tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22317122803229007682024-03-13T05:03:16.529-04:00Hamilton County PoliticsThis is about the politics of Hamilton County, Indiana, primarily from a Democratic perspective, which might seem a little odd because Hamilton County is predominately Republican. But that is changing over time, and the minority does need a voice.Greg Purvishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14646251538152279506noreply@blogger.comBlogger82125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2231712280322900768.post-26105040454083219362018-05-02T12:14:00.001-04:002018-05-02T12:14:40.088-04:00What is a primary election?[<i>This is the first in a series of educational articles about elections and local government. It is intended to fill in some knowledge gaps about how elections work in Indiana and the functions of local government. Both research and my personal experience tell me most people don't really understand either. I hope to help with that</i>.]<br />
<br />
In Indiana, there are two basic types of elections. The first, which this article talks about, is in May of each election year and is called a "primary election". The November election is called a "general election", more about that in a later article.<br />
<br />
Unlike a general election, a primary election (usually shortened to just "primary") is not really an "election" because no one is actually winning a public office in a primary. A primary is actually a nominating contest for the two major parties, Republican and Democratic. In a sense, there are actually two separate primaries run at the same time, for each party.<br />
<br />
This process selects the major party candidates for the general election in November, when they face off against each other plus any third party or independent candidates.<br />
<br />
Many voters don't understand why they have to choose a Democratic or Republican ballot. Under Indiana law, this is required. A voter, at least in theory, is supposed to choose the primary ballot of the party that they either A) supported a majority of their candidates in the last election, or B) intend to support a majority of that party's candidates in the next general election. This means that voters pick their own affiliation of political party based on their own preferences.<br />
<br />
This system is called a "closed primary" and has been the law in Indiana for decades. Other states have this as well, but some have versions of an "open primary" which allows voters to select from candidates of both parties. A few versions of an open primary even allow the two top candidates of one party to face off in a general election if they have the highest number of votes.<br />
<br />
So, if you want to support a majority of Democratic candidates in the fall general election, you should be voting in the Democratic primary, and the same holds true for Republicans. This system allows Democrats to select Democratic candidates and Republicans to select Republican candidates, and are not causing mischief for each other.<br />
<br />
There are other legal consequences of primary voting. If you want to be named to an appointed board or commission, most of those require bi-partisan representation. And party affiliation is determined by what party primary you voted for last. So if you voted in the 2016 Democratic Primary, you are a "registered Democrat", or at least that is how it is referred to. Indiana does not register party affiliation when you register to vote, but other states do. If you want to run for office as a Democrat, you must either have voted in the last Democratic primary, or get the permission of your local party chair.<br />
<br />
Primary elections are important for a lot of other reasons. It helps a political party identify and organize their supporters, and measure their relative strengths. If you usually vote for Democratic candidates in the general election but vote in the other primary, it is technically illegal, and makes it a lot harder for both parties to know where you stand.<br />
<br />
Sometimes no candidate files for a particular office in a primary. The major parties can fill the empty spots for the November election with a party caucus in June.<br />
<br />
If only one candidate files for an office in a primary, that is known as an "uncontested primary" for that office, and that candidate becomes the party nominee for the November election. If more candidates file for the primary than there are available spots (usually one, sometimes 3 or more), that is a "contested primary". The top vote-getter for each office becomes that party's nominee for the November election.<br />
<br />
There is more, but those are the basics. In upcoming articles, I will be giving an overview of the structure of local government, mostly on county offices since those are up for election in 2018. I will briefly explain what the different offices do. And if you have questions, or suggestions for a later blog post, contact me on Facebook or email me at Greg@GregPurvis.com.<br />
<br />
<br />Greg Purvishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14646251538152279506noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2231712280322900768.post-49699592848281241302017-01-06T14:43:00.000-05:002017-01-07T17:09:43.760-05:00Picking Winners and LosersConservatives often talk about government not picking winners and losers. By that I suppose it is meant that government should not advantage some citizens over others, at least not unnecessarily. But a quick look around Hamilton County shows that our local governments do exactly what they profess not to support.<br />
<br />
When a city offers tax incentives, or even free loans, to a business to move in, they advantage that business against those in the same market space which are already there. Worse, when the incentive is Tax Increment Financing (TIF), the property taxes go to pay the debt for the loan the city took out to provide that incentive, but don't go for core services, police, fire, libraries, roads, and yes, schools. Who picks up the difference? The people who didn't get the incentives, chiefly homeowners.<br />
<br />
At a minimum, this is blatant hypocrisy. It may also be largely unnecessarily, and in the case of Carmel and Fishers, excessive. Further, not all of the projects that at one time or another gain favor and at least the promise of incentives ever work, and many don't get off the ground at all.<br />
<br />
Fishers, the city where I live and know the most about, is littered with failed projects backed by town, then city, government and totally failed. A short list:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Riverplace, the proposed multi-use development on the northwest corner of 96th and Allisonville. </li>
<li>The 96th and Allisonville "Michigan Left". Fishers spent $10 million, including cost overruns, for this project, "needed" in part due to the added traffic from Riverplace (see above). You now have to go thru 5 sets of traffic lights to turn left.</li>
<li>The water park at SR 37 and 131st. Some ground work was done, then it failed and the property was foreclosed, then redeveloped. </li>
<li>The auto mall on the west side of SR 37 and north of 131st. An additional turn signal and road was put in for this, and placed in a TIF district. Never got off the ground, and city administration quietly took the property out of TIF. </li>
<li>The Saxony sports complex. A novel idea with too little financial backing, which caused some concerns about traffic and parking. Eventually their financing failed due to appraisal issues.</li>
<li>Bub's Burgers downtown Fishers location. The Carmel burger icon's proposed second location, near both subsidized and non-subsidized eateries, was ballyhooed by city administration, then it quietly dematerialized. </li>
<li>The 2007 proposed redevelopment of downtown. Town Council promised $40 million in incentives, but the developer went broke and filed bankruptcy. Honestly, it was a good thing, the design was ugly and it would have displaced numerous local businesses and a school. </li>
<li>A proposed real estate building on Maple St. just north of 116th. The former building was torn down, then the real estate company had second thoughts. </li>
<li>The strip mall at 116th and Hoosier Rd. Much fought-over for years (it was the crux of the famous "flying gavel" council meeting years ago), it went thru various developers, who have only ever managed a day care and a Fresh Thyme market, the rest is vacant. </li>
</ul>
If you have philosophical issues with this, fine. But the party that runs Hamilton County all CLAIM to be "conservative" then do this. On a more practical note, Carmel now has over a BILLION DOLLARS in debt, and rising, and Fishers has at least a quarter of that, all of it incurred since 2007. As I noted before, it is homeowners who primarily shoulder that burden, and it is a partial factor in schools seeking referenda to approve tax hikes. Whatever your party label, this should be in the mind of all residents. Pay attention people!Greg Purvishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14646251538152279506noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2231712280322900768.post-83762040273620250862016-03-28T13:14:00.000-04:002016-03-28T13:14:31.555-04:00The County Commissioner's raceThere is currently a contested race in the May GOP primary for Hamilton County Commissioner. The makeup of this county being what it is, that primary will likely select the person who will serve in that office. The three county commissioners are the executive body for the county.<br />
<br />
I want to speak about one of the candidates, Fishers businessman Bill Smythe, the owner of the Claude and Annie's bar at 141st St. and State Road 37. I have known Bill for several years, and have had both agreements and disagreements with him. But Bill and I agree on a lot of things about local government.<br />
<br />
The first area of agreement is financial. We both are troubled at some of the spending by local government, some of it seemingly without a need. We are also troubled at how some projects are financed, in particular the overuse of TIF financing, which can act as a form of corporate welfare.<br />
<br />
We also agree in the area of government transparency and ethics. In my race for Fishers City Council, I proposed an ethics ordinance to limit the ability of companies who do business with the city from buying influence, perhaps to their profit when more contracts were awarded. At the least, this is unseemly and gives the impression that government is for sale. At the worst, it is "pay to play" politics and actual corruption.<br />
<br />
Bill has a slogan of "voters before vendors". Like some presidential candidates, who have called for reform of a system where special interests buy (or appear to buy) influence by large campaign donations, both Bill and I feel that the system itself is corrupted by allowing vendors who profit from government contracts to attempt to buy influence by donating large sums to incumbent candidates in particular.<br />
<br />
I am not a Republican. I don't vote in the Republican primary. But if I did, I would vote on May 3rd for Bill Smythe for Hamilton County Commissioner. And if you do vote in the the GOP primary, I urge your consideration of Bill. The voters deserve a voice, not just government vendors.<br />
<br />
Bill's website is <a href="http://www.billsmytheforcommissioner.com/">http://www.billsmytheforcommissioner.com/</a>, and his campaign can be found on Facebook at <a href="https://www.facebook.com/BillSmytheForCommissioner">https://www.facebook.com/BillSmytheForCommissioner</a>. I wish him well.Greg Purvishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14646251538152279506noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2231712280322900768.post-70648813220438784052015-01-01T15:39:00.000-05:002015-01-01T15:39:05.656-05:00The New Year, and a New City of FishersToday is the first day of 2015, and with it, the first day of a brand-new city, Fishers. This day is something I worked long and hard for, since I made the call for Fishers to drop the "town" form of government in January 2007. It has been a long, hard road, with little to no support from those on the inside of town government, in fact in most cases, their very active opposition.<br />
<br />
As the first chair of bi-partisan group CityYes (followed by David Cox and Doug Allman), we worked for a more responsive form of government that would allow the voices of the people to be heard. Those in Town Hall (with the exception of Renee Cox) worked hard to prevent that happening. They delayed and delayed, and obstructed, and delayed some more, and then did their best to spin the arguments against Fishers being a real City with an elected Mayor.<br />
<br />
I congratulate Scott Fadness on being elected Fishers' first Mayor. And I congratulate the nine members of the first City Council, several of them newcomers to local government. As I have often said, a big part of good government is the form of government, the next is the people who are selected to run our government, and what they do with it. It remains to be seen what our new City government will do.<br />
<br />
But the irony is, none of these people worked to make the change to a City. Several of them, and their supporters, actively opposed it. Whether or not that error in judgment, and being out of step with what local residents wanted on the single most important issue to face Fishers in decades, forebodes good or ill for the future only time will tell. <br />
<br />
As for me, I am proud for Fishers today. We have officially "grown up". Now let us see what we can do with it. I thank all who worked so hard for today, David and Renee Cox, Doug Allman, Brian Baehl, Walt Bagot, Glenn Brown, Dan Torzewski, Joe Weingarten, Cindy Garzon, Debbie Ramey, and the donors and volunteers for CityYes who worked so hard and long to fulfill a dream of a better, more inclusive, more open government for Fishers. If I missed anyone, I apologize,<br />
<br />
Mistakes were made by town government, and they were heavy-handed at times. Let us see if that changes now that we are a city, and if not, hold them accountable. Greg Purvishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14646251538152279506noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2231712280322900768.post-37386642480643262472014-08-16T16:34:00.000-04:002014-08-16T16:34:12.423-04:00Hamilton County Democratic Candidates Voters complain about there not being choices on Hamilton County ballots in general elections. But there actually ARE quite a number of Democrats running for office, including two statewide candidates who are running for office. So here is a list of Democratic candidates who will be on the ballot in Hamilton County in the November election.<br />
<br />
Shawn Denney, Congress, Fifth District<br />
Beth White, Secretary of State<br />
Mike Claytor, a Carmel resident, State Auditor<br />
Mike Boland, a Fishers resident, State Treasurer<br />
J.D. Ford, Carmel, State Senate District 29<br />
Joe Marcum, Noblesville, State Representative, District 29<br />
Bob Ashley, State Representative, District 32<br />
David Russ, Carmel, State Representative, District 39<br />
Rosemary Dunkle, Carmel, County Council, District 1<br />
Jim Blessing, Carmel, Clay Township Board<br />
Mike Davis, Noblesville Township Trustee<br />
Margaret (Peggy) Russell, Noblesville Township Board<br />
Sheryl (Sherry) Peters, Sheridan Town Council At Large<br />
Kent Nelson, Fishers City Council, Northwest District<br />
Greg Purvis, Fishers City Council, SouthCentral District<br />
Justin Kilgore, Fishers City Council, Southwest District<br />
Maryellen Bein, Fishers City Council, At Large<br />
<br />
While not all ballot slots have a Democratic candidate, this is probably the greatest number of Democrats running on the Hamilton County ballot in many years. It certainly is the first time two county residents have sought statewide office at the same time. It is also the largest number of Democrats EVER to run for Fishers office, and this is the first Fishers City election. <br />
<br />
Nearly all of these candidates have web pages, Facebook pages, or both. I urge you to look them up and give them your support. Greg Purvishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14646251538152279506noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2231712280322900768.post-14281098132690492232014-08-14T22:11:00.000-04:002014-08-14T22:11:04.992-04:00Renee Cox ResignsFishers Town Council member Renee Cox today announced that she will resign her seat on the council, citing her job duties which have been taking her out of state since June. Cox was an unsuccessful candidate to be the first Mayor of Fishers in the May 2014 GOP primary. She also was the former President of the Fall Creek Township Board. During the 2012 referendum to change Fishers into a City, Cox was the only Town Council member to support the change to city status. Cox also opposed the proposed food and beverage sales tax, and the proposal which led to the recent demolition of the Fishers Train Station, positions which brought her under sharp attack by some other members of the Town Council.<br />
<br />
Renee's husband David is a former Fayette County GOP chair, and locally was former chair of CityYes. Their home remains in Fishers. <br />
<br />
When asked by Hamilton County politics what her future political plans might be, Renee Cox was noncommittal. Her resignation was first announced on Facebook by Hamilton County Politics, before any other public announcement was published. Greg Purvishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14646251538152279506noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2231712280322900768.post-37170736096123785182014-08-11T16:15:00.001-04:002014-08-11T16:22:05.614-04:00New Purvis for Council BlogI have decided to "spin off" my posts about my campaign for Fishers City Council to a new blog. That page will be found here: <a href="http://purvisforcouncil.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://purvisforcouncil.blogspot.com/</a>. I will have my first posts on there very soon, so please follow it.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, I have been concentrating too much on what is happening in Fishers, and not enough on what is happening in the rest of Hamilton County. So, I am going to separate them, although I may cross-post from time to time.<br />
<br />
So there will be more posts here about other races in and involving Hamilton County, including the two statewide races involving Hamilton County residents - Mike Claytor of Carmel for State Auditor and Mike Boland of Fishers for State Treasurer. I will also post news about State Superintendent of Public Instruction Glenda Ritz (a resident of Carmel), and State Senate candidate J.D. Ford, State Rep. candidates David Russ, Joe Marcum, and Bob Ashley, and others. <br />
<br />
Let me know what you think!<br />
<br />
Greg PurvisGreg Purvishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14646251538152279506noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2231712280322900768.post-92037348972784759692014-06-13T09:39:00.000-04:002014-06-13T09:39:03.204-04:00Party First?Today on one of my Facebook campaign posts, a local Republican posted "Democrats are never the answer." Apparently she believes that her party affiliation and the party label trumps all other concerns over policy, vision, spending, and all other local issues.<br />
<br />
This is just wrong. And I have noted before that this is wrong. While I certainly have nothing against party affiliations, and I have mine, there are times that a citizen must break from their party, especially when a particular candidate is just unacceptable. When your party's candidate goes contrary to your beliefs, do you vote for that candidate anyway?<br />
<br />
This has come up many times in Hamilton County. On the GOP side, many voted for Dan Burton for 3 decades despite a mountain of legitimate concerns over his behavior in Congress. Voters chose Charlie White for Indiana Secretary of State despite a pending felony investigation, which proved to be a mistake when White was convicted of 6 felonies and removed from office. (I note those convictions are still on appeal.) And in 2010, Democrats chose a Tea Party plant as their Congressional candidate over a vastly more-qualified physician, which led me to vote Libertarian for Congress in the fall rather than vote for either the "Democrat", or Dan Burton, whom I considered as corrupt. <br />
<br />
I add, not ALL Republicans, nor all Democrats, put party first. In my own race for Fishers City Council, I have Republican supporters and donors who are troubled by the policies, and especially the spending, of the current administration and Council. I find myself in the position of advocating policies that are more fiscally responsible than the so-called "fiscal conservatives" on the Fishers Council. <br />
<br />
But there are some people who cannot wrap their minds around the concept that it is the ISSUES that matter, not the party label. And they are of both parties. And that is sad, and a problem for our community. When it comes to local government, seldom can you identify a "Republican" or "Democrat" position on an issue. I know I can't. You just have to make the best and most informed decision you can. Greg Purvishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14646251538152279506noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2231712280322900768.post-90576706735157559522014-03-27T10:01:00.003-04:002014-08-09T14:58:08.890-04:00Priorities: Apartments or Public Safety<p dir="ltr">I have often said that Public Safety is "Job #1" for any government, most especially local government.  And yet, the Town of Fishers is borrowing tens of millions of dollars to "redevelop" the downtown space, ignoring prior public input to preserve the character of the area.  These millions are going to developers who cannot build these projects on their own, and who in some cases, are contributors to a certain candidate or group who run the current town administration.</p>
<p dir="ltr">But this post is mostly NOT about that.  It is about the fact that Fishers' current government has its priorities wrong. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Large sections of Fishers do not have fire hydrants.  Most areas do. Some of the areas without hydrants are unincorporated areas in both Delaware and Fall Creek Townships where the Fishers Fire Department, by paid contract with the townships, has responsibility for fire protection.  You may have seen small red signs on the roadside with a red "1" or "2", which tells firefighters how far away the nearest hydrant is, in miles.  If a fire happens in that area, the FFD has to truck it in, or find another source for water, or pump it a long distance. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Given that current methods of residential construction can lead to a fire spreading VERY quickly, this can be a problem, hydrants or no. The August 2013 Sandstone fire (I am on the Sandstone HOA board) is an example of how fast a fire can spread, with 3 homes destroyed, and several others damaged, and around a million dollars of property damage. Not long ago, in an area of Delaware Township without hydrants, a fire got pretty serious.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Instead of corporate giveaways to friendly developers and contractors, I propose that Fishers invest in expanding the fire hydrant system.  This will give the fine men and women of the Fire Department one of the most important tools they need to effectively fight a fire, quick access to a water supply.  As we continue to expand east, this will become even more vitally important.  And we need to fill in the holes in our current territory where there are no hydrants.</p>
<p dir="ltr">In addition, I think we should study adding a new fire station ASAP in the northeast quadrant of Fall Creek Township.  No current fire station exists in this area, despite growth, especially in the Cyntheanne Road area. There is an ambulance with fire fighters in one of the hospitals, but no fire engine or crew for that area.  Any fire call would require FFD to respond from a distance, or require assistance from another department.</p>
<p dir="ltr">This is one of the most important things we can do as a community.  Public Safety IS Job #1.  Let's have that discussion now, and decide if our priorities lie with building apartments and shops downtown, or with Public Safety. </p>
Greg Purvishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14646251538152279506noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2231712280322900768.post-28370108006781863642014-02-12T18:02:00.001-05:002014-02-12T18:02:43.025-05:0020,000 PAGEVIEWS - THANK YOU!Since I started this blog about 4 years ago, I have posted about all manner of things, from the writings of Thomas Jefferson, to the role of Democrats in Hamilton County, to residency issues of various politicians, but mostly about the political goings-on in my home of Fishers.<br />
<br />
Today marks the 20,000th time one of my posts has been read. That is more than a little humbling. I have no idea how many regular readers I have, but I know I DO have them, from all walks of life, and all political points of view. Whether you agree or disagree with my posts, thank you for being concerned enough about local affairs to take my perspective into account.<br />
<br />
And suggestions are always welcome, whether I follow those suggestions or not. And again, to all who read my little blog, thanks.<br />
<br />
- Greg Purvis, Fishers, Indiana, February 12, 2014Greg Purvishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14646251538152279506noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2231712280322900768.post-89299504419068216492014-02-05T20:11:00.000-05:002014-02-05T20:11:40.449-05:00How to Kill Your City's Tax BaseRecently, the Fishers Town Council approved several economic development deals that show both how to do economic development in a positive way, and some other deals that not only do not grow the tax base, but may well put Fishers further in debt.<br />
<br />
On February 3, 2014, the Fishers Town Council approved a 2-year tax abatement for Ossip Optometry to relocate its flagship store and operations to two buildings on Crosspoint that were largely vacant. In the first year, Ossip would get a complete property tax abatement, paying no property tax, and in the second year, there would be a 50% abatement. This deal gets two mostly-vacant and unproductive buildings occupied, but also moves a thriving business to Fishers with their jobs, and room to grow. This is a great example of exactly how to do economic development. Fishers pays nothing out of pocket, and gets jobs and a great business, and future property tax income. A fine IBJ article on this deal is <a href="http://www.ibj.com/ossip-to-move-hq-open-flagship-store-in-fishers/PARAMS/article/45975" target="_blank">here</a>.<br />
<br />
However, at the same meeting, and some other meetings, the Council approved other projects involving land giveaways and tax increment financing (TIFs) that could actually put Fishers further in debt. TIFs work by a government issuing bonds which are repaid by property taxes from the increased value added by the improvement. In these cases, the revenue generated by the improvements using TIF financing appears to be LESS than the money needed to pay the annual principal and interest on the loans taken out. This seems to be true even when you take into account Fishers' estimated share of County Option Income Tax (COIT) from the jobs estimated to exist in the new development. <br />
<br />
Improvements in TIFs do not add to the general property tax base until the bonds are paid off in 20-30 years. And in these cases associated with downtown development, not only is Fishers giving away this TIF money, they are contributing land owned by Fishers, either the open space in front of Town Hall where all the trees were cut down, or other land they have bought, such as the former KFC building at 116th and Lantern. <br />
<br />
And this is Fishers' "best case" scenario. If the developments are not successful, then the taxpayers are out even more money. Many communities have run themselves into financial trouble by overuse of TIF financing. And Fishers has put virtually all land which could be developed into a TIF district, which makes it very, very difficult to grow the tax base. <br />
<br />
Fishers is promoting projects which look very pretty on paper. But we are killing our own tax base in the process, which can lead to grave trouble in the future. If this makes me more "fiscally conservative" than the people on the council who claim to be "fiscal conservatives" but who are voting for more taxes to support this sort of thing, then I guess I am more fiscally conservative than they are. <br />
<br />
There has to be a better way. And they need someone on the council to say, "Wait just a minute."<br />
===========================================================<br />
<br />
<i>The author of this article, Greg Purvis, is a candidate for Fishers City Council in the 2014 election. Visit his website at <a href="http://www.gregpurvis.com/">www.GregPurvis.com</a>, or his Facebook page at <a href="https://www.facebook.com/PurvisforFishers">https://www.facebook.com/PurvisforFishers</a>. Views expressed are those of Greg Purvis only. Authorized by Purvis for Fishers Committee. </i>Greg Purvishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14646251538152279506noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2231712280322900768.post-81903319429223923842014-01-09T08:15:00.002-05:002014-01-09T08:26:18.206-05:00Eminent Domain and Fishers DowntownAs most people in Fishers know, town government is busily trying to redevelop downtown Fishers. As part of this concept, they want to build a new street extending west from Lantern Road to Municipal Drive. This would extend the east-west road that runs past Target and Fifth Third all the way west to the municipal complex.<br />
<br />
Problem is, there are existing homes and businesses in the way. The town has made deals with 3 property owners to pay them over $1 million total for their land. But, they have not been able to reach a deal with one property owner who owns a home and business adjacent to the railroad track. So what do they do? Last night at the town council meeting, they authorized eminent domain legal action if necessary. <br />
<br />
Now, this is a Very Big Deal in Fishers. Prior downtown proposals pretty much expressly swore off using eminent domain (officially "condemnation proceedings") to acquire property, because if there is anything in Fishers more unpopular than forced annexation, it is eminent domain. And the property owner has been there quite a while and doesn't see another place to move his home and small business and stay in Fishers. <br />
<br />
To be clear, there are things I like about the downtown development, and things I don't like. And this highlights one of the things I dislike most. The downtown development threatens to displace a lot of small local businesses. My insurance agent is one of those who has agreed to sell. I have no idea where they are going. Some of the new business will be local, and some won't. Still up in the air is what happens to the law offices, pizzeria, ice cream store, and more, in that area. <br />
<br />
I opposed this in 2007 when a prior plan proposed to displace locals and replace them with chain stores in a box-formation of strip malls. Apparently the current council has not learned from that lesson. Growth and redevelopment must not come on the backs of local residents and businesses. If they can't come up with a "win-win" scenario, they either need to think harder, negotiate better, or it is time for more new blood in Fishers government.Greg Purvishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14646251538152279506noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2231712280322900768.post-67996350989289161542014-01-03T19:16:00.000-05:002014-01-03T19:16:06.771-05:00Do you want to help elect someone different in Fishers?<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: verdana, geneva, sans-serif; line-height: 21px;">Friends, as many of you know, I am considering running for a seat on the Fishers City Council in the upcoming election. I have not yet made a final decision about running, but filing opens next week. </span><br style="font-family: verdana, geneva, sans-serif; line-height: 21px;" /><br style="font-family: verdana, geneva, sans-serif; line-height: 21px;" /><span style="font-family: verdana, geneva, sans-serif; line-height: 21px;">So, can you please email me back if you are interested in helping at some level? I would like a small core of committed dedicated people who will plan and organize the campaign and coordinate the larger group of volunteers. So if you are interested, at either level, let me know, as I would like to have an organizing meeting soon. </span><br style="font-family: verdana, geneva, sans-serif; line-height: 21px;" /><br style="font-family: verdana, geneva, sans-serif; line-height: 21px;" /><span style="font-family: verdana, geneva, sans-serif; line-height: 21px;">And this is an effort where any and all types of help is welcome, whether you have graphics skills, public relations, financial and fundraising, or you just want to call neighbors and knock on doors. A pledge of a later contribution, in any amount, is also most welcome. </span><br style="font-family: verdana, geneva, sans-serif; line-height: 21px;" /><br style="font-family: verdana, geneva, sans-serif; line-height: 21px;" /><span style="font-family: verdana, geneva, sans-serif; line-height: 21px;">You all know that I have been a leader in many important issues in Fishers, from being the organizer and first chair of CityYes, to speaking out against unwise tax increases and other actions, to blogging on local issues, to revealing illegal acts of local politicians. I listen to no one but the people of Fishers, not influential insiders. </span><br style="font-family: verdana, geneva, sans-serif; line-height: 21px;" /><br style="font-family: verdana, geneva, sans-serif; line-height: 21px;" /><span style="font-family: verdana, geneva, sans-serif; line-height: 21px;">So, regardless of your own political affiliation, would you be willing to help? If so, send me a personal email back to <a href="mailto:Greg@GregPurvis.com" target="_blank">Greg@GregPurvis,com</a>, and let me know what you want to do. If you want to be included in the inner committee, let me know that and when you would be available for a meeting. </span><br style="font-family: verdana, geneva, sans-serif; line-height: 21px;" /><br style="font-family: verdana, geneva, sans-serif; line-height: 21px;" /><span style="font-family: verdana, geneva, sans-serif; line-height: 21px;">Thanks for your support! Happy New Year.</span><br style="font-family: verdana, geneva, sans-serif; line-height: 21px;" /><br style="font-family: verdana, geneva, sans-serif; line-height: 21px;" /><span style="font-family: verdana, geneva, sans-serif; line-height: 21px;">Greg Purvis</span></span>Greg Purvishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14646251538152279506noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2231712280322900768.post-4995962547158139902013-12-26T12:45:00.003-05:002013-12-31T12:04:59.485-05:00CHARLIE WHITE LOSES AGAINIn a ruling dated December 23, 2013, the judge of the Hamilton Superior Court No. 2 has issued a 26-page ruling on Charlie White's Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, denying all of White's claims. White, a former member of the Fishers Town Council, bought a home outside of his Town Council district prior to his nomination as Republican Party candidate for Indiana Secretary of State, but changed his voter registration to his ex-wife's house located in his council district rather than his new Saxony home near Olio Road in Fishers. <br />
<br />
A September 2010 news conference was conducted by me, revealing these facts and calling for appointment of a special prosecutor. Following appointment of two special prosecutors, a Hamilton County Grand Jury indicted White, then in office as Secretary of State, on 7 felony counts, including false voter registration and voting in the wrong precinct. White was later convicted by a jury of 6 of those 7 counts.<br />
<br />
The current ruling is after months of legal maneuvering and testimony. Most of White's claims were dismissed by the court, being nothing but a rehash of arguments which had been presented before and failed. But the meat of White's arguments, resulting in considerable court testimony, was White's claim that his defense lawyer, former Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi, committed "ineffective assistance of counsel" by not putting on certain witnesses. <br />
<br />
The Judge, in reviewing the witnesses that White claims he wanted to put on, including both his current and former wives and a convicted felon as "expert", found that there were serious issues with the testimony of each of those witnesses and their credibility which made Brizzi's decision not to put them on the witness stand reasonable. <br />
<br />
I will not rehash the entire decision, but here it is: <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B12zLqYwT7DkWDQwLW84cVppYXc/edit?usp=sharing" target="_blank">White PCR ruling</a><br />
<br />
White now has to consider whether or not to appeal this ruling, or begin serving his sentence, which is home detention, probation, a fine, and 30 hours of community service. <br />
<br />
Hopefully, this will put this story to an end. But it continues to be an object lesson in the arrogance of some of those in power, particularly in one-party communities, where some feel that they can do whatever they wish with impunity. <br />
=======================================================<br />
UPDATE 12/31/13: White's attorney has filed a Notice of Appeal and a Motion to Stay Execution of Sentence. The case will now return to the Indiana Court of Appeals. <br />
<br />Greg Purvishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14646251538152279506noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2231712280322900768.post-15695506790682608162013-11-22T08:59:00.004-05:002013-11-22T10:24:57.046-05:00John F. Kennedy - a Remembrance from 50 years ago today50 years ago today - November 22, 1963. I was sitting in Miss McGowan's 6th grade class at Meridian School in Kokomo, Indiana. Second row from the window, next to last seat, that is how well I remember this day. Our principal, Mr. George Dunbar, came into the class looking white as a ghost. He whispered something to Miss McGowan, who was visibly shaken. He then announced "The President has been shot." Gasps, but cheers from one boy a couple rows over, quickly subdued by threats of immediate violence from other students. I was sent to a basement storage room to get an old radio and copper wire to use as a ground and antenna. We set that up, and listed to Walter Cronkite. I recall so clearly Cronkite's voice as he announced that the President had died. Very few events in my life have moved me so strongly. Rest in Peace, John F. Kennedy, you were taken from us far too soon.Greg Purvishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14646251538152279506noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2231712280322900768.post-9856188888830648132013-11-19T10:26:00.001-05:002013-11-19T10:26:46.620-05:00Strange Bedfellows and Stranger TaxesIt has been said that politics makes strange bedfellows. And this was never clearer locally than in the last two weeks, when I spoke at two public hearings against the proposed Fishers 1% food and beverage sales tax. Also opposing the new tax were a wide variety of residents from all parts of the political spectrum, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, and even Tea Party. I had a young man from a Tea Party group re-tweeting my Twitter posts from last night's meeting, and yes, we found ourselves completely on the same side on this issue.<br />
<br />
Even odder, the majority of the Fishers Town Council seems determined to enact this new tax no matter what residents say. Council President John Weingardt made a strongly-worded statement in support of the new tax. He cited property tax reduction, not economic development, as his reason. This is despite the fact that some residents, notably renters, would not benefit from property tax reduction, minimal at best, but would pay the new higher sales tax. <br />
<br />
Former Council President Scott Faultless also made a strong statement in support of the new tax, but dismissed property tax relief and cited economic development as the reason for the new tax. Faultless claimed, without specifics, that Fishers needs the new tax to land a proposed $100 million new development that needs $25 million in new infrastructure. Faultless did not specify how a new tax raising $1 million a year would pay for $25 million in infrastructure, or why capital improvement bonds, the usual vehicle for such improvements, could not be used. <br />
<br />
And I did something unusual, I praised Council member Stuart Easley for making a very honest and candid remark at last week's public hearing. Easley said that the new tax would be "one more tool in the economic development toolbox", which means there is no specific reason for it, they just want the money. Easley also claimed he has consistently opposed such a tax in the past, but is undecided this time. <br />
<br />
The only council member who is strongly opposed is Renee Cox, who is also running for Mayor. Another Mayor candidate, another former council president, Walt Kelly, is also opposed. A third Mayor candidate, town manager Scott Fadness, has made no statement of which I am aware and is in a very awkward spot on this issue as a town employee. Some believe it may have been Fadness' advice to the council that they ask the General Assembly for this power. It should be noted that several members of the council majority are openly supporting Fadness for Mayor, notably Pete Peterson and John Weingardt. <br />
<br />
The upshot is that not only can the council majority not identify how the new tax would be used, they cannot even agree on WHY it should be adopted, or if it should be used for "economic development" - a term that could mean almost anything - or for property tax reduction, by substituting one tax for another. The council has rejected a similar tax in the past, and should do so again.<br />
<br />
This tax will come to a vote at the council meeting on December 2. If you want your voice heard, and few enough have spoken out, you can write, email, or call the members of the Town Council before then. And if they ignore your wishes, vote them out when they seek re-election next year. After all, this would not be the first time the majority of the council has been on opposite sides from the public on a major local issue.<br />
<br />
<br />Greg Purvishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14646251538152279506noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2231712280322900768.post-43502754070675518662013-11-04T22:02:00.002-05:002013-11-04T22:02:28.625-05:00Fishers Considering a New TaxThe Fishers Town Council is considering enacting a new 1% tax on food and beverage sold in Fishers. The reason given is to raise about $1 million a year for economic development. <br />
<br />
However, this is already raising controversy. Fishers apparently asked the General Assembly to give them this power, leaving open who is behind this and why. Fishers proposed budget for next year is about $80 million. The Fishers Chamber of Commerce is saying they support this, but some local bar and restaurant owners are not happy. And Town Council member and announced Mayoral candidate Renee Cox has issued a statement today that she opposes adoption of this tax. The other two candidates for Mayor are not known to have issued any public statements yet.<br />
<br />
There will be a public hearing devoted to just this issue next Tuesday night, November 12, at 7:00 p.m. in Town Hall. Any resident of Fishers may attend and be heard. <br />
<br />
While I have not made a final decision on this myself, I tend to be opposed. Frankly, I have not heard a good rationale for this tax. There are no details at all about how this would be spent. Would it end up being a slush fund for whatever the Town/City government wants? And who decided to ask the state legislature for this special authority in the first place? <br />
<br />
Details, details, the devil is in the details. Stay tuned.Greg Purvishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14646251538152279506noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2231712280322900768.post-3434826599158679822013-10-17T16:23:00.001-04:002013-10-17T16:23:13.783-04:00Corruption, Slander, or RumorA story in the Indianapolis Business Journal, (link <a href="http://www.ibj.com/north-of-96th-2013-10-15-fadness-sets-sights-on-fishers-top-job/PARAMS/post/44057" target="_blank">here</a>) about the announcement of Scott Fadness, current Fishers Town Manager, to be the first Mayor of Fishers, quickly turned into something else in the "comments" section.<br />
<br />
A poster only identified as "Jen" posted the following:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #efedd6; color: #333333; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 14px;">Fadness has almost raised $100,000 because he, John Weingardt (Fishers Council President) and Pete Peterson (Fishers Council VP) have been forcing vendors to donate to their PACs. The vendors have been told that if they do not PAY then they will not be allowed to PLAY in Fishers!!! If you do not believe me, look at Fadness's campaign finance reports. Almost all vendors that do or want to do business in Fishers. Really, is that what our Town has become?!!</span></blockquote>
<br />
However, as an attorney, there is almost nothing in here which, if true, the authorities could use to investigate. What vendor? When did this "force" happen? Who made that communication? Was it just in a fundraising letter, or in person? Details, details, there are no details. <br />
<br />
The implication here is that vendors are being told they MUST contribute to a certain PAC (Political Action Committee) to do business with Fishers. If so, that could well be a crime, extortion. If this is just vendors feeling as if they SHOULD contribute to get alone with the "powers that be", that may be a political issue, but probably is not a crime. I referred to this in one of my most popular blog posts in April 2011, "<a href="http://hamiltoncopolitics.blogspot.com/2011/04/is-fishers-for-sale.html" target="_blank">Is Fishers for Sale?</a>".<br />
<br />
But if this poster is just repeating what he or she heard, or is escalating that for political reasons to make an accusation of a crime? You might want to see a good lawyer. Accusing someone of a crime, without good reason, could well get you sued for what is called slander (or libel) <i>per se. </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
Or the poster could just be reporting rumor. Or someone else is anonymously trying to start trouble. That is dirty tricks, disreputable but not illegal. <br />
<br />
IF I knew that this was true, with PROVABLE FACTS, then something might happen. But you have to have the "Who, What, When, Where, and Why". As most people know, I have turned in at least one politician about whom I had actual evidence that a crime appeared to have been committed, and let the legal system take its course. But at this point, the accusations are just that, without even the slimmest facts to investigate.<br />
<br />
Do local politicos, especially incumbents, solicit vendors? Yes, and as I said, I have criticized them for it. At the very least, it puts the vendors in a tough spot, and at worst, well then you get the kind of accusations "Jen" has made. There have long been rumors of "Pay to Play" politics in Hamilton County, but never hard evidence. And as a lawyer, I am all about the evidence. Particularly when you accuse someone of breaking the law. Greg Purvishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14646251538152279506noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2231712280322900768.post-71924829799068713632013-09-29T16:04:00.001-04:002013-09-29T16:04:36.011-04:00New Fishers Downtown: A DisconnnectThe Town of Fishers is building a new downtown. The first stage of that has been to cut down mature trees decades old in front of Town Hall and adjacent to the post office, in preparation for construction of a mixed-use residential and retail building. <br />
<br />
I hear two completely different discussions on this project. Town employees and insiders all love the idea. But pretty much every ordinary citizen I have spoken with disagrees with it in varying intensity, all the way to outrage. Let's take a look at this particular project, and the disconnect between town government and citizens.<br />
<br />
Town leaders think this is "economic development". Having been largely unable to land large employers (Geico and 1000 new jobs went to Carmel when Fishers was trying to land them), town staff seems determined to "play small ball" to use a sports metaphor. They want the new downtown to appeal to younger professionals who can afford an somewhat upscale apartment near government, retail, and food venues. This has been referred to as a "work live play" theme for millennials.<br />
<br />
So they basically gave public green space to a developer to do the first stage. And the second and subsequent stages will proceed east to Lantern Road, where the Fishers Redevelopment Commission, headed by Wayne Crane (former head of Reorganize Fishers, the merger plan that was defeated badly at the polls last year) is quietly buying up private property. <br />
<br />
But literally every single private citizen I have spoken with hates this. I don't know if they are just resisting change, or if they feel that everything is rammed down their throats, or what, but they are upset. All of these people claim the first they knew anything about this was when the trees were being cut down.<br />
<br />
But the Town DID hold public meetings on this plan, it has not been a secret. And there is the problem. What the Town does just does not penetrate the public awareness prior to a decision being made. They can post it on the Town web page, and publish it in "Town Talk", but this is not enough to connect with most people. I have a suspicion that most issues of "Town Talk" go directly to the trash bin unread. <br />
<br />
Local government frankly has done a BAD job of involving citizens. They just go do their thing. The elected officials mostly don't care enough, because it is so enormously difficult to replace them. And they tend to live in an "echo chamber" of other insiders who repeat what they want to hear, without talking to John Q. Citizen who has a busy life, who often thinks something quite different.<br />
<br />
The challenge here is mutual. Local government MUST do a better job of citizen involvement, somehow. I note they have hired Dan Domsic, late of the Current in Fishers, as "community outreach coordinator". I wish him well, he has some big challenges. BUT, citizens MUST do a better job of learning what government is up to, what it plans to do, how it plans to pay for it, and get involved to make their voices heard. Many don't care enough, and don't even vote in local elections.<br />
<br />
And that is a huge part of the disconnect between Town Hall and citizens. Greg Purvishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14646251538152279506noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2231712280322900768.post-72262735435179364052013-08-31T23:10:00.003-04:002013-08-31T23:10:58.202-04:00Fishers: Scandals, issues and storiesThe community of Fishers is approaching an historic milestone: Its first-ever city election and its first Mayor. But as we sort through the transition to a city, we might do well to think about some things that have happened in the last few years. Some of them may continue to be issues, some not, but all are cause for reflection. So, in no particular order:<br />
<br />
1. Council districts. Council members have self-dealt for their own advantage for years in drawing council districts. If they moved out of the district, they redrew the district lines. There were two notable instances of this, starting with....<br />
<br />
2. The strange case of Scott Faultless' Geist home. About 2005, it was said that then-council president Scott Faultless had moved into a fancy new house adjoining the south shore of Geist Lake. The problem was, that property was not in the town limits of Fishers, and there were no adjoining connections to the town as required by state law. In a very sudden, and strange, move by the Town Council, they annexed 4 different parcels, INCLUDING THE LAKE BED, and then Faultless' home. Then they redistricted to include it. That home was the only Geist home for years that was "in Fishers". People still mutter that if this wasn't illegal, it should have been. It certainly was bending the rules for power's sake. And even stranger....<br />
<br />
3. The never-ending case of Charlie White. In September 2010, it was revealed (by me) that Town Council member Charlie White did not live in his Delaware Township council district as required by law, but had moved all the way across town to Saxony. White resigned, admitted he "made a few mistakes, I will learn from this" and thought no big deal, after all he was a member of the Fishers Town Council and the GOP candidate for Secretary of State. However, the Hamilton County Prosecutor asked for and got two special prosecutors to investigate possible criminal charges. In the meantime, White was elected Indiana Secretary of State. After assuming that office, a Hamilton County Grand Jury indicted White on felony charges, and White started changing his story. White would ultimately be convicted of 6 felonies, including vote fraud and perjury, and was removed from office. He is currently trying to overturn his convictions, by attacking his defense attorney as incompetent, former Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi, who is himself under investigation.<br />
<br />
4. City Council districts. State law requires the current Town Council to draw the new City Council districts. Unlike the at-large nature of the Town Council, there will be 6 real neighborhood districts and 3 seats at large. But the Council has not yet acted, and has rejected suggestions for citizen involvement in drawing the districts. Given their history of self-dealing (there is a LOT more than stated above!), it would be a REALLY great idea if they did this.<br />
<br />
5. Geist annexation. Starved for a tax base due to the "bedroom" nature of Fishers, the Faultless-led council decided to annex the Geist area as a source of new tax revenue. Geist residents were not happy. Faultless, never one to pass up an opportunity to make enemies, started spewing lies about Geist that they did not "pay their fair share", called them "freeloaders" and worse, all of which was funny, as much of Geist existed prior to Fishers' explosive growth. Instead of finding a "win-win" way to bring them into Fishers, Faultless, with allies Stuart Easley and others, fought a scorched-earth campaign to annex, which they eventually won, state law being totally one-sided on this issue. But Geist residents have not forgotten.<br />
<br />
6. The 2011 Council election. Backed by a combination of people who were all unhappy with the council majority, the 2011 GOP Primary in May 2011 saw all but one contested seat for Town Council, unprecedented for Fishers, which normally had no contests at all. Geist United Opposition leader Pete Peterson narrowly beat a Faultless-Easley backed opponent in a Geist district, and Renee Cox upset incumbent Eileen Pritchard, also in a very tight race. In the fall election, two Democrats sought a council seat and the clerk-treasurer's job, but were defeated by wide margins in a very low turnout election. <br />
<br />
7. The 2012 City referenda. This was without a doubt the biggest political fight in the history of Fishers. Pro-City proponents had organized as "CityYes", a bi-partisan group, two years after I called for Fishers to become a City in January 2007. After submitting petitions in May 2010 asking for a November 2010 vote, the Faultless-led council stalled, and came up with a "reorganization plan", with a committee chaired by prior Town Council President Walt Kelly, who is now a candidate for Mayor. The Reorganization Plan would have merged Fishers and Fall Creek Township and resulted in a figurehead mayor appointed by the council. Outraged unincorporated citizens and pro-City Fishers residents banded together to defeat Town Hall's proposed Reorganization and turned Fishers into Indiana's newest City. I personally am very proud of the significant role I played in this movement, and thank all the people who worked so hard to make it happen.<br />
<br />
8. Fishers lack of an adequate tax base. This was talked about a lot during the 2012 referendum campaign. Fishers has a poor history of economic development, and has a real problem growing the business property base sufficiently, which hurts not only itself, but HSE schools as well. Partly this is a lack of executive leadership, partly the "committee" nature of town government, and some other things, such as overuse of TIF districts (a long, boring, but important subject for economic development and local government finance). Carmel, the same size population as Fishers (just over 80,000) has TRIPLE the tax base of Fishers. Recently Carmel is landing large new employers while Fishers bleeds jobs.<br />
<br />
9. The 2014 Mayor's race. This is just starting to get off the ground, but GOP candidates for Mayor are crawling out of the woodwork. Some have announced, some not, but the named candidates at present are:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Walt Kelly, former Town Council president for over twenty years until he resigned and Scott Faultless took over;</li>
<li>Town Manager Scott Fadness;</li>
<li>Town Council member Renee Cox, the only council member who supported the change to a City;</li>
<li>Former Greenfield Mayor Brad DeReamer, who has announced for City Council, but also stated he might switch to the Mayor race. </li>
</ul>
<div>
Have any comments or suggestions for additional columns? Feel free to leave them here, on my Facebook page, or by email to Greg@GregPurvis.com. </div>
Greg Purvishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14646251538152279506noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2231712280322900768.post-69529529318418176422013-07-30T17:00:00.000-04:002013-07-30T17:00:04.458-04:00Citizen comment and involvementOne of the better things the Fishers Town Council does (and I have often been critical of them) is to hold regular council meetings in the evenings. They also live stream the regular council meetings from the town website, and council minutes are also available in a pretty timely manner.<br />
<br />
They do not however, routinely allow citizen comment on anything other than those things legally required to be open to public hearing, such as budgets and annexations. Many other units of government DO allow, within reasonable limits, citizen comments. Some even have a short "open mike" period for citizens to raise issues, or to praise something good.<br />
<br />
As Fishers transitions from "town" to "city", I would urge the local government to be receptive to more citizen involvement and comment. A good way to start would be the "open mike" suggestion, and citizen involvement in the transition to becoming a City, such as citizens being involved in drawing the new council districts, something the current council members are WAY too personally interested in.Greg Purvishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14646251538152279506noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2231712280322900768.post-3947330188531464722013-07-29T16:12:00.000-04:002013-07-29T16:12:48.731-04:00Charlie White sues Carl BrizziAccording to <a href="http://www.theindianalawyer.com/brizzi-hit-with-another-legal-malpractice-suit/PARAMS/article/32009" target="_blank">this article</a> in The Indiana Lawyer just published, defrocked Secretary of State Charlie White has sued the attorney who defended him in his vote fraud trial, former Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi, alleging legal malpractice. <br />
<br />
It should be recalled that Brizzi rested the defense without presenting witnesses, a common defense tactic used to test the legal sufficiency of the State's case. The jury convicted White of 6 out of 7 felony charges, and he appealed. However, White later dropped the appeal, pursuing instead a "post conviction relief" action in Hamilton County alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and selective prosecution. That matter is scheduled to be heard August 15th.<br />
<br />
Brizzi has recently been the subject of another malpractice suit by a high-profile client who was a public officeholder (as stated in the article) plus he has been implicated in a bribery charge by his former deputy, David Wyser, who is under Federal charges and has reached an agreement to testify against Brizzi.<br />
<br />
It is not known at this time how Brizzi's problems will help White in his efforts to get his felony convictions overturned. One of the issues that keeps popping up in my mind is that White, also an attorney, would have had to agree to Brizzi's strategy of not putting on witnesses. But we will see how that plays out in Court.<br />
<br />
The never-ending saga of Charlie White. Stay tuned. Greg Purvishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14646251538152279506noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2231712280322900768.post-43686155145945596292013-06-27T11:33:00.000-04:002013-06-27T17:29:44.136-04:00Thoughts on marriage equalityI have had a day to try to digest yesterday's U.S. Supreme Court rulings on the subject of marriage equality, and I want to share a few thoughts. <br />
<br />
First, the Supreme Court most carefully did NOT fully-legalize same-sex marriage. What it DID do is state that all marriages recognized by the several states are created equal, for the purpose of Federal taxation and other benefits. To be sure, the majority opinion authored by Justice Kennedy (a moderate-to-conservative judge, if you believe in labels) did use "equal protection" language that might be referenced in future debates and litigation about same-sex marriage. <br />
<br />
The Court did inch slightly towards full legalization in the California Proposition 8 case, by letting the trial court decision that the Prop 8 ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional stand. But that is of zero legal weight, except if you live in California. <br />
<br />
There are a ton of thorny legal issues raised by the incremental nature of yesterday's rulings. If two lesbians get married in New York (which recognizes gay marriage) and move to Alabama (which does not) are they married under Alabama law? Under Federal law? Both? Neither? (I have to give credit, this was raised by Justice Scalia in his rant, pardon, "dissent" to the DOMA ruling.) And the equal protection part of Justice Kennedy's reasoning will lead to further legal challenges on that ground against states that ban same-sex marriage. <br />
<br />
If I had to predict, I would expect within the next decade, that marriage will be between any two consenting adults. As as a hetero male of advancing years who has lived his whole life in Indiana, that is how it should be. The State has no business telling anyone who they can love and commit to. Nor is it the right of our neighbors to take that right away, no matter what their personal beliefs. Greg Purvishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14646251538152279506noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2231712280322900768.post-9658054162138028662013-05-31T20:22:00.002-04:002013-05-31T20:22:43.457-04:00TIF Districts: Part I, What is a TIF district?There has been a lot of debate recently in many communities over something intended as an economic development tool, called "TIF Financing" or "TIF Districts". This is a debate that has raged in Carmel, Indianapolis, and more recently, Fishers. <br />
<br />
But what is this thing called "TIF"? That is an abbreviation for "Tax Increment Financing". Basically, the appropriate element of government in charge of economic development establishes a "TIF District", that is supposedly in need of either economic development, or re-development. It was originally intended for blighted areas, but the actual use has expanded far beyond urban blight.<br />
<br />
The way it works, is say ABC Developer wants to build a $50 million dollar project, but they want help from the local government as an incentive to build in an particular community, or area of the community. The local government can sell bonds to help the developer. These bonds are repaid by the taxes on the increased value of the TIF district, above what the base value was prior to the development. In fact, the taxes on the increased property value go ONLY for repayment of that debt, until it is retired. <br />
<br />
And that is one of the controversial issues with TIF Districts. In this case, economic development DOES NOT ADD TO THE TAX BASE, and doesn't go to other units of government that depend on the tax base, such as schools. And many of those bond issues are pretty long-term. So if TIFs are over-used, one of the negative side effects is to harm school financing. <br />
<br />
Complicated, isn't it? And the Town of Fishers has actually posted a pretty good short brochure about TIF financing, which you can get here: <a href="http://www.fishers.in.us/egov/docs/1326921651_105590.pdf">http://www.fishers.in.us/egov/docs/1326921651_105590.pdf</a><br />
<br />
As communities compete for economic development, TIFs are one of the tools they use. But they can be quite controversial. An IBJ article this week shows the strong arguments that have arisen in Carmel over use of economic development incentives in general, and TIFs in particular. <a href="http://www.ibj.com/carmel-panel-refuses-to-back-midtown-redevelopment-plan/PARAMS/article/41626">http://www.ibj.com/carmel-panel-refuses-to-back-midtown-redevelopment-plan/PARAMS/article/41626</a>. Similar arguments have waged for some time in Indianapolis, and are of more recent discussion in Fishers, which will be the subject of a future article in this series. <br />
<br />
So what is the proper role of government in using incentives for economic development, and TIF districts in particular? There are many differing views, and some of those will be explored in this series. I hope this provides food for thought in readers concerned about their community's development. <br />
<br />
<br />Greg Purvishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14646251538152279506noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2231712280322900768.post-9248724584838056372013-05-27T07:00:00.000-04:002013-05-27T07:00:00.558-04:00Susan Brooks challenged by Tea PartyRecently, Carmel businessman David Stockdale announced he would seek the Fifth District Congressional seat currently held by freshman Representative Susan Brooks (R-Carmel). Stockdale's candidacy is being openly promoted on the Indiana Tea Party's Facebook page. <br />
<br />
What is remarkable about this is that in reality, it is impossible to find a member of Congress further right than Susan Brooks. She has voted the GOP party line on 157 of 158 votes, 99.4% of the time. This is despite her constituents telling her during the election last year that they wanted her to work across party lines to solve problems in Washington. But the reality is, in her short time in Congress, she has not done what the voters who spoke to her expected. <br />
<br />
So WHY is the Tea Party challenging Brooks? They cannot possibly object to her voting record. Perhaps it is her relative silence in parroting Tea Party rhetoric. Or her willingness to actually have a dialogue with those with whom she disagrees. Brooks recently met with a women's group who advocates more and better gun background checks for example. But Brooks has an "A" rating from the NRA, which is violently opposed to such checks. Curious.<br />
<br />
A note, I also saw a sign for "Lugar for Congress", meaning Fishers realtor Jack Lugar, who ran in the last cycle as well. Is this a sign of another wide-open GOP primary in 2014? Time will tell. Greg Purvishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14646251538152279506noreply@blogger.com5