Home

Join

Main Menu



blog advertising is good for you

Links

Like IB

The Indy Half-Time Report

I am not a big sports person, but I can appreciate half-time reports because they give me a pretty good synopsis of what I’ve missed and they also let me know what to pay attention to for the rest of the game.  So if you don’t mind me taking a page out of the NFL playbook, I’d like to give you a half-time report of what’s been going on with your city-county government.

What They’ve Done

  •  Smoking Ban – Although I am not a big fan of smoking bans from a philosophical perspective, the Mayor and Council got this passed.

What They’re Doing

  • TIF District – The Council is looking at restructuring the way the city does TIF districts. For you non-government geeks a TIF district is a tax-increment financing district. The districts use money from the increased assessed value in property within the district to pay for economic development projects. Debate continues about how long TIFs should be allowed to exist and how they should be created. The Council has put together a recommendation, but the Mayor’s office is not crazy about it.  The other problem here is that Mayoral wannabe Brian Mahern is holding up the Mass Ave and Avondale Meadows projects, which is more than $700 million in development.
  • Same-sex domestic partner benefits – The Council is putting together a proposal that would give city benefits to same-sex and unmarried couples. The problem is verification and safeguarding against two people who are roommates trying to scam the city versus two people who are true domestic partners. The other catch is a number of councilors are skeptical about giving benefits to unmarried opposite sex couples because they have the option of getting married.

What They Didn’t Do

  • Redistricting — The Democrat’s efforts to redo the Mayor’s redistricting proposal fell flat. They failed to override a mayoral veto of the new maps. There is talk of legal challenge; there are two  problems with that.  The first is finding a law firm to do it and the money to finance the litigation.  The other problem is that the Council Democrats privately admit the maps are legal and a challenge would fail in court.

What They Still Have to Do

  • The budget — Indianapolis is looking at closing a $47 million budget shortfall. Note: That number was north of $70 million before the recent discovery of the state’s accounting error that shortchanged local governments. That revenue correction dropped the budget squeeze by a few million bucks. The big problem weighing on expenditures involves public safety. The sheriff has been complaining about having to eat the costs of inmate health care and wants to be able to bill that amount back to the arresting agencies. He also suggests that his lower-paid staff could handle traffic patrol more cost effectively than higher-paid IMPD officers. The city is cool to that idea.

Veto Record

  • So far the Mayor has issued six vetoes of Council proposals.  Under the last Council he only issued one.

  • Pogden297

    The law says that redistricting should be done by the Council the second year after the census, which is 2012.  I have yet to hear a credibleargument as to how the council can get around that.  The council passing it in 2011 and the mayor signing it 1/1/2012, is not about to fly.

  • Ramon

    Ballard has issued no vetoes.  His monied handlers have vetoed them and Ballard is merely the tool to sign them.

  • Pogden297

    I should clarify my comments.  The council did have the  authority to pass the map in 2011 (outside the 1 year blackout period for the election which ran until early November), which the Council did.  So, assuming Ballard signed the 2011 map in time (I know there is some controversy about that), then the 2011 map is legal. The issue though isn’t whether the 2011 map is legal and I would agree there may not be any controversy about the 2011 map being legal.  However, that’s not the issue.  The issue is whether the 2011 map fulfills the statutory mandate that the council redistrict in 2012.  I think it’s an enormous stretch to say a map passed by the council in 2011 and signed by the governor on 1/1/2012 satisfies the requirement that the council redistrict in 2012.

  • paul wheeler

    ‘Playbook’?  
    In other words, interceptions and fumbles.

  • cynical sam

    You forgot player off-field activities, i.e., drunkeness, drugs, spouse abuse, affairs, theft, fraud, ad infinitum. You know, all the things politicians do best. 

  • Pascal

    The IBJ ran a letter to the editor completely undressing this grab of benefits.  

  • Nick

    Veto this domestic partnership nonsense.

    Opening door to plural marriages by signing multiple domestic partnership agreements.

    Opening the door for fraud since no sex audits or home visits. Opening the door to higher healthcare costs on city employees who are being forced off the plan because they are married to a working spouse.

  • Nick

    The only reason Zach is wanting to give opposite sex, non married, room mates benefits is because the courts have said homosexual domestic partnership agreements for same sex partners are illegal and discriminate. This whole proposal is misguided. They need to be cutting expenses to fix the cities $70 budget deficit.

  • http://www.thePoliPit.com JednaVira

    So it’s scamming the city out of benefits if it’s just two people of the same sex living together….but it’s legitimate if it’s two people of the same sex living together who are sexually attracted to each other?  Wow…our nation is lost forever!  Sexual desire is not a civil rights issue!