IS IT TRUE? Part 2 August 8, 2011 McCurdy Mortgages??

26

McCurdy
IS IT TRUE? Part 2 August 8, 2011

IS IT TRUE that in a meeting of the Vanderburgh County Commissioners on April 9, 2001 that it was discussed and adopted that the land where the Executive Inn was forced by covenant to remain a 3-Star Hotel for 10 years?…that the covenant transferred with the land and carries a $30,000 per month in liquidation damages if the hotel is not maintained for those 10 years?…that the covenant seems to have expired recently?…that the current owner of this land is the City of Evansville?…that the time that the City of Evansville has owned the land and/or had consigned the land to a surrogate is close to 2 full years?…that according to this covenant that was adopted by a Vanderburgh County Commission made up of David Mosby, Catherine Fanello, and Richard Mourdock that the City of Evansville may just be on the hook to the county for over $720,000 in liquidation damages?…that attorney Mike Schopmeyer was very careful to use the term liquidation damages and to point out that penalties are illegal but the liquidation damages are not?…that unless this has been amended or nullified that it would be the source of some very interesting damages?

IS IT TRUE that the McCurdy can has been kicked quietly down the road and that the City of Evansville probably hopes that it stays quiet because they have a real bad deal on their hands if the full financing does not work out?…that a first mortgage was recorded on 11/19/2008 in the amount of $1,663,862 and that Fifth Third Bank is the holder of that mortgage?…that as of August 4, 2011 that this mortgage is still on the rolls of the Recorder?…that there is a second mortgage of an undisclosed amount on the McCurdy Hotel that is held by the City of Evansville?…that this second mortgage refers to a development agreement that was not attached to the second mortgage?…that City Centre Properties purchased the McCurdy for a total of $818,500 and that the date of record of the transfer was 11/21/2008?

IS IT TRUE that the City of Evansville through incentives of $800,000 and the purchase of a parking lot for $603.000 is now into the McCurdy Hotel for $1,403,000?…that was all cash paid out that came from taxpayers of Evansville?…that City Centre Properties has apparently gotten $800,000 from the City and taken out a loan in the amount of $1,663,862 from 5th 3rd Bank and received title to the McCurdy Hotel and the $603,000 parking lot all for the sum of $818,500?…that given the amount of cash that has been placed in the hands of City Centre Properties that it is confusing why the taxes are paid after penalties have been assessed and the general upkeep is only done after citations have been issued by DMD?

IS IT TRUE that the meltdown scenario at the McCurdy is one in which the financing to proceed with all of the refurbishment work is never secured and that City Centre Properties decides to hand the keys to the property over to the first mortgage holder 5th 3rd Bank?…that banks in general do not wish to own real estate?…that in such an event that 5th 3rd will most likely liquidate the McCurdy Hotel for whatever the market will bear?…that unless the market would bear an amount that has net proceeds in excess of $1,663,862 that the City of Evansville will lose all of their investment of $1,403,000 and will not have anything at all to show for it?…that this scenario is a driving factor in not wanting to rescind the agreement with CCP as was done with Woodruff Hospitality LLC when they were unable to find financing in a timely manner?

IS IT TRUE that if this is what some would call being good stewards of the taxpayers money that we really wonder what it means to be wasteful?…that there is a very real probability that if this whole deal falls apart that the City of Evansville will be out $1,403,000 and will not get the McCurdy Hotel back?

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

26 COMMENTS

  1. Sure hope this $1.4 million City/ERC debacle on the crumbling historic McCurdy building doesn’t distract Mr. Davis and Mr. Winnecke from focusing on the really important issue of bike trails.

    • Is it true that Trugrit and Della (under those screen names) will never show their faces here at CCO because of giving up their IP addresses? that you can bet that they are here everyday reading and foaming at the mouth wanting to post but can’t! That the Courier has and always will be a place for the city stooges to post their drivel trying to sway public opinion one post at a time…..and it doesn’t work!

      Here’s a interesting video for everyone to enjoy!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRb9ARafj64&NR=1

      JMHO

      • You are like some of the other gas-bags on here who rant and rail at conspiracy theories. Typical TeaBagger nonsense. The C&P tracks IP addresses just like CCO does. It would be a total lack of journalism ethics to print real name picked out from IP addresses, even if you can prove the IP address can be tracked per user to an identifiable name (which is not all that easy). In fact, it would be a total lack of ethics for any newspaper to do so unless under subpoena to produce that info. Considering the amount of blathering and hysterical posturing on this site I would gleefully watch all of you if they released your name and email address to the public. It is easy to cast stones while sitting behind a fake name. Of course, as far as the CCO goes, it is just a glorified Evansville-Republican version of FauxNews.

        • So it would seem I’m wrong…trugrit is here! didn’t mean to touch on a raw nerve, all sites log IP addresses it’s part of NAT so you can send and receive data packets between the client and server reliably….BTW tracking an IP to a specific computer is not as difficult as you might have been led to believe, you might want to read up on NAT, DHCP and subnets.

          • blanger

            Help me out and point to where I said you cannot track an IP address to a specific user? I said it was “not all that easy”, but not impossible. What is difficult for anyone OUTSIDE law enforcement is tracking the IP address to a specific person. It is very easy to track the IP to a city and state, but privacy laws do not allow you to look up the IP address of people without just cause.

            Case law provides that if a subpoena is issued for an allegation of misconduct (for example, for libel or slander, which happens all the time on this blog-rag), then the website can provide the IP address of a visitor to the website. However, it would fall upon the ISP to then provide the information assigned to a specific IP, and I double-dog-dare you to show me an ISP who will give-up that information without a legal fight.

            Yes, you can “track” an IP to a specific computer either thru a domain name or a variety of systems, but legally obtaining that IP address to an individual person is not something that citizens and even businesses (like the CCO) can get without going thru legal channels.

            For every way that you may be able to find an IP address, I know of several others that people can use to hide their identity and IP address if they want to. It is VERY easy to be anonymous and keep your into hidden on the Internet if you want to.

            • Evansville Truth speaks the truth on this issue. We have only turned over two IP addresses ever and that was for expressions of violence toward specific individuals. In each case the IP addresses were given to law enforcement with the comments and it was up to them to decide what to do.

          • Thank you to the CCO for doing the right thing and turning over the IP address of people who made threats online! The anonymity of the Internet does NOT allow you to proverbially “yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater”, and it is good to know that the CCO is being responsible in turning this type of misconduct over the local law enforcement. I also know that Courier&Press has done the same thing when threats were posted online against an elected official.

            What really makes my blood boil is the number of people who come online and make all sorts of wild and unfounded ALLEGATIONS of misconduct against elected officials. Has society come to such a low point that hiding behind a keyboard is the excuse for acting like a pre-schooler, and that calling people names and accusing them of malfeasance and misconduct has no repercussions? That is what is so appalling and outrageous. I know elected officials from both parties on the local, state, and federal level. Some of them are what I would consider a colleague or associate, but some of them (again, from BOTH parties) are people who I think of as friends. So I will not ask forgiveness or mercy when I defend them from online idiots who hide and cast aspersions on their character and on how they carry out their elected duties. I would pretty much guarantee that 99% of the people on websites that gripe and complain about politics have NEVER taken the time to call or meet with their elected officials to discuss their concerns. And do not give me the hogwash that “well, they would not meet with me anyway” if they have not taken the time to even TRY to meet and express their ideas and concerns. Political ideas will only see change when people get involved, and name-calling does not count as “being involved”.

            People who comment online also better wise up to the legal issues that the judicial system will not allow you to libel or slander someone online and often hide behind an anonymous name. In fact, Indiana has one of the most recent court decision on this. Per the Harvard Civil Liberties Law Review from March of 2011: “In a ruling issued last week, a superior court judge in Indianapolis ordered several news outlets to disclose the identifying information of people who posted anonymous comments to their online message boards. The ruling, which came as a result of a defamation suit filed by a local charity organization head against several online who had criticized his job performance, is one of several around the country to address the issue of “cyber-bullying” and whether a right to anonymity exists for online commentary. The Indianapolis Star, one of the defendants in the suit, reported that the information subpoenaed would include the IP addresses or internet provider information of selected commenters named in the defamation suit…..While the anonymity afforded by the internet can provide ample hiding room for “cyber-bullying” and personal attacks, it is equally true that internet freedom of expression can provide an outlet for commentary on public issues across a wider forum than would previously have been possible.”

            There is a large difference in the protections of the First Amendment and the Internet and the ability of users to create slanderous or libelous or gratuitous or defamatory comments on a website forum. While the CCO clearly provides a forum for discussion of public issues, there is a thin line between online discussion of a “public official” and the allowing or justification that some feel is their “right” to trash someone online. The legal system is clearly wrestling with the ideas of “anonymous” posting and accountability.

            The protective issue of anonymity brings out the worst in some people. I see things online that I know they would never say in the presence of another person, and surely not to the face of the elected official they are commenting about. As I saw on another forum discussing this “It amazes me how easy it is to sit behind a computer and launch a heap of self-righteous cynicism at something”. To be perfectly blunt, some of the people on website forums (and I include the CCO in a big way) are the quintessential definition of what a “troll” is, and it is outrageous that local forums and websites (once again, I am talking to the CCO staff) allow people such unfettered ability to insult and cast aspersions on the character of “public officials” based on nothing more than innuendo or the fact that the “elected official” is from a different political party. And the TeaBagger crowd is VERY large in this game. The amount of juvenile trolling and hate-mongering is appalling, and the CCO should do a better job of helping with this. Websites have finally started to recognize that having the Wild-Wild-West online does not provide an environment to encourage solutions to problems we face at the local, state, and national level.

            I appreciate the editors coming on here and providing us with information that they have turned over IP addresses for violent threats posted, but I would also like to take this opportunity to call upon the CCO to do a better job of enhancing the civility of online discussions. I will be blunt and say that I think the CCO does better job a better job of being “snarky” than reporting. I think the CCO is (IMHO) guilty of leaning WAY to the right on issues. IMHO the political cartoons are one step short of being juvenile and childish. Hopefully nobody is waiting on a Pulitzer for some of “trash” I see online. Yep, that is my opinion and I have the freedom to express it, but as an online paper the CCO should at least try and do a better job of appearing impartial and using journalistic integrity. There was a very well-written article in the LA Time earlier this year about “the way online commenting has evolved (or utterly devolved, depending on how you look at it) over time”, and writer wondered “If people posting comments on websites had to use their true identity, they might be more civil”. I have debated this issue with myself and others, and I am still “on the fence” on how to handle this one. I’ll close with comments from the LA Times article (which can be found at http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/26/entertainment/la-et-onthemedia-20110226”

            “It seems long past time for reputable news sites to clamp down on the gutter talk. Otherwise the open-door policy….drives down the quality of the conversation and alienates the kind of thoughtful guests that make the party worth coming to in the first place….Why not even require online guests to post comments under their real names — as newspapers have required letter writers to do for decades?…For decades, the printed letters page of the L.A. Times has operated under a similar standard. Your words don’t get in the paper until the letters editor has done his best to verify your identity. And you have to agree that your real name will be printed at the bottom of your words….Many Web habitués treasure their anonymity and there’s a well-worn argument that whistleblowers deserve cover to tell their truths…..I don’t buy that. Sources can still pick up a phone and find a platoon of reporters ready and willing to pursue their exposé. In the vast majority of the cases, the online party is going to be much more civil, and productive, if everybody has to sign their name in the guest book.”

            I encourage a reply from the CCO on this.

            • We agree that many online comments on this an even more so on the CP cross the line of courteous conduct. There have been plenty of instances where we have gone in and manually removed profanity or mean statements. It seems to come in stages.

              On to what we do. We admittedly publish news and information that other news houses either don’t have access to or don’t have the nerve to publish. Some examples of things that were published here first over the years are the Homestead Tax Credit meeting, the Barnett salary arrangement, the McCurdy problems, the valuation analysis for both the proposed ballfields and the downtown hotel, the structural problems with the Executive Inn, the state of our parks, and the list goes on and on.

              These are all subjects that the CCO has been correct on from day one, has reported first, and has presented in depth analysis about. These are all subjects that we were attacked about and stuck to our guns and were proven correct. We also believe that the other media outlets would have either botched the stories or never had the nerve to publish them for fear of political reprisal. There have even been instances where reporters from other outlets have given us the hard data because their stories were squashed by their programming editors.

              Our goal in all of this is to see Evansville migrate toward “good public policy”. No one in their right mind would argue that the things that have been exposed by the CCO constitute good public policy. We are even beginning to see some positive differences that would not have happened without a forum that publishes facts and posts official documents without fear of reprisal. The subjects that we tackle and that people respond to get peoples dander up. There is some venting and to the extent that it is just venting and not threatening or personal we choose to err on the side of free speech. We do not always agree with what our posters put up and are sure that other media outlets don’t either.

              What we see as most important is to put the truths out there and let the discussions begin. For instance we harped like crazy on the ERC over not having any vetting process in place for investing public dollars. We got lots of nasty emails over our diligence in staying on their butts to do this right through a competent outside 3rd party. Now this is being done for the first time in the history of the City of Evansville. We are proud and pleased to have stuck to our principles and forcing this issue. This is good public policy. No other media outlet of any kind in Evansville even knew the word vetting. This is the kind of change that we strive for.

              Thank you for reading our content. We always welcome people who are willing to think and mix it up in the name of good public policy. On us leaning to the right I would say that there is more than one person in the CCO and that we do not always agree. I as editor am very left on social issues but more right on fiscal issues. Our publication is not officially biased in any way. We do however have our opinions and find that people from the far right give us heck for being liberal but that liberals accuse us of being on the right. What we are and what I am seems to be the very missing element in governments on all levels. That would be a freedom loving, practical minded, supporter of both personal liberties and responsibilities.

        • Is it True: Evans-vile Truth = Evansville Scumbag? Damned Straight!

          • You Know It Is True

            Dr John-Not the Night Tripper = Head In John – Brain Flushed Nightly.

            What’s the matter, Dr. Flushed-Your-Brain-Down-The-John, have a hard time with the truth? Like most of the Rethuglicans on here you are overly sensitive at any talk about your pablum formula. Maybe if you can get your head of out your “john” you might see the rest of the world thinks your comedy is not only unfunny, it is pretty pathetic.

            When they have a contest for must stupid screen names, you are a hands-down favorite. NOT!

  4. In addition to the apparent loss of $1.4 million on the McCurdy, how much did the City/EVCB spend on the failed ball field proposal at Roberts Stadium? Another million? Combine all that with the Executive Inn/ERC fiasco and it is reasonable to suspect that $3 million+ has been squandered on failed and mismanaged City projects. Will either Mr. Davis or Mr. Winnecke pledge to provide an accurate accounting to the taxpayers if elected?

    • You can add the losses on 14 Front Door Pride houses of about $1.4 Million and a loss of another $300k or so on the Idea Home that was purchased by a member of the Evansville Redevelopment Commission.

    • Is it true that it’s a good thing for County Treasurer Rick Davis that elected officials don’t punch a time clock, and are not legally required to physically occupy their offices, because he spends more time away from the Civic Center campaigning than in the Civic Center working? Is it true by comparison that Lloyd Winnecke has done the more ethical thing by taking leave from his job to conduct his campaign?

  5. Okay so we have losses as follows that are pretty easy to count:

    McCurdy: $1.4 M
    Ballfields: $1.0 M
    FDP & Idea: $1.7 M
    Exec. Inn: $3.0 M plus incentive package

    There is $7.1 Million just from an ad hoc discussion here. I bet that one could easily come up with enough botched projects to get to $10 Million.

    Just wait until the Arena over runs and the collateral damage gets added up. Expect $20 Million or more on that.

    Cost of vetting???????

    • Let’s not forget the GAGE fiasco killing The Thunder on the Ohio. Did we ever see how much they lost?

    • And of course eventually we will have our portion of the new hotel project to cough up….expect that to be $10-20m either directly given. or a loan (forgiven) and then the tax abatement that is sure to be offered in the incentive package.

      • Truth is, there’s not much wrong with tax abatement or incremental taxes on a piece of municipally owned property that if no development were to take place, wouldn’t generate a red cent in taxes anyway.

    • Do Mr. Davis and Mr. Winnecke have internet access so they can read the CCO articles and comments?? At some point they may have something to say to the voters about the colossal City debacles one of them will inherit.

  6. Mr. Wallace

    Thank you for your reply. I appreciate your candor and willingness to discuss the issue. Let me respond in kind and with excerpts to advance our discussion.

    “We admittedly publish news and information that other news houses either don’t have access to or don’t have the nerve to publish”. News is all about “sources”, and I would agree that in some regards you have built a reputation to advancing articles on issues that have not been previously reported. The value of that and that “no one in their right mind would argue that the things that have been exposed by the CCO constitute good public policy” is not something I would argue against. The list you have mirrors items I would have also railed against. Where we seem to “agree to disagree” is in regards to motive. I do not necessarily question the motives of the CCO as a whole, but the tenor of some of your Editorials and news articles in general seem to take the approach of “Gotcha!” when errors or wrong-doing are alleged.

    While reading your response and thinking it over, I ran across an interesting website called “The Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists”, which can be found at http://www.ethicsadvicelineforjournalists.org. “The Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists is a free service limited to professional journalists in need of guidance on reaching ethical decisions while covering the news”. It has some interesting content, and I would offer that it some content that you should consider.

    One of the things I notice about the CCO is that there is no “Code of Conduct” or “Terms of Service” that I could find for comments posted online. On all major news agencies that I visit and/or post to there is some sort of agreement on posting comments online, sort of a “guidebook” on what is allowed and what is not. Why does the CCO not have that sort of policy or guidance? I realize that you have “required” fields of Name and E-Mail, but we should both agree that these requirements are somewhat of a “sham” on the integrity of whoever is posting. I could just as easily put “Mickey Mouse” and “TheMouse@disney.com” as I do the pseudonym I am posting under. What steps do you have for providing accountability in what people post online? Veracity of what is posted is based on the belief of who is posting, but I question how you sort out who posts and what policies you have in effect for people. If there is a place where you outline your policy for people who post then please point it out to me. But from what I can see it still appears that the CCO remains the “Wild West” online, where everything and anything is allowed.

    On the website I refer to above I found several interesting tidbits.

    Seek Truth and Report It. Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

    Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
    Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
    Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
    Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story
    Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
    Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.
    Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
    Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.

    Minimize Harm. Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.

    Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
    Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.

    Be Accountable. Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.

    Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
    Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.
    Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
    Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
    Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.

    Out of all those fantastic sources, I am going to dwell on just a couple. “Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context”. The CCO has repeatedly been very vocal on what I feel are “allegations” of misconduct. You frequently post articles under your statements that “The subjects that we tackle and that people respond to get peoples dander up” and “These are all subjects that we were attacked about and stuck to our guns and were proven correct” where the content of your article forces the reader to consider if laws have been broken or that governmental ethics have been violated. Can you honestly tell us that the tone of your articles have ascribed to the conduct of “Seek Truth and Report It. Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information” The public as a whole frequently “mistrusts” all forms of government, but do you really want to have the discussion that the ALLEGATION of misconduct does not prove said misconduct. “Good public policy” is why we have elections in America. “Good public policy” means that articles state the facts and let the reader make the decision of whether the governmental action was proper and “Good public policy”. I think everyone will agree we are discussing the the old adage of “the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law”. I think the definition from Wikipedia that states “Gaming the system, also called “rules lawyering”, is the following of the letter over, or contrary to, the spirit of the law. It is used negatively to describe the act of manipulating the rules to achieve a personal advantage. It may also mean acting in an antisocial, irritating manner while technically staying within the bounds of the rules”. I can provide plenty of articles where the CCO has made “allegations” of misconduct and (IMHO) episodes where the CCO describes actions that would actually be illegal. But can you describe a single episode of misconduct that has been prosecuted?

    Pardon me for being blunt, but your statement that “No other media outlet of any kind in Evansville even knew the word vetting” and “We also believe that the other media outlets would have either botched the stories or never had the nerve to publish them for fear of political reprisal” comes across as a bit smug. I know people at every news outlet in town, and your statements allege a lack of journalistic integrity on their part. Do you really believe you are that much better than they are? You state “There have even been instances where reporters from other outlets have given us the hard data because their stories were squashed by their programming editors”. Since I know all three news editors for the major outlets in town (C&P,Channel 7,Channel 14, and Channel 25) I would say that this is another (IMHO) incident of being “smug” versus being “correct”.

    Your list of things you have reported is impressive, and I applaud some of the items that have seen the light of public scrutiny, but your “editorial” aspects of the articles would appear to show a certain bias (IMHO). There is a difference between a “mistake” of a public official and an “intent” to mislead or violate the law. I can think of numerous times where you have “editorialized” more than “reported” on something in the news. I always thought the news media was around to report on issues of “public policy” and that it was up to the reader to make the decision on whether it was “good”. I do not mean to be overly critical, but the “Mole” idea was cute at first, but is becoming tiresome to many (Yes, I have discussions frequently about the CCO). Are you “reporting” the news and exercising “investigative integrity”, or are you “overtly editorializing” in an attempt to sway readers?

    “There is some venting and to the extent that it is just venting and not threatening or personal we choose to err on the side of free speech” is way to broad of a brush, and I think you should re-think that stance. “We do not always agree with what our posters put up and are sure that other media outlets don’t either” is very different from the viewpoint that the CCO is appearing to try and influence “Good public policy” by “explosive journalism”. Better yet, this type of reporting is called “gotcha journalism”, which is describe as “Gotcha journalism has a new name: Gotcha this time. No, gotcha this time. No, really gotcha this time. If a new story reinforces an old story that the public didn’t care about before, it lands on page one”. Need I say more.

    On the last topic you state “as editor am very left on social issues but more right on fiscal issues” and that “our publication is not officially biased in any way”. Wow, you use the “officially” routine? I do not mean to be flippant or overly critical, but please send me a link to a single political cartoon you have published locally that was hostile to local Republicans. “We do however have our opinions and find that people from the far right give us heck for being liberal but that liberals accuse us of being on the right”. Well, in that aspect we are in the same boat. I admit to being a Democrat (all my life), but my policy support and decision have NOTHING to do with my political party. You want is to be “freedom loving, practical minded, supporter of both personal liberties and responsibilities”, and I must again ask how a journalist can use their position in the news to advocate for those and still have “journalistic integrity”? I was always under the impression that you either “report the news” or “you are the news”. I never thought you could have it both ways.

    All kidding aside, you should consider two things on your website. First is a public policy on the guidelines for posting to the CCO. There are thousands of articles online about this topic for news agencies, and I would consider it an honor and a privilege to have the opportunity to work on this issue with you. The other would be the suggestion of having a “Suggest Removal” next to posts. I have had this argument with numerous people in the local media, and ESPECIALLY with C&P. The C&P method of “Suggest Removal” is antiquated, out-dated, and not effective. Their method does not allow the user to tell WHY they are “Suggest(ing) Removal” of a post. Just because a post pisses you off does not mean it should be removed. There needs to be a valid reason for removal of a post, and users should have the ability to tell you WHY they “Suggest Removal”.

    One example (one of many I have) for posting on the website would be as follows:

    **************************************************************
    By entering any opinion, posting or other user generated content you are agreeing to be bound by these conditions and terms. Please read carefully!

    Any individual posting a message, music file, recording of any kind, photo, video or opinion in a public guest book, forum, opinion posting area or any other area is the sole author of and is exclusively and entirely responsible for the opinions and statements in the posted message. We and our affiliates disclaim all responsibility for the content of such messages, postings, community generated content and are acting merely as an impartial conduit for constitutionally protected free speech and as a provider of an interactive computer service.

    While the administrators and moderators of this user generated content or postings will attempt to remove any generally objectionable material as quickly as possible, it is impossible to review every message. Therefore you acknowledge that all posts made to these forums, opinions posted and user generated content express the views and opinions of the author and not the administrators, moderators, us or our affiliates and parent company or companies or webmaster and hence will not be held liable.

    You agree not to post, email, or otherwise make available Content:

    that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, pornographic, libelous, or invasive of another’s privacy, or harms minors in any way;
    that harasses, degrades, intimidates or is hateful toward an individual or group of individuals on the basis of religion, gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, age, or disability;
    that purports to be from any person or entity, including but not limited to a Provider employee, or falsely states or otherwise misrepresents your affiliation with a person or entity;
    that includes personal or identifying information about another person without that person’s explicit consent.
    that is false, deceptive, misleading, deceitful, mis-informative, or constitutes “bait and switch”;
    that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights of any party, or Content that you do not have a right to make available under any law or under contractual or fiduciary relationships.
    that advertises any illegal services or the sale of any items the sale of which is prohibited or restricted by applicable law, including without limitation items the sale of which is prohibited or regulated by law
    that contains software viruses or any other computer code, files or programs designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of any computer software or hardware or telecommunications equipment;
    that disrupts the normal flow of dialogue with an excessive number of messages (flooding attack) to the Service, or that otherwise negatively affects other users’ ability to use the Service; or
    that employs misleading email addresses, or forged headers or otherwise manipulated identifiers in order to disguise the origin of Content transmitted through the Service.

    Additionally, you agree not to:

    contact anyone who has asked not to be contacted;
    “stalk” or otherwise harass anyone;
    collect personal data about other users for commercial or unlawful purposes; use automated means, including scripts, spiders, robots, crawlers, data mining tools, or the like to download data from or upload data to the Service;
    post irrelevant Content, repeatedly post the same or similar Content or otherwise impose an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on our infrastructure;
    attempt to gain unauthorized access to Provider’s computer systems or any other user’s computer systems, or engage in any activity that disrupts, diminishes the quality of, interferes with the performance of, or impairs the functionality of, the Service

    Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned (and your service provider being informed). You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators of this forum have the right to remove, move or close any topic at any time should they see fit. As a user you agree to any information you have entered above being stored in a database. While this information will not be disclosed to any third party without your consent the webmaster, administrator and moderators cannot be held responsible for any hacking attempt that may lead to the data being compromised.
    **************************************************************

    Thanks for the lively discussion. Heck, you and I could do a “Point/CounterPoint” series of articles that would have make the head spin on Aldous Huxley.

    • I like the Point/Counterpoint idea. With respect to our “gotcha” style, of course it sounds that way and in some cases it is that way. At least that is more entertaining to read than really getting into the face of some of the things that we have uncovered. We hold back quite allot and intentionally try to add some comedic words in exposing some of the things that we catch local government in. For example, the 2 foot tall grass at the McCurdy was clearly a code violation and negligence on the part of the owner. The City of Evansville did nothing about it until we put up pictures of snakes, rats, bats etc. and christened the giant weed as the Mayor’s beanstalk. This was going on at a time that homeowners and landlords were getting citations by the dozen for the same thing. We did the research and learned that the owner was behind on taxes, made donations to the Mayor’s campaign and was not being cited for violations. We take the comedy/gotcha approach to soften the response. We do not want to incite a London style meltdown and choose to do that by tackling doubled standards with comedy. It is just a matter of style. We could go for the jugular and it would stick.

      On smugness, I understand your point but I am certain that vetting was not a term or a process familiar to the journalistic community in Evansville and was probably not a part of the jargon used within the political appointees of the ERC either. We pushed it, other media outlets got on the bandwagon two weeks later and now it is corrected. It worked. I hope it is a lesson learned and a process put into place for future public spending. I assure you that I am correct that some articles have been oppressed or softened to the point of ineffectiveness by other media outlets. Nothing would please us more than for the other outlets in town to get on board in pushing for good public policy instead of just letting things slide. Evansville would be a better place today and many of the problems that are recurring would be in some stage of solution if the local media would have done something more than taking the path of least resistance.

      On mistakes by public officials, I assure you that the Homestead Tax Credit fiasco and the way that Tom Barnett was paid were deliberate attempts to mislead. Getting blindsided into thinking that an outside investor would spend $40M on a hotel that will value at closer to $20M was probably just being uninformed. Senior government officials and their appointees should take the time to inform themselves. We did. The ballfields? I could not even find any ballfields that anyone spent $2 Million each on. I sort of liked the idea but the price just did not pass the sanity test. Shouldn’t people in these kinds of positions be capable of doing their own sanity tests? If the ballfields would have been $600k each like most places we would have probably supported them.

      I am not the cartoonist nor have ever met the cartoonist. I think that Democrats are getting more flack simply because of the fact that 10 of 11 elected offices in the City are held by Democrats. If the council were 8 to 1 in favor of the Republicans and the results in the streets were the same then we would be giving them grief. Like I said, we are for good public policy.

      Your idea of having a long disclaimer is good advice. I remember the long thing on the CP. It doesn’t keep the posters there from getting out of hand with nastiness but it does give the CP staff objective criteria for removing posts. We are changing allot of things quickly so don’t be surprised if this shows up some day.

      • Again, thanks for the well-written response. I look forward to the disclaimer work and how you approach the commenting areas. If you want input I am more than happy to supply it. And that “Point/Counterpoint” will get more hits than my good buddy Les

  7. Mr. Wallace

    One more thing (sorry). I was reading on our subject of discussion when I came across this page for The Roanoke Times at http://www.roanoke.com/newsservices/wb/xp-59614. I think you will find that page very interesting, but I draw your attention most to one section

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

    Sources

    We rely on sources for information, but we deliver our credibility into their hands if we fail to check the facts and statements they supply, or if we aren’t certain that we understand their agendas. Good reporters don’t accept anything they’re told at face value. When you’re dealing with sources, be skeptical of what you’re told. Do your best to confirm through other sources or records the truthfulness of what you’re told. Remember: our responsibility is to our readers, not our sources.

    The Roanoke Times strives to provide its readers with believable and useful information. Readers cannot know whether to believe or disbelieve information attributed to anonymous sources. They cannot use the information because, without knowing the source, they have no means of assessing its value.

    To the fullest extent possible, this newspaper will provide readers full information on the sources of news it prints. Sources are to be identified by name, position and other information relevant to the story.

    Our business demands that we get as much information as possible on the record and with full attribution. We should make every effort to get sources on the record. Too often, we allow 16 sources to go off the record or tell us something that’s not for attribution. Keep interviews on the record as much as possible. Avoid blanket promises of anonymity, particularly at the start of an interview. If a source asks to go off the record, ask what he or she means by that to make sure you share a common definition of the term. Push to find out why the source wants to speak off the record; often a source means they want to talk “not for attribution,” which allows us to publish the information.

    If a source wants to go off the record, keep that part of the interview as limited as you can. Go back on the record as soon as you can. After you get a piece of information that’s either off the record or not for attribution, reason with the source and try to persuade him or her to reconsider whether it really needs to be off the record. Often, you can chip away at the off-the-record comments and get much of it on the record.

    On occasion, authoritative reporting requires the use of unnamed sources. Authorization is to be given only when the following conditions have been met:

    The supervising editor determines that there is a need for the public to know the information provided by the source and no on-the-record means of obtaining it exists.
    The supervising editor knows the identity of the unnamed source.
    The reader is told as much as possible about the unnamed source and about the reason for anonymity. In doing this, though, we should always balance our obligation to protect the confidentiality of our sources.
    Extensive efforts have been made to corroborate the accuracy of the information provided by the unnamed source.
    The supervising editor informs the managing editor or editor. The final decision whether to print the material rests with them.

    Permitting an unnamed source to demean, attack or vilify a named person or institution is forbidden unless the managing editor or editor, for considered and compelling reasons, expressly approves. And if an anonymous source ever lies to us, our readers will be told as soon as possible.

    We will not mislead readers by mischaracterizing an anonymous source. We will not write that “Jane Jones refused to comment” if, in fact, it means that Jane Jones did comment but refused to be identified.

    These policies apply to wire stories, though their application is difficult. Generally, we should avoid use of national and international stories based on unnamed sources, unless the article shows that several sources were used and gives some indication of the sources’ expertise, or offers other corroboration for the information reported. Anonymous, scurrilous quotes should be removed from wire stories just as they would be from a staff-written story. It may not hurt a public official or movie star to be the subject of an anonymous attack in a wire story in The Roanoke Times, but it can hurt us by diminishing our readers’ trust.

    Here are some other policies about sources:

    If a source asks to go “off the record,” to talk “on background,” or to speak “not for attribution,” be sure that you and the source agree on what those phrases specifically mean.
    Occasionally a source will try to make parts of an interview “off the record” after the interview has taken place. We should not allow sources who deal with the media on a regular basis to get away with this. If you’re interviewing ordinary citizens who are not used to being interviewed, be upfront and clear that the interview is on the record and for publication.
    Talk to your editor in any situation where total and lasting confidentiality is involved. In such situations, the reporter and editor must share the burden of trust that such a promise carries. On potentially sensitive stories, a reporter must talk with an editor before promising anonymity; legal repercussions and other problems may not be clearly seen at the fact-gathering stage.
    Do not use such words as “key officials,” “well-placed” or “informed” sources. Provide the fullest possible identification, such as “an official in the city manager’s office.”
    Anonymous quotes in event and feature coverage – ” ‘I think it’s great,’ said a festival-goer who asked not to be identified.” – are prohibited. If you interview someone about an event, make sure the person agrees to be identified before you interview him or her. If not, seek someone else.
    No material purporting to be factual should be reported from an online site unless the reporter is confident of and/or verifies its source. For instance, the official Pulitzer Prize Web site can be regarded as a reliable source for the names of past winners. But “inside” information or personal details about third parties posted on Web sites should be regarded as no more than gossip: We check it out independently. Internet-derived information should be attributed, just as we would information from any book, magazine or other publication.

    Nothing in this policy is intended to block the occasional need to shield identity for reasons of privacy, compassion or good taste. (Examples include victims of sexual crimes and people whose jobs or personal safety would be endangered by identification.) Even in these cases, a supervising editor must inform the managing editor or editor. The final decision whether to print the material rests with them.

Comments are closed.