This story was originally published by Kristopher Bilbrey for The Political Spotlight. Republished with permission.

The McKinley neighborhood spent years building a plan for responsible development. The Plan Commission approved it. The City Council approved it unanimously. Then the
administration reversed course, vetoed it, weakened it, and moved another McKinley
development forward while residents were still fighting to preserve their voice.

The Decision Before The Council

The Muncie Common Council will face a defining decision on Monday, August 3, 2026.

Council members can stand by the unanimous vote already cast in favor of Ordinance 13-26, override the administration’s veto, and preserve meaningful neighborhood participation in the future development of the McKinley neighborhood.

Or they can allow the administration to replace that ordinance with Ordinance 15-26, a rewritten version that preserves much of the original plan’s appearance while substantially reducing the authority of the neighborhood residents who helped create it.

The Council should override the veto of Ordinance 13-26, and it should do so unanimously.

A 9-0 vote would not be radical. It would reaffirm the decision the Council already made, restore a neighborhood-driven ordinance that passed through the public process, and send a clear message that the legislative branch will not surrender its judgment simply because the administration changed its position after the vote.

A Neighborhood-Driven Plan

Ordinance 13-26 did not appear suddenly.

It grew from the McKinley Live-Learn Neighborhood Master Plan and years of neighborhood work, public-private investment, community planning, discussion, and resident participation.

The ordinance created a McKinley Neighborhood Overlay District intended to preserve the
neighborhood’s established character while providing rules for future development. It sought to maintain a predominantly single-family and duplex residential core while permitting appropriately scaled mixed-use and higher-density development along designated corridors.

Its purpose was not to stop development. Its purpose was to make development compatible with the neighborhood.

The proposal went before the Delaware-Muncie Metropolitan Plan Commission, which held a public hearing, considered revisions, and forwarded it to the City Council with a unanimous 8-0 favorable recommendation. 

It should be noted that the Plan Commission’s attorney reviewed the overlay district plan and did not take issue with it.

The materials supporting Ordinance 13-26 included letters from residents, neighborhood
organizations, and private development interests. One adjacent neighborhood association said the overlay would protect neighborhood character, promote high-quality development, improve walkability, and provide a transparent review process that included meaningful McKinley representation.

CRU Construction and CRU Properties, which reported investing nearly $2 million in the neighborhood, said the overlay would protect quality investments, discourage substandard development, provide predictability, preserve neighborhood identity, and encourage long-term economic stability.

This was not a movement against builders. It was supported by a builder.

The Council Voted Unanimously

On July 6, 2026, eight of Muncie’s nine councilors were present. District 3 City Councilor Brandon Garrett was absent.

The eight councilors in attendance unanimously voted to introduce Ordinance 13-26. They
unanimously voted to suspend the rules. Then they unanimously voted to pass the ordinance.

The official vote sheet records eight affirmative votes and one absence.

No councilor spoke against the ordinance. No councilor publicly raised the legal objections that later appeared in the veto letter. No councilor stated that Acting Mayor Jeff Howe had privately warned them about those problems, or any others, before the meeting.

The presentation was received positively. At-Large City Councilor Dale Basham even remarked, “This was the way to present an ordinance.”

This is important because Howe’s later veto letter claimed that, before the vote, he had expressed concern to some members regarding both the substance of the ordinance and the expedited process by which it was advanced.

That claim deserves scrutiny.

Did Howe Actually Warn Councilors?

The Political Spotlight contacted all nine members of the Muncie City Council by email on Friday, July 17, 2026. All councilors were asked whether Howe had reached out to them to express any concerns before the meeting, during the meeting, or at any point after the meeting. All councilors were given an opportunity to come forward.

A few councilors did respond, stating that Howe had never contacted them about any concerns with Ordinance 13-26. The other councilors have remained silent. However, as of July 25, 2026, no councilor has come forward to state that Howe had, in fact, contacted them.

Howe was also not in attendance at the meeting on Monday, July 6, 2026. He was not there to express his concerns or withdraw his support for the overlay district.

If Howe had, in fact, identified serious conflicts with Indiana law, city ordinances, engineering authority, drainage standards, utility regulations, or the powers of public bodies before the vote, why did he not attend the meeting to say as much?

Why did none of the councilors raise the concerns that Howe later claimed he had communicated to them? Why did all eight council members vote yes on all three votes connected to the ordinance during that meeting?

Why did none of them say, “Acting Mayor Howe has warned us that there may be issues with this ordinance,” or, “He has warned us that it may be unlawful”?

Based on The Political Spotlight’s direct conversations with various council members, the silence of the remaining council members, and the absence of any discussion during the public meeting, The Political Spotlight believes Howe’s statement in the veto letter was false.

The Political Spotlight also reached out to both Howe and Muncie Mayor Dan Ridenour in an attempt to obtain answers to these questions, and neither has responded.

Howe should be willing and able to explain which councilors he claims to have spoken with, when those conversations took place, and how they occurred – whether by text, email, or in person.

However, as of July 25, 2026, neither Howe nor Mayor Ridenour has provided any explanation or answer concerning which councilors Howe allegedly contacted.

Until information or evidence is provided showing otherwise, the public record and The Political Spotlight’s reporting do not support the information presented in Howe’s veto letter.

The Administration Had Previously Supported The Overlay

The abrupt reversal is even more troubling because Mayor Ridenour and Howe had both submitted letters supporting the McKinley overlay before the Council vote. Mayor Ridenour’s letter was submitted on May 29, and Howe’s letter was submitted on June 2.

Neither appeared at the July 6 meeting to withdraw their support. Neither stood before the Council to explain that the ordinance had supposedly become legally defective. Neither asked the Council to delay action.

Instead, the administration waited until after the Council unanimously approved the ordinance, and then Howe vetoed it on his last day as acting mayor.

Howe signed the veto letter on July 9. However, it was not filed until July 14, as shown by the clerk’s filing stamp visible on the document.

The veto raised objections involving the 2024 City Design Manual, mandatory sustainability provisions, porous pavement, drainage authority, utility regulations, streets and rights-of-way, and the authority of the McKinley Neighborhood Review Committee.

Some of those issues may warrant clarification or amendments later. However, they do not justify gutting the central mechanism that gave McKinley residents an enforceable role in decisions affecting their neighborhood.

Ordinance 13-26 Gave The Neighborhood Meaningful Authority

The most important feature of Ordinance 13-26 was the McKinley Neighborhood Review
Committee.

Under the original ordinance, future development proposals were required to be reviewed and approved by the committee before development permits could be obtained. The ordinance established the committee for the express purpose of reviewing and approving development plans in the overlay.

The committee was not composed exclusively of neighborhood activists.
Its seven voting members included appointments from the Metropolitan Plan Commission, the City Council, the Mayor’s Office, the Muncie Redevelopment Commission, and the McKinley Live-Learn Neighborhood Association.

The neighborhood association received two seats: one for an owner-occupant homeowner and one for a commercial property owner, business owner, or developer.

That was a balanced structure. It combined professional expertise, city representation,
development interests, and neighborhood participation.
But most importantly, it gave that body an actual role in approving projects – not merely
commenting on them after the real decision had effectively been made elsewhere.

McKinley’s District Councilor Sponsors Replacement Ordinance That Strips The Neighborhood Of It’s Power

After vetoing Ordinance 13-26, the administration promoted a replacement. Mayor Ridenour turned to District 5 City Councilor Jerry Dishman, whose district includes the McKinley neighborhood, to introduce Ordinance 15-26.

Dishman was told that McKinley neighborhood representatives had stopped communicating with Mayor Ridenour or the administration. The Political Spotlight has found that claim to be false.

Neighborhood representatives were still attempting to communicate with the administration and remain hopeful that meaningful communication can resume. The neighborhood had communicated with Mayor Ridenour. Mayor Ridenour attempted to call a meeting on extremely short notice. Neighborhood representatives explained that they needed more time, but Mayor Ridenour would not provide another meeting date or time. Mayor Ridenour then portrayed the neighborhood to Dishman as unwilling to communicate. The Political Spotlight considers that portrayal to be outright false.

The distinction matters because Dishman was asked to introduce a replacement ordinance based, at least in part, on the false representation that neighborhood representatives would not engage with the administration.

Ordinance 15-26 retains much of the design language of Ordinance 13-26. It still describes the neighborhood’s character, development areas, architectural standards, parking, sidewalks, landscaping, housing types, and mixed-use corridors.

But it changes the power structure.

Under Ordinance 15-26, the McKinley Neighborhood Review Committee would serve solely in an advisory capacity. It could review plans and issue written recommendations, but it could not issue permits, grant zoning approvals, or exercise authority vested in existing city bodies or officials. Final approval would remain with the governmental entities otherwise authorized under city ordinance or Indiana law.

That is not a minor correction. It is the central difference between the two ordinances.
Under Ordinance 13-26, the neighborhood has an enforceable role. Under Ordinance 15-26, the neighborhood may speak, write findings, object, recommend changes, and create a record, but city officials can still approve projects even when the neighborhood opposes them.

The committee becomes a consultation mechanism rather than a decision-making body.

Sustainability Standards Were Also Weakened

Ordinance 13-26 required new development to employ at least one sustainable stormwater or environmental method. The listed options included green roofs, rain gardens, bioswales, stormwater planters, porous paving, solar installations, and reflective roofing.

Ordinance 15-26 changes that mandate.

It states that the City encourages applicants to use sustainable site-design practices. It expressly says the section should not be construed as requiring any particular building component, design, material, or energy-producing technology. A project is merely encouraged to employ at least one listed method.

In other words, another enforceable protection became an aspiration.

The Advantage Built Homes Agreement

While the neighborhood was fighting to preserve Ordinance 13-26, the administration brought a new McKinley development proposal before the Muncie Redevelopment Commission.

The Economic Development Agreement was between the City, the East Central Indiana Community Development Corporation, and Advantage Built Homes, LLC. It was dated July 23, 2026 – the same date as the makeup meeting of the Muncie Redevelopment Commission. The MRC had originally been scheduled to meet on Thursday, July 16, 2026, just two days after Howe’s veto was filed. That meeting was canceled because of what officials described as a lack of quorum. The Commission then reconvened the following week and approved the agreement before the City Council had an opportunity to consider overriding the veto of Ordinance 13-26. Given the sequence of events, the timing appears more than coincidental.

The agreement described a residential infill project consisting of six duplex-style homes, three sixunit townhome structures, utilities, sidewalks, landscaping, and other site improvements.

That description appears to contemplate 30 residential units: 12 units in six duplexes and 18 units in three six-unit townhome structures.

The agreement provided for the property to be conveyed to the developer for $1, along with the developer’s contractual promises.

Publicly supported development can be entirely appropriate. A one-dollar transfer is not
automatically improper when the agreement imposes construction obligations, deadlines,
remedies, and public-development objectives.

But the document presented to the Commission contained obvious unresolved problems: the closing date was blank; a termination deadline was blank; Exhibit B did not include the legal descriptions of the property; the delay-damages provisions said ‘Five Thousand Dollars’ but placed ‘$2,500’ in parentheses; and the main agreement described a large multi-building development while Exhibit A identified only three Walnut Street addresses.

This is difficult to ignore.

The administration vetoed Ordinance 13-26 partly because it allegedly contained unresolved legal and administrative uncertainty. Then it pushed a separate McKinley agreement containing blank dates, no legal descriptions, contradictory dollar figures, and incomplete project detail.

‘Should’ Fit The Neighborhood

The project standards in Exhibit A said the new homes ‘should, as practically as possible,’ conform to other homes in the neighborhood. 

They said gable roofs should be used. Porches should be integrated. The housing should fit the neighborhood’s scale, style, and building forms.

That is precisely why the overlay matters.

Promises that a project should fit are not the same as enforceable neighborhood standards.

A rendering is not an ordinance. A conversation with a developer is not a legally binding
neighborhood review process. Good intentions are not a substitute for enforceable rules.

The Neighborhood Learned About The Project One Day Before The Vote

At the July 23, 2026, makeup meeting of the Muncie Redevelopment Commission, held at 8:00 a.m., Rachel, vice president of the McKinley Neighborhood Association, made clear that the neighborhood was not attacking Advantage Built Homes. She said the developer might be excellent and the project might ultimately be worthy of support. 

Her objection was the process.

According to her public comments, the neighborhood learned about the proposal only the day before the meeting.

Once again, a major decision affecting McKinley had been negotiated and placed before a public body before residents had a meaningful opportunity to understand it, ask questions, or participate while their input could still shape the outcome.

Her distinction was critical: the neighborhood was not opposing development. It was opposing a process in which residents were notified after the important discussions had already occurred.

A Commissioner Asked For A Delay

During the Redevelopment Commission meeting, Redevelopment Commissioner Seth Rawlings asked whether the agreement could be tabled until the Council resolved the overlay dispute.

His concern was reasonable.

The Council was expected to revisit Ordinance 13-26 in just 11 days. The requested delay was not substantial. The development would be located inside the proposed overlay. Approval standards could change depending on whether the Council overrode the veto or adopted Ordinance 15-26.

Rawlings wanted to see the overlay language resolved or incorporated into the agreement.

Howe resisted. He argued that the developer wanted to begin quickly, that the lots had been available for a long time, and that delay might cause the builder to go elsewhere.

He also criticized the Council’s earlier decision to suspend the rules and approve Ordinance 13-26. Howe said the overlay had been vetoed because it conflicted with Indiana law and city and county codes.

Yet during that discussion, he did not provide commissioners with a detailed section-by-section legal analysis. He stated the administration’s conclusions.

The motion to table received no second. The commission then approved the agreement 3-1, with Rawlings voting no.

The ‘No Variances’ Claim Did Not Survive The Meeting

Howe initially told commissioners that the administration wanted the homes built without variance requests and that the developer would have to comply with applicable requirements.

During public comment, Rebecca Hannah raised an immediate problem.

She said the properties appeared to be zoned R-5, which required minimum 50-foot lots, while the lots appeared to be only 40 feet wide. If accurate, the project would require variances.

Later in the meeting, Howe acknowledged that variances might, in fact, be necessary.

That exchange illustrates exactly why neighborhood review and public participation matter.

The possible variance issue was not identified by the administration during its original
presentation. It was identified by a member of the public.

They Engaged Legal Counsel, So We Can’t Meet With Them

Near the end of the meeting, Howe addressed the McKinley Neighborhood Association directly.

He said the neighborhood needed to understand that it had engaged legal counsel and, therefore, the administration could not meet with its representatives. He added, ‘We’ve moved on.’

That statement raises serious questions.

Retaining legal counsel does not automatically erase a neighborhood’s right to communicate with its local government. It does not prevent elected officials from listening to residents. It does not require the administration to refuse scheduling alternatives. It does not transform a request for another meeting date into a refusal to communicate.

The administration cannot first make meaningful participation difficult and then use the
neighborhood’s retention of counsel as justification for moving on.

That is not collaboration. It is a decision to stop collaborating.

Howe Invoked Unnamed Neighborhood Opposition

Howe also said two people from the neighborhood had contacted him and expressed confusion or concern about the overlay.

Those individuals were not identified at the meeting. Their statements were not independently presented.

They may exist. They may have legitimate concerns. No neighborhood is monolithic, and no ordinance should be immune from criticism.

But two unidentified phone calls do not erase the years of neighborhood work, the formal public hearing, the Plan Commission’s 8-0 recommendation, the Council’s 8-0 vote, the written support of neighborhood organizations, or the support of a private developer already invested in McKinley.

The proper response to residents who do not understand the overlay is more public engagement – not a veto that weakens neighborhood authority.

The Eminent Domain Distraction And/Or Threat

Howe also raised an alarming suggestion that someone might be discussing the use of “eminent domain” in connection with McKinley.

During the discussion, Muncie Redevelopment Commission President Isaac Miller clarified that the suggestion did not originate with the McKinley Neighborhood Association, anyone speaking at the meeting, or anyone in attendance. Instead, Miller stated that it came from another individual with a vested interest in the area.

That clarification is significant.

The McKinley Neighborhood Association should not be associated with a controversial eminent domain proposal that it neither advanced nor endorsed. Raising the subject during a discussion centered on criticism of the neighborhood risked creating precisely that false impression.

Just as importantly, introducing the topic of eminent domain in that setting could reasonably have been interpreted by neighborhood residents as more than a distraction. Whether intended or not, mentioning one of government’s most controversial powers while discussing opposition from residents had the potential to be perceived as an implied warning or threat.

At best, it diverted attention from the issues before the Commission. At worst, it could have had a chilling effect on residents who were actively exercising their right to participate in the public process. Either way, the subject was unnecessary and inappropriate in the context of that discussion.

Legitimate Legal Questions Can Be Fixed

The administration’s objections should not simply be dismissed.

The original ordinance may contain legal vulnerabilities. While these questions deserve legal review, communication, and work, they do not require abandoning the ordinance or the work that went into it.

The answer is not to do away with Ordinance 13-26’s central purpose.

The Council should override the veto and then work to solve issues that might arise down the road.

The Council Is Not The Mayor’s Voting Bloc

The choice is not between Ordinance 13-26 exactly as written and no meaningful neighborhood authority at all.

The Council has legislative power. It can override, amend, clarify, and improve.
The Muncie Common Council is not an extension of the Mayor’s Office. It is not a ceremonial voice and vote for the administration.

It is the legislative and fiscal body of city government. More importantly, it is Muncie’s
representative body.

Councilors answer to the people who elected them – not to the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor, the Building Commissioner, a developer, or any administrative department.

The Council already heard the McKinley proposal. The Council already examined the ordinance. The Council already voted unanimously to approve it.

The administration then reversed course, questioned the ordinance after passage, diminished the neighborhood’s role in its replacement, and advanced another development inside McKinley before the dispute was resolved.

The Council now has an obligation to reassert its authority.

The Proper Course For The Council During The August 3, 2026, Meeting

The only proper course for the Council at its upcoming August 3, 2026, meeting is clear. On August 3, 2026, all nine councilors should vote to override the veto of Ordinance 13-26.

Afterward, the Council should work openly with McKinley residents, neighborhood representatives, the Plan Commission, City legal counsel, the administration, engineers, developers, and other affected public bodies.

Any genuine legal defects can then be addressed through targeted amendments. That process would preserve the neighborhood’s work while correcting legitimate technical concerns.

Passing Ordinance 15-26 instead would reward the administration’s refusal to collaborate and institutionalize a weaker form of neighborhood participation. The Council should not allow that.

The proper course for the Muncie Common Council is to override the veto of Ordinance 13-26 and then either allow Dishman to withdraw Ordinance 15-26 or vote it down when it is called up for introduction.

2/3 Or 9-0

The eight councilors present on July 6, 2026, already voted yes. The ninth councilor should now have the opportunity to join them.

A 9-0 override would demonstrate that neighborhood planning matters, public hearings matter, unanimous Plan Commission recommendations matter, Council votes matter, and residents deserve more than advisory status. It would also make clear that the administration cannot reverse a legislative decision through unsupported claims and political maneuvering, and that neighborhood accountability and responsible development can coexist.

McKinley neighborhood residents are not asking the Council to stop growth. They are asking the Council to ensure that growth respects the people already living, working, investing, and building a community there.

That request is reasonable. The Council should honor it.