Back in late April, during the waning hours of the Indiana General Assembly, state legislators pulled a couple of rabbits out of the hat by rescuing some bills that, if not yet dead, were moribund.
The bill that wouldn’t go away, of course, was the daylight saving time bill, which has finally become law with the governor’s signature last month. The other major piece of legislation saved from oblivion at the last minute was the funding bill for a new Indianapolis Colts stadium and convention center.
With passage of the funding legislation and creation of a new state board charged with overseeing its construction, the stadium project seemed to be off to a smooth start, with construction projected to begin by August.
But late last week Indianapolis mayor Bart Peterson and Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels were at odds over who was going to pay the Colts $48 million to terminate their present lease agreement. During its negotiations with the Colts last year, city officials had agreed to buy out the lease.
But Peterson said he believed the money was part of the funding legislation passed by the General Assembly. Daniels says it isn’t so and that the mayor should know better if he has read the law.
With a negations deadline looming, Gov. Daniels says the project will get underway on schedule. But, he said, the lease buy-out is up to the city. He did, however, say the new state board can perhaps find ways to cut corners and help the city out.
Peterson, meanwhile, said that there absolutely will not be any more tax money thrown at the project. He believes the amount raised in public financing is sufficient to cover both the construction costs and the lease termination fee.
The entire project is expected to cost $900 million. The stadium is scheduled for completion by the start of the Colts’ 2008 season, with the convention center expansion due for completion by 2010.
Meanwhile, the Colts say they expect a check for $48 million as agreed and they don’t really care who signs it. But as part of the agreement reached with the city, the Colts must ante up $100 million for the project. So, am I missing something here?
If the Colts owe $100 million as their contribution to the stadium and the city owes $48 million to the Colts to terminate their current lease, then a little subtraction will yield a net total of $52 million owed by the Colts.
However the three parties work it out, it doesn’t seem like an insurmountable problem, which is probably why the governor has stressed the project will not be delayed because of it.
And that’s good news, because Central Indiana will benefit greatly from the expansion project. Indianapolis and all the surrounding suburban counties reap major financial benefits from convention business that draws people into the area from all over the country.
Indianapolis is already a hugely popular convention destination. But the biggest and most lucrative convention business must go elsewhere because the current convention center just isn’t big enough.
The seven suburban counties are being asked to levy a one percent food and beverage tax to help fund the project. The counties get to keep half the revenue generated from such a tax.
It’s a win-win situation. The counties get added revenue, and the stadium project gets needed funding from the counties. And it’s not unreasonable to ask the counties to levy the small tax increase because most season ticket-holders come from outside Marion County.
Twenty-five years ago, Indianapolis’ nickname was Naptown. Some called it “Indianoplace.” Its reputation was of a sleepy little Midwestern city that rolled up its sidewalks after five o’clock. It’s only claim to fame was the Indy 500.
Today, Indianapolis is a growing, energetic, convention destination with a vibrant nightlife. It has enough entertainment venues to satisfy most tastes, from Broadway plays to jazz clubs to major league sporting events.
But in order to maintain and expand its convention traffic in the future, it needs a much bigger and more up-to-date convention center. It also needs to keep its major league football franchise. That’s why the petty bickering over who pays for the lease buy-out needs to end.
Suburban counties get some of the convention and sports business generated by the city. That’s why they need to do their part to make sure the new facilities get built.
The governor will be in Johnson County this Thursday to discuss the stadium project. Interested parties are encouraged to attend.
Saturday, June 04, 2005
Thursday, June 02, 2005
Is Energy Crisis Looming?
Remember when the price of gas was less than a dollar a gallon? It really hasn’t been that long ago.
Since the mid-1980s, gasoline prices have peaked and then retreated several times. Not long after the first Gulf War, when gas prices had been high and everyone thought that cheap gas prices were a thing of the past, they suddenly dropped to as low as 79 cents a gallon.
Actually, even now, gasoline prices are not much higher than they’ve been for much of the twentieth century, adjusted for inflation that is. They just seem higher now because they were unusually low during much of the 1990s.
I’m no oil analyst, but I can safely bet that gas prices will never be as low as a dollar per gallon again. In fact, we’re probably lucky they aren’t any higher than they are.
According to many oil industry observers, including some geologists who should know about oil reserves, the world’s oil production will peak sometime between now and 2010. Depending on who you ask, it could peak later this year, next year, or anytime up to about 2009.
By “peak,” I mean that oil production in the world will start falling, something it has never done before. But the demand for petroleum will continue to grow, at least for awhile.
So what does that mean?
Basically, it means very high gasoline prices, at least five dollars per gallon, and the increasing likelihood of energy shortages. Brownouts and blackouts will become more common.
The predicted energy shortages shouldn’t come as any surprise. Dr. Richard C. Duncan, a scientist and statistician, postulated in 1989 that world oil production would peak during the first decade of the 21st century. It was based on a statistical analysis of oil usage since 1901. He called it the Olduvai Theory, after the famous Olduvai Gorge, because humans seem to be metaphorically running off the edge of an energy cliff.
The consensus of the oil industry itself is that economic factors will work to balance supply and demand at new levels, resulting in higher prices but more production. But geologist point out that Mother Nature will not put more oil into the ground just because somebody throws money at it. Once whatever is there is pumped out, that’s it.
New sources of energy are needed. And there are several alternatives on the drawing boards, including hydrogen fuel cells, microwave energy from orbiting satellites, and coal liquefaction. There is also a need for increased conservation.
But conservation alone will not be enough. And the new sources of energy are not here yet. It will take more than a decade for new energy sources to make much of a difference. It seems we’re too late.
Duncan predicts that by 2030 the world will have entered a new stone age. Most of the pessimistic views are not quite that pessimistic. But whoever is correct, it looks as though we’re in for a bumpy ride.
So pack up the motor home and head out for the wide open spaces this summer while gas prices are relatively low. By next year, or the year after, we may be longing for the good old days when gas prices were a mere two bucks a gallon.
Since the mid-1980s, gasoline prices have peaked and then retreated several times. Not long after the first Gulf War, when gas prices had been high and everyone thought that cheap gas prices were a thing of the past, they suddenly dropped to as low as 79 cents a gallon.
Actually, even now, gasoline prices are not much higher than they’ve been for much of the twentieth century, adjusted for inflation that is. They just seem higher now because they were unusually low during much of the 1990s.
I’m no oil analyst, but I can safely bet that gas prices will never be as low as a dollar per gallon again. In fact, we’re probably lucky they aren’t any higher than they are.
According to many oil industry observers, including some geologists who should know about oil reserves, the world’s oil production will peak sometime between now and 2010. Depending on who you ask, it could peak later this year, next year, or anytime up to about 2009.
By “peak,” I mean that oil production in the world will start falling, something it has never done before. But the demand for petroleum will continue to grow, at least for awhile.
So what does that mean?
Basically, it means very high gasoline prices, at least five dollars per gallon, and the increasing likelihood of energy shortages. Brownouts and blackouts will become more common.
The predicted energy shortages shouldn’t come as any surprise. Dr. Richard C. Duncan, a scientist and statistician, postulated in 1989 that world oil production would peak during the first decade of the 21st century. It was based on a statistical analysis of oil usage since 1901. He called it the Olduvai Theory, after the famous Olduvai Gorge, because humans seem to be metaphorically running off the edge of an energy cliff.
The consensus of the oil industry itself is that economic factors will work to balance supply and demand at new levels, resulting in higher prices but more production. But geologist point out that Mother Nature will not put more oil into the ground just because somebody throws money at it. Once whatever is there is pumped out, that’s it.
New sources of energy are needed. And there are several alternatives on the drawing boards, including hydrogen fuel cells, microwave energy from orbiting satellites, and coal liquefaction. There is also a need for increased conservation.
But conservation alone will not be enough. And the new sources of energy are not here yet. It will take more than a decade for new energy sources to make much of a difference. It seems we’re too late.
Duncan predicts that by 2030 the world will have entered a new stone age. Most of the pessimistic views are not quite that pessimistic. But whoever is correct, it looks as though we’re in for a bumpy ride.
So pack up the motor home and head out for the wide open spaces this summer while gas prices are relatively low. By next year, or the year after, we may be longing for the good old days when gas prices were a mere two bucks a gallon.
Friday, May 27, 2005
Judge Hammers Non-Mainstream Religions
A judge is supposed to decide cases based on the law, not on his or her personal agenda or ideology. They are supposed to be impartial and fair.
But judges are human, and sometimes they allow their own biases to affect their decisions. Take, for example, the Alabama Chief Justice, Roy Moore, who in 2003 not only went against established case law and the Constitution, but even violated a federal appeals court’s ruling when he refused to remove a stone display of the Ten Commandments from his courtroom.
A more recent, and local example of how judges can sometimes allow their own religious beliefs to creep into their rulings came last year when a Marion County Superior Court judge, Cale J. Bradford, ruled that a divorced couple must not teach their son about Wicca, a pagan belief.
The father, Thomas Jones, has appealed the judge’s decree with the aid of the Indiana Civil Liberties Union. The story went public last week and has drawn nationwide attention.
Legal experts generally agree that the judge’s ruling will be overturned by the appeals court. But even so, the case is a striking example of how the judiciary can sometimes allow personal moral biases to affect cases.
Being moral is a plus for any judge, as long as he stays within the bounds of the law when making his rulings. But extremist judges often use morality as an excuse to direct their decisions to a point that is far outside the bounds of the law and the Constitution.
In the couple’s divorce decree, the judge let stand a clause that prohibits them from exposing their nine-year-old son to any “non-mainstream religious beliefs.” That, of course, begs the question of who decides what mainstream is.
The purpose of the ruling was to prohibit the parents from exposing their son to Wicca. But the language is so vague that it could be argued that Buddhism or even Islam is a non-mainstream religion.
Even more to the point, what gives any judge the right to tell a parent what religion they can or cannot expose their children to? The test is whether or not the child is being harmed.
In the cases where parents harm or even allow their children to die by withholding needed medical attention on religious grounds, the courts need to step in, because physical harm is obviously being caused. But Wicca is simply a natured-based religion that stresses the peaceful coexistence of humans and their environment.
Contrary to popular opinion, Wiccans are not Satanists. They are, however, pagans. Paganism is a religion that is even recognized by the U.S. Armed Forces. Ecumenical chaplains are taught its belief system.
It has been long held that parents have the constitutional right to direct the religious upbringing of their children. Generally, when the parents are divorced, the parent with custody can determine the religious upbringing.
In this case, the parents have joint custody, but the boy is living with his father. Both parents are Wiccans.
Legal experts say the ruling is extremely unusual. It is unheard of that a judge would prescribe a certain religious belief to the parents in a divorce decree, especially if the parents are in agreement about religion.
One positive thing that might come out of the case is that it may educate more people about other “non-mainstream” religions, including Wicca.
In a time when the President of the United States is pushing his nominations of extreme right-wing judges, and when there is a good chance that at least one of his future nominations will be for a Supreme Court justice, it is important for us to keep in mind that minority religions have just as much right to exist in this country.
But judges are human, and sometimes they allow their own biases to affect their decisions. Take, for example, the Alabama Chief Justice, Roy Moore, who in 2003 not only went against established case law and the Constitution, but even violated a federal appeals court’s ruling when he refused to remove a stone display of the Ten Commandments from his courtroom.
A more recent, and local example of how judges can sometimes allow their own religious beliefs to creep into their rulings came last year when a Marion County Superior Court judge, Cale J. Bradford, ruled that a divorced couple must not teach their son about Wicca, a pagan belief.
The father, Thomas Jones, has appealed the judge’s decree with the aid of the Indiana Civil Liberties Union. The story went public last week and has drawn nationwide attention.
Legal experts generally agree that the judge’s ruling will be overturned by the appeals court. But even so, the case is a striking example of how the judiciary can sometimes allow personal moral biases to affect cases.
Being moral is a plus for any judge, as long as he stays within the bounds of the law when making his rulings. But extremist judges often use morality as an excuse to direct their decisions to a point that is far outside the bounds of the law and the Constitution.
In the couple’s divorce decree, the judge let stand a clause that prohibits them from exposing their nine-year-old son to any “non-mainstream religious beliefs.” That, of course, begs the question of who decides what mainstream is.
The purpose of the ruling was to prohibit the parents from exposing their son to Wicca. But the language is so vague that it could be argued that Buddhism or even Islam is a non-mainstream religion.
Even more to the point, what gives any judge the right to tell a parent what religion they can or cannot expose their children to? The test is whether or not the child is being harmed.
In the cases where parents harm or even allow their children to die by withholding needed medical attention on religious grounds, the courts need to step in, because physical harm is obviously being caused. But Wicca is simply a natured-based religion that stresses the peaceful coexistence of humans and their environment.
Contrary to popular opinion, Wiccans are not Satanists. They are, however, pagans. Paganism is a religion that is even recognized by the U.S. Armed Forces. Ecumenical chaplains are taught its belief system.
It has been long held that parents have the constitutional right to direct the religious upbringing of their children. Generally, when the parents are divorced, the parent with custody can determine the religious upbringing.
In this case, the parents have joint custody, but the boy is living with his father. Both parents are Wiccans.
Legal experts say the ruling is extremely unusual. It is unheard of that a judge would prescribe a certain religious belief to the parents in a divorce decree, especially if the parents are in agreement about religion.
One positive thing that might come out of the case is that it may educate more people about other “non-mainstream” religions, including Wicca.
In a time when the President of the United States is pushing his nominations of extreme right-wing judges, and when there is a good chance that at least one of his future nominations will be for a Supreme Court justice, it is important for us to keep in mind that minority religions have just as much right to exist in this country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)