We're sorry, but we cannot find the page you requested. Our Advanced Search page can assist in helping you find the article or content you are attempting to locate.

Thank You!

Sponsored by

Subscribe to IBJ
  1. LifeLongIndy, I didn't move to Carmel from Bloomington, but if that is your none-too-subtle way of branding me a "liberal", then you're certainly not paving the way for a solution. As for other cities that have 10% agricultural, there are quite a few--mostly in the South, though Kansas City is among them as well. Judging from my experience working in Jackson, MS or from visiting Nashville, they have the same complaints about "outrageous density" as soon as you exceed 4 Dwelling Units per acre. My original question still stands: if you think Carmel is dense, why not try moving to the remaining 95% (or 97%) of Indiana's land that is characterized by vast farmsteads, houses with big yards, a complete absence of sidewalks or means to get anywhere except by car, and no real effort to change that character by making it a community of any distinction? Would Carmel be achieving recognition as "Best Place to Live" from various media sources if it hadn't engaged in these initiatives? If Carmel is too innovative and too fashionable for you, move out to Avon or Danville or Greenfield or Cicero and shut the door behind you. You have plenty of options. And, if "everything's better in Indiana", why does it seem such a disproportionate number of our college graduates aren't convinced?

  2. Rick...nice typo (lisping Bruce) can't avoid making a commentary on gay even when then article has nothing to do with it, can you figure out a way to work "activist Judge's" in too?...Rick's definition of "waste of taxpayer dollars" is any usage he doesn't personally agree with, as if there were no other taxpayers but him... the rest areas are dumps period...they aren't even clean...they speak volumes about our state, they scream apathy and government can say you are making the state an attractive climate for business (low taxes, blah, blah) all you want, but if infrastructure isn't maintained, if there are obvious signs of deterioration, no one is coming..."go fix up a blighted urban area"...that's you would approve of your tax dollars going for that.

  3. I took Bruce's comments to highlight a glaring issue when it comes to a state's image, and therefore its overall branding. An example is Michigan vs. Indiana. Michigan has done an excellent job of following through on its branding strategy around "Pure Michigan", even down to the detail of the rest stops. Since a state's branding is often targeted to visitors, it makes sense that rest stops, being that point of first impression, should be significant. It is clear that Indiana doesn't care as much about the impression it gives visitors even though our branding as the Crossroads of America does place importance on travel. Bruce's point is quite logical and accurate.

  4. I appreciated the article. I guess I have become so accustomed to making my "pit stops" at places where I can ALSO get gasoline and something hot to eat, that I hardly even notice public rest stops anymore. That said, I do concur with the rationale that our rest stops (if we are to have them at all) can and should be both fiscally-responsible AND designed to make a positive impression about our state.

  5. I don't know about the rest of you but I only stop at these places for one reason, and it's not to picnic. I move trucks for dealers and have been to rest areas in most all 48 lower states. Some of ours need upgrading no doubt. Many states rest areas are much worse than ours. In the rest area on I-70 just past Richmond truckers have to hike about a quarter of a mile. When I stop I;m generally in a bit of a hurry. Convenience,not beauty, is a primary concern.