Published: May 12, 2009 08:58 pm      

LETTERS: May 13, 2009

Reader short and sweet on ‘X’



Please ask the Clarksville Town Council to uphold the law concerning Theatair X. We simply want the law enforced.

— Gary C. Allen, Charlestown



C’ville council should pay attention to own ordinance



I recently viewed video footage of the Clarksville Town Council meeting held April 20. Bryan Wickens, of Reclaim Our Culture Kentuckiana, was given an opportunity to present a case of apparent illegal activities held at the Theatair X in Clarksville.

He presented evidence that is in opposition to a city ordinance that was passed back in 2005. Among them were no sex acts of any kind are to go on inside an established business. Nor should there be any area within the confines of the building that obstruct the manager’s eyesight at all times.

In the evidence presented there appears to be a clear violation of these ordinances. When Mr. Wickens asked what might be done about this violation and what steps might the council pursue, there seemed to be little or no action to at least discuss as a council. Mr. Wickens was very respectful and pressed for a fair answer, yet the council seemed rather guarded and unwilling to pursue enforcing the full ordinances it had passed just four years earlier.

My question to the council and to the people of Southern Indiana: What responsibility does the council have both morally and legally to ignore an ordinance that its own committee passed? Are there legal ramifications that can hold the council accountable to their own ordinance? Are they not guilty of breaking the law by not enforcing the law that was established by the stroke of their own pen? Does not the people of Southern Indiana deserve at least the protection of the law and the confidence that those who are elected will follow what is already in place?

From viewing the video, I felt that the council was resistant to address the full ordinance and they would give no indication of doing the right thing. Is there a deeper underlining issue that the council will gain personally or why would they not respond to what seems to be a logical manner?

The people of Southern Indiana deserve better than a 37-minute hearing without a commitment to follow the law!

— Richard Driggers, New Albany



Board members wrong on computer vote



The recent negative vote by four members of the Greater Clark County Schools board to quash the computer project for some Charlestown students was not only selfish, it was backward-looking and detrimental to the Charlestown community who overwhelmingly supported this project.

The proposed computer project seemed novel and excellent, based on a similar tryout in another school district.

We need school board members who know what they are doing, not people who kill valuable and needed programs. The very weak financial argument put forward by those who voted against this excellent program was an argument that just didn’t hold water.

I hope that in the future, local voters will give us new board members who will help our students, not board members who make decisions that will hurt our students’ performance.

— Bob White, Jeffersonville



Gonder clarifies ordinance about economic development



As the author of the ordinance Mike Ladd discussed in The Tribune on May 5, 2009, I wanted to clarify a few points.

First, Mr. Ladd mentions “the proposed ordinance.” In fact, the ordinance setting the framework for the disbursement of economic development funds was passed by the New Albany City Council in December. The immediate point under discussion at Monday’s meeting was the allocation of funds to implement the adopted ordinance’s goals of aiding economic development.

I was a member of the Caesar’s (now Horseshoe) Foundation of Floyd County’s Grants Committee for several years. I was always impressed by that body’s sincere consideration of the proposals brought before it in requests for grants. There are always more requests than funds available, so each applicant is required to detail why money is needed and how it will be spent. The applicant is also required to show proof of ability to use the funds judiciously for the requested purpose. Upon being awarded a grant, successful applicants are expected to report back to the foundation how the money was used; failure to submit this report disqualified the applicant from future grant requests.

It may not speak well of my creativity, but each of these elements is found in the ordinance adopted by the city council in December.

The ordinance is kept intentionally vague so that each request for economic development funds is treated as a unique situation. Each request must be justified to the city council before the money will be disbursed. It is not likely that the entirety of the fund would be granted to one single applicant. On the contrary, with such a limited budget, the likely result is that more grants will be made, but they will be in smaller dollar amounts. This should benefit those businesses and community efforts which need economic development funds but are not often considered, and understandably so, in regional efforts to shape the economic future of our area.

The pool of capital this ordinance allocates to economic development is small — $75,000 — for a city of our size. This does not represent by any means the limit of the city’s commitment to economic development. It is simply an attempt to make some of the funds available outside the larger efforts by the city. The ordinance passed in December, if applied conscientiously by this and future councils, can have a meaningful impact on economic development.

Mr. Ladd’s suggestion that the council favor applicants seeking matching funds is a good one. The council could apply that principle when weighing the relative merits of competing proposals. As he suggests, this would help stretch the limited funds.

— John Gonder, New Albany City Council