Libertarian Party of Marion County Statement on SB 621

Libertarian Party of Marion County Urges 

Governor Pence to Veto SB 621

The Indiana General Assembly has passed SB 621, a law which would eliminate all At-Large City-County Council seats in Marion County and give the Mayor unrestricted control over the budget. The Libertarian Party of Marion County stands against this legislation.

SB 621 has correctly been described as the “power grab” bill. It is an obvious attempt by the Republican super majority in the General Assembly to strip the power of the vote from the citizens of Marion County.

By eliminating the four at-large seats on the Council, the General Assembly is stripping away the combined voice of The People. While the LPMC is not convinced that the current structure of the Marion County government is necessarily the most productive and efficient model available to our citizens, we also do not believe the General Assembly should be dictating that model to us. Instead, we encourage the state legislators to introduce legislation to turn the authority to decide what model works best for Marion County over to the people of Marion County. The representatives of the other 91 counties should not be deciding how people they do not represent should be able to govern themselves.

SB 621 also gives the Mayor of Indianapolis unheard of authority to control the City budget in whatever way he seems fit. While the Council would still vote on the budget, the Mayor is given the almost unbelievable power to change that budget on a whim. The people of Marion County deserve a system of checks and balances, and this bill eliminates that.

To make matters worse, the General Assembly simply did not take the proper time to listen to the thoughts of the people of Marion County, the only county impacted by this legislation. Instead, the legislature chose to push through this bill and enforce it on us without our say.

We urge the citizens of Marion County to join us in calling on Governor Pence to reject this partisan power grab by vetoing SB 621.

Smoking Bans: Can We Please Stop Pretending It's About Health?

I don't write much about smoking bans.  I know, as a political blogger, you'd think it is some kind of prerequisite.  I choose not to talk about smoking bans, though.  It's not that I don't have strong feelings on the issue, because I do.  I choose not to spend time on it because: A) I think smoking bans are inevitable, and B) There's plenty of blogs out there talking about it and I'd just be noise.

So today, the day after the Indianapolis City-County Council has, for the second time this year, passed a enhanced smoking ban, I guess I'll touch on the issue a little.

I don't really want to talk about the ban itself, though.  I'm not going to focus on what's included, what's not included, who's applauding the vote, and who's upset with it.

Instead, I want to talk about why people want a smoking ban to begin with.  And let me tell you...it's not about health.  Not about the health of patrons.  Not about the health of employees.  It's not.

And I'm not going to get into whether or not second-hand smoke is dangerous.  Or third-hand smoke, which I've started to see little bits and pieces of mentioned in stories.

I'm not going to talk about any of those things because that's not why people want a smoking ban.  Some people are concerned about those things, but that's still not why they want a smoking ban.

People who support a smoking ban want a smoking ban for one simple reason: the smell.  They hate the smell of cigarettes.  They don't like going to bars and having to put up with the smell.  They don't like coming home and smelling the smell in their clothes.  They don't like feeling like they need a shower to get the smell off of them.

I get that.  There is a non-smoking bar near my house that I enjoy going to because I don't like coming home smelling of cigarettes. (Although I will sometimes smoke a cigarette or two while I am in a bar.)  But I don't pretend I go there because it's better for my health. I go to avoid the smell.

Why do I believe that it's the smell and not the health that is why people want a smoking ban?  A couple reasons.  First, that's what people bitch about.  The smell.  Not the impact on health, but the smell.  Second, there are plenty of other things that are plenty dangerous to people's health that you here very few ramblings about.

I'm not saying no one cares about the health aspects.  I'd bet, however, that if cigarettes were odor-free, then this argument would be a much quieter one.  I just wish that smoking ban advocates would be honest and say they don't like the smell.

Expanded Smoking Ban Would Cover E-Cigarettes? Why?

Tonight the new Democratic City-County Council begins it's four year journey.  First and foremost, I hope that they can make it through the next four years without selling off billions of dollars worth of our city for pennies on the dollar, and being known for high levels of corruption and insider back-scratching like the Republican council of the last four years was.

Tonight's meeting will have plenty to accomplish in the form of Council logistics, but won't be tackling to much in the form of legislation.  For the umpteenth time, though, the Council will have a new and improved smoking ban put before it.

The Council and the Ballard administration spent the last few years passing laws that didn't make much sense unless you believed they were trying to kiss the NFL's butt for the Super Bowl.  Nonetheless, both branches completely denied the big game was the motivating factor behind the proposals introduced.  Now, though, after an expanded smoking ban has met with repeated demise, there is no hiding it.  Despite the fact that expanding the smoking ban died in the Council as recently as last month, once again it is being introduced.  The State General Assembly is tackling the issue, too.  This time, though, they at least admit that they are trying to rush the legislation through so that it is in place before the February 5th game.

There is a ton of argument about the smoking ban, on both sides of the issue.  I don't want to discuss that here and now, though.  At least not most of it.  What I want to talk about is e-cigarettes.

One of many styles of e-cigarettes

E-cigarettes are designed as a method to help people quit smoking.  They use little cartridges in a battery-powered tube to give those trying to smoke a puff of nicotine to help calm their addiction.  They are approximately the same size as a regular cigarette, and unlike other smoking cessation methods help the smoker with the physical habit that accompanies their addiction, as well as the nicotine addiction.

Tonight's expanded smoking ban proposal, Prop 18, includes banning the use of e-cigarettes anywhere where the use of regular cigarettes are banned.  My question is: why?

E-cigarettes may have a similar size and shape as a normal cigarette, but the similarities pretty much end there.  When a user takes a drag of an e-cigarette, they exhale a breath of water vapor.  It's initial appearance is similar to a puff of smoke.  Unlike exhaled cigarette smoke, though, the exhaled e-cigarette vapor is completely odorless and dissipates quickly.  There is no odor being absorbed in your hair and your clothes.  There is no second-hand smoke.  There is simply a little puff of nothing that almost immediately disappears.

E-cigarettes are also being widely reported as one of the most successful smoking cessation tools.  Since it tackles the physical habits that accompany the addiction, it feels more proper to a smoker trying to kick the habit.  If one of the points of a smoking ban is to eventually lower the number of smokers, then adding similar bans to e-cigarettes as there are on regular cigarettes means you are telling those trying to kick the habit that one of the most successful ways to do so is simply not acceptable if you have to look at it.  Banning e-cigarettes in restaurants and bars is the equivalent of telling those that want to quit smoking that you would rather see them smoking a real cigarette outside than use an unintrusive and successful cessation tool inside.  Basically, you would rather them kill themselves than have to watch them try to save themselves.

Banning e-cigarettes is all about image and nothing about danger. It has nothing to do with the smell.  It has nothing to do with the dangers of smoking.  It has nothing to do with the reports of dangers of second-hand smoke.  It's all about whining about something simply because you don't want to look at it.  And it puts smokers in harms way.

Ed Coleman Again Attacked with Lies by Sandlin Campaign.



Councillor Ed Coleman
(one of his infamous new suits?)

 Jack Sandlin's at it again.  I wrote on Thursday about Jack's neagative mailers; one attacking Ed Coleman with lies about an "attack piece" that didn't exist, and another with Jack taking credit for 4 years worth of Council votes while having only been on the Council for 11 months.

(To be fair, the Marion County Libertarian Party did send a less-than-positive piece on Sandlin.  It was sent, however, after Sandlin claimed to be attacked.  The only pieces that I am aware of having been sent before Sandlin's claim are the incredibly positive pieces I showed in the blog.)

Now, there's another mailer floating around on Sandlin's behalf attacking Ed Coleman.  This one, paid for by the MCRCC, makes claims that Coleman illegally used campaign funds to buy fancy clothes, and fly to Vegas for a night at a casino.

(On a personal note, I don't know what Sandlin considers to be a "Wild" night in vegas.  Frankly, I don't think that a $108 hotel room bill qualifies.)

New ad attacking Coleman

The fact is that Coleman made a trip to Vegas to go to Freedom Fest, one of the largest Libertarian festivals in the country, to seek fundraising.  Considering that his networking there may have been a significant step towards his campaign receiving a $50,000 donation seems to make the trip very worth while.  And the $108 casino expense that Sandlin implies was gambling?  That was Coleman's hotel room.

Fellow blogger Paul Ogden covered this earlier today.  It appears he has been in touch with Coleman's campaign. Coleman's response, via Ogden's blog:

"Freedom Fest is a large gathering of enthusiastic libertarian individuals every year in Nevada. The campaign invested a small amount for Ed to make the trip, because we saw an opportunity to fundraiser and receive attention on a national level.


The investment paid off and eventually helped Ed raise over $60,000 for his campaign, allowing us to spread Ed’s message of Lower Taxes, Balanced Budgets, and Public Safety."

Coleman's response goes on to say that Ed has focused on his health this year, a focus that has lead to his losing almost fifty pounds.  That weight loss lead to Coleman's need for new suits, a need which campaign contributors recognized and specifically donated for.
 
So, for the second time in days I have to wonder why Jack Sandlin has to resort to lies in his attempts to defeat Ed Coleman.  As I said in my previous blog, Sandlin is obviously scared.
 
I guess I should just be clear.  An $1,100 trip for the purpose of raising more than $60,000 for your campaign is not the misuse of campaign funds, even if that trip happens to land you in Vegas.  Another $880 on suits after losing 50 pounds is not a misuse of campaign funds, especially when money was specifically donated to your campaign for that cause.  There was no "Wild night in Vegas." There was a fundraising trip just like candidates everywhere take part in.
 
Jack Sandlin and the Republicans are turning to lies in their negative mailers simply because there just isn't anything true to be said about Councillor Coleman that would piss anyone off.
 
And Jack Sandlin and the Republicans are turning to lies in their own Vote for Jack mailers simply because there isn't anything true to be said about Sandlin that would entice anyone to elect him.

Sandlin Acting Scared on the South Side

If you haven't yet noticed, I hope you take a minute to turn your attention to a very interesting Council race that has been developing on the South Side.  Marion County's 24th district, located at the due-south side of town, along US 31 from I-465 to County Line, is shaping up as one of the more interesting races in this year's election.

Ed Coleman

The "battle of the mustaches" is between Libertarian Ed Coleman, currently an at-large councillor representing all of Marion County, and Republican Jack Sandlin, the current District 24 representative, appointed to fill the position last December after Mike Speedy left for his State House seat.  There is no Democrat running in the race. The word is, though, that Marion County Democrats are apparently making it clear through their inner circles that any Democrat who does not vote for Coleman is, in their view, essentially voting for Republican Sandlin.

Both have been out spreading the word about their campaigns and have sent several pieces through the mail.  Coleman has sent two or three mailers out so far and has thus far remained positive.  Sandlin has sent several mailers (mostly sent on his behalf from the Republican Party) which have been misleading at best.

This issue was tackled on Monday by fellow blogger Paul Ogden.  In his article "Mailing Brags About Councilor Jack Sandlin's Support of Mayor Ballard's Agenda BEFORE Sandlin Took a Seat On the Council" Ogden talks about how Sandlin, a councillor for a mere 11 months, takes credit for years worth of votes on the Council.

One of Sandlin's first misleading ads

I assume Sandlin is trying to play into the fact that most voters do not even know who their councillor is.  By making claims that are not even possible, Sandlin hopes to capitalize on the votes of voters who simply do not know better.

From Ogden:

"The only problem is, Sandlin did not take a seat on the Indianapolis City-County Council until late 2010. Bragging about Sandlin's support of the Ballard agenda when he wasn't even on the council seems to be at worst dishonest and at best sloppiness by party officials.


It is also a stretch to say he was "elected" and now should be "re-elected." Sandlin received his position when he won an unopposed precinct committeeman caucus vote to fill a vacancy when Councilor Michael Speedy was elected to the legislature."

Ogden is right on both points.  Sandlin's mailer starts by asking for you to "re-elect" him.  Simply, you cannot re-elect someone that was never elected in the first place.
 
Second, Sandlin takes credit for passing honestly balanced budgets each of the last three years.    Simply, again, you can't pass budgets that you were not part of the Council to even vote on. (I won't even get in to the "honestly balanced" statement, except to say Indianapolis does not have an honestly balanced budget.) His mailer, as you can see, is full of similar points that are simply impossible for an 11-month councillor to have achieved.
 
Sandlin's newest mailer, the first one I've seen actually paid for by his campaign, directly attacks Coleman for having "attacked" him unfairly.

Sandlin's recent "I was attacked" mailer



The first line of the mailer indicates that Coleman is trying to deceive the 24th District voters.  An interesting statement from someone claiming credit for 4 years of votes during 11 months on the Council.
 
The mailer also refers to Coleman's mailers as an "attack" on Sandlin.  If you look at the samples of Coleman's mailers that I have included, I am sure you you find that they are free of attacks on Sandlin. In fact, Coleman's campaign ads have been very good about staying centered on Coleman's achievements.
 

Back of one Coleman mailer

Front of both of Coleman's mailers

Back of the other Coleman mailer

I'm not going to get up on a pedestal and say that Ed Coleman is without flaws.  One thing that he is, though, is honest.  On more than one occasion I've heard members of other parties, even when disagreeing with him, refer to Coleman as one of the most consistent and principled members on the Council.  To suggest that Coleman is lying or being deceptive in his campaign materials is, as I show above, simply not true.
 
In fact, if there's a deceptive candidate this year in District 24, it's Jack Sandlin.

DCE the Driving Force Behind Ordinance Giving Themselves Uncontrolled Powers, Admits Councillor

I had about a 35 minute chat yesterday with Councillor Angel Rivera. We mostly talked about Proposal 188, but ventured off a few times and talked about various other topics like the Broad Ripple parking garage.
My original intent was to touch base with the Councillor before I posted the entry to my blog yesterday, so I'd be able to include his remarks there. As it would happen, he called me literally seconds after I published that post. I said I would discuss our conversation, though, when it happened. So, here it is.
First, and most importantly, I wanted to address the topic of why 188 is even necessary to begin with. When I asked him where he got the idea for 188, he did not hesitate to say it came from the Department of Code Enforcement. When I asked who the major contributor was to the original writing of 188, again the answer was the Department of Code Enforcement. My fears, as I laid out in my last blog, are indeed true. The proposal to give large amounts of undefined power to the DCE was, in fact, proposed and written by the DCE itself.
I asked Rivera if he saw the enormous conflict in interest in this.   He did, he admitted. He then went on to tell me that he and other councillors simply don't have the time to research and write these ordinances. Instead, he said, they typically defer that to part of the executive branch.
I understand that being a City-County Councillor is a part-time job. I understand that many of the employees of the DCE are full-time. I even understand the need to have someone with more time and more experience write these ordinances.
What I don't understand is how it can be allowed for one area of the executive branch to suggest a proposal that gives them enormous powers, and then we allow that same organization to write and amend the legislation and then be the sole group to testify to the committee on the proposal's pros and cons.
When I presented this problem to Councillor Rivera, his reply was, "it's the Mayor's head that's on the chopping block."
The Councillor even admitted that the powers granted to the DCE were broad, and, if someone was so inclined, could be abused. I inquired why, if abuse is possible, aren't limitations included in the language of the proposal, such as maximum size and scope of clean zones, that would prevent potential abuses before that had the opportunity to occur. Again, Rivera deferred to the Mayor, stating that if the abuse happens it will be the Mayor who is forced to deal with it.
As far as ticket resellers go, Rivera stated that after they added the "face value +15%" amendment to the amount resellers can sell their tickets for, I am the only person that has a problem with it. While I cannot speak for others, I must say I doubt that.
I also mentioned that Ticketmaster fees, according to my research, often exceed 20%. The Councillor said he would move to amend the language again, from 15% to 20%. I suggested removing the reseller ban altogether.
Correctly, Rivera said that it is not a ban. I pointed out that it is a law that will allow bulk ticket resellers, like Circle City Tickets, to resell all they want. You and I, though, that just want to sell a couple of tickets to an event we can't go to anymore? Well, we're going to be forbidden. Rivera suggested we sell to a licensed broker ourselves. To do so, though, once again takes the ability to profit away from the individual citizen and leaves that ability solely in the hands of corporate ticket brokers. This is something we should all be able to do equally.
And the reason that we should limit the ability to resell? Rivera says its because of the numerous complaints received about counterfeit tickets as well as complaints about overly aggressive scalpers causing people to feel intimidated on the way to an event.
Having been to many, many events in the city, and having bought from resellers myself, these are problems I've never faced. I don't deny they exist, though, so I asked how many complaints we were talking about.
Rivera said he knew of a dozen or more. That's right, a dozen. Out of the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people attending various events throughout the city each year, we're going to infringe upon the rights of hundreds of vendors and resellers, as well as hundreds or thousands of citizens who wish to repurchase (the resellers are responding to a market demand for their services, to be sure) because 12 people complained. That, my friends, is how I define overreaction.
Overall, my conversation with Rivera was a pleasant one. He is a nice man, and I genuinely believe he means well. I do disagree with him on what this law will accomplish, though. I also continue to question the judgement that allows the DCE to write their own ticket to control in this city.
For now, I will end my discussions on Proposal 188 and how bad I believe it is. We will see tonight how the rest of the members of the Council weigh in on it.

It's No Better Now: Rivera's Prop 188 is Amended and Heading for a Monday Vote



On Wednesday the 10th of August, the City-County Council Committee of Rules and Public policy met.  One of their biggest topics to tackle was Proposal 188, which I discussed in my earlier blog.  While they did make some changes to the proposal, those changes amount to nothing. (You can find the minutes from the meeting and the amendments here.)



Councillor Angel Rivera

The only thing I see that really did get accomplished by the amendments is the end of the private lawn parking ban.  While this is positive, I am concerned by some comments made by Councillor Angel Rivera (R- At Large) that were noted in the minutes.  Rivera made the comment that this parking is already prohibited by those without a commercial parking permit and parking lines drawn. This makes me wonder if this starts getting enforced pretty heavily even if not included in the final version of 188.

Some things in the amended version of 188 actually got worse.  The original version of the bill said ticket resellers were limited to using hand-held signage.  The amended version of the proposal defines the signage used by resellers cannot be greater than 10" x 10".  If you think about the size of a standard piece of 8.5" x 11" copy paper, I'm sure you can see the resellers won't be able to have much visible signage at all.

And those resellers are no longer limited to reselling tickets for only the face value.  Nope, now they can add 15% to the amount of those tickets to recoup the cost of Ticketmaster or other fees.  In actuality, the 15% isn't even enough to recoup the fees in most cases.  I just took a peek at tickets for the 8/22 Britney Spears show at Conseco Fieldhouse.  The $59.50 tickets have a $12 Ticketmaster convenience fee, or just over 20%.  C'mon, Councillor...if you're going to say the amendment is to cover fees, then write the amendment without a generic percentage included, just say that the amount cannot be more than the total face value + fees.

This amendment is nothing but a political move to make it sound like they aren't being so strict.  It is a way for Rivera and other 188 supporters to make comments to the media suggesting that 188 no longer keeps resellers from marking up the price of their tickets.  We see through your political sham, Councillor.

The most horrendous thing that 188 does is give sweeping, undefined powers to the Department of Code Enforcement.  All the "Clean Zones" and "Event Zones" that are created in Prop 188 are controlled, with little restriction, by the DCE.  The DCE can create these zones in any size and shape they deem necessary.  While I agree that each event is unique, such uncontrolled power is uncalled for.  If the Council believes that such zones are really needed (a decision I would question, as I have seen no indication during prior events that I believe require such a mandate), then the DCE should be limited by 188 about the size and scope of the zones.  The only limitation I see is that the DCE must give seven days notice and that's hardly a limitation at all.

DCE Director Rick Powers

Rick Powers, Director of the Department of Code Enforcement, spoke at the committee meeting Wednesday.  He gave a "brief powerpoint presentation" (which is mysteriously missing from the minutes, despite the fact that a 25-page power point presentation given that night on another pair of proposals is there in its entirety).  He then went on to state what he felt were the benefits of 188. A couple of his points that I have particular issue with:

-->"Makes it easier for neighborhoods to host events." - While this may be true for smaller neighborhoods hosting smaller events, there is simply no guarantee this is the case.

-->"Reduces government oversight and regulation." - This is simply not true.  Just because you rearrange the necessary steps to hold or be involved in an event does not mean you reduce oversight or regulation.  I would suggest that 188 does the opposite through the addition of new rules about ticket reselling, vending, signage, and near unlimited authority given to the DCE to control clean zones and event zones.

-->"Negates the overwhelming bureaucracy that existing laws across a broad spectrum require that would legally allow events to take place, or worse, expressly prohibit." - Where is the problem you're talking about?  This is an enormous issue with Prop 188...Why does it need to exist to begin with?  We've had tons of events in the past, and I see no evidence that the "problems" 188 is trying to solve even exist.  The councillors have repeated this "isn't a Super Bowl ordinance", but I am forced to call B.S. The only benefactor I see from 188 is the NFL and similar groups.  We, the citizens, lose out in the meantime to a runaway city government trying to protect us from problems that do not exist.

I think I'm starting to see, though, why Prop 188 hands so much authority over to the DCE.  In the minutes from Wednesday's committee meeting, 188 sponsor Councilor Rivera thanked the DCE for "helping him draft this amendment and listening to the concerns of Councillors and citizens."  I find it troublesome that legislation that gives the DCE broad sweeping powers be written in part by that very organization.  It also makes me wonder how involved the DCE was in suggesting the need for the proposal to begin with, as well as with the original writing of the proposal.  The conflict of interest here is incredibly large.

The Agenda for the City-County Council shows that Proposal 188 is up for a vote this Monday night, August 15th.  The meeting is scheduled to start at 7:00.  Look for Prop 188 and other proposals on the aganda to possibly be rushed through so more time is available for the introduction of the budget.  I hope they do the smart thing and lay 188 aside for discussion at a future meeting when there aren't so many big issues on the table that may cause the Council to rush through something this important.  On the other hand, that's probably exactly what they want.

Since my original blog on this topic, I have shared a number of texts and voice mails with its sponsor, Councillor Angel Rivera.  He has suggested these amendments somehow address the concerns of that posting, but I fail to see how.  He has been very nice and welcomed the discussion with me about 188.  I was hoping to have that discussion with him before posting this today, but the phone-tag game has gotten in the way.  I still believe we will make contact and discuss this issue.  When this occurs, I will post on it.