"Utilities were created for a reason – a lot of that is to take politics out of decisions," (Indianapolis Mayor) Ballard said Wednesday, quoted in the Indianapolis Star. "When it comes to an election, (politicians) say, 'I'm going to stand up and protect ratepayers,' when infrastructure is decaying underneath."

That perspective may look correct enough to an officeholder facing re-election for him to turn his back on the populism that put him in office. That's exactly what he's doing in proposing to sell the Indianapolis water and sewer systems to Citizens Energy, an independent public trust.

Historically, Ballard's view is myopic. Privately owned utilities developed because they could raise capital, build systems and operate them at a time when governments did not have resources to do the job. Many were regulated locally until their operations spanned municipal boundaries, leading to control over rates and investments by appointed commissioners at the state level. The Mayor is correct in that having regulation vested in a state commission allows politicians to rail against utility rates without accountability for the amount and quality of planned investments.

While that situation is convenient for the office-holder, it may not be preferred by the voters. If you asked a water and sewer customer in Marion County about whether he or she would like a voice in when and how Indianapolis spends $4 billion for infrastructure improvements, I'd bet most would opt for accountability.

• Drivers would learn how cars work and would, of necessity, learn how to perform simple repairs.
• Using 35-year-old steel accomplishes the goal of recycling without the middlemen.
• The average trip would become shorter, partially because of the noise and discomfort.
• Texting and other dangerous distractions would disappear as drivers focused on operating manual transmissions.

Nevertheless, it goes. And stops. Isn't that all we really need?

When Hulk Hogan’s All-American persona in professional wrestling started to lose fan favor, he executed a classic good guy-to-bad guy switch, known in wrestling as “turning heel.” As “Hollywood Hogan,” he became part of the “New World Order” that vowed to overturn the powers that controlled the wrestling world. The change of character helped prolong Hogan’s career and enhanced his earnings.

This year, the Indianapolis Colts won game after game, often coming from behind and compiling the longest regular-season winning streak in league history. Yet Brett Favre had the season's glam and the experts alternately tagged the Vikings, the Giants and the Chargers as the best. This was not going to bring more more advertising opportunities for good-guy Colts quarterback Peyton Manning.

So what did the Colts do? They decided that winning the last couple of games didn’t matter, as long as they could keep home field advantage through the playoffs. They handed away a game to the Jets, which enraged their middle-American fans, who believe in the old college try. Then they decided that while winning a game didn’t matter, getting some fat statistics for their receivers did. So Manning dinked his way through three series at Buffalo, giving better records to Dallas Clark and Reggie Wayne before the Colts gave away the game to the Bills.

The result? Discussion of the Colts has dominated talk radio for two weeks. Colts President Bill Polian is cast as the great villain and Manning is seen as the one who, you might say, turned heel by mouthing the company line.

By the time of the Super Bowl, if the Colts make it, they may be the New World Order of the NFL. If so, it’ll be worth checking to see if Hulk Hogan is in the owner’s box.

“Peer-to-Peer lending” has a nice ring to it. The idea is that some folks have a little extra money and some folks need a little extra money and we’d all work together nicely if we could just keep the bankers out of it.

A year and a half in peer-to-peer lending makes me think there’s good reason to keep the bankers in it. After all, banking is essentially peer-to-peer lending with a bunch of fat cats and mahogany thrown in the middle. I don’t have their hard-nosed screening and money-management knowledge. The result is that I’m looking forward to breaking even on my lending experience. If I could punch out a couple of the borrowers who just plain lied, I might even feel good about it.

The bankers, by legend, are the evil ones who won’t lend money to the folks who need a little money and won’t pay the folks with a little extra money much to put that money to work.

So if Bob could spot Joe a C-note, he’d be happy to give it back to him over time with a little extra to thank him for his trouble. This all has a nice Woody Guthrie feel to it.

The problem is how Joe can find his Bob. Today’s default answer is the Internet. Several visionaries have created ways that small lenders can meet small borrowers online and earn some interest while helping the borrowers get over financial humps or make their entrepreneurial dreams come alive.

Best known among them are Lending Club and Prosper. Each works a little differently and both have had problems fitting their models within existing state and federal regulation of financial institutions. Prosper, for example, cannot accept money from lenders in 26 states, including Indiana. It can’t accept borrowers from Iowa, Maine and North Carolina.

At one time, however, Prosper could accept money from Indiana. I invested a little cash, trying to pick borrowers with care and a dash of Pete Seeger idealism. What I didn’t anticipate was that some of these borrowers saw Prosper as patsy-to-predator lending. Exhibit A was the owner of a quick service restaurant in San Juan Capistrano who said he wanted to expand his healthy operation into catering. He had a high Prosper rating, so I popped $50 into his $23,500 loan.

He made four payments, shut the restaurant (according to a friendly local newspaper reporter) and completed bankruptcy six months later. I fell for a plaintive plea from a young woman who borrowed $3,000 from a bunch of lenders (just a tiny bit from me), made two payments and went bankrupt.

About half of my borrowers have been diligent and punctual with their payments. That’s a record that clearly shows why we need bankers and why it’s best that I’m not one.

Meanwhile, in a recent presentation, Indianapolis Star Editor and Vice President Dennis R. Ryerson said his newspaper has stopped counting on advertisers to carry their traditional share of operating costs. He said the paper will institute changes to induce readers to buy the print product. He described the new direction for the Star as a "daily newsmagazine." The professional reporting, writing and editing of the product, he said, had to be supported by circulation revenue.

Both of these moves come as a response to the failure of advertisers to value online publications, at least those that are produced by traditional print newspapers. Both companies also are responding to the unsolved problem of free, unregulated online duplication of news produced by their employees. 


The Evening Standard's Russian owner, Alexander Lebdenev, seems to believe flooding the market with a free quality product will make his product indispensable to advertisers. Since the change, one other free newspaper in London has shut down.


The Star's Gannett ownership seems to believe that advertisers, with many options, will never again foot the bill for news operations. A good, local news product, they are saying, should be a marketable item.


There are differences between the U.S. and British television systems, which alter the calculations, but it's hard to imagine that both of these moves can be right at the same time. If London is wrong, the Evening Standard will flame out. If Indianapolis is wrong, the Star will start spiraling into a smaller and smaller niche. Let's hope at least one of them has found the answer.

Driving back from Kokomo on Wednesday, I saw a driver almost knucklehead himself into a bad accident. We were stopped at a traffic light at a complex intersection. When crossing cars appeared to stop, he drove into the intersection with an assumption our light was turning green. He got to the middle before he realized a left-turning car was about to plow into him. How could he be so oblivious?

He was talking on the cell phone at his ear.

Heading south near Butler University last week, I stopped for a 4-way stop sign and let a car cross in front of mine. Then I started up to take my turn. The driver behind the first car paused and then barreled into the intersection in front of me. I thought she just was being too aggressive.

Then I saw she had a phone at her left ear. Perhaps she didn't see me at all.

On  Monday, I waited for a crosswalk signal and started walking across Illinois Street at Ohio Street. A man driving an SUV made a right turn that forced me to push myself off his car door to get out of his way.

He had a cell phone at his right ear.

Six states now ban use of handheld cell phones by drivers. Eighteen states ban texting by drivers. Indiana's ban, passed this year, applies only to drivers under 18. It did not apply to the three distracted drivers above.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has been following the issue of distracted driving for some time. It estimates that more than 5,870 traffic fatalities and more than 515,000 injuries last year were caused by distracted driving. See the findings here.

State Rep. Vanessa Summers of Indianapolis has introduced a bill to ban the use of hand-held mobile telephones by all drivers (except in emergencies) for the past eight years.

Help her pass that bill this year. Save the knuckleheads.

I could not say this better than Bristol Editor.