A new mayor in Indianapolis

November 7, 2007
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint
Now that Greg Ballard has pulled the big upset, how will Indianapolis be different under his administration? Is his election good or bad for business?
ADVERTISEMENT
  • opposedNovember 7, 2007 10:51 AM
    by the way it looks, enough people have been disappointed with the previoius administration and wanted to atleast give someone else a chance to prove himself. I have been opposed of both democrat and republican nomination, but I feel that we need to make a change in our life to see progress this time.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • TonyNovember 7, 2007 11:57 AM
    I personally feel Peterson got a bad wrap for things that were out of his control. However, I'm not opposed to giving Ballard a try. Change for the sake of change can sometimes be a good thing.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • BobNovember 7, 2007 12:26 PM
    I agree with Tony. Peterson ran into the perfect storm. He got blamed for things beyond his control and the voters needed to blame someone. I know everyone's situations are different but my business has prospered in the last 8 years here in Indianapolis. Things are good. A big part of running a business is managing risk. Ballard is such an unknown quantity at this point that I see businesses pulling back investment, expansion, etc to wait and see what they will be dealing with. Maybe in the end it will be good but it will be a wait and see.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • JohnNovember 7, 2007 1:05 PM
    Whether he deserved it or not Peterson took the blame for the mess in property taxes, and voters want to send a very strong message to other elected officials that the increases in property taxes are unacceptable. Daniel's proposal now has a much higher chance of success. Clearly, pushing the same tax burden to other revenue sources will not do anything beyond changing the winners and losers. The message to Ballard is establish priorities, cut waste, get the most value for the tax dollars spent. Now the interesting times have come!
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • ERHNovember 7, 2007 5:27 PM
    I am very cautiously optimistic he’ll do a decent if not good job…

    First of all, he seems like a VERY moderate conservative. If you really think about it he really hasn’t expressed any terribly conservative views. It could easily have been some neo-con man or some backwards something instead of him… That would’ve REALLY sucked!

    Secondly, he is a businessman & worked at a business college. Which is refreshing. Ballard also seems like he could be somewhat easily influenced for better or for worse.

    Overall, i’m pretty apathetic towards this. As much as i would have liked to have seen Bart serve his 3rd term’s a charm it still wasn’t realistic. I firmly belived that Peterson was getting pretty stale in there. Which was not good.

    So here’s a cheers to being carefully optimistic. Sound good?
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • HelenNovember 7, 2007 5:52 PM
    Well we obviously know his view on Mass transit which Indy desperatly needs.
    Ballard-Hoosiers love their cars. 0_o
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • GregNovember 7, 2007 8:57 PM
    I think we've now seen the ultimate result of it's all about me citizens blaming Peterson for tax increases, crime and for spending money on the unfunded pensions for police and fire. Peterson has taken the high road and publicly made hard choices to face problems that were the result of many previous administrations. Now, we're going to see the same-old-thing; political leaders that stay in office by saying they'll cut taxes and keep all the services. I guess Ballard has 4 years; hope he will start his first month by honestly facing the fact that Indy can't function unless taxes pay the bills. And if we don't have a responsible city government, we won't be attracting jobs to the city that are needed... connect the dots.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

ADVANCED SEARCH
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

  1. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

  2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

  3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

  4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

  5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

ADVERTISEMENT