Comments on: A “New” C.I.B.

By: Think Again

Think Again — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 22:32:29 +0000

Let the trusties sell popcorn.

By: Bart Flies

Bart Flies — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 19:02:29 +0000

After a little bit of thought, I wonder if anyone else wonders whether it’s a good idea to have the same organization running the jail and the stadium? Not saying it’s impossible, just a little worrisome.

By: Think Again

Think Again — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 11:33:24 +0000

I just read the governor’s proposal–all of it–and I’ve got a headache.

Where do these folks get their writing skills? Do they purposely write five sentences when one would do?

I think I understand the proposal, and it’s better than what we’ve got.

Pascal: never forget, CIB was a GOP Unigov creation. Which for decades funneled money and contracts to party elite.

Nick: I live in a former sheriff’s service area. Our protection now is much better, and response time is superb. And my profession requires regular interaction with the assessor. Service, and accuracy, are already vastly improved. Consistency was not the township guys’ forte.

Don’t forget that when the incumbent county assessor ran for the office, he had no idea the outdated and inept township system was going to be folded into the county-wide setup. I’m told he will not run for re-election. For whatever reason…go ahead and make up one if you want.

Here’s an interesting post topic, Abdul: what are the former township assessors doing now? Is Akers supervising janitors again at that paragon of efficiency, IPS? I am particularly interested in the southern townships, where I did a lot of work, and whose assessors were, well…surly, at best. And inconsistent, and incompetent. And who hung onto their taxpayer-provided jobs until the last dying breath.

By: Taxpayer 834512

Taxpayer 834512 — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 11:29:39 +0000

I sympathize with the notion that this consolidates power further, but as a departing Andy Horning noted, we’ve made our choice and it’s authoritarianism. When faced with being vigilant, participative, squeaky wheels & having to sacrifice along with (not instead) of the other party’s constituency, we chose to load another DVD & sit down on the couch instead. I’ve been guilty of this as well. That permits our two parties to “consolidate for efficiency”- out the wazoo.
.
In one sense I think we have no choice because babbling for more citizen participaton is falling on the ears of an increasingly uneducated, uncaring rabble accustomed to dependancy. They don’t care that the dependancy isn’t possible without an assumed level of tax revenue from economic affluence. Therefore, as we ignore economic reality and and continue to spend (sorry “invest”) wildly, we search for “efficiency” as a token gesture. If we really, really wanted to keep lower, closer, more representative gov’t like “townships”- then it also requires devoting the time to keep it in check. We haven’t done that. Until on the other side of some revolution, I don’t think it happens. It’s my contention that it’s equally important to acknowlege what we are and aren’t.
.
We’re not as uniform in our productivity as our fondest desires in the distribution of that productivity. We’re also always looking for the easy way out, going all the way back to hoping to only drag one beast to the fire or bake one loaf of bread instead of several. When faced with an easier way to survive, rich or poor, we like to take it. Taking it when we shouldn’t is greed, and manifests itself all the way from “a hand up” is now “a hand out” to stashing your corporate revenue offshore to evade taxation.
.
I hope to heck Melyssa, Ogden, or somebody who has proven to be a squeaky wheel for the public would be on this new board. More than that I hope Indy will someday face-up to being a AAA town and revel in it. We don’t have to be “big”.

By: Daw-g

Daw-g — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 03:33:59 +0000

>comparison of the CIB operations to cities of similar sizes and found it spent an average of $3.42 for every $1.36 spent by other cities.
.
Similar sized cities with multiple sports franchises and also running for hosting a Super Bowl?

By: Really

Really — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 01:14:12 +0000

Daniels and Ballard just created a ponzi scheme. This just broadens that scope of taxable entities for the benefit of Lucas Oil and Conseco and does nothing to create a more efficient government. Funny part is this. The convention center is not complete. Has anyone considered those operating expenses/costs????

By: Paul K. Ogden

Paul K. Ogden — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 00:46:22 +0000

Flipper, no the new entity would take over responsibity for the contracts..
.
I would note that the plan assumes giving the Pacers $15 million in operating costs a year for Conseco. This is on a building that the Pacers get all the revenue.
.
One wonders if Bob Grand will get a cushy appointment on the new entity. Ballard has never seen a conflict of interest he won’t ignore.
.
After reading Ketzenberger’s column this morning I was so hopeful. This is just more of the same.

By: flipper

flipper — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 00:16:35 +0000

Abdul,
If the CIB is dissolved. Will the existing contracts with Ursay and the Simon’s also be null and void?

By: pascal

pascal — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 23:23:50 +0000

Democrat Party inputs and leadership on this mess are where?

By: KarenK

KarenK — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 22:22:00 +0000

I don’t think parts of this plan are going to go over well with the political hacks on south Alabama street. They will be screaming bloody murder over that large chunk (APC, jail, communications, etc.) of their fiefdom being eliminated. Fewer jobs available for all of their relatives and campaign contributors…

LMAO, should be very entertaining to watch…