Proponents of Linden Meadows have spread false rumors that the legal battle is over, that opponents have declined to file an appeal of Judge Blau's ruling. Here's the real truth. The opponents have filed a Motion to Correct Errors in Judge Blau's ruling of November 22, 2005. A hearing is pending on that motion which has suspended the 30-day timeframe. If the opponents do not prevail at the pending hearing, an appeal will be filed immediately with the Court of Appeals. The legal battle will continue as long as the opponents have an arena in which to fight.
It does appear that some members of our community have lifted a few too many pints of progressive ale.
While feigning a reluctance to impugn the motives of opponents of Linden Meadows, NAC cynically suggests a politicization of the issue with sinister speculation as to the funding sources of the opponents' legal fees. While portraying the motives of the opponents as "politically motivated", NAC reveals the motives of the proponents: federal-matching funds.
The amount of federal dollars anticipated by the proponents has grown proportionately with the consumption of pints of progressive ale, from $10-15 million a year ago to the latest estimate of $75 million. Here's the truth: Neighbors and relatives of the Fawcett Family have pooled their meager resources to pay nearly all the opponents' legal fees. Others (outside of neighbors/relatives) have contributed one-sixtieth (1/60) of the cost. As for the federal money, Mr. Miller himself said during a court hearing that he hoped to see approximately two million in federal money. That's a long way from $75 million.
While claiming to be an advocate for low-income housing, CHDO received a blanket approval for the entire subdivision in violation of the 60' variance ordinance. It is their belief to cram as many low-income houses as possible on to a small piece of land. There is a lawsuit pending against the city on that decision.
Smart growth? It is a no-brainer that it is crucial to keep green spaces in our inner city. Howard McLean Park was one of those. One of the blogs states that the opponents have an "obligation to respect the final ruling even if it goes against them". So, we guess you are saying the same thing to the folks who are contemplating filing an appeal of Judge Blau's ruling about Silvercrest Children's Home.
Please tell us again why the houses weren't put at Valley View and on several lots along Linden Street now owned by the city. All 23 houses could have been moved, remodeled and sold by now. Please tell us why Valley View residents had a vote. Since they voted "no" to the houses, please tell us why a civil rights complaint wasn't filed against them. We really would like an explanation. The people of New Albany deserve one.
We lift our own glass to the battle of protecting property rights and to citizens who continue to fight those who feloniously and maliciously continue to try to persuade the community that it is about something else.
Freedom Of Speech
