Posts
Christian Nationalism Versus The Constitution
22 hours ago
Showing posts with label mcana. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mcana. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Most Intelligent Comments of the Night
Norman Pace, representing the Warren Township Development Association and the Marion County Alliance of Neighborhood Associations, had the most intelligent comments during last night's Metropolitan & Economic Development committee's meeting on the Mid-North TIF. Here is the WCTY video of Pace's statement:
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Councillor Mahern Hits Homerun at Today's McANA Meeting
Councillor Brian Mahern, who conceived of and served on the TIF Study Commission, was McANA's guest speaker this morning. He did an absolutely masterful job of conveying, in plain English, the breadth and depth of the Commission's work - from what a TIF district is, to what policy recommendations the Commission made for its establishment and operation. Throughout the lengthy question and answer period, he folded in the rational for the Commission's recommendations along with how TIFs currently operate. Not once did he get into the weeds - and this topic lends itself to getting mired in complicated details.
If you don't have the time, energy, or overwhelming interest in TIFs to watch all 24 hours of archived WCTY broadcasts of the TIF Study Commission meetings, or the time, energy, or overwhelming interest to read all 96 pages of their report plus all appendices - then the WCTY broadcast of this meeting may be just the perfect morsel that can bring you up to speed on the topic (forgive my mixed metaphors).
WCTY will begin showing the McANA meeting early this week - from past patterns begin looking for it on Tuesday.
Today's McANA meeting clearly demonstrates the public interest in TIFs and how the public wants them to operate within Indianapolis. Remember, TIFs consume your tax dollars, so you owe it to yourself to become somewhat conversant about the topic, as well as making your opinions known as the policy recommendations move toward adopted and implemented policy practices.
If you don't have the time, energy, or overwhelming interest in TIFs to watch all 24 hours of archived WCTY broadcasts of the TIF Study Commission meetings, or the time, energy, or overwhelming interest to read all 96 pages of their report plus all appendices - then the WCTY broadcast of this meeting may be just the perfect morsel that can bring you up to speed on the topic (forgive my mixed metaphors).
WCTY will begin showing the McANA meeting early this week - from past patterns begin looking for it on Tuesday.
Today's McANA meeting clearly demonstrates the public interest in TIFs and how the public wants them to operate within Indianapolis. Remember, TIFs consume your tax dollars, so you owe it to yourself to become somewhat conversant about the topic, as well as making your opinions known as the policy recommendations move toward adopted and implemented policy practices.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Boards of Zoning Appeals Post Lousy Year of Decisions
One of the things I did during my hiatus from this blog, was to begin a review of the 2009 voting record of the City's Boards of Zoning Appeals (BZA) on behalf of the Marion County Alliance of Neighborhood Associations (McANA). Details of the overview have been posted on McANA's website, here. (this is a pdf file and you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view it).
The results show a particularly poor record of decisions by the BZAs this past year. Of the 144 requests for variances for which they held a hearing, they denied only 20 (a denial rate of 14%). Compare this with the recommendation of the Current Planning Staff, which serve as the urban planning professional support staff for the Metropolitan Development Commission and the BZAs, who recommended the Boards vote to deny 99 of the requests (a recommended denial rate of 69%). The paucity of denials was so bad that none of the three Boards denied a single variance request until April 14 this year ! The individual denial rates of sitting members of the Boards (5 members per Board or 15 total members) ranged from a low of 5% to a high of 68%. Board I denied 15% of the variance requests it heard compared to staff recommendation of 75% denial. Board II denied 18% compared with a recommendation of 67% denial. And, Board III denied just 7% of the variances it heard compared with a recommendation of 68% denial.
So, why should you care? If you are a property owner, the impact of these variances can be felt directly upon your property value and your quality of life.
A variance gives a property owner the right not to obey a law that all others in Marion County must obey. State law set up two types of variances, both of which require proof that some aspect of the property itself dictates that an exception be made. Among other things, for a variance of use a petitioner is supposed to prove that "The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance constitutes an unusual and unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought." And, among other things, the petitioner who requests a variance of development standards is supposed to prove that "The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property." But, state law is routinely ignored by the BZAs and the so-called 'proof' offered is often circular and irrelevant logic. For instance, a popular recital of proof of the 'practical difficulty' is that it is not legal.
I believe that it would be in the public interest if, at the beginning of each hearing, someone read out loud the "Findings of Fact" form filled out as the proof of a need for a variance. This would put the State law requiring proof front and center in the hearing and it would expose to the viewing public the ridiculous nature of the proof often offered.
Would you want your neighbor to be able to park a semi at their house? The Boards granted at least two such requests this year. There can be no aspect of the property, however, that dictates that a semi must be parked at a house or else the property could not be used as a residence. That is exactly what State Law requires be proven.
Laws impacting real estate have a long history of a push and pull between the right of a property owner to do as they please on their property, and the right of a community to protect its interests in a well planned, well executed and well maintained urban layout. The courts have held that in order to compromise the unfettered rights of a property owner, a city must demonstrate a broader community interest by first creating a comprehensive plan that includes the recommended areas for the different types of uses. Once that has been established, the city may require zoning of all parcels for a single type of use (industrial, commercial or residential as examples). But, wait, there's more ! Once a comprehensive plan has been created, but not before, a city may also establish building codes requiring anything from indoor plumbing, running water, and safety features for electric and structural plans to setbacks and building sizes. But, because there is that tension between property rights and the community interest, any local laws that involve real estate property must offer the property owners the opportunity to prove that they deserve an exception to any one of those laws. These are the variances that the BZAs rule on.
In Indianapolis, the zoning and variance aspects of real estate law are embodied in the Metropolitan Development Commission, the Boards of Zoning Appeals, (the members of both bodies are appointed), and the Department of Metropolitan Development (which reports to the Mayor and is staffed with paid positions). The new Office of Code Compliance (OCE; which also reports to the Mayor and is staffed with paid positions) is the agency that oversees the enforcement of the City's real estate codes and laws. So, as a new house is being built, a permit is required and various inspections are made throughout the building process to ensure that the City's building standards are being met. Code Compliance relies heavily, and in some places exclusively, on citizen complaints about neighbors who are not obeying a real estate property ordinance. OCE then sends out an inspector who either cites the owner for a violation or who determines that no violation exists.
Those of us who have dealt with neighborhood issues for even a couple of years see this as one ecosystem - with each part dependent upon the other parts. Unfortunately in Indianapolis, the the various City departments and Boards are not coordinating their efforts and are often at odds. For instance, zoning inspectors and neighborhood groups might have been working for years to rid residential areas of commercial vehicles. But, once cited, these property owners have the right to apply for a variance (they have the right to apply before being cited, but most folks seem to live by the motto - it is easier to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission). The BZAs are supposed to ask for proof that the property cannot be used as zoned, in this case as a residence, unless the commercial vehicle can be parked there. Of course, no such proof exists. But, the BZAs operate not as State Law dictates, but by the seat of their pants, each member making up in their own head what compels their approval vote versus their denial vote.
This analysis of the voting record of the BZAs in 2009 demonstrates a clear disconnect with State Law. If they followed that Law and required proof in each case, variances would be rare, not usual. Remember, a variance is the exception to the law that all others in Marion County must obey. It should be hard to get a variance. Worse than that is the disconnect the BZAs have with the whole system of code compliance and how that disconnect is harming the big picture in Indianapolis; where neighborhoods have a chance to protect their quality of life and their property values by insisting that the laws of Indianapolis be uniformly applied.
The results show a particularly poor record of decisions by the BZAs this past year. Of the 144 requests for variances for which they held a hearing, they denied only 20 (a denial rate of 14%). Compare this with the recommendation of the Current Planning Staff, which serve as the urban planning professional support staff for the Metropolitan Development Commission and the BZAs, who recommended the Boards vote to deny 99 of the requests (a recommended denial rate of 69%). The paucity of denials was so bad that none of the three Boards denied a single variance request until April 14 this year ! The individual denial rates of sitting members of the Boards (5 members per Board or 15 total members) ranged from a low of 5% to a high of 68%. Board I denied 15% of the variance requests it heard compared to staff recommendation of 75% denial. Board II denied 18% compared with a recommendation of 67% denial. And, Board III denied just 7% of the variances it heard compared with a recommendation of 68% denial.
So, why should you care? If you are a property owner, the impact of these variances can be felt directly upon your property value and your quality of life.
A variance gives a property owner the right not to obey a law that all others in Marion County must obey. State law set up two types of variances, both of which require proof that some aspect of the property itself dictates that an exception be made. Among other things, for a variance of use a petitioner is supposed to prove that "The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance constitutes an unusual and unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought." And, among other things, the petitioner who requests a variance of development standards is supposed to prove that "The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property." But, state law is routinely ignored by the BZAs and the so-called 'proof' offered is often circular and irrelevant logic. For instance, a popular recital of proof of the 'practical difficulty' is that it is not legal.
I believe that it would be in the public interest if, at the beginning of each hearing, someone read out loud the "Findings of Fact" form filled out as the proof of a need for a variance. This would put the State law requiring proof front and center in the hearing and it would expose to the viewing public the ridiculous nature of the proof often offered.
Would you want your neighbor to be able to park a semi at their house? The Boards granted at least two such requests this year. There can be no aspect of the property, however, that dictates that a semi must be parked at a house or else the property could not be used as a residence. That is exactly what State Law requires be proven.
Laws impacting real estate have a long history of a push and pull between the right of a property owner to do as they please on their property, and the right of a community to protect its interests in a well planned, well executed and well maintained urban layout. The courts have held that in order to compromise the unfettered rights of a property owner, a city must demonstrate a broader community interest by first creating a comprehensive plan that includes the recommended areas for the different types of uses. Once that has been established, the city may require zoning of all parcels for a single type of use (industrial, commercial or residential as examples). But, wait, there's more ! Once a comprehensive plan has been created, but not before, a city may also establish building codes requiring anything from indoor plumbing, running water, and safety features for electric and structural plans to setbacks and building sizes. But, because there is that tension between property rights and the community interest, any local laws that involve real estate property must offer the property owners the opportunity to prove that they deserve an exception to any one of those laws. These are the variances that the BZAs rule on.
In Indianapolis, the zoning and variance aspects of real estate law are embodied in the Metropolitan Development Commission, the Boards of Zoning Appeals, (the members of both bodies are appointed), and the Department of Metropolitan Development (which reports to the Mayor and is staffed with paid positions). The new Office of Code Compliance (OCE; which also reports to the Mayor and is staffed with paid positions) is the agency that oversees the enforcement of the City's real estate codes and laws. So, as a new house is being built, a permit is required and various inspections are made throughout the building process to ensure that the City's building standards are being met. Code Compliance relies heavily, and in some places exclusively, on citizen complaints about neighbors who are not obeying a real estate property ordinance. OCE then sends out an inspector who either cites the owner for a violation or who determines that no violation exists.
Those of us who have dealt with neighborhood issues for even a couple of years see this as one ecosystem - with each part dependent upon the other parts. Unfortunately in Indianapolis, the the various City departments and Boards are not coordinating their efforts and are often at odds. For instance, zoning inspectors and neighborhood groups might have been working for years to rid residential areas of commercial vehicles. But, once cited, these property owners have the right to apply for a variance (they have the right to apply before being cited, but most folks seem to live by the motto - it is easier to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission). The BZAs are supposed to ask for proof that the property cannot be used as zoned, in this case as a residence, unless the commercial vehicle can be parked there. Of course, no such proof exists. But, the BZAs operate not as State Law dictates, but by the seat of their pants, each member making up in their own head what compels their approval vote versus their denial vote.
This analysis of the voting record of the BZAs in 2009 demonstrates a clear disconnect with State Law. If they followed that Law and required proof in each case, variances would be rare, not usual. Remember, a variance is the exception to the law that all others in Marion County must obey. It should be hard to get a variance. Worse than that is the disconnect the BZAs have with the whole system of code compliance and how that disconnect is harming the big picture in Indianapolis; where neighborhoods have a chance to protect their quality of life and their property values by insisting that the laws of Indianapolis be uniformly applied.
Monday, May 4, 2009
City-County Council Meets Tonight
The Indianapolis-Marion County City-County Council meets tonight. On its agenda for this evening is Proposal 62, 2009 that allows for the consolidation of the Perry Fire Department. The minutes to the April 15, 2009, Public Safety Committee, show they voted 5-2 to recommend do pass, with extensive procedural discussion on an amendment authored by Councillor Oliver. They agreed the amendment language should be worked on and introduced at the full Council debate on the proposal. It was unclear by the minutes exactly what the amendment was, but references imply it has to do with minority and women hiring and promoting practices of IFD. Also contained in those minutes was this little nugget just at the end of the Proposal 62, 2009, discussion:
Prop 176 -- approves the refunding of $540 million bonds for the Water Company. These would replace the variable rate bonds that will end up costing taxpayers another $80 million-ish to get out of.
Prop 177 -- creates a City Department of Code Enforcement.
Prop 178 -- pit bull and dangerous dog ordinance. It also includes a ban on tying a dog to an immovable object like a tree. This is a complex proposal. I would suggest that folks review the latest McANA meeting where there pros and cons of this approach were aired. It is after the much longer discussion of the CIB bailout - a twofer, if you will. To view the video archive, click here -- then scroll down to the "Other Meetings" section and select the April 18 Marion County Alliance of Neighborhood Associations video link. The dog ordinance didn't come up until 2 hours and 2 minutes into the meeting, so you may want to forward to that point.
All three Proposals are to be referred to the Rules Committee which next meets on Tuesday, April 12, beginning at 5:30 in room 260 of the City-County Building.
Councillor Oliver asked if it is anticipated that any other IFD stations will close by 2010. Director Newman answered that there is nothing firmly in place, but they are having general discussions about possibly closing some of the stations that are on valuable commercial real estate and rebuilding them on less valuable commercial real estate in an effort to realize financial benefits for taxpayers.Proposals to be introduced tonight include these more interesting (to my eye) Proposals:
Prop 176 -- approves the refunding of $540 million bonds for the Water Company. These would replace the variable rate bonds that will end up costing taxpayers another $80 million-ish to get out of.
Prop 177 -- creates a City Department of Code Enforcement.
Prop 178 -- pit bull and dangerous dog ordinance. It also includes a ban on tying a dog to an immovable object like a tree. This is a complex proposal. I would suggest that folks review the latest McANA meeting where there pros and cons of this approach were aired. It is after the much longer discussion of the CIB bailout - a twofer, if you will. To view the video archive, click here -- then scroll down to the "Other Meetings" section and select the April 18 Marion County Alliance of Neighborhood Associations video link. The dog ordinance didn't come up until 2 hours and 2 minutes into the meeting, so you may want to forward to that point.
All three Proposals are to be referred to the Rules Committee which next meets on Tuesday, April 12, beginning at 5:30 in room 260 of the City-County Building.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Public Opportunities to Review CIB Issues
Two opportunities are coming up in the next couple of days for the public to hear about and question issues revolving around the Capital Improvement Board.
Thursday, April 16, beginning at 6:00 pm, the Municipal Corporations Committee of the City-County Council will get an update on the CIB from Bob Grand (President of the CIB) and Barney Levengood (Executive Director of the Convention Center and Lucas Oil Stadium). Councillor Mike McQuillen (Chairman of the Committee) has told me that the public will be allowed to ask questions. That meeting will be in Room 260 of the City-County Building. Two other Council Committees will be meeting in that same room - one at 5:00 pm and the other at 5:30 pm.
Saturday, April 18, from 9:00 am to 11:00 am, the Marion County Alliance of Neighborhood Associations (McANA) will hold its monthly membership meeting. The meeting's agenda includes, as the primary guest speakers, Barney Levengood and Dorothy Henry (CIB member). After a presentation by the guest speakers, comments and questions will be taken from those in attendance. McANA meets in the basement of the North United Methodist Church on the NW corner of Meridian and 38th Sts. McANA asks that folks attending their meetings please bring a non-perishable food item to donate to the Church's food pantry.
Thursday, April 16, beginning at 6:00 pm, the Municipal Corporations Committee of the City-County Council will get an update on the CIB from Bob Grand (President of the CIB) and Barney Levengood (Executive Director of the Convention Center and Lucas Oil Stadium). Councillor Mike McQuillen (Chairman of the Committee) has told me that the public will be allowed to ask questions. That meeting will be in Room 260 of the City-County Building. Two other Council Committees will be meeting in that same room - one at 5:00 pm and the other at 5:30 pm.
Saturday, April 18, from 9:00 am to 11:00 am, the Marion County Alliance of Neighborhood Associations (McANA) will hold its monthly membership meeting. The meeting's agenda includes, as the primary guest speakers, Barney Levengood and Dorothy Henry (CIB member). After a presentation by the guest speakers, comments and questions will be taken from those in attendance. McANA meets in the basement of the North United Methodist Church on the NW corner of Meridian and 38th Sts. McANA asks that folks attending their meetings please bring a non-perishable food item to donate to the Church's food pantry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
