Just a quickie post here to allow folks to place comments on a non-issue related posting.
I am appreciative of the supportive comments that tells me most people just want (and need) a place to ask questions, and voice concerns.
So, have at! Hopefully, some answers will come thruough for us.
Thanks Everyone
posted by East Ender at
2:34 PM
This blog was created as a format for the citizens of New Albany Indiana to exchange information, ideas, and openly express their views and opinions, about life in the city and the current state of our governmental administration that directly affects the quality of life here. *All content of this site is considered copyright material and is subject to copyright laws. No reproduction shall be made without the written consent of the administrator.*
26 Comments:
Hey, I always appreciate another place to post comments and ideas, but a blog isn't really conducive to an open forum, as topics can be jumbled, commentors can't title their own posts, and a contributor must post a blog entry in order for anyone to post comments.
I'd suggest going over to Clean Up New Albany (http://www.cleanupnewalbany.com), as it is an online forum, where anyone can post their own topics, and all seem to be welcome, all you need is an email address to register.
Just another idea. A blog has its own merits, but I think an online forum may lend itself better to some of these conversations.
By
TSOLfan, at 4:32 PM, May 27, 2005
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
The New Albanian, at 5:48 PM, May 27, 2005
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
Anonymous, at 6:53 PM, May 27, 2005
NEW ALBANY TRIBUNE- FRIDAY.
SCRIBNER PLACE BONDS: Mayor Garner said the city could see a $3.6 to $4 million savings over the years with PROPERTY TAX BACKING OF THE BONDS.
By
Anonymous, at 8:14 PM, May 27, 2005
OK. Now explain to everyone exactly what that means.
By
Jeff Gillenwater, at 8:49 PM, May 27, 2005
Tsk, tsk, tsk. Bluegill, you're just not catching on, are you?
This anonymous, as opposed to that anonymous, to be distinguished from the anonymous before that -- not to be confused with the anonymous yesterday -- anyway, anonymous has no intention of explaining what any of it means, because that's not the point.
The sole and only point is to viciously slur the enemy, and to do so while invisible to him. In the bizarre and inexplicable value system herein, this somehow constitutes integrity and "free" speech.
By
The New Albanian, at 10:16 PM, May 27, 2005
To new albanian...
You just can't seem to respect my repeated attempts to nicely ask that YOU not slander or be rude to the people who wish to utilize this blog can you?
What the comment obviously means is that our property taxes are most likely going up as they will be used to pay the bond issue for part of Scribner Place.
I don't understand how you interpret this comment to have, as its only point, the intention of "viciously" hurling a "slur [at] the enemy".
Tell me, what was the slur, and how was it vicious, and who is the enemy?
By
East Ender, at 3:00 AM, May 28, 2005
SCRIBNER BONDS BACKED BY PROPERTY TAX--?
On one of the comments in an article on this blog, there was an article about the bonds for the DOWNTOWN PARKING GARAGE.
It was said that those bonds were backed up by EDIT. It said that it now costs
$615,000 per year for PARKING GARAGE BONDS. I agree with Laura that backing SCRIBNER BONDS WITH PROPERTY TAX WOULD INCREASE OUR PROPERTY TAXES IF BOND PAYMENTS WERE PAID BY PROPERTY TAX.
By
Anonymous, at 7:43 AM, May 28, 2005
Laura,
The comment about property taxes DOES NOT obviously mean that property taxes are most likely to go up to pay for Scribner Place.
In the first place, the story referenced in the comment includes A LOT more information than the one statement by the mayor. The person who posted the comment specifically chose to not include ALL the information, which would have been the obvious choice of someone who truly wished to inform citiizens.
For instance, why did the person not include the information provided in the article that says that two private developers are already interested enough in what Scribner Place brings to New Albany that they've agreed to spend $40,000 to study what type of business they might want to build here? That seems to suggest that Scribner Place is already encouraging private investent in NA, which is exactly what it's supposed to do.
Why did it not include the part of the story that says the Mayor IS NOT asking that the amount of EDIT money allocated to Scribner Place be increased to $700K in 2007 as you and others have stated as an argument against it?
Why did it not include references to the fact that both CMs Kochert and Seabrook support Scribner Place? Kochert says he supports it but expects the county to participate and encourages citizens to contact county representatives to get their support, which is something the mayor is already doing.
Seabrook says he, too, would like to see the county participate to help shore up city finances, but that that alone would not necessarily cause him to vote against it.
Why did the comment not include information about how TIF areas work? Downtown is a TIF area. In TIF areas, property taxes are FROZEN for existing residences and businesses while property taxes from NEW developments are used to help pay off the city's investment in infrastructure in the area. Since the Mayor said SAVE the city $3.6 to $4 million, could he simply have meant that the property taxes generated by Scribner Place would help take the burden off of taxpayers to the tune of $3.6 million over twenty years?
By purposely choosing NOT to tell the whole story, the person making the comment did a great disservice to the people of this blog by not including readily available information. And since that information was so readily available, one can only conclude that the person was not trying to inform readers but was instead relying on their ignorance to advance their own agenda.
The comment amounted to a cheap shot not only against the administration but to the readers of this blog who really are trying to get informed and find the truth. Could that be the vicious slur that Roger so correctly pointed out?
The truly sad part is that, since they commented anonymously, readers can't hold them accountable for their actions. As such, they are free to do the same again with no damage to their credibility. There are rare cases when anonymity makes sense but, more often than not, it's simply used as a shield for lies and an unwillingness to be held accountable when not making a sincere effort to inform, as was the case with the comment about the Tribune article.
Did you even read the story before responding to Roger?
By
Jeff Gillenwater, at 7:51 AM, May 28, 2005
No one seems to want to answer the question by anonymous, whom I have come to trust implicitly because she never lies (or always, or whatever). The ideas, or lack thereof that come from this valued poster, are ones I always (or never, or whatever) rely on.
But the question was: Who pays the girl who runs this Web site and how can we help pay her? Why doesn't somebody answer his/her question?
By
Anonymous, at 9:53 AM, May 28, 2005
SCRIBNER PLACE--- An article in the Courier Journal said that the city had purchased the property for Scribner Place for an UNDISCLOSED AMOUNT. Why won't they tell us, the taxpayers, how much they are paying for the SCRIBNER PLACE
PROPERTY they are purchasing?
By
Anonymous, at 1:37 PM, May 28, 2005
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
Anonymous, at 2:04 PM, May 28, 2005
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
The New Albanian, at 7:48 PM, May 28, 2005
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
Anonymous, at 9:22 PM, May 28, 2005
Laura said to me: "You just can't seem to respect my repeated attempts to nicely ask that YOU not slander or be rude to the people who wish to utilize this blog can you?"
This admonition lies at the very heart of the absurdity perpetuated hereabouts.
Laura, it is logically impossible for me to slander someone who, in a legal sense, is not there.
For it to be slander, it has to be a malicious untruth about an individual who is identifiable; otherwise, there is no harm done by the mistruth, because no one knows to whom it applies!
Conversely, I can be slandered by an anonymous person ... say, Concern Taxpayer, who told a malicious untruth (and maybe two) about me, one that I can (and have) proved is completely untrue.
Granted, at the present time, I would not be able to press charges (and wouldn't anyway, since he or she is so pitiable), but my inability to seek redress is solely because ... yes, because he or she is anonymous.
As side note, do you really think I would use a word like "cowardly" if I didn't have a specific case in mind?
And what could be more cowardly than an anonymous person slandering a known person? Not only that, but my guess is that many of the people here know it ... and that explains the raging silence when the shoe's finally on another's foot.
If the slanderer is a hero to the oppressed, then there's a fair amount of pity to go around, isn't there?
Laura, somewhere deep down, you know it's true: You reap what you sow.
By
The New Albanian, at 9:22 PM, May 28, 2005
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
The New Albanian, at 9:28 PM, May 28, 2005
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
Anonymous, at 12:37 AM, May 29, 2005
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
Jeff Gillenwater, at 9:01 AM, May 29, 2005
What was wrong with my "psst, Tim" post? It wasn't slanderous to anyone on this list - it simply suggested that sometimes people confuse sources of money.
Can you repeat the standards for editing removal? When do these creep into the territory of muzzling?
By
The New Albanian, at 9:21 AM, May 29, 2005
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
Jeff Gillenwater, at 10:57 AM, May 29, 2005
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
Anonymous, at 12:28 PM, May 29, 2005
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
The New Albanian, at 2:22 PM, May 29, 2005
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
Jeff Gillenwater, at 6:54 PM, May 29, 2005
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
Anonymous, at 9:13 AM, May 30, 2005
DANG did Laura take the axe to this thread...so much for anonymous free speech!
By
Anonymous, at 11:23 PM, June 01, 2005
That's quite a carnage.
By
The New Albanian, at 5:28 PM, June 02, 2005
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
r << Home