As 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, January 9, 2014
Friday, January 3, 2014
Do you want to help elect someone different in Fishers?
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.
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.
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.
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.
So, regardless of your own political affiliation, would you be willing to help? If so, send me a personal email back to Greg@GregPurvis,com, 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.
Thanks for your support! Happy New Year.
Greg Purvis
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.
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.
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.
So, regardless of your own political affiliation, would you be willing to help? If so, send me a personal email back to Greg@GregPurvis,com, 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.
Thanks for your support! Happy New Year.
Greg Purvis
Thursday, December 26, 2013
CHARLIE WHITE LOSES AGAIN
In 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.
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.
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.
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.
I will not rehash the entire decision, but here it is: White PCR ruling
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.
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.
=======================================================
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.
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.
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.
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.
I will not rehash the entire decision, but here it is: White PCR ruling
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.
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.
=======================================================
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.
Friday, November 22, 2013
John F. Kennedy - a Remembrance from 50 years ago today
50 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.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Strange Bedfellows and Stranger Taxes
It 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Monday, November 4, 2013
Fishers Considering a New Tax
The 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.
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.
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.
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?
Details, details, the devil is in the details. Stay tuned.
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.
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.
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?
Details, details, the devil is in the details. Stay tuned.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Corruption, Slander, or Rumor
A story in the Indianapolis Business Journal, (link here) 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.
A poster only identified as "Jen" posted the following:
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.
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, "Is Fishers for Sale?".
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) per se.
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.
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.
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.
A poster only identified as "Jen" posted the following:
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?!!
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.
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, "Is Fishers for Sale?".
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) per se.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)