IS IT TRUE: December 4, 2012

1. It doesn’t surprise me that the mayor is trying to bypass the city council on these faux parks, but my main question is this: Why has John Friend waited until now to mount a challenge against Winnecke on these two projects? Too little too late John.

   • Because he was in Weinzapfel’s pocket back when these parks were hatched. Friend was not so assertive when the Democrat soon to be governor Sugar Daddy was in charge. He got rolled like everyone else in those days.

2. Excellent idea on the 420 main property. Which means it will be ignored.
   “IS IT TRUE that the probability that the present Chairman of the Vanderburgh County Democrat Party being re-elected as party Chairmen is extremely strong? …it is because he recently re-appointed and filled vacancies of ward and precinct workers friendly to his re-election bid?”
   Same as it always was.

   • Why develop a park into a hotel when you have an empty lot and a half that already had a hotel on it next to the arena? The land isn’t the problem, it’s the financing.

     • Lets pose a scenario where the ONB tower could be converted to an equivalent hotel for $20 Million as opposed to building from scratch for nearly $50 Million. If that were the case the valuation part of the financing problem would go away for a well qualified developer. I haven’t done the math but this is a possible scenario. I would also eliminate the need for a taxpayer subsidy.

       • My bad. I was thinking they were wanting to build from scratch on the park lot next to the building.

         Yes, turning the old Old National Bank building into a hotel would be a game changer for connecting downtown and is definitely worth looking into.

         • You all need to realize just how OLD that tower is. I’ve heard it is loaded with asbestos. If they found the old Exec to be too far gone this one surely is also as it is even older. Don’t get me wrong. I wish it would/could/should work. But that would make too much sense for this town.

3. There is little or no chance that Ruth’s Chris would locate a restaurant in Evansville. Why? We’re a bunch of cheapskates, and that is not her style.

   • Not a chance! There is a chance that the powers that be are floating a balloon to see if there is any interest in placing a steakhouse in downtown by the restaurant locals.

   • Exactly; when a new hamburger joint opens, the C&P promotes it as a new restaurant. People of Evansville don’t have sense enough to understand what a dining establishment is. Remember when people used to dress up to go out for dinner? Haub’s used to be a “dress-up” place, but now jeans are standard dress up. Joe Larvo’s, Andy’s Steak and Barrel, Pete’s Supper Club, and others. Too bad. The alternative is to go to St Louis, Nashville, Louisville.

4. Is it true that the chair of the dems let his sexretary run the labor temple out of buisness? Is it true that this was one of the last 2 true labor temples in the country? Is it true that this man set on boards and was at the beckon call of the most worthless mayor this city has ever known? Well, the last is it true depends on what Weinecke does from here on. Is it true that the dems are still at odds under this chairmans leadership? Is it true that McNeely is considered a Republicat along with the turncoats that flopped in the last Mayoral elections to put Pub Mayor Weinecke in office. Is it true that they turned on their own parties candidate to protect politicians that would have been revealed as crooks, should Rick Davis be elected?

5. Jim Tucker IS running for Vand Co. Sheriff in 2014. Jim was a VOTE NO supporter, and long time West Sider. It’s time to elect some new leadership to this office, not the same people in different positions, and for sure, not the same politics as usual! See more http://www.facebook.com/tucker4sheriff

   Will Singleton

   • So…is he running as a D or a R?

     • Democrat!

       • I guess this means that Williams has already conceded the 2014 race?!? Surely Tucker is not running in a primary against his superior…Williams?!?

         • Williams is set by term limits, he can not run in 2014. He can back his Chief Deputy, Dave Wedding, and then have Wedding appoint him, Williams, Chief Deputy, as mentioned in the story above. Politics as usual….

   • Is he running as a D , R ,or independant, and does he have central committee backing?

6. IF the present Dem Central comm. is left in charge I along with many loyal D’s will finish the job of sweeping out all the old school. That will be our first chore, then on to the Rep. central comm. for a similar flushing. There is a definate need for a third party [actually a second, since there is only one now] in So. In.

   • The current Demo CC in charge right now is the old school. Duh!!

7. Same old cronies,crooks and conmen will continue to ruin this city and county until the voters stand up for positive change!!!!!! New boss same as the old boss is killing us!!!!!!!!

8. Pathetic. I pay more property taxes on my house than these people pay on their building.

   http://in-vanderburgh-treasurer.governmax.com/svc/default.asp?sid=97CCCF26FBD142A7A95B18C5167F8114

   I can tell you one thing, if it has to come down it will make no difference that it is in private hands, you can bet the taxpayers will get stuck with that bill.

   ___

   • http://www.vanderburghassessor.org/GeneralSearch.aspx

     Type 420 Main St into the search box and then click on the taxes tab.

     ___

     • http://www.vanderburghassessor.org/Default.aspx?PID=82-06-30-020-027.014-029

       ___

       • You have to look at the adjacent parcels. 420 is listed as vacant comm. property. 424 432 Main St contains the building and is accessed at $750k with $22k taxes.

         • Thank you for clarifying. Once again the pictures don’t do a justice. I have the same problem with Warrick’s Assessor’s website.

         • I do not know what may have changed, but when ONB was in that building they listed their address as 420 Main St.

           Even today, a search of Old National Bank 420 Main Street still produces a lot of hits.

           ___

         • The park property to the left of the building as you face it was owned by the Kempf family and another party and was donated to the city with the understanding that it will remain green-space.

           So the current owners would not be paying taxes on that property.

           __

     • STORY OF THE CENTURY. That is pathetic! Worth of ONB building at 420 Main is $89,000??? $2417.82 tax bill??? We pay 7X that amount on our business!

     • http://in-vanderburgh-treasurer.governmax.com/svc/default.asp?sid=8FAD8BAAE6184729BAE790A85479906A

   • The city/county residents should only be responsible for $89,000 worth of subsidies is the need arises. I don’t agree with subsidies in a free market, but if reckless government continues to subsidize, it should only be at “assessed value.”

9. Evansville is rated a “Second Class City” under statute due to it’s population between 35,000 and 600,000. Therefore, the laws governing its operations, including the role of the City Council and the powers of the Mayor are covered here: http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title36/ar4/ch1.html

   And here: http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title36/ar4/ch6.html

   See:

   IC 36-4-6-18
   Purposes of ordinance, order, resolution, or motion
   Sec. 18. The legislative body may pass ordinances, orders, resolutions, and motions for the government of the city, THE CONTROL OF THE CITY;S PROPERTY AND FINANCES, and the appropriation of money.

   See where it says “control of the city’s property and finances”. You can read also the laws concerning the powers of an executive in a second class city. I see no statute that allows an executive to bypass the legislative body for any purpose, including making changes to city property.

10. Evansville is rated a “Second Class City” under statute due to it’s population between 35,000 and 600,000. Therefore, the laws governing its operations, including the role of the City Council and the powers of the Mayor are covered here:
    http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title36/ar4/ch6.html

    See:
    IC 36-4-6-18
    Purposes of ordinance, order, resolution, or motion
    Sec. 18. The legislative body may pass ordinances, orders, resolutions, and motions for the government of the city, THE CONTROL OF THE CITY’S PROPERTY AND FINANCES, and the appropriation of money.

    See where it says “control of the city’s property and finances”? You can read also the laws concerning the powers of an executive in a second class city. I see no statute that allows an executive to bypass the legislative body for any purpose, including making changes to city property.

    • IC 36-10-3-11 Board of park and recreation; powers. Sec. 11. (a) The board may:(1) enter into contracts and leases for facilities and services;(2) contract with persons for joint use of facilities for the operation of park and recreation programs and related services;(3) contract with another board, a unit, or a school corporation for the use of park and recreation facilities or services, and a township or school corporation may contract with the board for the use of park and recreation facilities or services;(4) acquire and dispose of real and personal property, either within or outside Indiana; … 13) release and transfer, by resolution, a part of the area over which it has jurisdiction for park and recreational purposes to park authorities of another unit for park and recreational purposes upon petition of the park or recreation board of the acquiring unit.
      (b) The board may also lease any buildings or grounds belonging to the unit and located within a park to a person for a period not to exceed fifty (50) years. The lease may authorize the lessee to provide upon the premises educational, research, veterinary, or other proper facilities for the exhibition of wild or domestic animals in wildlife parks, dining facilities, swimming facilities, golf courses, skating facilities, dancing facilities, amusement rides generally found in amusement parks, or other recreational facilities.

      • IC 36-10-3-23 Acquisition of real property; resolution; improvements … Sec. 23(a) This section applies only to:(1) the acquisition of real property; or (2) a work of improvement;
        that will be financed by the issuance of bonds. (b) If the board decides (1) acquire land for any of the purposes prescribed in this chapter, either by purchase or by appropriation, and in conjunction with the acquisition to proceed with a work of improvement authorized by this chapter; (2) acquire real property without proceeding at the time with a work of improvement; or (3) proceed with a work of improvement where the real property has been already secured;
        it shall adopt a resolution stating the purpose, describing the land to be acquired, the manner of acquisition, and, in the case of an appropriation, the other land that may be injuriously affected, or describing the lands already acquired and intended to be used in connection with the proposed work of improvement. (c) If a work of improvement is provided for in the resolution, the board shall have preliminary plans and specifications and an estimate of the cost of the proposed work prepared by the engineer selected to do the work. The resolution must be open to inspection by all persons interested in or affected by the appropriation of land or the construction of the work. The board shall have notice of the resolution and its contents published in accordance with IC 5-3-1. The notice must state a date on which the board will receive or hear remonstrances from persons interested in or affected by the proceedings and on which it will determine the public utility and benefit.

      • The Parks Department is a delegated aruthority deriving its existence from the consent of the Council and its budget still has to be approved by the same.

        IC 36-10-3-10
        Board of park and recreation; duties
        Sec. 10. (a) The board shall:
        (7) prepare and submit an annual budget in the same manner as other executive departments of the unit;

        IC 36-10-3-19
        (b) The fiscal body of the unit shall determine and provide the revenues necessary for the operation of the department or for capital expenditures not covered by the issuance of bonds by:
        (1) a specific levy to be used exclusively for these purposes;
        (2) a special appropriation; or
        (3) both of these methods.

        The Parks Dept. can initiate bonds to raise money, but they have no power to levy direct taxes on the public or create accounts to hold those funds, OR use said funds for any purpose other than that for which it was created by the “fiscal body”, i.e. Council in this case. Funding for any project would have to come out of an account that was created for the purpose of that project, again at the pleasure of the fiscal body, i.e. Council in this case:

        IC 36-10-3-20
        Special nonreverting capital fund; purposes; withdrawals
        Sec. 20. (a) Upon the request of the board, the fiscal body of the unit may establish, by ordinance, a special nonreverting capital fund for the purposes of acquiring land or making specific capital improvements. The fiscal body may include in the board’s annual budget an item and an appropriation for these specific purposes.
        (b) Money placed in the nonreverting capital fund may not be withdrawn except for the purposes for which the fund was created, unless the fiscal body repeals the ordinance. The fiscal body may not repeal the ordinance under suspension of the rules.

        • I’m not a lawyer. But looks to me like if the parks board already owns property, and they wish to improve it or lease it out, they may do so with a vote of the board. Correct my impression if it’s wrong. But first read the cuts and pastes I provided. In other words, does it appear that the parks board may circumvent council by leasing the land to a private entity to use for the purpose of a dog park, or whatever “other recreational facilities,” i.e. indoor tennis facility, etc.?

          • the council has to approve the bonds

          • I’m not lawyer or expert on this statute either. I’m reading it right along with you. Seems to me under the conditions you cite, the lessee would pay for the improvements via the terms of a lease, otherwise, according to my reading of this Chapter, the Parks Dept can issue bonds for a specific purpose, BUT there are many restrictions, and they have to be approved by the Council or “fiscal body”.

            IC 36-10-3-25
            Bonds; notice; hearing; ordinance approving issue
            Sec. 25. (a) Before bonds may be issued under section 23 of this chapter, the board shall give notice of a public hearing to disclose the purposes for which the bond issue is proposed, the amount of the proposed issue, and all other pertinent data.
            (b) The board shall have published in accordance with IC 5-3-1 a notice of the time, place, and purposes of the hearing.
            (c) After the public hearing and before additional proceedings on the bond issues, the board must obtain an ordinance approving the bond issue from the unit’s fiscal body.

          • Also, it is worth noting that as a delegated authority by ordinance, a Parks Dept could be dissolved by the City Council if it was their pleasure to do so. This Chapter doesn’t dwell on that, but it alludes to it in Sec.3.

            The Council would then be liable for all bonds issued under the Parks Dept.

          • For clarification, the issuance of bonds for the purpose of improvements to real property held under the Parks Dept purview would be covered in Sec.23.

            Sec. 25 explicitly states that such bonds must be approved by the “fiscal body”, in this case meaning our City Council.

            To me this is a death blow to Winnecke’s assertion of bypassing the Council. I would like to hear their interpretation of this for clarification. I’d hate to see another shrug fest like we saw when they approved the 2013 Budget. They need to stand and be counted on this issue.

          • Okay, so the only way around the council’s approval of a project via their power to approve bonding, would be for parks board to lease out property, and the lessee make the improvements at its expense. I know the county can lease out bridge construction, similarly to the state leasing out a toll road, for example, while the county retains ultimate ownership of the bridge. But in that case, the commissioners have to administer the lease.

          • That looks to be correct.

          • Actually, that may not be correct either, because if you read Sec.11(b) again, it seems to limit the types of uses to which a lessee can put the land:

            “The lease may authorize the lessee to provide upon the premises educational, research, veterinary, or other proper facilities for the exhibition of wild or domestic animals in wildlife parks, dining facilities, swimming facilities, golf courses, skating facilities, dancing facilities, amusement rides generally found in amusement parks, or other recreational facilities.”

            Notice, it says “exhibition” of wild or domestic animals, NOT recreation or exercise for domestic animals and their owners. That could be a sticking point in the lease clause for Mayor Winnecke.

          • Nix that… It does say “…or other recreational facilities.” You’re right. Leasing is a possibility.

11. Sheriff Eric Willims is another pretty boy puppet of the Demo machine. Everybody knows that “Johnny Boy” pulls his political strings.

    I hope he runs again for another office so we can send his a– to the unemployment line.

12. If Dave Wedding announces that if elected he shall appoint Sheriff Eric Willims as his Chief Deputy then game over for him. The voters are very tired of Eric Wiliams know it all attitude.

13. Everybody knows that our tippy toes/sissy Mayor is just an empty suit.

    Why should we expect him to make a good business decision.

14. Back to the ONB Hotel at 420 Main St.

    What will they do with the pedestrian overpass to nowhere, on MKL Jr. Blvd. if they turn the ONB bldg., which has a parking garage in the lower level into a hotel? Didn’t they want a hotel that would directly access the Centre and the Fraud Arena? Maybe they could have Amy Musica design a few decorative attachments for the Nowhere Overpass, or Mike Shoulders could create a Cedar Hall type paint job and call it a sculpture. It would represent the direction of downtown growth, which has gone, and is going, nowhere.

15. Unfortunately for the City, I had every intent of using part of my PowerBall jackpot to buy and refurbish the McCurdy into a first class, historically accurate hotel (with modern amenities, of course) with a five star restaurant in house.

    Shame I didn’t win…

16. Tea party group chief quits, cites internal split

    More Sharing ServicesShare
    |
    Share on facebook
    Share on twitter
    |
    Share on email
    Print

    Posted: Dec 04, 2012 10:53 AM CST Updated: Dec 04, 2012 3:23 PM CST
    By By JACK GILLUM and STEPHEN BRAUN
    Associated Press

    WASHINGTON (AP) – Eased out with an $8 million payout provided by an influential Republican fundraiser, former GOP House Majority Leader Dick Armey says he has left the conservative tea party group FreedomWorks because of an internal split over the group’s future direction.

    A confidential contract obtained by The Associated Press shows that Armey agreed in September to resign from his role as chairman of Washington-based FreedomWorks in exchange for $8 million in consulting fees paid in annual $400,000 installments. Dated Sept. 24, the contract specifies that Armey would resign his position at both FreedomWorks and its sister organization, the FreedomWorks Foundation, by the end of November.

    According to the contract, Armey’s consulting fees will be paid by Richard J. Stephenson, a prominent fundraiser and founder and chairman of the Cancer Treatment Centers of America, a national cancer treatment network. Stephenson is on the board of directors of FreedomWorks. (more)………

    ___

Comments are closed.