Hotel Workers Flood Council for Tax Rebate Bill

I went to last night's City-County Council Meeting. I wanted to see the Mayor introduce the budget and I wanted to see how the vote went on Prop 188. I never got to do the former.

See, it was standing room only at the meeting last night. Less than standing room only. A sea of red shirts completely flooded not only the council chambers, but also the entire second floor entry area to those chambers. The Fire Marshall's capacity notice for the room, if I recall correctly, states the room can hold no more than 275. I'm pretty sure the chambers were well past that number. (In the wake of the State Fair tragedy, I wonder what the fallout would have been if something terrible would have happened in that packed room.)

The hundreds of red shirts represented a segment of the hotel workers in Indianapolis that were there to support the introduction of Proposal 242, a tax rebate for the city's employees in that industry. Not just any of the employees, but just those making between $10,000 and $25,000 annually.

The hotel workers' point is that many of these hotels are getting a tax break to make money in the city, and if the hotels get a piece then so should the hotel employees.

The tax break would come in the form of a rebate that would be somewhere between $200 and $250 per year. A decent little check for someone making less than $25,000. Abdul-Hakim Shabazz points out that this equals about 54 cents a day, and is thus not worth fighting for. His math is right, but when you make that kind of money $200 is worth fighting for.

You may think I'm saying I support 242. You'd be wrong. You see, I fully support lower taxes and the increased economic freedom they bring. But I also support economic freedom for all, not just some, as well as drastically simplified tax codes. Proposals like 242 carve out yet another exemption to a specific group and add another layer of confusion to an already multi-faceted mess of tax laws out there.

Hotel workers, you've got the right idea. Lets get the government to allow us to keep more of what we earn. You're going about it wrong, though. We need to eliminate these carve-outs for specific industries, companies, and people and focus on a big carve-out for us all.

The Sinking Ship Survives

First, I won't make the "Sinking Ship Stays Afloat" joke that it appears every other source will.

Good news, though. The Sinking Ship was unanimously approved for its liquor license renewal despite some residents in the Meridian Kessler neighborhood's objections. Only one showed up to yesterday's hearing to object.

I've always thought that this was less about the business itself and more about the patrons. Tattoos and body piercing are the norm there, and I think some people would rather see a place frequented by those in golf shirts and khakis.

I have no tattoos or piercings. I still like The Sinking Ship, though. Cool place with a good menu. I'm glad she's staying open.

Follow the link for more on this from the indystar.

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.



Four Dead and Dozens Hurt by State Fair Stage Collapse

The Indy Star is reporting that as many as a dozen people were injured tonight at the Indiana State Fair when part of the grandstand stage collapsed during winds associated with tonight's storms.

According to the report, medics were setting up a triage center and moving the injured to a tunnel below the track in the area.

The report also indicates that there may have been the need to dig up parts of the track to reach concert-goers trapped by the collapsed rigging.

Follow the link below for the preliminary Indy Star report.

Dozen hurt at State Fair stage collapse | The Indianapolis Star | indystar.com

UPDATE

visit WTHR.com for video of the collapse. Terrifying.

UPDATE

The newest reports coming out of the Fairgrounds are saying four people have been killed in the stage collapse.

Stories Like Hinkle's...What is News, and What isn't News

Representative Hinkle

There's been a lot of chatter today about State Representative Phil Hinkle and the "Craigslist Encounter" story the Star broke this morning. I suspect there will continue to be for a few days. We'd better get used to that.

The Indy Star's article seemed to mostly try to cover the facts, although it seemed from just one side. (Admittedly, it sounds like they did contact the Hinkle camp, and Hinkle & Co played politician and gave vague responses, most likely to try to find time to get their story straight.)

From Advance Indiana, we heard shock. "Say it ain't so, Phil."

From Jon Easter over at the Indy Democrat we heard disappointment. You see, Hinkle is a close family friend of the Easters. Very respectfully,  Jon said he was going to bow out of this one. (He even disabled comments on the post so that his blog stays clear of some of the Hinkle-bashing that was sure to occur.)

Paul Ogden over at Ogden on Politics took a different approach...he asked if this is even news. Paul's one of my favorite bloggers and once again he has hit the nail on the head.

Ogden's specific question was where do we draw the line between what IS news and what ISN'T news in a case like this. Well, Paul, I've got the answer.

Sorry to harp on you, Representative Hinkle, but the answer is right here in this story about you. You see, this story provides great examples on both sides of the coin. There is plenty being covered that we simply shouldn't care about. There's definitely parts if this story that are worth covering, however.

Let's start with what ISN'T news.  Phil Hinkle might be gay.  Or bisexual.  Or experimenting (who said that needs left to college kids?)

The point is I don't care and neither should you. Phil Hinkle's sexual preferences, as long as they remain between him and another consenting adult, should remain the business of him and other consenting adults. I don't give a flying rat's behind if he's meeting a grown man in a hotel.  Or a grown woman. Or one of each.  Or...wow...a few of each.  What Phil Hinkle does in the private areas of his life should remain part of the private areas of his life.

The next question here is the hypocrisy.  Is it news that someone who has been a supporter of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman may be involved in homosexual relations?  Meh.  Maybe.  This author, again, doesn't care about this.  Should you be a hypocrite?  No.  Should it be news every time hypocrisy is discovered in a politician?  Wow...definitely not.  It'd consume all the news all the time.

The last question deals with the remaining aspects of the story.  For further definition, I will quote a couple pieces of the Star's story.

-->"He said the lawmaker at first told him he could not leave, grabbed him in the rear, exposed himself to the young man and then later gave him an iPad, BlackBerry cellphone and $100 cash to keep quiet."

-->"Phinkle46 @comcast.net: 'How about $80 for services rendered and if real satisfied a healthy tip? That make it worth while?'"

-->"One email from Hinkle's account asks 'what will make you happy for giving me a couple hours of your time tonight?'


Gibson: 'Wat (sic) can you give me?'

Phinkle46 @comcast.net: 'How about $80 for services rendered and if real satisfied a healthy tip? That make it worth while?'"


-->"Final for the record, for a really good time, you could get another 50, 60 bucks. That sound good?"


-->"He said Hinkle's response was: 'You need to do this, because I came and got you, and I'm not taking you back until we do what we need to do.'"


-->"When Gibson came out, he said Hinkle told him he couldn't leave. "

-->"Kameryn and Megan Gibson said Hinkle then offered his iPad, a BlackBerry and $100 in cash."

-->"Megan Gibson said on her way back, she received another call from Hinkle's wife. 'The first thing she said, she was like, 'OK, we will give you $10,000 not to say anything,' " said Megan Gibson, who said she was now becoming scared. 'I was like, 'OK,' and I hung up the phone.'"


OK, Representative Hinkle, this is where things get a little hairy.  Before I proceed, I'd like to reaffirm that everything mentioned here is alleged.

Sure, it doesn't sound like you specifically offered money in return for sexual favors.  Most of us are reading between the lines, though, and it sure as hell sounds like that's what you meant.

Sure, you didn't specifically tell anyone that they couldn't leave until they fulfilled their "obligation."  Most of us are reading between the lines, though, and it sure as hell sounds like that's what you meant.

It definitely sounds like you might have specifically offered goods, monies, or both to keep their mouth shut about what took place, though. Not too much reading between the lines is necessary there.

This is where this whole story becomes newsworthy.  Gay fling?  Not worthy of my time.  Bit of a hypocrite?  Eh, it happens.  Be a lawmaker possibly involved in the criminal side of prostitution and/or buying off people's silence about a potentially criminal act?  You better bet that's news.

So, there's your answer Mr. Ogden.  That's where the line is drawn about what SHOULD be news and what HAPPENS to be news.  In cases like this, it's all about the fact you might've broken the law.

As is the case all too many times in all too many cases, it's not the action that really gets you in trouble...it's the lies and the cover-up.

Star: State Rep Phil Hinkle Involved in Craigslist Encounter with Young Man

The Indy Star website is this morning reporting State Rep Phil Hinkle has been involved in a Craigslist "meeting" with a young man. While sex and prostitution were never specifically mentioned, the included storybook from the involved man lead you to a damning conclusion.

It'll be interesting to see how the Hinkle camp plays this. They are already making comments that indicate that, while the emails aren't being denied, a shakedown is taking place.

Much more to come on this, I'm sure.

Email rendezvous entangles state Rep. Phillip Hinkle | The Indianapolis Star | indystar.com