Saturday, January 20, 2007

Why The Rule Of Law Matters

It's been several days since the Marion County Alcoholic Beverage Board unanimously voted to approve an alcohol permit for the 300 East bar in the Julia Carson Government Center over the protestations of several neighborhood remonstrators. I deliberately withheld comment until I had a chance to review the recorded hearing on WCTY. I watched the hearing the other night, and I must say it was as disillusioning to watch as the zoning hearing a couple of months earlier. Now, before anyone trots out the argument that opposition to the license came from partisan Republicans and anti-Carson forces, stop and listen. This issue has always been about the rule of law so don't try to obfuscate the real issue. Allow me to explain.

Under the principle of the rule of law, nobody can claim privilege above the law. Rather, rules are set forth in advance, are published for all to read, and are applied impartially to rulers and ruled alike. The rule of law preserves limited government because it forces everyone, including all people in positions of authority, to obey the laws. It is more, however, than just having written laws. The “rule of law” abhors arbitrary and capricious “rule of men.” It is essential to ordered liberty that nobody be allowed to decide for themselves what the law is and how and when the law is to be enforced.

What I saw watching the hearing on 300 East was a complete breakdown in the application of the rule of law. Under Indiana's alcoholic licensing system, after applying for a license from the Indiana Alcoholic and Beverage Commission, applicants are required to appear at a public hearing conducted by the local board after satisfying certain statutory requirements. If members of the public appear to remonstrate against the proposed licensee, the board is required to conduct a hearing at which the remonstrators are allowed to present evidence against the issuance of the license, while the applicant is permitted to cross-examine the remonstrators and offer rebuttal evidence and testimony in support of its license. Theoretically, that took place at the hearing, but for reasons I shall discuss, the process fell short of upholding our tradition of adhering to the rule of law.

Let me begin with the manner in which the hearing officer conducted the hearing. Van Barteau, an attorney and member of the local alcohol board, acted as the hearing officer for the remonstrance hearing. The hearing officer's job is to ensure that the proceeding is conducted in a fair and impartial manner. There were several occasions during the hearing where Barteau expressed his own personal opinions, stated legal opinions not supported by the law and even offered testimony in support of the applicant's petition. His conduct of the hearing was inappropriate and completely unnecessary. The applicant was ably represented at the hearing by two very competent attorneys from Ice Miller. They didn't need the assistance of Mr. Barteau in presenting a case for their petition.

During the hearing, local attorney Ross Stovall raised a number of legal points on behalf of the remonstrators. Stovall challenged the sufficiency of the notices provided by the applicants. Specifically, he complained that the notice of the hearing mailed to the neighbors failed to identify the type of license being sought by the applicant. Indiana law details the type of notice and to whom the notice must be mailed so many days prior to a hearing at which a license is being considered. The statute lists several things the applicant "must" include in the notice, including information on "the type of license applied for." This bit of information is extremely important because there are more than three dozen types of retail alcohol permits which can be issued under Indiana law. And in the case of this particular applicant, the nature of the permit has been a moving target. It was first promoted as a private, social club, then a bar and later as a family restaurant.

Stovall, to my surprise, claimed that all assurances the applicant had made during its zoning hearing before the Metropolitan Development Commission as to its proposed operations had only been verbalized and were not written into the zoning variance approved by the Commission. Stovall also noted that the large orange placard applicants are required to post on the building of the proposed establishment facing a common thoroughfare was not posted properly, or at least in a place where it was easily accessible to the public.

Without any prompting from the applicant's attorney, Barteau dismissed the deficiencies in the notice raised by Stovall. He offered his own opinion that the applicant's license had been widely discussed in the local media and had become an issue in the election; therefore, he surmised that nobody could challenge the sufficiency of the notice required by the statute. The affidavits filed by the applicant said notice had been properly given, and that was all that was required as far as he was concerned. If Barteau read the statute, he would understand that it says the applicant "must" and not "may" include certain items in its notice. One of those requirements is the type of license applied for. Is it a 2-way or a 3-way license? Is it for a liquor store, a social club, a restaurant or a bar? Do they allow carry out? These are matters lawmakers decided were important enough to require the applicant to include in its notice to inform the affected neighbors of the nature of the alcoholic establishment being proposed for their neighborhood.

During Stovall's testimony, another local board member, Belle Choate, angrily dressed down Stovall for failing to provide a list of people to whom he wanted notice given of the hearing. The applicant's hearing was continued from an earlier hearing at which the Board had apparently asked Stovall if he would provide such a list to the applicant's attorneys. He agreed to do so, but the applicant's attorneys noted at the outset of the hearing he had never provided them a list. As a point of order, a remonstrator has no legal duty to provide a list of who gets notice of an applicant's license. The statute clearly delineates who must receive notice of the hearing, and it imposes the burden of providing that notice solely on the applicant. Stovall didn't contest that mailed notice had been given; only the content of the notice. Choate's outburst at Stovall was disturbing and inappropriate. It sent a message loud and clear that she was completely antagonistic toward his arguments about the inadequacy of the notice, regardless of what the law provided.

Stovall also raised a point I've raised on this blog a number of times in the past--the lack of an executed lease between the Center Township Trustee and the applicant in accordance with state law. An applicant must disclose whether he owns the building or has a valid leasehold interest in the premises where the proposed licensee is to be located. Trustee Carl Drummer candidly admitted in an interview with WXNT's Abdul Hakim-Shabazz that he had never executed a lease with the owners of 300 East. He simply turned the premises over to the 300 East owners nearly a year ago, allowed them to completely alter the space with a half-million dollars in improvements, all without obtaining the necessary building permits, abiding by state and local building code requirements or having the appropriate zoning approvals. And the 300 East owners have yet to pay any rent to Center Township taxpayers.

Again, Barteau was very dismissive of Stovall's argument. Barteau very matter-of-factly stated that Indiana law does not require townships to abide by any competitive requirement to ensure the adequacy of a lease. I've read the statute authorizing local governments to dispose of government-owned real estate by lease or sale, and I find no exemption from the law for townships. But more to the point, the applicant's attorney were unable to provide a copy of the lease to Barteau when he requested a copy because no lease exists to this day. Stovall noted that several public records request failed to produce a lease.

A little more than a year ago, I was indirectly involved in assisting an applicant with a transfer of an existing license to a new location--exactly what was being proposed at this hearing. During the hearing, a dissident family member of the owner of the premises where the licensee was to be located came forward and falsely asserted that the applicant had no valid lease with the owner. A lease was produced which had been approved by a court order. Barteau and Choate, nonetheless, urged a continuance of the hearing until proof of the court order could be presented to the Board. Under the circumstances, I felt the Board's actions then were appropriate. It's just hard for me to understand why Barteau and Choate would impose a higher burden of proof on an applicant involving two private citizens than it would impose on an applicant involving a governmental entity and a private business. Center Township Trustee Carl Drummer didn't even appear at the hearing to testify for the applicant, or to explain the lease.

While we're on the point of legalities, an extremely important legal argument was raised during the hearing by another attorney remonstrator, Darla Williams. Williams questioned the legal authority for the Commission to issue an alcoholic permit for an establishment to be located in a government office building. She observed that the state statute governing alcohol permits provides a specific grant of authority in every other instance where alcohol is permitted to be sold on government-owned property. And sure enough, right there at I.C. 7.1-3-1-25, the statute clearly sets out authorization to permit the sale of alcoholic beverages at certain public facilities, such as the RCA Dome, Conseco Fieldhouse, community social centers, golf courses and so on.

If the sale of alcohol on government-owned property were generally permitted, why then are there all these specific authorizations in the statute? It is a maxim of statutory construction that the expression of one thing in a statute means the exclusion of others. "A statute specifying the method by which something shall be done evinces a legislative intent that it not be done otherwise." In other words, the statute doesn't permit the sale of alcoholic beverages at the government-owned Julia Carson Government Center or any other government-owned building, except as authorized in the statute. Barteau was noticeably silent on this point, and the attorneys representing the applicant didn't seem anxious to take up the argument either.

Let's now move on to the issue of the desirability of the applicant's petition. Indiana law makes it clear there must be an investigation of the desirability of the permit in regard to geographic location before issuing a permit. The statute spells out several factors that are to be considered, including: (a) the need for such services at the location of the permit; (b) the desire of the neighborhood or the community to receive such services; (c) impact of such services on other business in the neighborhood or community; (d) impact of such services on the neighborhood or community. The overarching concern here, you can see, is what is in the best interests of the neighborhood. On this point, the local board heard compelling testimony from a long-time resident of Mapleton-Fall Creek, David Leonards. He presented compelling evidence of overwhelming opposition to 300 East from the neighbors most immediately impacted. He carefully surveyed area residents and presented signatures of those residents expressing their position on the proposed license.

A particularly troubling aspect of Leonards' testimony was the extent to which two neighborhood leaders, Claire Warner and Al Polin, had gone to thwart the clear will of the majority of the neighborhood residents. Leonards testified it had been a long-standing policy of the neighborhood association to support the will expressed by a majority of the residents most directly impacted by a zoning change. His survey showed virtually all the closest neighbors opposed 300 East. He testified about parliamentary maneuvers of Warner and Polin at neighborhood meetings prior to the hearing, which had the effect of preventing an official position being taken by a vote of the neighborhood association. Instead, Polin and Warner represented to the Commission and again to the local alcohol board, that they had surveyed the neigbhorhood and most supported it.

The remonstrators also raised questions about the character of the applicant. Indiana law specifically provides that it is appropriate to consider, in addition to prior criminal offenses committed by an applicant "the esteem in which the person is held by members of his community, and such assessment of his character as may reasonably be inferred from police reports, evidence admitted in court and commission proceedings, information contained in public records and other sources of information." The 300 East was an appropriate case to consider the applicant for two reasons. Firstly, the person whose name appeared on the original application, Lacy Johnson, III, was convicted of driving while under the influence while the petition was pending. Johnson was noticeably absent from the hearing. In his place, wealthy businessman Bill Mays, one of the principal investors in 300 East, appeared on behalf of the applicant. Mays also owned the controversial Savoy nightclub on the city's northside, which was recently forced to close its doors because of numerous city and zoning code violations, as well as a public nuisance it had created in the St. Vincent Hospital neigbhorhood, which raised the ire of its neighbors. It was also disclosed that the Savoy's application for a zoning variance included petitions containing a number of forged signatures of neighbors. Take it however you want, but suffice it to say, the board was not moved in the least bit to consider the character of the applicant.

Notwithstanding any number of reasons the local board could have relied upon to deny 300 East's application for an alcohol license, or at the very least, delayed action until patent deficiencies were resolved, the board unanimously approved the license. How could this happen? How could so many laws and rules be ignored in the consideration of this petition. Unfortunately, the answer is that if you are a wealthy business owner who makes generous campaign contributions to political officeholders and you're represented by the state's most powerful law firm, the written laws are going to be applied more generously to your benefit than if you are just an ordinary citizen asking the government to grant you a privilege of owning an alcohol license.

The remonstrators can appeal the decision of the local board to the state's Alcohol and Tobacco Commission, but they must do so within 15 days of the decision. That can prove costly and time-consuming to the remonstrators, but as a matter of principle, I hope they do.


Wilson46201 said...

Yesterday I checked the detailed election results from last November - the neighbors of 300 East located in Ward 4, Precinct 8 voted overwhelmingly for Trustee Drummer 5-to-1 (155 to 31). If this were such an outrage and so opposed by the neighborhood, why did the verified-ID voters so support the Trustee and his policies? The Board also noted the conspicuous absence of real neighborhood remonstrators. The objectors were all "outsiders".

I too would heartily agree with Gary to watch the video of the hearing. The various points raised by AI were all addressed by the Board. The first half of the hearing was routine - the "fun" part about 300 East took up the 2nd half. I was astonished at the poor presentation performance of one of the remonstrating lawyers - even I had expected better.

Wilson46201 said...

For your viewing pleasure:

Sunday, 1/21/07

3:30am Alcoholic Beverage Board of Marion County (taped 1/16/07, 3:08:00)

4:00pm Alcoholic Beverage Board of Marion County (taped 1/16/07, 3:08:00)

Monday, 1/22/07

3:30am Alcoholic Beverage Board of Marion County (taped 1/16/07, 3:08:00)

indyernie said...

"The objectors
were all "outsiders"."

Why did you input in your 2 cents Wilson? You don't live in the neighborhood. You had plenty to say when you disrupted the meeting. Talk about being an “outsider”.

Anonymous said...

A fine of example of why I love this blog. EXCELLENT analysis after reviewing the entire event and legal details.

Trust me, they (Bart, Mays, Carson - well she is wheeled, Drummer and all) walk around like they are above the law. This will prove to be there down fall.

Keep up the good work AI -- this is a perfect example why blogs are part of mainstream media. The local rag would not give such an overview.

Anonymous said...

You refer to the Ice Miller attorneys as "very competent attorneys." I was very underwhelmed by their performance. Other than act better than anyone else in the room, the were less than articulate in making their points and their objections to the remonstrators' evidence were not properly made. I take it those two haven't seen the inside of a courtroom very often.

Wilson46201 said...

Once again IndyErnie - focus on the topic, not on me personally - dont distract from the subject. I merely partially attended the hearing - I had to leave early for a haircut appointment (dammit) - I seem to have spooked a Stepford Wife - she could have asked her cohort Darla who was sitting next to her but those two wanted to disrupt the meeting with trivial questionings ... no biggie though. Watch the video! I was not remonstrating. It was a topic of general interest - even to those way, way out in Warren Township.

Gary R. Welsh said...

Wilson, take your own advice and stick to the topic. For the last time, the election outcome has absolutely no relevancy to whether an alcohol license should be issued.

Wilson46201 said...

With the liquor license being a major issue in the election campaign, the fact that the Trustee received 5-to-1 support from the immediate neighborhood of the establishment is quite relevant. If the outrage was truly there against the restaurant, the townsfolk would have stormed the polls with torches and pitchforks and pitched out the Trustee. Instead, the immediate neighbors voted overwhelmingly for the public official most involved with the new establishment.

In a democracy, elections do count. Folk have legitimate differences of opinion - we manage our arguments by the ballot, not by bullshit and bullets.

Gary R. Welsh said...

David Leonards has lived in the neighborhood for many years. He testified under oath about the survey he conducted, and he presented their signatures expressing their opinion. That's the only evidence which counts for anything in this hearing as to the neighborhood's wishes.

indyernie said...

"It was a topic of general interest - even to those way, way out in Warren Township."

Wilson I hope your comment about my living way out in Warren Township isn't a threat. Isn’t it odd that someone with your connections would go so far to find where I live? I will react very quickly to any form of aggression towards my family or home. I take my family's safety seriously.
You can pass those comments on to your goon friends. I'm not going away.

Anonymous said...

Indy Chicken has started a monthly award for the worst elected or appointed office holder in Indianapolis Government. He’s going to deliver the award. has a post about it and a link.

Can anyone say Bart?

Wilson46201 said...

David Leonards lives about a mile north of 300 East - he's also a Republican activist who was a State Convention Delegate in 2004. It was the immediate neighbors in the blocks right around 300 East that voted 5-to-1 for Trustee Drummer in their precinct. There were no remonstrators whatsoever from close to 300 East. Very telling and significant to the Liquor Board!

Anonymous said...

AI, is there any way you can ban both Wilson and Indyernie from posting here, so they can take their irrevelant bickering elsewhere?

Anonymous said...

Wrong Again:

Atty. Darla Williams is a resident and property owner in Mapleton Fall Creek. You, Wilson are meddling and don't have a vote in this matter. Only the area residents and property owners have the right to address this issue. Mr. Leonard is the former president of Mapleton Fall Creek Neighborhood Association.

Butt out! Call Wilson Allen, 638-3435, he lives 1146 Tecumseh Street, 46201 in (Ward 2 Precinct 1) a poor run down neighborhood on the east side of Center Township across 10th Street. Maybe he needs to spend more time monitoring the progress in the neighborhood where he lives.

The zip code for Mapleton Fall Creek is 46205. If you don't have this zip code be silent.

From the beginning,Carl Drummer used Julia Carson's house to run for trustee when he lived in Lawrence Township in 1996. Kip Tew, the Democrat Party County chair looked the other way.
Atty. Judy Conley, DMD hearing officer is the wife of Kin ro Conley, majority leader of the City-county Council. Atty. Lacy Johnson is over the Airport Authority for Mayor Bart Peterson, and Patzy Trice, one of the investors work at the airport
Council President Monroe Gray's wife is an investor in this bar.
Van Barteau is the man in Judge Barbara Collins' life. Belle Choate is the wife of Sarge Visher, Julia Carson chief of staff. Even though she made a statement about the bar. She condones it while the others take the blame. Julia Lies just like Bart Peterson has lied to the police.

Wilson46201 said...

Jocelyn: AI lives nowhere near 300 East so should he delete his posting here?

Thank you Jocelyn Whatshername for the above anonymous comment. Of course, folk should know deadbeat Jocelyn is a renter who moves frequently - she doesnt pay rent and gets sued but doesnt pay. She has quite a few unpaid judgments against her (isnt CivicNet great?). Most people know poor Jocelyn as the perennial candidate who always comes in last...

She now haunts the Internet under a variety of fake names trying to smear and slander successful and respected people. She is well known as a classical hater & nutcase in local politics. A tragic figure with no eyebrows but an incessant mouth...

Anonymous said...

Great write up AI !

We al know if an average citizin tried to do the same thing - open a resturant / bar with no permits, a hand written lease, paying no rent and not geting proper zoning we would be locked up, shut down and fined out the wazoo.

I guess it pays to be big and powerfull.

Anonymous said...

I'm hoping this tremendously frank and unbiased presentation of evidence is helpful to folks. Superior work.

If you need any further evidence that Belle and Van were scandalously in Bill Mays's corner, look at the hearing. Their smirks and (un)righteous indignation were a disgrace.

It looks as if the DMD and the liquor advisory board, used the same collective logic that Wilson did: voters voted for Drummer, so they must not care about the bar.

Using that logic, how would you suppose those same nearby residents expressed their opinion on the U.S. Senate in 2006? Given that Lugar walked away unopposed...they must support Lugar's prolonged silence form his perch of power on the war in Iraq.

Dave Leonards lives about eight blocks from the bar. I have known of him through countywide neighborhood association activities for years. Attacking his credibility is pure Wilsonian. Dave was the most recent president of the MFCNA and when HE was president, anyone who wanted to vote on a zoning issue had the right to bring it before the association. With proper ntice, they did so, many times.

I'm serious about this--a prosecutor ought to look into it. Clara Warner and Al Polin ought to have their bank accounts scrutinized.

Cause ya see, that's the way the 300 East crowd plays games.

And for the last time,. Wilson: the voters DID NOT SPEAK on this issue. It was NOT A CAMPAIGN ISSUE in 2006. Mostly because the powers that be wanted it, and they control Center by about 6-1. Or more, in some areas. Using this as a voting issue wouldve been political suicide.

It IS an ethics and morals issue. And we all know where the petitioners stand on those counts, given their scandalous activity on this and/or the Savoy case.

Just harken back to Monroe Gray's answer regarding his wife's investorship in this project.
His contempt for the process and the public was palpable. And disgraceful.

As for Ice Miller...they whore around wherever there's money to be made. Ask the Lawrence water utility folks. Scrivener's notes...remember?

All that aside--posting Wilson's address and phone number was a little low. Leave him alone. He tends to piss off most folks in good time, except those asking him to dig up dirt on oponents.

Wilson46201 said...

I have tapes of the radio spots played endlessly by the Center Township Republican Victory Fund flogging the issue of "a bar in a government building". It was about the only issue the four GOP losers had going for them - and they lost bigtime. The one candidate still active on the issue got skunked the worst of any of the four. Ironic eh?

Anonymous said...

Voting results do not mean acceptance of policies Wilson. I don't believe for one minute that the voters are accepting of corruption. That is unless you're showing YOUR true colors as a racist and stating that blacks consider corruption acceptable? From your statement that is exactly what you hypothesize.

For what its worth I have parts of the liquor board meeting Part 1 HERE Part 2 HERE Part 3 HERE Part 4 HERE Part 5 HERE Part 6 HERE Part 7 HERE And The Vote HERE

Anonymous said...

AI, your comments about Mr. Barteau introducing his own evidence on behalf of the applicant is exactly right. I've never seen a hearing conducted where the hearing officer was permitted to intoduce his own evidence in support of a petition. He even admitted to the ex parte visit to 300 East to take a tour and ask questions about the proposed bar. This man should be bounced from the Board. There are more than just a few people who suspect certain individuals of getting money under the table to get this one through.

Gary R. Welsh said...

Barteau claimed Indiana laws permits alcohol sales on any government-owned building as long as its leased. He cited the example of the former license for the Monkey's Tail in Union Station. In fact, that authorization was made possible by this statute: "A city or county listed in this subsection that by itself or in combination with any other municipal body acquires by ownership or by lease any stadium, exhibition hall, auditorium, theater, convention center, or civic center may permit the retail sale of alcoholic beverages upon the premises if the governing board of the facility first applies for and secures the necessary permits as required by this title. The cities and counties to which this subsection applies are as follows:
(1) A consolidated city or its county."

Anonymous said...

AI, I believe when Union Station was developed as a public mall/exhibition hall, it was privately-owned. I believe the city took it over after the owner defaulted on the loan. It failed because the selfish Simons refused to allow a connector be built between Circle Centre Mall and Union Station, leading to its demise as planned by the Simons. The original bar where the Monkey's Tail was located opened in there when it was under private ownership.

Anonymous said...

Wilson is wrong as ususal and vindictive at best. He needs to clean up where he lives. Lots of illegal drugs and prostitution in the area as well as high crime. If he is such a community minded indiividual, get some of those Democrat elected officials he praises so much to rid his neighborhood of the drugs and violence. Plus, tell them to give him soap and water to take a bath.
Did someone say he cheated the taxpayers. He needs to pay up or shut up!

Gary R. Welsh said...

Anon 4:20, I checked this post on Wikipedia about Indianapolis' Union Station: It does indeed indicate Union Station was converted into a festival marketplace by Woolen Molzan & Partners in 1979. It failed in 1997. The statute I cited would not have been needed originally, although once it reverted to city ownership, I believe that statute would permit the city to allow a lessee in the space to own an alcohol permit.

Anonymous said...

Nit: The establishment in question is called The Ugly Monkey

Gary R. Welsh said...

Sir Hailstone, you are correct on it being called the Ugly Monkey. Thanks for posting the YouTube clips of the alcohol hearing.

Wilson46201 said...

The only person that's ever said I owe the taxpayers money is Deadbeat Jocelyn Tandy and she owes EVERYBODY money! Just look online at all her unpaid judgments! LOL

Anonymous said...

I liked how Ice Miller's attorneys tried to obfuscate the issue of Mays' ownership of the Savoy nightclub. The attorney said he was not an applicant for that license, before he clarified that the original owners brought Mays in as a white knight to grease the wheels for them. That was actually more damning of Mays. The Savoy started out as a friendly neighborhood pub and was illegally converted to a dance club frequented by drug dealers and prostitutes. The board members professed ignorance, explaining the action to close the Savoy was not of their doing. Sandy Rey should be ashamed. Excise police were well aware of the problems with the Savoy. It was their duty to appear at that hearing and bring up the problems with Mays' other alcohol permit. I've noticed that the police send in the forces to these hearings armed with information on all the police runs when they want to block some joe blow from keeping his neighborhood bar.

Anonymous said...

I heard 300 EAST is going to be a gay and lesbian bar. Is this rumor true? I hope so!

Wilson46201 said...

LGBT folk dont "take over" bars despite the fears of prejudiced str8 folk - developing a gay bar as such takes a conscious management decision by the operators...

Of course, LGBT customers will be welcome, I'm sure! The owners are Democrats, remember?

One of the restaurants biggest opponents was hateful Jocelyn Tandy who abominates gays and screams "FAGGOT" in parking lots...

Anonymous said...


My Response to the dumpster diver, he needs to tell the whole story if he has the facts, not rumors are innuendoes.
I will not go into all of the details here, but there are certain politicians who have attempted to destroy me over the years, but I am still here, and will be here and involved.

As for Wilson Allen, you can go straight to hell! You don't know anything about my business. If you did, you would admit that some of your corrupt Democrat associates contributed to much of the topics you keep repeating on these blogs. You are a non-entity as far as I am concerned. I plan to publish in detail every incident on my blog. Unless you personally have first hand knowledge of the burglars, arsonist and thieves who have stolen from me, burned my home to the ground, get lost. As far as elections goes, voter fraud, destruction of campaign signs, etc. on election day, plenty of witnesse. In fact, it was stated that you destroyed some of Mr. Kiser's signs in the Primary, sounds familiar. One of the same tactics used when I ran. You have continued to make statements and allegations without telling the whole story. Cheap shots are all that you use and have against anyone who does not support the corrupt individuals you have supported. The truth will be told and I am sure that you and your friends will not like being exposed for what they really are.
By the way, I do know who I am and what I am. Name calling does not bother me. You are the insecure one.

Anonymous said...

I frequent this blog everyday. Gary does a great job covering topics, relevant topics, that often get overlooked. I also read most of the comments and am dumbfounded; these "comments" actually represent people, people who are players in local/state government?

Bat Chit crazy! - all I can say

Anonymous said...

I know this is a late take, but to the Mapleton Fall Creek Resident, this is not a neighborhood issue or a Center Township issue. It's been exposed by Carl Drummer himself that 300 East will be making profits rent-free in a publicly-owned building. That, among all the other brilliantly analyzed points in the column, should have been enough to stop the approval of the license.

Anonymous said...

Just to add to the debate . . . this was clearly a campaign issue for some candidates (namely Darla Williams - only because I had no contact with anyone else involved). But, I can say that when Darla stopped by my Mapleton Fallcreek residence pre-election time to campagn, 300 East was one of the first issues she presented to me. I find it funny now, that people -(including her) are denying it was a campain issue.

On the other hand, while I was one of the voters that helped to get the 5-1 or 6-1 (whatever it was) spread in my area, I'm not sure that I would have voted the same way now. Initially the idea of a new restaurant in the area sounded wonderful, but then sometime around election time - more information about The Savoy started to come out. I would still be totally in support of the idea - had the proper rules been followed, and I think many of my neighbors feel the same way (although I can't speak for all of them). It's not the fact that they want to serve alcohol or any of the other non-sense, it the simple fact that rules weren't followed. Had they gotten permits, a real lease and maybe a variance that allowed them an exception to the statute, I think most people in our area would be fine with the bar. But, at this point, how can anyone trust anything they say and who knows if the bar will be as positive for the neighborhood as the Dems are trying to make it seem. I'm willing to wait and see though.

-MPFC Property Owner

Anonymous said...

MPFC Property Owner:

Political corruption, as the 300 East project is rightfully defined, "should" be a campaign issue during campaign season, so what!...and it does not matter that the campaign season ended, the political corruption still exists and we WILL continue to expose it.

Good for nothing deadbeat politicians are the only ones that fight for an issue "during campaign season only", then drop it after the election.

There 2 people who constantly stalk, harrass and attack others on this blog; and the few other blogs that still allow them to post, who are exposing corruption in Marion County and Center Township are employees for the ghetto mafia and I just ignore them. I scroll past their comments and never read them because they are canned regurgitive statements from years and years of saying the same thing, over and over to intimidate and harrass into silence decent people in our community.

We WILL continue to do what is right.

Anonymous said...

By the way, tell me "WHEN" after the election season that Ms. Williams made any comments to you or anyone else regarding whether this was a campaign issue.

You can't because she has NEVER commented on it.