Comments on: Private Parts http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2009/09/private_parts.html Indiana Barrister is the source for local Indianapolis and Indiana news, politics and commentary. Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:47:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Budget; Bang or Bi-Partisanship? | Indiana Barrister http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2009/09/private_parts.html/comment-page-1#comment-27109 Budget; Bang or Bi-Partisanship? | Indiana Barrister Sun, 20 Sep 2009 10:02:04 +0000 http://www.indianabarrister.com/?p=2689#comment-27109 [...] along party lines.  Republicans voted for it and Democrats against.   Point of clarification, Indiana Barrister had previously wrote that all three Democrats on the Committee voted against an amendment that [...] [...] along party lines.  Republicans voted for it and Democrats against.   Point of clarification, Indiana Barrister had previously wrote that all three Democrats on the Committee voted against an amendment that [...]

]]> By: Think Again http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2009/09/private_parts.html/comment-page-1#comment-30328 Think Again Mon, 14 Sep 2009 03:33:10 +0000 http://www.indianabarrister.com/?p=2689#comment-30328 I wish it were true, Ernie. You're wrong. In reality, they're just not very bright. It's that simple. I wish it were true, Ernie. You're wrong. In reality, they're just not very bright. It's that simple.

]]> By: IndyErnie http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2009/09/private_parts.html/comment-page-1#comment-30327 IndyErnie Mon, 14 Sep 2009 00:57:09 +0000 http://www.indianabarrister.com/?p=2689#comment-30327 These three stooges vote against the wishes of their constituents regularly. Vern, Sweetpea and Duke are controlled by others. The "others" don't live in their districts. These three stooges vote against the wishes of their constituents regularly. Vern, Sweetpea and Duke are controlled by others. The “others” don't live in their districts.

]]> By: Think Again http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2009/09/private_parts.html/comment-page-1#comment-26860 Think Again Sun, 13 Sep 2009 22:33:10 +0000 http://www.indianabarrister.com/?p=2689#comment-26860 I wish it were true, Ernie. You're wrong. In reality, they're just not very bright. It's that simple. I wish it were true, Ernie. You're wrong. In reality, they're just not very bright. It's that simple.

]]> By: IndyErnie http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2009/09/private_parts.html/comment-page-1#comment-26857 IndyErnie Sun, 13 Sep 2009 19:57:09 +0000 http://www.indianabarrister.com/?p=2689#comment-26857 These three stooges vote against the wishes of their constituents regularly. Vern, Sweetpea and Duke are controlled by others. The "others" don't live in their districts. These three stooges vote against the wishes of their constituents regularly. Vern, Sweetpea and Duke are controlled by others. The “others” don't live in their districts.

]]> By: Think Again http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2009/09/private_parts.html/comment-page-1#comment-26847 Think Again Sun, 13 Sep 2009 11:52:06 +0000 http://www.indianabarrister.com/?p=2689#comment-26847 I don't understand the votes, either, Abdul, but here's one thought: perhaps they want to shove the issue into the "worst possible scenario" (from their viewpoint). To use as a campaign issue. I realize that is ascribing a great deal of forethought to these three councillors, who haven't previously demonstrated the ability to think beyond their noses. <br><br>DPR is a mess. They actually had the gall to give a 20-year encroachment/drainage easement to the new Nora Kroger, next to the Monon. Their own comp plan actually calls for no commercial sight-line encroachments on the Monon Trail. But they did it anyway. And they had the gall to say it wasn't a "transfer of value." But--here's the kicker--if the city ever wants the land back, they have to pay the developer over $300,000. So, I guess it has some "value", huh? All this on parkland beside the Monon Trail.<br><br>The move saved the developer hundreds of thousands in drainage abatement costs. <br><br>This was a no-brainer and they effed it up. If you need further proof that DPR is adrift, drive by any of these parks: Riverside, Broad Ripple, Garfield. There are weeds along sidewalks that haven't been pulled all summer.<br><br>If we can't take care of our parks, we need to find other answers. Privatization could work, but it won't save the dollars needed. Evidently, the city's answer is to grossly violate their own Comprehensive Plan to allow private developers to use city land. If so, can we at last get some money for it? Geeeeesh. I don't understand the votes, either, Abdul, but here's one thought: perhaps they want to shove the issue into the “worst possible scenario” (from their viewpoint). To use as a campaign issue. I realize that is ascribing a great deal of forethought to these three councillors, who haven't previously demonstrated the ability to think beyond their noses.

DPR is a mess. They actually had the gall to give a 20-year encroachment/drainage easement to the new Nora Kroger, next to the Monon. Their own comp plan actually calls for no commercial sight-line encroachments on the Monon Trail. But they did it anyway. And they had the gall to say it wasn't a “transfer of value.” But–here's the kicker–if the city ever wants the land back, they have to pay the developer over $300,000. So, I guess it has some “value”, huh? All this on parkland beside the Monon Trail.

The move saved the developer hundreds of thousands in drainage abatement costs.

This was a no-brainer and they effed it up. If you need further proof that DPR is adrift, drive by any of these parks: Riverside, Broad Ripple, Garfield. There are weeds along sidewalks that haven't been pulled all summer.

If we can't take care of our parks, we need to find other answers. Privatization could work, but it won't save the dollars needed. Evidently, the city's answer is to grossly violate their own Comprehensive Plan to allow private developers to use city land. If so, can we at last get some money for it? Geeeeesh.

]]>