Reflections

I have spent the last few weeks since the Fishers City Council election reflecting on the results of that election, and lessons to be learned from it.  In no particular order, here are some of them.

• I got votes from about 40% of those who voted, a very respectable showing for a Democrat. But despite my fiscal conservatism on local financial issues, some people only vote for Republicans, period, and paid too little attention to the very real financial issues related to our overuse of TIF financing and rapidly rising debt.  
• It is exhausting to be a candidate, physically and mentally.  That is doubly true when you are the only candidate of your party on the ballot. 
• Voter turnout in non-Presidential elections, especially for city offices, is nothing short of horrible, and it has been getting worse.  I have heard all sorts of ideas about why this is so, including blaming the one-party nature of local politics to voters simply not understanding why local government is important. I will do my small part about the problem, but even my Republican friends don't understand this. Is it apathy, futility, ignorance of local government, or something else? 
• Democratic Party involvement is probably part of the solution, but the problem there is two-fold, both at the bottom where too few people want to do the hard grassroots work to make it happen, and at the top, where there is a lack of resources, training, communication, and involvement. If Democrats could somehow get their act together, it would drive more citizen involvement in the process. 
• As an alternative to the comment above, I could support non-partisan local elections for mayors and city councils. If there is a Republican or a Democratic position on most local issues, I have yet to see it. It's hard to put a party label on a road construction project. And the stereotype about Democrats being big spenders is just false.  In Hamilton County, the big spenders are all Republicans. But not all of them support that. 
• Both Democrats and Republicans need to learn to talk to each other in a civil manner and be able to work together for common cause. CityYes was a great example of how citizens could put aside party label for a shared vision. 
• Fishers still needs to pass a human rights ordinance. I have no faith in the State doing this right any time soon.
• Fishers also needs to pass a version of an ethics ordinance and campaign finance reform to limit special interests who do business with the City from essentially buying access to city government via large campaign donations. 

I will continue to speak out and write about matters that concern me.  Although I do not expect to write any more posts for this blog, please follow my Hamilton County Politics blog, which also posts to Facebook and Twitter. Feel free to follow it, and me.  Thanks to everyone who supported and worked for me, words cannot express how much I appreciate it. 

Rising Debt in Fishers

Recently at the City Council's budget hearing, I was one of only two citizens who actually got up and spoke or asked questions about the Mayor's $69 million dollar budget plan for 2016. Even the Council seemed disinclined to ask any questions, even though they are the fiscal body for the City.

But I asked tough questions, as I have been doing for several years now, primarily aimed at Fishers' rising debt.  Here are some highlights, or lowlights, depending on your viewpoint.

• Fishers total debt is $274 million, up from about $70 million in 2008. 
• Of that total debt, over $150 million is in Tax Increment Financing (TIF) debt, the form of corporate welfare that keeps our tax base from actually growing and requires non-TIF homeowners and businesses to subsidize core services like police and fire for the TIF areas.
• Of the $69 million in spending for 2016, over $12 million is for debt payments, roughly 17% of the total. 

As I was making my remarks, the Council President actually tried to cut me off because he does not want the word to get out about these facts. After my remarks, he, the Mayor, and other Council members tried to defend this as being "fiscally conservative".  I am sorry, but if that kind of debt is "fiscally conservative", then that term is meaningless. 

Do you want pretend fiscal conservatives to continue to run everything without someone who will stand up, ask the hard questions, and say "Wait one minute!"?  If you are troubled by that, then please support me on November 3rd.

Equal Rights in Fishers

Over the last several days, a lot of controversy has erupted over the Indiana General Assembly's adoption of what it called the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act".  Governor Pence has taken a lot of criticism for his support of this law, including from some Republican mayors like Mayor Ballard of Indianapolis, who feel that this law is bad for our image and bad for business.

Fishers Mayor Scott Fadness has today announced his own disapproval of this law, as reported here by Larry Lannan:  http://www.larryinfishers.com/fishers-speaks-on-rfra.html. I have told Mayor Fadness that while I disagree with him on some things, that I agree with him on others. This is one of the times we agree.  I have in the last few minutes emailed that message to the Mayor.

But perhaps we need to go beyond statements and proclamations and take a hard look at drafting an equal rights ordinance for Fishers.  To my surprise, apparently we do not have such a local law. Fishers is generally an open and accepting community, with residents of many faiths, and origins from all over the world. I believe that the time has come to enact that open, accepting attitude into local law.

I believe strongly in equality of the law for all people, regardless of race, religion, gender, national origin, disability, or sexual identity or orientation. We continue to strive to achieve that standard that Thomas Jefferson wrote more than 200 years ago, that "... we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...". A local ordinance recognizing that principle should be something to consider.

Fishers Debt Keeps Rising

I had said in an earlier post that pursuant to a Public Records Request I obtained last year, that Fishers' total debt was $252 million. Well, that seems to have changed.

Try to find this information on the Fishers website.  I don't think you can, it simply is not there. But there IS a public resource, called the Indiana Gateway, run by the Indiana Department of Local Government Finance, which has all sorts of interesting information.  The Indiana Gateway can be located here.

So, being curious, I looked up Fishers' total debt. As of today, March 11, 2015, it is an eye-popping $263,610,910.  This is up $11 million from when I asked just last fall.

And the amount of debt being paid by Tax Increment Financing (TIF) revenue is an equally-disturbing $101,540,060.

Keep in mind, the total of Fishers' annual budget this year is only $73 million.

Are you concerned about these numbers?  I am.

A Step in the Right Direction, Part 2

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a post on this blog, which I called A Step in the Right Direction, which commented on a new development on Maple Street where a real estate office will be built, and without the TIF loans which characterized other downtown developments.  I noted I have been strongly critical of TIFs, for a number of reasons.

Since then I have had a some comments about how even this project involves what I have called "corporate welfare", that is taxpayer giveaways to do a particular development.  And they are correct, this project does do that. Some of those so-called incentives for this Maple Street project include:

• A sale price for the land of $25,000.  The Redevelopment Commission appears to have paid $175,000 for the property, then about $12,000 to demolish the existing structure built in 1940. The land has an appraised value of $95,500, so the new owner is getting it at a considerable discount. 
• Waiver of impact fees amounting to $58,000.00. 

The City was prepared to award TIF money, which it would borrow on its own credit, but that did not happen.  That was the point of my comment in the original post.  Again, this is a step in the right direction, but serious scrutiny needs to be given to other incentives.  At a minimum, the return to the taxpayer should be a net positive, not a negative. City Administration would doubtless argue (and have, publicly and privately) that the long-term benefits will be both tangible and intangible.  That is a conversation worth having.  

There are long-term liabilities to all the TIF and other taxpayer funding in the downtown redevelopment. Our total debt is skyrocketing.  The last total I was able to get, and then only by an official Public Records Act request, was over $250 million.  Per capita debt rose about 700% between 2007 and 2013, a period of time when our population also rose. Developments in TIF districts do not add to the tax base available to fund local government (including some impact on the schools) until the debt is paid off, even if a particular project did not get a TIF loan. Some of the TIF-funded projects, such as the Depot, Switch, and others, generate less in new tax revenue than is needed to make the debt service payments. 

And again, the Maple Street project does not do that. But there is nothing to prevent TIF funding from happening again unless citizens speak out, and make their voices heard at the ballot box. 

A Step in the Right Direction

As many know, I have been opposing the use of TIF districts to fund private development since 2007, when the Fishers Town Council pledged TIF funds to a redevelopment of downtown, and a project called Riverplace in the southwest corner of Fishers on 96th between Allisonville and the White River. Both of these proposals, enthusiastically backed by town leaders, were total and abject failures.  And in 2014, I objected to the TIF financing of the existing downtown projects, which are so risky that the developers of the "Depot" and "Switch" projects could not get private financing or bank loans and still make a profit on these deals.

But perhaps they did listen to me and the increasing chorus of voices complaining about these taxpayer handouts, which I had criticized as corporate welfare.  The newest downtown project will go in on Maple Street, buying a lot which had previously been purchased by the Fishers Redevelopment Commission, and will house a real estate company.  Even better, this business is not asking for any TIF funds nor even a tax abatement. They are getting a waiver of some impact and other fees.

So in a complete reversal of prior projects, which gave away public land for free and tens of millions of borrowed dollars to make it work, this project pays for the land, will pay future taxes, and likely create new jobs.

There is only one downside that I can see so far - the property is still in the downtown TIF, so the increase (called an increment) of new real estate taxes will go to pay for the TIF loans for other projects, and not to the general tax base to pay for necessary government operations such as police and fire services, among other things.

I have been strongly critical of TIFs, and I will continue that. I feel that they are fiscally irresponsible, non-transparent, and easily subject to abuse. They create winners and losers, making non-TIF taxpayers fund the bill for basic government services, and subsidize new business over old.

But the members of the Fishers government will hardly give me credit for any of this, but perhaps they are listening after all. And if elected to the City Council, I will continue to voice and fight for the citizens, whether or not anyone else is listening.

Filing for City Council at Large

I am pleased to announce that I have filed my paperwork to be a candidate for Fishers City Council at Large for the 2015 election.

I hope to bring diversity to the City Council, a diversity of opinion and background and political perspective that is missing in our local government.  Fishers is likely the most diverse of all of the communities in Hamilton County, drawing people not just from Indiana like myself, but from all over our country, and indeed, from all over the world. Increasingly, they do not reflect the one-party domination of local government, but have their own views and often do not identify with any particular political party.  I hope to give a voice to those who feel disenfranchised by local government,  Many are so disillusioned that they no longer even vote in local elections, a fact which is dangerous to good representative government.

As a father, a grandfather, an attorney for 37 years, and an activist in local politics outside of the mainstream, I can be that voice for those who do not feel that local government represents them, and all too often in the past, has not listened.  The biggest example of that is when the voters overwhelmingly agreed with me that Fishers should become Indiana's newest city, which all but one person in local government opposed.

I listen to only one voice, the voice of the people of Fishers.  I ask for your support in this venture. Please go to my website, www.GregPurvis.com, for more information, to sign up for my mailing list, or to make a donation, or even to contact me with questions, or offers of support.

The First Fishers City Council Election

Tomorrow, November 4, 2014, the voters of Fishers will go to the polls to elect their very first CITY council.  This has been a long time coming, and was over the determined opposition of those in Town Hall, who did everything possible to delay, obstruct, and defeat the City referendum which passed in 2012.

But tomorrow's election is only for a ONE year term. This only lasts until NEXT year, 2015, when Fishers goes on the regular municipal election cycle again and elects Mayor, City Clerk, and City Council for a full 4-year term.

Why is that?  A little history is in order.  CityYes was formed in 2008, with me as its first chair, to promote the change to a city.  In May 2010, the day before the primary, we submitted our petitions asking for the referendum to be held in the November 2010 general election.  But at that time, the Town Council had total control over when to schedule the referendum.  So what did they do?  They created a "merger" process to create a "fake city" with an unelected/appointed figurehead "mayor" and stalled the referenda (there were now two, one for the city, one for the "merger") to November 2012.

Remember the black on yellow "Don't Be Tricked" signs?  Well they worked, and the merger went down in flames, defeated nearly 2-1 and the City referendum passed by a healthy margin.  I am proud of the work I did with CityYes in making sure the will of the people was heard.

But if the referendum had passed in 2010, we would have had our first City election in 2011 for a full four year term and these races this year for mayor and council would not be happening.

So, if you don't like that, and NONE of the current council members supported the City referendum, then I ask for your vote tomorrow, for that and many other reasons.  Remember, I fought HARD for the will of the people to be heard, and I will continue to do so if elected to the City Council.

Remember, always remember....

DON'T BE TRICKED!

Transparency in Fishers?

Fishers government likes to talk about being "transparent".  If they are, and they should be, then it should be easy to find information on the town website about how the town is running, right? Well, not so much.  Just try to find financial information on TIFs (Tax Increment Financing), the tool used to pay the developers handouts to build private projects downtown.

I had a Facebook message debate the other day with Fishers Town Councilman Pete Peterson, who has disagreed with me about almost everything, to the point of incivility on his part more than once.  I kept pressing him for the financial details of the TIFs.  You would think, being a passionate supporter of this form of corporate welfare, that Peterson would be glad to provide that information freely, or at least tell me where it could be found, right?

No. Not at all.  In fact, Peterson refused to do so, and told me to use the Indiana Access to Public Records Act (which he kept calling by the wrong name, but I digress) to get this information.  So I have done so.  This morning (October 23), I went to Town Hall and presented that request for information in person.  Since I presented it in person, they have 24 hours to acknowledge my request. They must actually produce the records within a reasonable time.  Hopefully, this will be prior to Election Day, November 4th.

But why should we have to go through this process?  This is public information, produced by government employees that our taxes pay for.  This is OUR government, and financial information in particular should be easily accessible. But it isn't.  To be fair, there is a lot of documentary information available via the Fishers website, but it isn't exactly the easiest thing to use, and data is not easily organized and visible.  If elected to the City Council, I hope to work on making such information easier for citizens to access, as is their right.

Issues vs Party Label

I have had an ongoing debate with a few people about whether or not people in Fishers will vote for a Democrat with whom they agree on issues, or if they will vote solely on party label.

Despite past history of "knee jerk" party line voting - something both parties have been guilty of - I hope and believe that the voters of Fishers will look at who is right and wrong on the issues, and vote accordingly.  I already have some Republican supporters, who see me as an independent, honest watchdog, and more fiscally responsible than my opponent.  So let's look at a few of those issues.

• Last fall the Fishers Council proposed adopting a new food and beverage sales tax.  I spoke against it at two council meetings, along with other citizens of various political labels.  My opponent not only supported the tax, he was adamant about it.  But it failed for lack of a majority.  I was right, my opponent wrong.
• I was the first chair of CityYes, the bi-partisan group that was successful in pushing for adoption of City status for Fishers, and protecting the right of citizens to vote for a Mayor.  My opponent waffled at first, then campaigned against the City referendum, and supported the failed "merger" that was walloped in the vote.  I was right, my opponent wrong.
• I spoke at the Feb. 17, 2014 meeting of the Council in opposition to the "no bid" contract with  a group of campaign donors to tear down the train station and "redevelop" the site with public land and $15 million in borrowed taxpayer dollars.  This form of corporate welfare was wrong, and I opposed it.  My opponent not only supported it, he touts it as a major accomplishment.  I was right, and my opponent wrong.
• I have openly opposed the $35 million total being spent on the various downtown projects, all in borrowed money.  My opponent again embraces all of this spending.  I was right, and my opponent wrong.
• I opposed the over-use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) which uses borrowed money to give to developers, and results in tax dollars being diverted away from schools to repay this debt. I oppose TIFs, my opponent has voted to make nearly all land in Fishers capable of development into a TIF, which kills our tax base growth.  I was right, and my opponent wrong.
• My opponent was a main figure in the disgraced and now-disbanded Royal Tiger PAC, which got campaign contributions from insiders and city contractors by promising them insider information before it was news.  One of the candidates supported by this corrupt bargain has been arrested on drug charges.  ALL of my campaign donations are from individuals, or me personally, not city contractors.  I have proposed a city ethics ordinance to end this practice. Again, I was right, and my opponent wrong. 

I have to say, I like John as a person, and his happy, engaging family.  But you vote for and against candidates based on their record.  And sorry John, there are way too many mistakes here.  So yes, I am a Democrat, but that actually means little on local issues. I could not identify a "Republican" or "Democrat" position on the things that come before the Council if I tried. So the main thing voters should judge by are the record of the candidates, and their positions.  Will this be enough?  We will find out on November 4th.

An Ethics Proposal

I have at various times written about the unseemly influence of those who receive government money from the Town of Fishers making campaign donations for the re-election of the incumbents who granted those contracts.  (See, "Is Fishers For Sale?" April 20, 2011, in my Hamilton County Politics blog).

Sadly, the current crop of incumbents learned the wrong lesson from their peers.  Several of the council incumbents formed and participated in a Political Action Committee (PAC) called the "Royal Tiger PAC", which promised donors inside information about what is happening in town government, of course in return for donations.   The donors to that PAC ended up being a veritable "Who's Who" of insiders in Fishers.

This was written about in scalding terms by Republican blogger Paul Ogden, in his Ogden on Politics blog in April 2014.  Ogden's post is here:  http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2014/04/is-3500-price-of-political-influence-in.html.  Ogden referred to this as "unseemly", which it certainly is, at a minimum.

Not only was Pete Peterson, the Fishers Council's vice-president and treasurer of the Hamilton County Republican Party, a central figure in this, but also Fishers Council President John Weingardt (my opponent), new Fishers Council member Eric Moeller, and defeated County Council candidate Andrew Dollard, who after the primary was arrested in a pill-peddling scheme.  (The lawyer in me notes the case is pending, and Dollard is entitled to the presumption of innocence,)  Royal Tiger has since been disbanded over the furor over what seems to be yet another instance of "pay to play" politics in Hamilton County.

Now, nothing about this is APPARENTLY illegal, although it would not take much for it to be illegal.  The town's vendors who make such donations clearly are expecting to get their money back somehow.  But to make it a "quid pro quo", such as "I will donate to your campaign $3500, and in return, you will vote for the contract that I want to build a new office building", would be a criminal offense.

Similarly, if someone were to have gone to a vendor, or group of them and said that they HAD to contribute to Royal Tiger or some other committee if they wanted to continue to get government contracts, that too would be criminal.  But as of yet, no one has stepped up with any details of such pressure, perhaps because if they DID, they would be cut out of the lucrative government contracts.

The "appearance of impropriety" can be as bad as the improper behavior itself. It corrupts the public's faith in government by making it appear that the People's Government is for sale to special interests who make campaign contributions. It makes government contractors think they HAVE to support incumbents if they want to keep government business. And it blurs the line between "legal" and "illegal".

So, I have a proposal.  The U.S. Supreme Court has made decisions that say that in some cases, campaign contributions cannot be restricted.  So what I propose is to give those who want government money a choice.  I propose a Fishers ordinance to prohibit the giving of a Fishers government contract, or any other financial benefit including economic development incentives, to anyone who donates to a political candidate for Fishers' office.  And this is not an unusual restriction. The U.S. Government has prohibitions against Federal government contractors making campaign donations in a Federal election.  Several states and municipalities have either adopted or have considered a similar restriction.

Let's get the corporate welfare and cronyism out of our local politics.  I pledge that if elected, I will work with other members of the City Council, regardless of political party, to adopt such an ordinance, and let Fishers be an ethical example for the rest of the State of Indiana.

Censorship and Transparency

Recently, the issue of public comment and debate to fully-inform the public has been on my mind. A related term is "transparency", which might be thought of as openly discussing public issues and making those decisions after full debate in the light of public view.

Or so I thought.  Apparently my opponent does not agree.  Last week, after a comment of mine on the "Fishers Indiana Government" Facebook page was deleted by the town's PR person who runs that page, I challenged why they did that.  Apparently it was because it linked to this blog.  So it seems that candidates for public office in Fishers have fewer First Amendment rights than do other citizens.  And the comments were in support of the Sun King Brewery expansion to Fishers, save for my serious reservations about the TIF financing, so that was even odder.  But they allowed the comments without the link to the blog.

That seemed silly to me, even though annoying.  But the hits kept coming.  It was reported to me that comments by others on my opponents Facebook page were deleted, because he did not feel that Facebook was an appropriate place for discussion of issues.  It is public, accessed by thousands of Fishers residents, so why not?  If not there, then where?  And now ALL comments on his page seem to be gone.

Also last week, I publicly challenged my opponent to a series of debates prior to the November 4th election. I even emailed him.  Nearly a week went by, and no response. So I called John.  Despite our political and policy differences, we personally are on good terms. His reply essentially was no debates, except for those which might be hosted by the Hamilton County League of Women Voters and/or the Fishers Chamber of Commerce.  So I reached out to those groups.  Per Dan Canan, President of the Fishers Chamber, they are NOT planning on any candidate debates, despite a record number of council seats being contested in a general election (four).  I have not heard from the League yet.

SO.  No discussion of issues on my opponent's Facebook page.  Candidate censorship on the Town's Facebook page. Either zero or ONE debate for the 4 council seats among 10 candidates running.

Democracy depends on an open and vigorous discussion and debate of issues. My opponent seems determined not to defend his record before the public.  Perhaps he realizes just how many errors of judgment he has made on the council, and hopes the public will remain ignorant.

SO. I will do my best to spread the word. I ask every resident of Fishers to share this blog with your friends and neighbors, so that there will be at least SOME open discussion of issues. And contact my opponent and let him know that hiding behind a curtain of silence is bad politics and worse for democracy.

Sun King Brewery Comes to Fishers

At the August 18, 2014 meeting of the Fishers Town Council, they approved a $2.5 million economic development proposal to induce craft brewer Sun King, which is based in downtown Indianapolis, to expand its brewing operations to Fishers, along with a tasting room.  The location would be a currently-vacant parcel of land just north of 96th St. and east of I-69 on Kincaid Drive, near Fry's Electronics and Roche.

The proposal involves the town's customary use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) to borrow the $2.5 million, most of which then goes apparently to infrastructure, although details were not apparent in the meeting.  But the proposal would also bring additional jobs and an industry not already present in the community.  Sun King is presently Indiana's second-largest craft brewer. A consultant hired by Sun King projected an economic impact on the area of this expansion of as much as $19.5 million.

Details of the TIF financing were not presented during the meeting, so afterwards, I approached Town Manager (and mayor-elect) Scott Fadness for details. According to Fadness, the plan is for the new taxes for this project (as opposed to the downtown projects) to actually pay for the debt service in full, that is, that the new taxes will equal or exceed the future principal and interest payments on the bonds.  And more, if for some reason they do not, then guarantees will be given by Sun King to cover the shortfall, so that the taxpayers are not on the hook for the difference.

Generally speaking, I do NOT like TIF districts.  They usually do not bring in enough new tax money to cover their own debt payments.  The "Depot" and "Switch" projects in Downtown Fishers are hundreds of thousands of dollars in the red (per year) this way.  The Sun King deal seems to avoid that problem. But the other problem is that use of TIF financing prevents the new tax money from going into the general property tax fund, which is the main source of funding for both Fishers, HSE Schools, and the Hamilton East Public Library.  All TIF projects suffer from that problem.

Nevertheless, I am cautiously optimistic about the Sun King deal. If the consultant's estimates are anywhere near accurate, then this will be a huge boost for the Fishers and northeast Indy economy, and a nice fit for an industrial park with lots of vacant land. New jobs will be created, a minimum of 20 are required and more projected.  Assuming this project succeeds (failure might leave Fishers holding the bag on the debt), then it will cost the taxpayers nothing.

I wish the financing were done differently, but it is revenue-neutral, it is NOT apartments with the potential to put more stress on the schools, and it is not competing with already-existing local businesses.  If this deal is done right, and much remains to be done, I will give a cautious thumbs-up on this project, and a hearty "Welcome to Fishers" to Sun King.

I also wish this process had been more transparent.  This item was not even available on the online agenda until a few hours before the meeting.  The Council neither allowed or solicited comments or questions from citizens.  And yet, they apparently DID heed the sharp criticism I and others had made about the downtown project's "red ink" (a term they REALLY hate), and tried to make this revenue-neutral. I would have preferred to make a low-interest loan to Sun King secured by a lien on the real estate, not a gift, or some other like financing, but in the end, even with the way it was done, I tend to approve.  I hope time proves me right.

Welcome to my new campaign blog

I would like to welcome the readers of "Hamilton County Politics" and others to my new campaign blog, supporting my run for Fishers City Council.  I will devote this blog to issues surrounding this first race for the Fishers CITY Council, the things I like, as well as the things I disagree with.

My webpage is www.GregPurvis.com, and you can sign up for my email list, contact me, or even donate at that website.  I also comment extensively on Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/PurvisforFishers, and my posts there and here will be also posted on Twitter (@GregPurvis).

I make no secrets about my views.  I am open and outspoken, and not at all shy about sharing my thoughts and opinions.  I see this as admirable and desirable in a candidate for office. I hope you enjoy my posts, and recommend them to your friends and neighbors.

Greg Purvis
Candidate for Fishers City Council,
South-Central District