by Douglas Stephenson

Even though “hanging out” has been a rite of passage for U.S. teens for decades, the practice has become an over-populated (and recently violent) problem in downtown Indianapolis. After a 16-year-old fired a gun outside Circle Centre Mall last Friday, there has been a lot of hand-wringing, finger-pointing, and blame-avoidance in the interest of public relations.

This has all led to a statement crafted in the depths of the Simon Properties legal department indicating that they stand with other downtown merchants, support IMPD, and want a pleasant downtown environment, BUT “…we agree with Mayor Ballard, who stated that parental/guardian responsibility is the key to curbing youth incidents.”

Fair enough, but the parents in question aren’t taking responsibility for their kids.

What now?

While I’m not a lawyer, policy-expert, or sociologist — I’m a pragmatist who has an interest in the downtown community, and would rather provide (admittedly brainstormed) ideas than fault. So I present for your scrutiny and LOLGETALOADOFTHISGUY amusement — IndyBands™

IndyBands is a wristband system, such as those utilized by waterparks and other large venues, employed  by downtown merchants, hotels, Convention Center, Circle Centre, and IMPD. When downtown merchants opt into the IndyBands organization, they would prohibit minors admittance to their establishments without adult supervision after 7:00 p.m. Adult supervision would constitute one of two states: actual parental presence or wearing a wristband, which indicates that a minor has been qualified by parents/guardians to be out on his or her own in the downtown community.

Wristbands would be offered by

• Downtown hotels, for guests with teenage children. A simple safety explanation and signed-form corresponding to a wristband number would be well received by visiting parents, IMO.

• Simon Properties, for local parents possessing  ID and contact info who feel their kids are responsible enough to move about downtown unattended. A check-in station would be manned by security personnel and/or part-timers hired for the weekends. There are plenty of underpaid social workers looking for extra part-time work. I know because I employ them.

• IMPD,  for the same local kids covered under the CC Mall check-in procedures. They would have a check-in station in the downtown precinct next to Union station

• Indianapolis Convention Center, for visitors with children in the form of pre-registration badges/bands. Large conventions of kids such as FFA would be able to use their badges as wristband substitutes for IndyBands the weekend of their convention.

While existing laws would apply to minors on public property, private members of IndyBands would be able to ensure parental responsibility as a requisite of entry to their property. Should a dispute occur with a minor over entry, IMPD would be called in to settle the dispute — and enforce any applicable statutes violated.

Such a cooperative approach must be implemented to tackle the problem of unattended children in the downtown district on weekends. While current opinion is for IMPD to increase its presence and enforce curfew laws, this approach is reactive and a drain on city resources with marginal results. The business community,  IMPD, and City-County Building must work together for a complete and proactive solution. We must not continue to shake our collective heads, blame poor parenting, and watch downtown deteriorate into an urban Lord of the Flies.

Douglas Stephenson is a small business owner and has been a downtown merchant for the past 20 years.  He can be reached at dugitman@gmail.com.

Editor’s Note:  This post originally appeared on Jan 29 at NUVO.net.   You can get an update by clicking over to IndyPolitics.Org.

Here we go again, another story about a mall shooting and young people getting out of control. I hate to be the bad guy here but when it comes to shootings and silliness, someone is going to have to be the bad guy.

We seem to go through this every year. Somewhere in Indianapolis, some teenagers get out of control, like this past Saturday at Circle Center Mall. They do stupid things like shoot each other or damage property in the process. Now I know we all did crazy things as kids, so I am not turning this into one of those “back in my day” lectures. However, I think it is safe to say that when we did something stupid, our parents were more likely to tear into us and the community was more likely to applaud them.

So what is a community to do when parents drop the ball? Might I suggest taking people to court? I recently consulted with an attorney colleague of mine who cited a provision in Indiana law that allows the rest of us to recover damages when other people refuse to parent.

Under Indiana Code 34-31-4, a parent is liable for a child’s actions up to $5,000 in “actual damages for arising from harm to a person or damage to property knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly caused by the parent if (1) the parent has custody of the child; and (2) the child is living with the parent.”

It seems to me that if parents won’t discipline problem children, then we as a society need to hit them in the pocketbook. I recall a few years ago in Lawrence Township, a number of kids weren’t showing up for school, so the Township Trustee partnered with a local principal to send a letter to the parents of missing kids telling them that if the kids did not show up for school, the parents would be denied poor relief. Guess what, a bunch of people showed up for school the next day. Imagine that!

Maybe we really need to start doing the same things here: Start slapping parents with fines and hitting people where it hurts. It will be amazing at how behavior starts to change.

Now this is not to punish the parent who is truly struggling. However, they have to have some skin in the game. If you’re going to pop out kids like a pez dispenser, then you have a responsibly to take care of them; society should not have to do the job. If it does, it at least deserves some help with the cost.

I am not being unreasonable; I am being responsible. I have always been a big fan of tough love. And if kids aren’t getting a good kick in the rear, then maybe reaching into parents’ back pockets might get some results.

As someone who frequently writes and covers school and choice related issues in Indiana, I find it interesting and ironic when opponents of reform and vouchers make better arguments for healthy competition than I do.

A friend of mine is a teacher in a traditional public school.  He is a good guy and has the best interests of his students at heart, like any good teacher.   The City of Indianapolis recently created several new charter schools to fit the needs of various student populations.

My friend, we’ll call him Ben, tweeted that this was a bad idea because there were too many charters and not enough oversight.  He also made the argument that he would gladly match up the programs at his school against any charter school.  And that ladies and gentlemen, was the best point anyone could make for choice and competition.

I told Ben that I have no doubt that there are programs at his school parents would like, just like there are programs at charters, private, virtual and even home school settings that parents would enjoy.  They should just have the choice to make that decision.

And all charters and choice do is give parents more options to find the best education for their kids.   And who wouldn’t want that?

Ben then went on to complain about charters “taking” money from traditional schools.  I remind him that would be like McDonald’s complaining about Burger King taking their customers.  No one owns anything.   And instead of whining about choice, schools like Ben’s should spend more time looking at why people are seeking other options and rectify that problem.

I told Ben if the programs at his school are that good, I have no doubt it compete with all the other alternatives out there.  And that’s what choice is all about, giving parents options so they can choose the best schools and their kids can get the best education.

Thank, Ben.  I could not have said this better myself.

by Derek Redelman

It’s a bit amazing, but right now – with a Republican supermajority – we are fighting hard to keep in place a major component of the K-12 education reforms that former Gov. Mitch Daniels and former Superintendent of Public Instruction Dr. Tony Bennett implemented here and have helped lead around the nation. The state’s new Common Core academic standards are under assault from a contingent of out-of-state interest groups, conservative Republican legislators and tea party activists.

Senate Bill 193, sponsored by Sen. Scott Schneider (R-Indianapolis), would effectively overturn the state’s 2010 approval and subsequent participation in the Common Core academic standards. Forty-six states have adopted the Common Core program, an initiative to set strong standards for what students learn at each grade level in math and English that is also designed to get students ready for college and careers. The program is already being implemented in Indiana and enjoying unusual bipartisan and broad-based support, including among classroom teachers.

Beginning in 2009, governors and state commissioners of education from 48 states committed to developing common K-12 benchmarks in math and English. They sought significantly more rigorous academic standards and testing programs for their states. Common Core opponents charge it is designed to “nationalize” academic standards and testing, citing the Obama administration’s support for this state-led effort as evidence of sinister intent.

This is nonsense. Common Core was and still is a state-led effort. Indiana was one of the early states to approve and implement the program. In fact, Gov. Daniels and Dr. Bennett were key leaders in helping states around the country – now 46 states – to approve the program. Common Core opponents know that if they can tear it down in Indiana first, the foundation will begin to crumble across the country.

Is Common Core perfect? Of course not; no initiative is. The Indiana Chamber of Commerce has acknowledged that some of the critics – at least those focused on contents of the standards rather than hysterical exaggerations of federal intrusion – may have some legitimate concerns that should be evaluated.  But those concerns, if legitimate, can be offset by the flexibilities contained within the Common Core and through corresponding adoptions of rigorous assessments and accountability measures. There is no need to overreact.

Rather than subjecting our academic standards to the politicized environment of the Legislature, such determinations and oversight need to remain in the hands of our state’s education leaders, including the Department of Education, the Education Roundtable and the State Board of Education. Ironically, while critics of the Common Core have heaped praise on Indiana’s previous state standards, they consistently overlook the fact that those highly-rated standards were adopted through the same process as was conducted when Indiana adopted the Common Core, and that the Legislature played no role in those adoptions.

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Glenda Ritz has urged the Legislature to allow Common Core implementation to continue but has promised to conduct a review of the standards that would be completed by the end of 2013. This is a reasonable, welcome recommendation, as such a review would be helpful for determining how best to use the flexibilities that are allowed in the multi-state agreement.

Senate Bill 193 is scheduled to be considered and possibly voted on by the Senate Education and Career Development Committee on Wednesday, February 6 . With Republican legislators split on the measure, a close vote is expected. Indiana simply cannot afford to start going backwards on education. Let’s hope common sense prevails on the Common Core standards.

For more information about Common Core, contact Derek Redelman, vice president for education and workforce development policy, at dredelman@indianachamber.com / (317) 264-6880 or visit http://stand.org/indiana/common-core.

by Brad Klopfenstein

The Legislature is in session, so it’s time once again for the annual discussion on Sunday alcohol sales.  I’ll try to frame the issue so that you have the ability to draw your own conclusions prior to giving you mine.

On one side, you have the grocery stores, drug stores, and big box stores like Costco and Sam’s Club.  They argue that they are already devoting floor space to products that they could otherwise be selling, they are open anyway, and the prohibition on Sunday sales harkens back to old Blue Laws who’s time has long past.  A small, but important nuance in the Indiana code limits grocery stores to only sell beer and wine.  However, any store with a pharmacy is allowed to add spirits to that mix, which is one of the reasons that you have seen a dramatic increase in the number of supermarkets with pharmacies.  Currently, these stores are only allowed to sell beer warm, but trust me when I say that they would love to be allowed to sell cold carryout beer.  Most of these stores would fall into the category of large conglomerates, mostly headquartered in other states with a regional or national presence.  Clerks do not have to be licensed to sell alcohol, and any person of any age is allowed in their stores and allowed to walk aisles with alcohol.  Since Indiana does not have a definition of a grocery store, in most communities, any convenience store with a few grocery items can qualify for grocery store permits, which are generally readily available.

On the other side of the issue, you have the liquor stores.  Liquor stores argue that being open on Sundays would not sell any more product, but would force them to increase their labor costs by almost 15% by being open an additional day.  Much like auto dealers, liquor stores enjoy having one day a week mandated by the State of Indiana where they can have a day off.  Liquor stores are allowed to sell cold carryout beer, but are not allowed to sell cold soft drinks and are otherwise limited to selling other items that are common in the consumption of alcohol.  So they can sell cheeses, salty snacks, cherries & olives, mixers, glassware, and cigarettes, but they cannot sell other grocery items or health & beauty products.  Liquor store licenses are far more difficult to obtain due to the fact that they must be located within the city limits of a town, and are restricted by the population of the town.  Those restrictions also make the licenses far more expensive to obtain given their relative scarcity.  Liquor stores are generally locally-owned, small businesses.  Everyone in the store must be at least 21, and all employees must be licensed by the State of Indiana.  They argue that they are far more regulated, and have a vested interest in restricting access to minors given that selling alcohol is about all that they do.  However, they do not have the luxury of using alcohol as a loss-leader to drive traffic to their stores.  Grocery stores can make up the loss on alcohol sales on the sales of other items.  Liquor stores also say that changing the law now would wipe out the equity that they have built up in their stores.  Often, the owners of these stores have all of their savings wrapped up in their business, and a change in the law would devalue their largest asset.

So those are your players.  If you believe that alcohol sales should be consumer focused, then you fall on the side of the grocery stores.  If you support Indiana small businesses, and believe that alcohol sales should remain a highly-regulated industry, then you fall on the side of the liquor stores.

What do I think?  I believe that demonizing a product like alcohol can contribute to its abuse every bit as much as increasing its availability.  I also think that my friends in the liquor store industry could do a better job of innovating given the limited amount of items that they are allowed to sell.  Your grocery stores are generally interested in selling volume.  They are concerned with turning product over, so they will typically stick to selling only the top selling items in any category.  Liquor stores should embrace that they can offer a much deeper variety of beers and spirits then their competition.  The industry is moving more and more towards microbrews and specialty spirits.  Embrace that change.  Insisting on competing on 12-pack Miller Lite cans is a business model that is destined to fail.

Indiana opened up the door to Sunday sales by allowing bars and restaurants, and microbreweries and wineries to sell alcohol on Sunday.  Neighboring states have shown that selling alcohol on Sundays does not lead to anarchy and rampant alcoholism on that one day each week.  My advice to my friends in the liquor store business would be to compromise on Sunday sales and make sure that you retain your monopoly on cold carryout beer as a tradeoff.  Maybe insist that alcohol is not allowed to be sold below cost.  Otherwise, by sticking hard and fast to the status quo, they may find that they will lose both Sunday sales and cold carryout, and Indiana could lose an industry that is still very important to consumers.

Brad Klopfenstein is the founder of the Tavern League of Indiana.  He can be reached at klop@att.net.

You have to read it to believe it.

You can hear reaction from Indiana Lawmakers here.

Some are Tea Party folks just put out their list of “most liberal” reporters in Indianapolis.  They were debating posting something this weekend.  I will save them the trouble.    I came in at #7.   I guess this just means I will have to work harder next time.   On the plus side, I guess doing stuff like this is actually easier than getting out and working to make change.

*************

Here’s the bulk of the e-mail.

Below is a summary of tea party inputs and rankings:

Indy’s Ten Most Liberal Reporters

1- Mathew Tully, Indianapolis Star
2- Jim Shella, WISH-TV CH 8
3- Sheila Suess  Kennedy, Indianapolis Star
4-Dan Carpenter, Indianapolis Star
5-Kevin Rader, WTHR-TV CH 13
6-Mary Beth Schneider, Indianapolis Star
7-Abdul Hakim-Shabazz, Gadfly & Former Radio Jock*
8-Mary Milz, WTHR-TV CH 13
9-Mick Mauer, Indianapolis Business Journal
10-Steve Hammer, Nuvo

A “Liberal’ or “Progressive” subscribes to some or all of the following:

Anti-tea party, world government; weak local government; centralized state government; weak states’ rights; high progressive tax rates; pro Common Core; anti school vouchers; free universal health care; pro gun control; full rights to gay marriage; abortion without restriction; centralized economy; tax on hydrocarbon fuels; open international borders; lower national defense spending; and European Socialism.

*I take issue with the Gadfly part, since they don’t get paid!  I’m off to the bank this morning to make another deposit!