Update on Final Story

I am really excited about my final investigative story on the LandBank. I have conducted interviews and viewed properties owned by the agency. This week, I plan to interview the mayor, but also I plan to meet with the LandBank staff again to go over the newest properties they received.

I am trying to enhance my story by adding more information about the government interaction with the LandBank, notably their interest for right-of-first-refusal. This is what I plan to do this week to expand my story.

I need to compile all the pictures and videos of the properties to go with my story. I also need to decide how I am going to organize my story to make the most sense to the audience.

Rolling Stone Makes A Misstep

“A Rape on Campus,” at its outset, focused on the prevalence of sexual assaults on college campuses and the way they are handled. Rolling Stone writer Sabrina Erderly contacted Emily Renda, a rape survivor working on sexual assault cases as a staff member at the University of Virginia. Erderly gave her an explanation of the type of story she planned to pursue and was put in touch with “Jackie,” a rising junior who had told Renda she had been gang-raped at a fraternity event in the fall.

Even from the beginning, the case presented a number of problems to the writer and Rolling Stone, which I believe should have been indications that the story should not be published. Jackie was very unreliable about responding to Erderly’s requests. She refused to name her main attacker and the magazine did not verify that he even existed. Jackie’s account of her friends and their role in the story was also left unverified by Erderly. She trusted Jackie to provide her with the information from her friends without doing any background research on her own.

Basically, Rolling Stone relied too heavily on Jackie and failed to push her hard enough to get the truth for fear of being too harsh to a sexual assault victim. While their motives may have been respectable, they should not have published a story without corroborating accounts and using reliable contacts and verifiable story information.

After the story was published, T. Rees Shapiro, a Washington Post reporter, began preparing a story that would raise doubts about the accuracy and truth of the Rolling Stone story. Basing the story on interviews conducted at the University of Virginia, Shapiro effectively pressured Rolling Stone into examining the story and the reporting and editorial methods behind it.

The publishers and editors began to press Jackie and examine the inconsistencies and areas of concern in her story. They also began looking at the other characters in the story (the friends, “Drew”) to determine whether they existed in the way Jackie said they did and also to hear their accounts of what happened. They also combed through the reporting process of Erderly to find where mistakes were made and leads were not followed.

The Columbia University investigators determined that the fault for the inaccurate story lay in multiple areas of the magazine staff. Erderly’s reporting methods were lax, and she failed to use the basic fundamentals of journalism and newsgathering to compile her story. On the editors’ end, Columbia University found that they should have pushed Erderly harder to close the gaps in her story and provide more concrete evidence of Jackie’s account. With a story as precarious and serious as “A Rape on Campus,” the magazine staff should have researched more heavily and done more efficient newsgathering to provide a solid foundation for the story that they could rely on and trust.

Rolling Stone did accept the report from Columbia University and fully admitted that they made a massive mistake. I think their response was sufficient because they have taken the blame and not tried to make excuses for all the issues in their reporting and publishing. They have also been very public with their faults and reporting and editing oversights.

I am a fan of Rolling Stone, and honestly, I was shocked at this monumental mistake. I will continue to read the magazine, but I will always wonder about the credibility of stories now. I think they have lost credibility with their readers and will have to work very hard to gain it back. Because “A Rape on Campus” made it to press, the magazine will experience close scrutiny on stories for years to come. As bad as this story issue was, I do not think the magazine has an unethical core that has been exposed. I think the writers and editors were comfortable, thus they allowed for lax reporting and editing. They made huge mistakes that journalists should not make, but I think they recognized their fault and were very honest and sincere in wanting to mend the wrongs and get back in the public’s good graces.

The reporting methods of Chip Shotten and the methods used in the Rolling Stone case do share similarities. The reliance on sources without doing any background research or efficient newsgathering is a huge similarity. Chip continued to pay his confidential source because he had faith in her story. But in the journalism business, faith is not enough. You have to go back to the basic fundamentals of journalism and gather a story that is credible, well rounded and well supported. While Chip’s case was much worse, both cases made mistakes in their reporting and newsgathering and paid the price for it.

Consumer Fraud-A Personal Experience

While I have never been personally affected by consumer fraud, my grandparents went through such an experience about 8 years ago. They were an older couple (in their 70s) and very trusting of everyone. My grandpa had always talked about having their driveway paved, but he had never gone through with it. Then a company visited his house and offered their paving services to his small driveway. He immediately agreed with little thought about the details. When he asked about prices, they were very broad and elusive, but he trusted them and they had good references and a professional appearance, so he bought their services.

After the paving was completely finished, they brought him the price quote and it was much higher than they had originally told my grandpa. Their rationale was that the beginning price was an estimate and they encountered more issues and used more time and equipment than they had planned on. As a middle-class senior citizen, my grandpa did not have the time, money, or energy to fight them on it, so he ended up paying them the high price.

The company in this situation was definitely an “on-the-street” business. They showed up, did the work, took the money and left the area. I also thought they were very thoughtful about who to target for their services (an elderly couple). If I were investigating this situation, I would use the assistance of advocacy groups and legal assistance groups. Because my grandparents were in no shape to be entering an extensive legal battle, I think these would be the best option. Their legal assistance would provide access to records and documents within government that would hopefully be able to track down the fraudulent company, even if their name had been changed.

I would also contact the Better Business Bureau and the Attorney General to see if any complaints similar to ours had been made. These organizations would be able to help me access the information I would need to prove the company’s wrongdoing and move forward with legal action.

My mom has also been involved in a consumer fraud scam. She purchased a hand scrub supply for two months from a kiosk in the mall and was actually charged for five months. She didn’t realize it until the last set of charges had come through and by that time, the kiosk was not in the mall.

In this case, I would also contact the Attorney General and the Better Business Bureau because they would be able to find the information about the company and also try to warn other consumers about the fraudulent activity. I think this would be the best option because they would have the most opportunities for the necessary legal action.

City Council Meeting- Monday, March 23

Huntington City Council members approved the 2015-2016 fiscal year budget Monday during their meeting. The budget passed 5-4 and will go into effect July 1.

Mayor Steve Williams said the new budget will permit the addition of two new field auditors in the finance department. Williams said the new budget will allow operations in the city’s police, fire department and public works departments to remain unchanged.

The city council also passed a resolution forgiving all liens against the Douglass Centre and Ebenezer Medical Outreach. This resolution allows the free clinic operated by Ebenezer Medical Outreach to continue to provide care at the Douglass Centre location with a lower lease.

The main hallway of City Hall may be getting an upgrade. During the meeting, Mayor Williams asked city council members to approve a resolution that would allow for repairs to be made to the front hallway to update the atmosphere of City Hall.

Williams said funding the project is not a concern of the taxpayers.

“This project would not cost the taxpayers any money. All of the funding would come from private donor’s donations,” Williams said.

The renovations are set to cost no more than $25,000. The resolution passed unanimously with a 9-0 vote. The Council will focus more on the details of the hallway floor construction project in the coming weeks.

The next city council meeting is at 7:30 p.m. April 13 at Huntington City Hall.

City Council Plans for Citywide Pothole Repairs

After this year’s rough winter took a toll on city roads, Huntington Mayor Steve Williams asked for city council’s cooperation Monday in repairing road damage and potholes.

During the city council meeting, the mayor asked that council members get input from their constituents on repair needs and submit a list for paving to the Public Works Department by March 20. Williams said he knows this project will take time but emphasized the severity of the situation.

“After coming out of this winter season, our roads are beat to Hades,” Williams said.

Williams said patching the potholes would begin once the weather improves and the roadways lose excess water. He said the lists from constituents are a way to plan ahead for upcoming improvements.

Williams added that during the last winter storm, all of Huntington’s snow plows ran 3 days with no accidents or injuries reported.

During his report at the meeting, Williams also announced that Huntington was the recipient of a $200,000 brownfield planning grant funded by the Environmental Protection Agency. Williams said the grant would ensure that the project is efficient and effective.

“This $200,000 grant will help us measure twice and cut once,” Williams said.

The grant would contribute to funding for an extensive overhaul of the area between Marshall University and the Highlawn area. According to Williams, the area functioned for 142 years as an industrial property but has not been used for the last 10-20 years.

The area, which encompasses 78-acres worth of property, is likely to house Rubberlite Incorporated, an advanced polymer manufacturing center, as well as mixed-use development. Williams said the manufacturing center would also bring more opportunities for cooperative efforts between the city and Marshall University.

Williams also declared April 2015 Fair Housing Month to commemorate the 47^th anniversary of the Fair Housing Act of 1968.

The city council voted to refer a resolution prohibiting advertisements on the Greater Huntington Wall of Fame to the Recreation Committee for further discussion.

Williams said he hopes the referral will allow for an intelligent and thoughtful decision to be made that will not constitute a complete ban on a medium for businesses in the city.

The next city council meeting is March 23 at 7:30 p.m.

City Makes Cuts, While Some Revenue Declines

Funding for Huntington police and fire departments would be cut by 2 percent in the projected budget for fiscal year 2016. This cut will result in a loss of  $150,000 for each department.

The budget, recently released by Huntington Mayor Steve Williams, also includes a significant cut in funding for the Public Works: Streets and Highways section. The section is set to lose $123,666 in FY2016. This amount is an 8.7 percent change from the 2015 amended budget, and information has not yet been released about the specific areas or projects this cut will affect. It is likely that paving will take a hit, which may be a point of concern for Huntington residents.

The landfill closure fund, another public works section, would experience a cut in the projected FY2016 budget. The $1.5 million allocation for the landfill fund in the FY2015 amended budget would be completely drained in FY2016. A representative for the mayor was contacted about this issue but has not responded to the request.

The insurance program for self-insured is projected to take a significant hit in FY2016 to the tune of $407,706.

While the Business and Occupation tax still makes up the largest part of the city’s revenue, it is projected to experience a 4 percent decrease in FY2016.  According to the City of Huntington website, this tax is paid by “any business that is engaged in or caused to be engaged in activities with the object of gain of economic benefit.” The mayor has not disclosed the specific cause for the decrease.

Revenue from city sales tax is also experiencing a decline from the 2014 budget to the FY2016 proposed budget. In an interview, Mayor Williams mentioned a large company in the area not wanting to pay sales tax, which could be a large contributor to the decline.

The FY2015 amended budget was created after a long-term analysis of the budget in fiscal year 2014. The city administration is discussing and analyzing the proposed fiscal year 2016 budget at this time.

State of the City FOLO

Four major city development projects set to unfold in the next decade may strengthen Huntington’s commercial infrastructure, while increasing the traffic to downtown Huntington.

The projects, outlined by Huntington Mayor Steve Williams in his recent State of the City address, are designed to bring commercial, retail and housing developments to underused and inefficiently-used city spaces.

The four major projects being discussed are the Hal Greer Boulevard corridor, the River to Rail area on the west end of Huntington, the industrial area between Marshall University and the Highlawn neighborhood and the creation of high-speed broadband Internet access throughout the city. In his address, Williams said the combination of these projects will provide the greatest economic expansion opportunity our city has seen since the 1940s.

Two projects have moved past the discussion stage. The first phase of demolition of Northcott Court, part of the Hal Greer Boulevard corridor, was completed in September. Efforts to deploy high-speed broadband Internet throughout the city were accelerated after the West Virginia Broadband Deployment Council chose Huntington to participate in a study about the feasibility of high-speed broadband Internet implementation.

According to Williams, the redevelopment of the area between Marshall and Highlawn will provide the longest-lasting impact for the city.

“You transform that part of the city, and then Huntington becomes a totally different player in the Ohio River valley,” Williams said.

A surprise development project Williams announced in his address is the redevelopment of Riverfront Park as an area for commerce. Possible construction projects include a state-of-the-art, 260-slip marina, a boardwalk with retail facilities and restaurants and RV riverside camping facilities. The Riverfront Park project is estimated to take six to 10 years to complete.

Large redevelopment projects mean large financial spending for a city that, in the coming year, is projected to lose revenue. Financing for each of the projects has not been outlined yet, but it is likely that the city will seek both state and national grants to help finance the projects. (More research, interviews)

Funding for the Riverfront Park project has been outlined. The project will be financed by a public-private partnership that will utilize a combination of private capital with public and private grant sources. Superior Marine, a company that was engaged in a lawsuit with the city for many years until it was settled last year, will be working with the city again on this project.

With funding likely to be such an issue for these projects, the eventual effects on the city’s infrastructure are of primary concern to residents, who hope the benefits of the projects will outweigh the costs. (Interviews and research to garner quotes and support for this idea)

These projects are all part of a plan, heavily supported by Williams, to cause a rebirth of Huntington. Even though funding will be a huge issue, as the city is not financially thriving, Williams has reiterated his confidence in the ability of Huntington to rally together and make these projects happen, one way or another. (Interview, to get quotes)