue justice.

This is simply my $0.02. I think that I have made fairly clear my distaste for prosecutors, even though I have a dear friend who is one (and he probably gets tired of my constant snide remarks).

Interesting Take in the NY Times

I know, the "liberal" New York Times. I remember, in my youth, when most people considered the NY Times "The National Paper of Record." Of course, that was also a time when facts mattered.

Anyway, the Times had an interesting editorial today arguing that the impending shit sandwich tax bill will not only create more inequality, but it is the result of the inequality we already have. Basically, as more and more of the nation's wealth has gone to fewer and fewer people, those few people have used their enormous wealth to accrue political power, which they in turn use to steer more wealth their own way. Kind of a vicious little cycle, no?

The editorial also had a great graphic, but for some reason I'm unable to embed it. I would highly recommend reading the editorial. So as to not deprive this post of any graphics, however, I found this one online:

A Moment of Smug Satisfaction

As I have made no efforts to hide, I am a lawyer. Some may say that implies that I have a forked tongue and cloven hoof, but if that is the case, I haven't seen it and tend to base my evaluations on the actual evidence and not my own prejudices. Nonetheless . . .

I have noted that one of the big triumphs that my conservative friends see in the Trump administration is the theft of Merrick Garland's seat on the Supreme Court and handing it over to the interloper Justice Gorsuch. This is an irreversible development. Mark my word, not again in my lifetime will the U.S. Senate confirm a Supreme Court Nominee from the opposing party. I find this to be a troubling development for the legitimacy of the Court as a non-partisan, counter-majoritarian institution. However, with all of that being said, this post is about the nominees put forth for the lower federal judgeships, i.e. trial court and "intermediate" court of appeals.

For those who haven't heard of Brett Talley, he was the first embarrassingly unqualified nominee to hold an Article III judgeship that President Agent Orange put forth. Apparently actually "practicing law" or even having a "working understanding and knowledge" of the courts and their procedures is not necessary to be a Trump judicial nominee - you just have to be liked by the Federalist Society (a right-wing organization on every law school campus in America).

In light of this, Senator Kennedy (R-LA) had an interesting interchange with another one of Trump's nominees. I have posted the video below:

Now, for starters, I will readily concede that I take some smug satisfaction watching this "elite" struggle with elementary questions. For those keeping track at home, the Daubert (pronounced DOWbert) standard refers to a case the Supreme Court decided that had to do with what makes someone an expert. Motions in Limine are pre-trial motions where you attempt to persuade the judge to keep certain evidence from the jury. The abstention doctrines (Pullman and Younger) deal with situations where the federal court should NOT decide a case (I may be getting them backwards, but Pullman says that federal courts can't rule not he constitutionality of a state law until the state court weighs in on how the state law should be interpreted; Younger says that you can't bring a civil rights case in federal court that is related to a pending state court matter - i.e. you can't bring a civil rights lawsuit against IMPD for violating your 4th Amendment rights when they bursted into your home and found your box full of cocaine and dead body).

Like I said, I take some smug satisfaction in being able to recall these things while Mr. "Article III, Lifetime Tenure, Irreducible Salary" future judge (who invariably believes that people who draw a check from the government are moochers and don't have real jobs . . . huh) struggles. One small point is that Sen. Kennedy's focus on abstention doctrine seems a bit misguided, as it is a doctrine that is rarely invoked. Additionally, I feel like Sen. Kennedy's grandstanding is a bit beside the larger point: So many of these people are rated unqualified by the American Bar Association not because they are unable to recall details that, to non-litigators, are trivial; rather, they are rated unqualified because they have reactionary views that fail to respect and adhere to centuries of legal tradition.

Look, the law wasn't written in a day. We can go back to the Magna Carta, or for that matter the Ten Commandments, to seek the genesis of our legal system. It has taken  a long time to get where it is. We don't need a bunch of reactionary (or radical) ideologues intent on overturning centuries of thoughtful jurisprudence.

I know this is a bit of an obscure issue for many people. Please bear in mind that each and every judge who is confirmed will be on the bench for decades and will shape the law in this country in ways large and small, predictable and otherwise. When handing that kind of power to someone, I would think that careful consideration would be appropriate.

More Kudos to Gov. Holcomb

I note that Gov. Holcomb has issued twice as many pardons in his first year in office than Mike Pence did in his entire time in office. Perhaps that is because Gov. Holcomb ran for governor of the State of Indiana to be the governor of the State of Indiana. Novel concept . . . running for an office to occupy that office, as opposed to using it as a springboard for the next step.

Anyway, here is a portion of the story from the Indiana Lawyer:

I note Gov. Holcomb's pardons exist in stark contrast to our drug-warrior/prosecutor Attorney General Curtis Hill, who's never seen a counterproductive criminal justice policy he doesn't like. I could rant about him for a long time, but for now, I want to commend Gov. Holcomb for his rationality and mercy toward his fellow man.

Faustian Bargain

A former English teacher, I have always assumed that people understand what the phrase "Faustian Bargain" means. Perhaps I've assumed too much. From wikipedia:

Faustian bargain (plural Faustian bargains)

1. (idiomatic) An agreement in which a person abandons his or her spiritual values or moral principles in order to obtain wealth or other benefits.

   The expulsion of the competent and the abandonment of founding values in exchange for a boost in the university's Satanic social status was a Faustian bargain.

2. (idiomatic) A deal in which one focuses on present gain without considering the long term consequences. quotations ▼

Synonyms[edit]

• deal with the devil

Always remember, Faust initially thought the deal was worth making only to later find out, as Dick Armey so famously stated, "When you make a deal with the devil, you become the junior partner." Let's all try to remember this the next time we are asked to compromise our moral compass for an immediate benefit.

Thank You to the Commenters

Too often, the comment sections of blogs reverts to pointless personal attacks on either the writer or the fellow commenters. Clearly, the commentariat that reads Speedway Matters is of a different breed and class, as the comments I get tend to be thoughtful and helpful to the discussion with only a few isolated (and probably well deserved) shots at the writer.

Specifically regarding Speedway's former director of the Redevelopment Commission, I would like to thank the readers to this blog for their thoughtful contributions to the discussion. While opinions can and do vary, I commend the readers for grounding their opinions in facts and, even more so, taking the time to learn the facts pertaining to the Home of the American Dream (i.e. Speedway). It is because of you (and those like you who are willing to take the time to care) that Speedway is a special place. Kudos!

Priorities & Perspective

I got an email from a loved one the other day all about how offensive it is that NFL players take a knee during the national anthem.

Really. Someone took precious time out of her day to forward this video to me, carrying the implication that of all things, this is the thing that gets her fired up.

Not the fact that our president is an admitted sexual predator.

Not the fact that our president, nearly a year into his administration, refuses to make his finances public to dispel any notions that he (an admitted con artist - see "University, Trump") is lining his own pockets with the spoils of his position, while still in office.

Not with the withdrawal of national monument status for western monuments that are as important to the indigenous people of the west as Jerusalem is for Christians, Jews, and Muslims.

Not with the needless inflammation of the Arab world by recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (something that Israel has wanted for a generation and for which Israel was willing to make concessions in the long-hoped-for peace process) without getting anything in return.

Not with the soaring cost of healthcare in this county. By the way, for those keeping score at home, it's official . . . I will spend more on health insurance in 2018 than I will to keep a roof over my family's heads. Think about that for a moment. I will sleep in my house 355+ times in 2018 and maybe (MAYBE) go to the doctor twice. Nonetheless . . .

Not with the soaring cost of higher education in this country. See graphic below:

Not with the soaring inequality in this country. As with college tuition, I will just let the picture do the talking:

This loved one is not upset that America has been involved in Afghanistan for 16 years and counting, with no end in sight.

This loved one is not concerned that funding for education is being slashed or that wages have not moved in a generation.

Nope.

The most pressing thing that this person came up with to forward to loved ones was a video about NFL players' posture during the national anthem.

Let me ask you, the readers, how much attention you paid to athletes during the national anthem prior to this controversy. Do you really care whether they stand, kneel, stay in the locker room, scratch their asses, etc? Have you actually suffered any detriment when these guys kneel? Has anyone, for example, made sending your kids to the doctor prohibitively expensive? Has anyone made sending your kids to college prohibitively expensive? Has anyone declared a war without end in your name? 

My point here is that we all need to get our priorities straight. What really counts? I know that I am as guilty as the next person of elevating the trivial, but this has got to stop. At some point, can't we all just gain the smallest modicum of perspective?

Strategy 101 and Revisiting Stated v. Revealed Preferences

I have inveighed repeatedly against the GOP tax bill making its way through Congress. For more reasons than I have time to lay out, I believe this is a terrible bill. The most prominent reason being that if we have an extra $1.5T to spend, perhaps there is something more worthwhile to do with the money than give it to the wealthy, i.e. universal pre-k, universal healthcare, control the cost of higher education, improve infrastructure, etc. Really, anything other than playing "loot the till, robber baron style" is preferable.

Nonetheless, if the Republican caucus could see past its own nose, it would have done this:

 [T]hey could have drafted the kind of bill they promised. A legislative text that cut taxes on the middle class while closing loopholes and avoiding giveaways to the rich would have put Democrats in a tough spot. The GOP would essentially have picked the low-hanging fruit of the revenue-raiser world (things like closing the carried interest loophole) and then expended it on something popular and hard to take away (middle-class tax cuts). That would have made it very difficult for the next Democratic administration to pursue aggressive welfare-state expansion.

If shrinking government was the goal, they would have done this, presumably. However, as noted in the previous post about stated preferences vs. revealed preferences, I tend to think that the stated preference is a giveaway to the donor class rather than having anything, whatsoever, to do with an ideological aversion to the size of the government. Could it be that all of this posturing about government debt for the past 8 years was just an excuse to complain about an otherwise good and competent president? Say it ain't so Joe! 

What they actually did was raise taxes on the middle class in the long run to cut taxes for incredibly profitable multi-national corporations, their major stockholders, and wealthy heirs (a la Eric Trump). These are easy things to undo in the future, and the smart money is on them being undone.

He Spent YOUR Money on WHAT?

I am sure that I am not the first person to see this:

A former Speedway official is accused of misappropriating thousands of dollars’ worth of city funds.

A special investigation report filed Monday by the state cites dozens of instances between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2015, where Kenneth Harris had used or not correctly recorded the use of city funds. 

According to the audit, Harris owes the city of Speedway almost $20,000 for undocumented purchases, cell phone bills and other expenses. Harris is also being charged for the cost of the investigation into his charges.  

The report includes undocumented credit card purchases cell phone, travel and reimbursement expenses and over-contributions to his Health Spending Account. 

I have heard general rumors regarding Mr. Harris before, though I have refrained from discussing them on this blog for a variety of reasons. First, I do not know Mr. Harris; I've never met him; I've never had any dealings with him; I don't know much of anything about his policies. I am absolutely willing to trash an elected (or appointed) official because of his/her policies. I am absolutely willing to trash someone because of his/her behavior. I try not to trash people based on rumors I have heard about them. So, I have refrained discussing Mr. Harris' doings on this blog.

Additionally, while I had heard about this particular at least a year ago, I know that accusing someone of illegal activity is defamation per se, and the last thing I need is the Speedway Old Boys Network (TM) reigning misery down on me in the form of a lawsuit.

Credit

Thank you to the astute commenter who pointed this out. The people of this Town need to know what is being done in their name, and what those who purport to act in their name are doing. This is your tax money that they are spending, whether it is on "undocumented and unsupported credit card purchases," large pieces of property near Crawfordsville Rd. and I-465, or parking garages that they finance for wealthy developers.

While I have significant differences with the publishers of the Speedway Town Press, I applaud their efforts to engage people in Speedway politics. As I've said before, when we mindlessly vote our national party preference in local elections, we wind up with "representatives" who could, literally, not care less about what we as voters think; our "representatives" only care about what the party insiders and donors think. While I don't know this for a fact, I presume that Mr. Harris maintains some pull around Speedway; I believe his wife is the head of the Speedway Chamber of Commerce. I can't help but speculate as to the level of influence he continues to exert on our public policy in Speedway.

As a final note, I have heard additional musings regarding Mr. Harris' past dealings. I will not, however, divulge what I have heard, as it is no more than a rumor. See above.