“House Democrats selected a pro-life, pro-gun Democrat as their new leader Monday in a private caucus.”

The leader of the Indiana House Democrats, Scott Pelath, announced that he will not be seeking re-election and stepped down from his leadership position. The House Democratic caucus picked Terry Goodin, from Austin, Indiana. He is the Superintendent of the Crothersville Community School Corporation in Jackson County.

The other main contender was reportedly Phil Giaquinta out of Fort Wayne.

For years, Pat Bauer controlled the House Democrats. After a couple of walk-outs and electoral shellackings, the Democrats ousted Bauer. Rep. Linda Lawson served as an interim leader before the House Democrats picked a more permanent leader in Pelath who served in that position since 2012 (but there hasn’t been much in the way of an uptick in Democratic fortunes during that time.)

I don’t know much about Goodin. (I’ve never been that well versed in the State House power dynamics, and I haven’t been paying as much attention to the legislature in recent years as I once did.) But, he seems to have been a Bauer loyalist. The only blog entries about him that I can find indicate that he proposed legislation in 2007 and 2008 regulating the sale of “sexually explicit products.” That legislation was struck down as unconstitutional by Judge Barker in the Southern District.

On social media, the Hoosiers on the left that I follow seem pretty uniformly disappointed in the choice. (See, e.g., the Indy Democrat Blog). The main theme I see about the reason for the disappointment has to do with his opposition to same sex marriage. From what I can tell, morale hasn’t exactly been high among state Democrats for years. (In the House, I believe they are outnumbered 30 – 70.) This doesn’t seem to be helping. At the moment, it looks like there is an anti-Trump wave building for 2018. From the grumblings on social media, I’d say Goodin probably isn’t the best choice to energize state Democrats to take advantage of that wave. But, I’ll hurry to add that I’m no political strategist, and the grumblings of the voices I hear aren’t necessarily representative of anything.

It’s a judgment call: are political parties most successful when they focus on their most loyal members . . . or when they focus on shifting toward the other major party to try to pick off its supporters? My guess is that the Democratic calculus here is that, with only 30 seats, Hoosiers have spoken, and they like what socially conservative Republicans have to say. If that’s what they’re thinking, I’d call it a mistake. I think voters dislike inauthentic even more than they dislike policies they’re opposed to. Maybe it’s a political analog of the uncanny valley. But, like I said, I’m no strategist.

A memo from LSA on Department of Corrections inmate populations was provided to the General Assembly’s interim study committee on Corrections and Criminal Code. It indicates that the Department of Corrections’ inmate population is down about 3,000 inmates for Fiscal Year 2017 as compared to Fiscal Year 2014. A lot of this has to do with changes in sentencing standards that keep Level 6 felons in the local jail rather than sending them off to the state prison. (Increased levels of drug addiction play into this as well.) If I’m reading the bottom line numbers correctly (and there is a decent chance I’m not), it looks like this has resulted in the state spending about $30 million less per year than it did back in 2013.

There has been an increase in payments to the County to deal with this population, but I’m not convinced that those payments equal the increased expenses to County governments. Even if the operating expenses are accounted for, at a certain level of increase, counties have to start making capital improvements if jail populations increase. And that tends to be a quantum leap in expense.  You have to build a new jail or new wing or something. And that isn’t cheap. I know there have been stories out of Vigo County where they seem to be having an awful time trying to increase the capacity of their jail.

Additionally, counties have less control over jail populations than the state does. Sentencing decisions are being made by state officials (the trial court judges). If jail populations get too expensive, the state has options (e.g. revised sentencing laws). Counties more likely have to just absorb the cost (e.g. raise taxes or reduce other services).

There seem to be decent penological arguments for keeping low level felons close to home. But, I definitely hope the General Assembly is keeping an eye on the shifted expenses and make sure counties are given sufficient resources to fund this additional burden without having to pave fewer miles of road or undertake fewer drainage projects.

The Interim Study Committee on Commerce and Economic Development is entertaining proposed findings as to “short term rentals” (e.g. Airbnb type rentals). The draft findings are as follow:

PROPOSED FINDINGS:
(1) The Committee finds that there is an increasing demand for short term rentals from travelers of all types, and that it would serve the people of Indiana well to ensure the availability of short term rentals throughout the state.
(2) The Committee finds that current tools exist within local governments in the form of ordinances or other actions that apply to long term rental homes and traditional residential homes (e.g., noise, parking, and trash ordinances) that can also be applied to address any issues caused by a short term rental.

(3) The Committee finds that short term rentals often offer accommodations in neighborhoods without
traditional lodging options resulting in positive economic impacts and important opportunities for tourism development.
(4) The Committee finds that short term rentals provide additional income opportunities for Hoosiers that participate.
(5) The Committee finds that the residential use of one’s home is a basic property right and that participation as a short term rental host does not impact the residential character of the home.
(6) The Committee finds that short term rental platforms and short term rental hosts acknowledge that
applicable taxes are owed on short term rentals and the Committee defers to the work of the Interim Study Committee on Fiscal Policy on the issue of taxation.

The recommendation would be that the policy of the state be to prevent “undue restrictions” on the use of a person’s primary residence as a short-term rental.

I don’t have any particular expertise on this issue, but it seems to me the proposed findings pass the buck (almost literally) on the issue of how to make sure these folks pay the proper amount of income tax, innkeeper’s tax, or whatever the case may be.

Additionally, the finding about local government having the tools to address noise, nuisance, and parking problems might be a little optimistic. Anyone who has had to deal with bad neighbors knows how inadequate these tools can be. That said, I don’t know that “short term” rentals are any worse than long term rentals. My suspicion is that I’d rather live next to an owner-occupied residence where the owner rents out a couple of weeks a year than a residence that is solely used as a rental. To the extent this becomes the basis for actual legislation, I guess I’d like to see some sort of ratio of days leased versus days owner-occupied in the definition of short-term rental. If the turn over is too frequent and too rapid, it becomes a business better suited in a commercial zone than a residential zone.  Also, this is an issue where the best implementation might vary from place to place, so the State should defer to the locals and avoid trampling on home rule.