Restaurant/Bar Constructed In Violation of Numerous State And Local Laws

A search of the City of Indianapolis' Department of Metropolitan Development's on-line permit records reveals that the restaurant/bar recently constructed in the Julia Carson Government Center was done so in violation of numerous state and local building and zoning laws. Keystone Construction Corp., the general contractor who performed the work, was issued a stop work order on June 19, 2006 months after it had already commenced its work for failing to obtain proper permits for the interior remodeling of the tenant space on the 1st floor of the Carson Government Center and construction of an exterior wood deck for dining.

The stop work order notes that the space was "converted into a bar" and that the work was "completed." An inspector for DMD notes that he "returned a phone call to Lacy Johnson . . . to discuss progress towards obtaining permits" the day after the stop work order was issued by the city. Johnson is listed as the tenant's contact at One American Square, Suite #3100, Indianapolis on at least one of the entries; other entries show his address at the government center at 300 E. Fall Creek Parkway. The One American Square address is that of Ice Miller, the law firm where Johnson works. Johnson's son, according to the Indianapolis Star, is the registered agent for the business entity seeking to open a restaurant/bar in the government center. That's important because two attorneys for Ice Miller are now listed as attorneys for Center Township; an earlier on-line posting of MDC's agenda showed the attorneys as representing the city's parks department in the petition before the Metropolitan Development Commission to rezone the park land adjacent to the property. Johnson and the law firm have also represented Center Township, the building's owner, in the past.

According to observers at yesterday's hearing of the MDC, the petition to obtain a variance for the parking lot was withdrawn by Ice Miller's attorneys at yesterday's hearing to consider an appeal of the decision by hearing officer Judith Conley approving both the rezoning and variance petitions for the property, which would have permitted the use of the tenant space for a restaurant/bar and the adjacent property where a park once existed as a new parking lot for the employees of the restaurant/bar. At the request of Councilor Patrice Abdullah, the petition for the variance has been continued until October 4. It is important to note that the building's landlord, Center Township, did not petition for the appropriate variance and zoning changes for the changed use of the property until July after it had already completed construction of the restraurant/bar and outdoor wood deck seating. The hearing examiner nonetheless swiftly approved the request despite the numerous problems previously identified by DMD inspectors.

Not only did the township, the tenant and the general contractor fail to obtain the necessary rezoning, variance and permits to convert the tenant space to a restaurant/bar and to build a parking lot on the former park prior to commencing the construction work, the construction work failed to comply with numerous state and local building code requirements as noted in the city's activity report for Keystone Construction Corp.'s permit file. Among the violations cited include the following, some of which are quite serious from a public safety perspective:

• Failure to construct a 2-hour rated fire wall between the restaurant/bar and the office space occupying the remainder of the building.
• Failure to install an automatic fire detection system.
• Failure to install an emergency voice/alarm communication system.
• Failure to install exit signage and exit signage illumination.
• Construction of a deck with combustible materials in violation of building code.
• Failing to intall 1.5 hour fire-rated doors.
• Failure to properly light exterior deck and stairs.
• Failure to install accessible plumbing facilities.
• Failure to install grease traps on waste lines.
• Outdoor areas failed to include two means of egress.
• Failure to install duct smoke detectors in mechanicals.

The activity reports note that city inspectors met with Lacy Johnson and Carl Drummer more than a month after the initial stop work order was issued. The two tell the inspector the "zoning was approved yesterday", "that they have not opened per them", and that they are "currently in 'que' with ABC". Johnson and Drummer tell the inspector on July 28 that they plan to open the restaurant/bar "once the Liq. Lic. is received." What is particularly disturbing is a report that an open house has already been held at the restaurant/bar, even though proper procedures for legally establishing the facility have not been followed. I personally observed a large number of people streaming out of the building on the evening of Saturday, August 5, 2006, a time when all offices in the building are typically closed. Even more troubling is the fact that city records show that no fines have been levied against the contractor or anyone else for blatant violation of state and local building code and zoning requirements. Also, a permit was filed to place the signage for the restaurant/bar's name "300 East" on the building back in May, which has already been erected without the proper approvals!

As AI previously reported, Drummer quickly issued a statement on August 10 when GOP congressional candidate Eric Dickerson held a press conference at the government building to protest the removal of the park and the placement of a bar in a government building saying that no bar would be located in the restaurant "at this time." As the city's permit records disclose, Johnson and Drummer both fully intended to open up the restaurant with a bar as soon as it received its liquor license. They only shifted course after the public heat was turned up on them.

Oddly, Parks Director Joe Wynns is reported to have stated after the hearing that he was concerned about eliminating green space, and that his department had not agreed to the deal as represented by Drummer according to at least one of the attendees at yesterday's hearing. Then why did two attorneys for Ice Miller petition the city on behalf of the township to rezone the Polin Park land for commercial use and why did Wynns authorize the removal of the playground equipment from the park? Does the township's sudden decision to withdraw the petition seeking a variance for the parking lot now mean that the parks department plans to restore the former park as it was before the playground equipment was abruptly removed from the park? Or will it support a petition to rezone the property to commerical use, thereby allowing a bar at this location?

The permit records and yesterday's hearing raise more questions than they answer. Who paid for the build-out of the restaurant bar and the outside deck, which improvements city records indicated cost $90,000 and $5,000, respectively? Who paid for the exterior signage on the building? Who's paying Ice Miller's legal fees? Can Center Township please make a copy of the lease between the township and the tenant publicly available immediately so we can determine whether this was an arm's length transaction? Who are the owners of this proposed new establishment? Why hasn't the city levied fines against anyone for violating building and zoning laws? These and many more questions must be answered by those responsible for this sordid deal.

The more we learn about this project, the smellier it gets. It's about time the Marion Co. prosecutor launched an investigation into this deal.

Sheriff Anderson's Staff Fixing Murder Cases?

An absolute shocking story on the front page of the Indianapolis Star tells how a jail employee of Sheriff Frank Anderson (D) deliberately placed witnesses in two separate cases in the same jail cell as the murder suspects they were prepared to testify against. Not surprisingly, the witnesses were intimidated, scuttling one murder trial and nearly derailing another. The Star's Vic Ryckaert reports on the actions of the 21-year old employee LaShawna Collins:

A former Marion County Jail employee is under investigation, accused of placing witnesses to two separate slayings in the same cellblocks as the suspects they were prepared to testify against.

La'Shawana Collins, 21, was fired Wednesday from her $20,461-a-year job as a jail clerk amid allegations she deliberately disregarded court orders and overrode jail safeguards that keep witnesses away from suspects.

"These witnesses were taken to jail with the expectation that they would be safe," Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi said, "and the system put into place to protect them was deliberately overridden."

Collins could be charged with several felonies, Brizzi said, including obstructing justice, official misconduct and conspiracy to intimidate a witness. The Marion County Sheriff's Department and Brizzi's grand jury division were investigating Collins on Wednesday.

Collins could not be reached for comment. She was hired in July 2005.

Her actions scuttled a trial earlier this month, Brizzi said, and nearly derailed a second murder trial this week.

Another jail employee's actions also raise suspicions. Tammy Horton notarized a statement of one of the witnesses recanting his earlier statements implicating one of the murder suspects after he was placed in the same jail cell as the suspect by Collins. Collins' actions clearly violated court orders in each of the cases as well as jail safeguards. As Col. Kerry Forestal said, "One time, that's incompetence." "A second time, a red flag goes up." "There's more than incompetence here."

How is our county's prosecutor expected to keep dangerous criminals off the street when the sheriff's employees are working to free them? We needs some answers Sheriff Anderson.

Russ Brown's Judicial Space Plan

Democrat Russ Brown, state senate candidate in District 31, offers a solution to address judicial space needs in Marion Co. He suggests converting the old city hall building at 202 N. Alabama, which serves as temporary space for the Indianapolis Central Library, as a court annex for Marion County's court system, as well as the Indiana Court of Appeals. Brown says of his proposal:

The Marion County court system has needed more space for almost a decade, and since the city already owns this historic building I think it's a logical fit. The state could also benefit from a partnership of this kind. My plan would call for consolidating the office space of the Indiana Court of Appeals into this historic Downtown location. This would allow more Statehouse space for committee hearings and other public business and place all of the Court of Appeals judges in one location. The additional County courtroom space will also serve as part of a long-term solution to the crisis that has recently hit Marion County's criminal justice system.

Brown's suggested use of the old city hall building is not new. The Indiana Supreme Court has explored a new judicial center for the state court system for the past 20 years. This building was offered as a possible site for a new judicial center, but the state courts expressed no interest. Their original desire was to build a new complex north of the State House where a parking lot currently exists. That plan got shot shelved when then-gubernatorial candidate Evan Bayh made a big issue of the project in the 1988 gubernatorial campaign as an example of the tax and spend policies of the Orr-Mutz administration. Since that time, the state court systems has focused its attention on higher judicial salaries as opposed to better office space.

The historic building definitely needs to be preserved for posterity. Personally, I would prefer to see the Mayor's office, key city/county personnel and the city-county council located in this building as opposed to the city-county building to restore some semblance of the "city hall" it once was. The city-county building lacks any architectural character and is just too chaotic in general. Moving these offices to the old city hall building would free up more space for the Marion Co. court system in the city-county building.

GLBT Representation In Democratic Party

Donald Hitchcock tells AI that DNC Chairman Howard Dean plans to propose increased representation for the GLBT community at the party's biannual meeting this Friday in Chicago. The proposal would require all 50 states to include GLBT representatives in their state delegations that are sent to the national convention every 4 years, similar to representation requirements the party already has for women and other minority groups.

Hitchcock thinks this party rules change is necessary to help GLBT members of the party in states where the state party structure is completely ignoring their interests. He notes that GLBT activists in states like Alabama, Tennessee, South Dakota and South Carolina received no help from the Democratic Party in those states in fighting anti-gay marriage ballot measures. "In 2004, 37 of the 50 states had no plans to include the LGBT community in their delegation, leading the LGBT community to represent only 5% of those attending the convention and disproportionately represented by the above coastal states," Hitchcock says.

AI previously reported on the rift in the Democratic Party over this very issue. According to a Blade report, we noted that African-American members of the DNC opposed increased representation for GLBT members of the Democratic Party. Dean, in particular, has been the subject of criticism from the GLBT community. Hitchcock was fired by Dean as the DNC's GLBT liaison earlier this year after his partner criticized Dean and the DNC on its handling of GLBT issues. Let's see if anything happens at this Friday's DNC meeting on this topic.

Truck Driver's Woes Underscore BMV Mess

WTHR-TV had an excellent story yesterday explaining how the BMV computer fiasco adversely affected a local truck driver, Kevin Elliot. Elliot's nightmare began when he was pulled over by police in Arkansas 3 weeks ago and issued a ticket for driving on a suspended license. Elliot told the police officer "that's impossible." He went to the BMV when he returned home. The BMV's computers showed that his license was valid, but when the data was transferred to law enforcement, it showed he had a suspended driver's license. As a consequence of the foul up, Elliot had to go 3 weeks without work while he attempted to get the mess straightened out with the BMV, and he has no money to pay his rent.

The BMV's temporary solution is to issue Elliot a letter he can carry with him in his truck which tell laws enforcement that his license is really valid even though their records show otherwise. There are apologies being sent by the Governor to affected customers, but Elliot isn't one of them. WTHR reports:

Managers are now issuing apologies. Governor Mitch Daniels issued a letter of apology which was sent to some 300 customers. BMV supervisors are doing the same. Spokesman Greg Cook says some BMV supervisers made house calls. "There have been occasions where some directors or managers have taken registrations, for instance, if there's a certain urgent situation, to a customer's home." Kevin Elliott didn't get a house call, nor did he get an apology. As trucker, his BMV problems hurt more than most.

Three weeks of lost wages because the BMV was too anxious to roll out an unproven computer system. AI doubts that's what Gov. Daniels has in mind when he talks about "aiming higher." By the way, the BMV did have time to hand deliver a handwritten note and new registration to the Star's editor Dennis Ryerson after he detailed the problems he encountered attempting to renew his registration on August 6 in the newspaper.

Colwell Dropped From WNIT

Well-known political reporter Jack Colwell has been dropped by WNIT from his participation in two popular TV shows, "Politically Speaking" and "Michiana Week". Colwell has hosted "Politically Speaking" for the past 18 years and has served as moderator of "Michiana Week" for the past 3 years. The South Bend Tribune's James Wensits reports:

Colwell was circumspect when asked to explain his departure."I believe the station wanted to head in some different direction with which I wasn't comfortable," Colwell said, adding that he didn't want to elaborate. "I wish WNIT well," he said. "Public television is very important.""We're sorry to see him go," said Mary Pruess, station manager. "This was his decision, not ours."

Colwell is a former political reporter for the South Bend Tribune. He still contributes columns to the newspaper.

Overreaching In Pursuit Of Gay Marriage Ban?

Have Republicans pushed proposed constitutional amendments banning gay marriage too far? A conservative talk radio host in Wisconsin thinks that is exactly what the GOP did with the proposed amendment Wisconsin voters are being asked to vote on this November. Charlie Sykes writes:

Legislative Republicans thought they had an electoral magic bullet when they voted to put an amendment banning gay marriage on the November general election ballot. The constitutional amendment would allow them to highlight a popular issue, motivate a big conservative turnout, and help Republicans up and down the ballot stem what appears to be a Democratic tide in 2006. But it increasingly looks as if the GOP miscalculated: making at least three major strategic errors.

The first mistake Sykes thinks the GOP made was overreaching with the wording of the amendment. Like Indiana's proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages, the Wisconsin amendment went further to encompass civil unions and other domestic benefits. Sykes writes, "Had Republicans stopped at the first sentence (defining marriage as between one man and one woman), the debate would have been squarely and unambiguously on the issue of gay marriage and the amendment likely would have passed easily." "But they didn’t, and that decision has shaped the current debate and changed the political dynamic," he concludes.

Sykes thinks the GOP badly miscalculated the degree to which the issue would "motivate and mobilize" the left in Wisconsin. "While conservative and moderates seem somewhat lukewarm, the opposition has been able to raise more than a $1 million and has launched both a well-organized grassroots effort and television ad campaign," Sykes says. With public opinion polls showing the public almost evenly divided, Sykes thinks Wisconsin could very well become the first state in the country to oppose such a constitutional ban. He believes that will lead Wisconsin courts to do what conservatives most feared--legislate from the bench.

The issue raised by amendment opponents which Sykes sees resonating with the state's voters is: “So when you hear this ban is about gay marriage remember, it’s about a whole lot more.” And they're right. What should have been a slam dunk Sykes laments is now up in the air.

Abdullah Asks For More Time On Zoning Variance Appeal

Councilor Patrice Abdullah (D), who apparently never bothered to research the issue prior to its approval by Metropolitan Development hearing examiner Judith Conley, wife of Councilor King Ro Conley, has asked the Metropolitan Development Commission to continue the appeal of the parking lot approval at the Julia Carson Government Center for a proposed restaurant/bar until the Commission's September 20 meeting. The hearing on the appeal is scheduled for August 16 (tomorrow) at 1:00 p.m.

Center Township Trustee Carl Drummer petitioned MDC for a variance, which would provide for a "family restaurant use" with a 576-square foot outdoor seating area, along with additional parking for use by restaurant employees. Indy Parks maintained a children's playground park on the westside of the building until recently. The playground equipment was abruptly removed in order to allow Center Township to pursue the restaurant/bar in the government building. Conley heard and approved the petition on July 27. After the development plan became public and people began complaining about having a bar in a government building, Drummer issued a statement indicating that the restaurant would not offer alcohol sales for now, but he did not rule out alcohol sales at the restaurant in the future.

There are actually two separate petitions, one for a variance to allow a restaurant in the government building and one for a rezoning to allow the off-street parking lot. Although the petitioner for both the rezoning and variance petitions is listed as Center Township, the docket for the hearing lists the City of Indianapolis Department of Parks and Recreation as being the party requesting the rezoning of 2.69 acres from the PK-1 District to the C-1 classification to provide for an off-street parking lot.

The park's department is being represented at the hearing by two attorneys with the law firm of Ice Miller, Timothy Ochs and Steven Rypma. Close Carson confidant and her long-time campaign manager Lacy Johnson is a partner at Ice Miller, and the firm has provided legal work for Center Township in the past. Johnson's son, Lacy Johnson, III, is listed as the registered agent and investor in the proposed restaurant/bar according to the Star. This means taxpayers are financing the legal costs associated with the rezoning and variance petitions so that Johnson's son and other undisclosed investors can pursue a private business pursuit at the government building, while Johnson's own law firm collects legal fees for the work. Because the city's parks department is also pursuing these changes, Mayor Peterson is clearly accountable for what is taking place as much as Carl Drummer, Julia Carson or any of the other cast of characters involved in this matter. Peterson also formerly worked at Ice Miller prior to his election as the city's mayor.

These relationships in government and politics can sometimes become so incestuous. Full disclosure needs to be the order of the day here. AI will do its part to bring these matters to light. If any of you have any pertinent information you feel should be disclosed, please feel free to share it with me and I will share it with the rest of our readers.

Kennedy Scores With "3 Strikes" Hit

Democrat prosecutor candidate Melina Kennedy appears to have scored a direct hit against her opponent Marion Co. Prosecutor Carl Brizzi (R) on his failure to prosecute accused murderer James Stewart under Indiana's habitual offender statute, commonly referred to as "three strikes and you're out." Kennedy earlier this week claimed that Stewart, who is one of two men charged with the execution-style killing of 7 family members on Hamilton Avenue earlier this summer, would not have been on the street if Brizzi had prosecuted him as a habitual offender for a 2004 arrest for dealing marijuana.

A press release issued today by Kennedy asserts that Brizzi admits that he didn't prosecute Stewart as a habitual offender, and that he never pursues habitual, or “three-strikes,” enhancements for repeat criminals when the underlying charge is a misdemeanor drug charge. In Stewart's case, his prior offenses were a DUI and dealing cocaine, in addition to the marijuana dealing charge. Kennedy responds:

We’ve now learned that these habitual drug charges are willfully and intentionally never filed. Sadly this soft on crime approach puts people like James Stewart back on our streets. How can this city win a war on crime when the prosecutor refuses to use the most powerful weapons. When this prosecutor says he doesn’t file habitual criminal charges when it comes to repeat drug dealers like James Stewart, I think that goes a long way towards explaining rising crime.

Kennedy's statement quotes Brizzi as saying, "We don’t file that because the Department of Correction does not take those individuals.” In fact, as Kennedy points out, Indiana's habitual offender statute does permit the Department of Corrections to accept inmates who have more than 547 days remaining before the person's earliest release date as a result of consecutive midemeanor sentences, in addition to other circumstances, including good cause.

Civil libertarians have been very critical of the 3 strikes and you're out law because of the harsh sentencing that can result in some cases. To illustrate its impact, cases in California were highlighted where individuals charged with shoplifting wound up receiving 25-year prison sentences because of at least 2 prior convictions, leading to a challenge of that state's law. In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of such sentencing schemes in Ewing v. California.

If Kennedy accepts the law as written and becomes prosecutor, similar results will likely happen here in Marion Co. if she applies the habitual offender statute across the board. But for now, she has exposed a significant weakness in Brizzi's argument that he has been doing all that he can to keep dangerous criminals off the street. Will that be enough to overcome her lack of prosecutorial experience? That's tough to say. But I bet this issue makes an effective 30-second TV campaign spot for Kennedy.