A2Politico: Ann Arbor Politics Grilled To Perfection

April 25, 2010

The Politics of Propositions: When Every Scheme Sounds Like a Winner

Filed under: boards and commissions, developers — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — A2 Politico @ 12:11 am
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rate this posting
Rating: 5.0/5 (6 votes cast)

When Google rode into town promising to create 1,000 jobs by 2011, Mayor and Council responded to the racy proposition by taking over $2 million dollars from the city’s already stretched General Fund and creating a new fund called the Economic Development Fund. It should have been called the Rob Peter to Give Away Money to Paul Fund. With the magical appearance of money in the Economic Development Fund, Council took taxpayer money and paid to give Google 400 parking spaces. That crazy arrangement is due to expire in December 2010. I call it crazy for any number of reasons not the least among which is that Google created about 20 percent of the total jobs the company promised, yet still took (and was given) 100 percent of the free parking spaces promised. For every one job created by Google, Ann Arbor taxpayers funded two (yes, two) parking spaces. 

Now, money from the Economic Development Fund aka the General Fund is being used on the Fuller Parking Garage project. Our tax dollars are being used to pay a consultant to design a parking garage for the University of Michigan. 

In Ann Arbor, our current Mayor and Council simply don’t evaluate business propositions with any modicum of business sense. They will entertain just about any proposition, and give away more money than is practicable in order to smooth the way for the smooth-talking types who come before Council and want their way with the group. The current rumor that it’s tough for those Willy Loman types, developers who ride into town, architectural plans in their travel bags, is pure nonsense and bunkum—developers Newcombe Clark and Jeff Helminski included. Clark recently launched a bid to unseat Fifth Ward Council member Carsten Hohnke because Hohnke sent a note to be read by Fifth Ward Council colleague Mike Anglin that made it clear that Hohnke did not favor Clark’s Moravian project. 

One has to wonder why Newcombe didn’t run for Mayor. It was Mayor Hieftje, after all, who sank any chance Clark and partner Jeff Helminski had for their Planned Unit Development (PUD) petition to be approved. Hieftje voted against the PUD petition, while Carsten merely sent a note to the meeting and missed the vote. For that matter, why doesn’t Clark move to Ward Three and take on Council member Chris Taylor? Taylor voted for the PUD, but in taking out Taylor, Clark could live la vida loca and spend his days making the life of the other Third Ward Council member, Steve Kunselman, a towering inferno. 

It’s my supposition that sometime during the years when Helminski and Clark accumulated their multiple small parcels in the Germantown neighborhood, someone, somewhere, led the two to believe that the P.U.D. was in the B.A.G. All they would have to do was jump through a few hoops at the Planning Commission (which eventually recommended that the Moravian PUD be approved) then, on the Commission’s recommendation, Council would approve the PUD, just as they did for the Near North project. It’s no secret that there are those on Council who believe that the neighborhoods adjoining downtown are fair game for denser development, despite what the residents, zoning laws and various city master plans might say. However, there arose a Third Ward Council member in August of 2009 who knew not Joseph, Jeff or Newcombe. Steve Kunselman voted against the PUD. I can only venture a guess and that former Third Ward Council member Leigh Greden would have heeded the advice of former Second Ward Council member Joan Lowenstein, when she stood before Council and told members not to give in to the “sulkers,” and approve the Moravian PUD. 

Since 2000, some 41 development projects have been approved by City Council, developments totaling close to 4,000,000 square feet of new development in our city. Those projects include the 2003 City Council approval of a 633,000 square foot fantasy-land at the corner of Broadway and Wall Street, called the Broadway Village PUD Site Plan. The Broadway Village was supposed to include 7 buildings, 196 units of residential space, and over 760 parking spaces. It’s currently a 7.3 acre eyesore that has enjoyed seven years worth of site plan extensions thanks, one imagines, to the political donations and connections of developer Peter Allen. There are other communities that pull site plan permissions after six months if the developer hasn’t secured funding and broken ground. I have to imagine that Allen, the Broadway Village developer, will petition Council in October of 2010 for another extension. I also have to imagine that funding for the project will not be any more forthcoming in October of 2010 than it was in 2003, when the project was first approved. 

It makes no sense to allow Peter Allen to squat at the corner of Broadway and Maiden Lane as he waits for the banks to see the light and finance his development, or at least make sure he gets his developer’s fees before the project goes belly-up, and Ann Arbor is left holding the bag.

So, why can’t developers get their projects built in Ann Arbor? Well, for starters, since 2000 our Mayor and City Council have fallen over and again for the same story: nice project, grandiose financing scheme. Over and again, planning staff have advised the Planning Commission that the individual projects were viable, and Planning Commission has advised Council to say yes to the proposition. Over and again, the developers were unable to begin construction. Not once, not twice, but 40 times since 2000. In fact, the number of development projects that have been approved since 2000 exponentially outnumbers the number of projects turned down by City Council, including as the Moravian.

In going door-to-door, I’ve heard over and again from voters that they want to see the zoning laws applied fairly and uniformly. They want to see PUD projects in near downtown neighborhoods discouraged, and density concentrated within the boundaries of the Downtown Development Authority. After all, one voter pointed out, that’s how the Greenbelt millage was sold.

Well, no. That’s not how the Greenbelt millage was sold.

In 2003, not a single piece of Greenbelt millage campaign literature linked the Greenbelt campaign to increasing density within the city of Ann Arbor. Chapter 42 of the City Charter that deals with the implementation of the Greenbelt millage says nothing about downtown density as a reason to repurpose the then land acquisition millage money. Elected officials, Greenbelt Advisory Committee members and city staff have “repurposed” the intention behind the Greenbelt millage passage to suit their political belief that we must increase density in downtown Ann Arbor. However, the Greenbelt millage was sold and presented to voters this way: 

From Chapter 42 of the Charter: Uncoordinated development in the areas around Ann Arbor has affected and may continue to adversely affect the quality of life in Ann Arbor leading to fragmented open space and wildlife habitat; loss of productive farmland and forestland; destruction of rural beauty which is part of the natural historic character of the Ann Arbor community; decline in water quality and the loss of wetlands; increased auto dependency, fuel consumption, traffic congestion and air pollution; relocation of jobs to peripheral area; excessive public costs for roads and utility infrastructure, new and extensions, to dispersed development.

Now, almost 10 years and $22 million dollars later, a map of the Greenbelt millage purchases shows 1,782 acres “saved” from development.

Greenbelt

What should be obvious from the map is that the total amount of land acquired within the boundary is miniscule. The 30 year 0.5 mill tax for and acquisition is anticipated to raise between $80 million and $100 million dollars from Ann Arbor taxpayers. Even doubling or tripling the number of acres will not substantially increase the total land mass, or create anything close to a “green belt” around Ann Arbor. What we will have done is to have preserved multiple small parcels of open space and farmland in outlying townships. Meanwhile, the opportunity for a Greenway languishes, brought back from the dead every two years, like Lazarus, by politicos who pledge to support a Greenway for the city.  

While the Mayor claimed in a January 2010 AnnArbor.com post this is a “golden” time to swoop in and pay less than the $12,000 per acre on average that has been paid for the rights purchased, Ginny Trocchio one of two people who manage the Greenbelt millage program, was quoted in an April 14, 2010 AnnArborChronicle.com post as refuting the notion. Trocchio is quoted thusly, “The market has changed dramatically since the millage passed. Land values have dropped sharply, but landowner expectations remain higher than the actual market price— that’s an issue in trying to negotiate deals.” The dilemma makes sense, in fact. Chances are good that land rich, cash poor landowners need money now more than ever. 

The most recent example of this propensity to accept propositions sits at 2502-2568 Packard. The 91,700 fantasy-land was to be called Georgetown Commons. Even with the TIF (tax increment financing) sweetheart deal from Council that would have given tax dollars to the developer, the Titanic development scheme sank after hitting the icebergs of financing, debt and unpaid taxes. The property is valued at $4.6 million, based on its 2010 state equalized value. Developer Craig Schubiner paid $6.1 million for it in 2001, according to city documents.

After creating a 6.4 acre disaster by letting Craig Schubiner talk them into a TIF financing package, City Council created the Georgetown Mall Citizen’s Committee which held a meeting at 6 p.m. April 22nd in a 6th floor conference room at City Hall. Citizens will come together and figure out how to clean up the mess created by Council’s short-lived love affair with the Georgetown Commons developer. 

So what’s the answer to this decade-long string of failed development? It’s simple: no more tax increment financing (TIF) giveaways to private developers, no more public-private partnerships where our tax money is used to subsidize private development projects, or mitigate the risks, as First Ward Council member Sandi Smith once said, of private development in Ann Arbor. Those public-private partnerships are breeding grounds for what President Obama’s chief economic advisor Dr. Lawrence Summers, referred to as “crony capitalism.” The public good is subverted for the sake of private gain. Public policy is replaced with back room dealing. An excellent example of crony capitalism is the convention center RFP process, a sham procedure designed to give us a predetermined outcome. A few politicos, including the Mayor, City Administrator and former Chamber of Commerce leader decided quietly among themselves as early as 2008 that Ann Arbor’s downtown needed a convention center. 

As elected officials, and as a community, we’re going to have to apply significantly more business acumen, vision and skepticism when developers come forward with plans such as the Broadway Village and Georgetown Commons. Yes, it’s a great bullet point for a political résumé to bring in and break ground at such a project, but when the projects fail, as those two have, our community as a whole suffers tremendously. The closed Georgetown Mall has spurred an increase in crime in the neighborhood around the area.

If Ann Arbor is to become a community in which development investments are approved, financed and built (a critical three-step process), we’re going to have to reshape the way in which projects are taken through the planning process, and by whom. We’ll have to carefully analyze and study the successes and the failures of the past decade to identify patterns, people and issues where Ann Arbor’s staff, appointed and elected officials can do a better job helping those who want to invest in our community do so equitably and, ultimately, in the best interests of the taxpayers.

Popularity: 44% [?]

April 6, 2010

The Politics of Development: If You Think It’s About Urban Density and Affordable Living, Think Again

Filed under: boards and commissions, city council, developers — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — A2 Politico @ 2:10 pm
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rate this posting
Rating: 5.0/5 (8 votes cast)

There have been political battles involving The Moravian since B.C. 60. Seriously. Hapsburgs figure prominently in this history, as does Milan Kundera.

Here in Ann Arbor, The Moravian PUD went down in flames early this morning with very few of the young professionals (YPs) and students in attendance whom developers Jeff Helminski and Newcombe Clark had rallied together in a pre-Council meeting Happy Hour. Evidently, when it was time for their flash mob politicos to speak in support of The Moravian they got email alerts so that they didn’t have to sit around listening to other people blather on. Concentrate Media’s editor Jeff Myers spoke passionately in favor of the project. Developer Newcombe Clark, until recently, was Myers’s colleague at Concentrate Media. Myers cajoled Council members to realize that the development would bring mixed-use development to a neighborhood that desperately needed a shot of development botox. Concentrate Media, of course, is owned by Issue Media Group. IMG’s business model, according to Tracy Gosson, who works for IMG is to feed at the public trough then cover “local” government. Gosson is quoted in a piece published in Janaury 2010 in the Baltimore City Paper as saying, “…[P]artnering with government—or any other organization that wants to help fund IMG e-zines…—is her media outlet’s business model. ‘Government, a lot of the time, are partners of ours,’ Gosson explains in a Jan. 18 phone conversation, referring to Detroit-based Issue Media Group (IMG).” 

Of course, IMG’s business model, and Concentrate Media’s coverage of “local” Ann Arbor issues, such as development projects like The Moravian, present potential conflicts of interest. Stephen J. A. Ward, founding director of the Center for Journalism Ethics at School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, was recently quoted in the Baltimore City Paper as explaining that IMG’s public-financing model “is a problem if the publication is pretending to do journalism….And it’s a problem for the writers—they have to ask themselves ‘How independent can we be?’”

Kelly McBride, the Poynter Institute’s Ethics Group Leader, says of the IMG/Concentrate business model “…Simply going to a government official and saying, ‘Hey, we need money,’ that creates a quid pro quo. Who knows what the unspoken expectations are?”

Rebecca Lopez Kriss spoke in favor of the project. If you don’t know who she is, you’re over 25, and not a member of the Chamber of Commerce. You’re also not in the loop about the Germantown Historic District Committee. Kriss was appointed to that group by the Mayor and Council. In her comments in favor of the Moravian, she suggested that Council members who voted against the project could proudly call themselves political creationists, for surely a vote against the Moravian was a vote against the inevitable evolution of the New Order of things as determined by those 25-30 year olds who earn $35,000-$50,000 per year, who want “affordable” 1-2 bedroom housing to fall from the sky like manna and, statistically, are the least reliable voters in local elections. Turns out Kriss bit the hand of the creationist who appointed her to the Germantown Historic District Commission. Mayor Hieftje voted against awarding the Moravian the PUD status the project needed to move forward. 

Gen Y political flash mobs, and politically connected developers be damned. The Boomers and the Germantown residents had the final say: No PUD.

If the above description paints an ugly picture, it’s meant to. It was an ugly, adversarial confrontation stoked by the developers who used naive young professionals (YPs), drunk on their own importance to the economic development and economic success of our city, to stand up in public and make fools of themselves for the most part through sheer ignorance of the facts regarding the development in favor of which they spoke so passionately. They wanted Council to approve the PUD for the Moravian because YPs need “affordable” 1-bedroom housing. Alas, The Moravian offers, primarily, 3-4 bedroom apartments with shared common areas (i.e. student housing). The developers and Planning Commission members refused to release to the public the exact rents that would be charged. However, the YPs came one after the other, something like a scene from a George Romero movie, and swore the project was the Holy Grail of “affordable housing.” The YPs were fed up with “shitty” housing stock (to quote a lithe, blonde, young woman who forgot, momentarily, that she wasn’t in Cafe Habana with her cuddies sipping margaritas). There were those who lectured Council on how much the Moravian would contribute to the property tax base. No matter that the last several similar developments, including Zaragon Place, received tax assessment reductions from the city after the completion of their projects. The Near North project got a $500,000 present of tax dollars from the Downtown Development Authority after the project’s approval just because, well, Avalon Housing and the private developer went to the DDA and asked for money. The Near North project sits outside the DDA’s area of operation.

Where does that line for free money start?

I can tell you that I will work to end such tax dollar giveaways. Avalon Housing and the Near North private developer should expect their $500,000 DDA taxpayer-funded gift re-examined for its legality and, if found to be made illegally, revoked, should I be elected. 

These YPs, evidently, had no idea that The Moravian project is not about urban density or lofty ideals. The development is about the dirty, pretty money that Newcombe Clark and Jeff Helminski have spent, and stand to gain from their “clever” (to quote the President of a local bank who spoke in favor of the project) accumulation of several small parcels. No matter that Ann Arbor zoning ordinances expressly forbid the accumulation of multiple smaller parcels, combined, then used to build apartment buildings 38 times larger than the nearest single family house. For over three hours, those in Council chambers listened as many impassioned people (several of whom had never set foot in Council chambers before) said the same thing over and over: Ann Arbor needs much more affordable housing stock. Many of those YPers and students who spoke on the subject mistakenly said that The Moravian was a project that would have expanded the affordable housing stock. In truth, by knocking down the existing houses, The Moravian project would result in a net loss of affordable housing stock rather than a net gain. 

Go figure. Please. 

The YPers had anecdotes: Their friends, they said, are leaving Ann Arbor. Their friends, they said, would love to live in Ann Arbor, but have to live in Ypsi because they just can’t find places to live in like, yep, The Moravian. Long-time Main Street business owners (Newcombe Clark served on the Board of the Main Street Area Association) came forward to support the Moravian. Over and again employers told stories about how their employees needed “affordable housing.” It was the largest single dose of paternalism I’ve swallowed in quite some time. If these Main Street employers want their employees to be able to live in Ann Arbor, perhaps the employers should pay a wage commensurate with the cost of living in Ann Arbor. Then again, paying a 25-year-old bartender $65,000 per year is not a business model that would work for our local Main Street eateries. 

A U of M Professor, snugly tucked away in her Burns Park house, far from the proposed development, talked about the housing needs of her post-docs with a level of concern that I can only hope gets a write up in The Chronicle of Higher Education. Post-doc, for those who’ve never been one, or known one, is the academic equivalent of an indentured servant. Our pro-Moravian Prof., told Council she has a tough time recruiting post-docs because of (if you work in Academe try not to guffaw, please) the housing situation in Ann Arbor. For those who don’t work in Academe, let me explain. There are exponentially more students with doctorates (post-docs) than post-doc positions; it’s a research prof’s market. That’s why post-docs get paid peanuts and work like beasts of burden. Lack of affordable housing is not the main concern of, say, officials at the American Federation of Teachers, who are working to improve the lives of the several hundred thousand post-docs in the United States, including those who work for our pro-Moravian prof. Low pay and outlandish professional exploitation are the main concerns, and have been for the past 30 years as the number of post-docs has proliferated.

Joan Lowenstein, former Second Ward Council member and Newcombe Clark’s colleague on the Board of the Downtown Development Authority, stepped forward to urge Council not to give in to the “sulkers” who just want their own way, and who would stand between The Moravian and its PUD. It was a masterful performance full of contempt for those who are just, plain, spoiled sports about behemoth developments plopped down in the middle of quiet neighborhoods not zoned for behemoth developments. I have a feeling that had The Moravian been slated to go up next to Lowenstein’s house and on her block, we would have been treated to an armed insurrection in addition to plenty of sulking.

All in all, thanks to city planning staff, not to mention the members of the Planning Commission who recommended the PUD be approved, but who clearly didn’t read the city’s own PUD rules carefully enough, hours and hours of precious time were wasted on pleading the merits of a meritless PUD petition. Second Ward Council member Tony Derezinski voted in favor of the PUD based on the fact that the “professionals” had approved it. It should be noted that the work of those same professionals was methodically decimated by neighbors with city maps, planning experts, lawyers, and engineers employed by the Germantown Neighborhood Association. 

I would argue that The Moravian debacle is proof positive that the “professionals” on the city staff and Planning Commission are few and far between. The Moravian Mess demonstrates quite clearly that a decade of giving away board and commission appointments at cocktail parties, and as plums to political supporters and donors, is wrecking havoc on the landscape of Ann Arbor. The seven members of the Planning Commission who voted to recommend that Council approve The Moravian PUD caused hours of Council’s time to be wasted in a fruitless public hearing, and on political posturing. 

Ann Arbor needs more affordable housing stock. Absolutely. Does Ann Arbor “need” to do whatever it can to retain young professionals? Yes and no. It’s Gen X and Boomer employers who need to pay their Gen Y workers $35,000-$45,000 per year. These business owners want to push Ann Arbor into planning and public policy decisions that will benefit their businesses need to hire young workers, and pay them wages that result in a growing population that desperately needs “affordable” housing. Michigan is a “sticky state,” as I wrote in a previous entry titled “The Politics of Demographics: Why All the Hand-Wringing and Fuss Over Gen Y?”:

67.5 percent of people born in Michigan who are 18 years or older have stayed in Michigan. Conversely, only 22 percent of the people currently living in Michigan who are 18 years or older were born in another state. Sticky is where it’s at for demographers. According to the study, “In the Midwest, nearly half of adult residents say they have spent their entire lives in their hometown.” That, my fellow native Michiganians, is a huge home court advantage that local, not to mention state-wide politicians overlook in favor of attracting new people to Michigan, particularly  Gen Yers. It’s a losing battle. That demographic is moving South and West, not into the heartland. Gen Xers will relocate to the Midwest for jobs, and do. Make Ann Arbor dual career couple heaven and the Gen Xers will come.

I almost went before the City Council at the public hearing last night and announced that I support the fantasy Moravian as talked about by those many young professionals who came before Council. That’s The Moravian with “affordable” rents around $800 for a 1-bedroom (at Zaragon Place, the rent per bedroom is $1,100) that really is a development aimed at young professionals.

However, the truth isn’t so pretty. This April 6, 2010 piece in The Michigan Daily throws down with the recent developments, including 4 Eleven Lofts, Zaragon Place and The Courtyards, purportedly built for “young professionals” as “over-priced luxury student housing.” The Manager of 4 Eleven Lofts was quoted in another Michigan Daily piece about the saturated rental market as saying, “As of the end of 2008, we had leased 4 Eleven Lofts to approximately 45 percent for the 2009-10 term, but by the end of 2009 we have already reached 65 percent occupancy for 2010-11.”

This May 2009 piece posted to the Concentrate Media web site, in fact, makes the absurd claim that Zaragon Place is for both students and young professionals. In April of 2010, Rick Pearlman, president of Zaragon Incorporated made clear the building’s target audience in an interview with The Daily: “It’s obvious. When you go around you see that most of (the student housing) is very old, very tried.” Local developer Peter Allen concurred, “The developers of these two developments know the campus. And they think they know the student values. So it was not a big leap of feasibility to think Zaragon and 4 Eleven Lofts would work here,” Allen said of the Chicago-based developers Zaragon Incorporated and Joseph Freed and Associates, who built Zaragon Place and 4 Eleven Lofts, respectively.

And The Moravian? More student housing. Glorified and expensive dorm rooms for students whose parents will pay the rents demanded of them for as long as their kids are enrolled at U of M. These developments are not about a vision of downtown density, or a vision for the landscape of the City of Ann Arbor. They are private dorms built in the middle of our downtown for a transient population. The Moravian is a private dorm whose developers want built in the middle of an established neighborhood for the simple reason that they bought up the parcels and want to recoup their investments.

It’s time for us all to have honest discussions about a long-term vision for the development of our downtown areas.

What I will never support is the use of PUDs to build high-rise student housing in our neighborhoods, or vote for a PUD to allow out-sized developments to “leak” outside the established boundaries of our downtown.

I fully support downtown development and density coupled with truly affordable housing—the need that was presented by those dozens of 25-35 year-old women and men who want to live within walking distance of jobs, restaurants and (some day) shopping. I wish they would run for office and vote with the same dedication they post to Facebook and Twitter. If they did, they might be better able to see through snow jobs like The Moravian, and into a future where our elected officials aren’t constantly seduced by the quick development buck, and who will demand professional work from both city planning staff, and appoint professionals to the Planning Commission who will never send clearly flawed planning decisions to Council to waste the time of elected officials and citizens, alike.

Popularity: 66% [?]

April 5, 2010

The Politics of Perks: Residency Must Have Its Privileges

Filed under: best of A2Politico, boards and commissions, city services, taxes — Tags: , , , , , , , — A2 Politico @ 12:28 pm
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rate this posting
Rating: 4.8/5 (5 votes cast)

When I was a kid, at the beginning of every summer vacation kids in Dearborn, Michigan got a free pool pass, a tag that was sewn on to the proud owner’s swimsuit. Today, Dearborn (population 97,700) has eight outdoor pools and a summer family pool pass costs $90 for residents. Ann Arbor has four public pools (one of which was targeted for closure), and a family pass for residents this year will cost $250. Dearborn has a single public golf course, and on a weekend 18 holes with a cart will cost a resident $28.00. At the Leslie Golf Course in Ann Arbor, 18 holes and a cart cost $38.00, with no break for residents. Dearborn is the 10th largest city in Michigan, and Ann Arbor is the 5th largest. Dearborn has 37,000 residences, and that’s pretty darn close to Ann Arbor’s 45,000 residences. Finally, both Ann Arbor and Dearborn host the University of Michigan and other non-profits (in Dearborn it’s the gigantic Henry Ford Museum and Greenfield Village). 

Why does it cost 2.5 times more for Ann Arbor residents to buy a summer pool pass than it does for Dearborn residents? Why, for that matter, does the 10th largest city in Michigan have twice as many public pools as the fifth largest city, with its substantially higher per capita property taxes? The answer, of course, is that in Dearborn services and recreational facilities for residents are a major spending priority, and have been for the last 50 years. While Ann Arbor taxpayers are forced to fund a new $47 million dollar Police-Court building, in 1996 Dearborn taxpayers were asked at the polls and agreed overwhelmingly to float a bond to finance a $46 million dollar Cultural Center  for the residents of that city. The Cultural Center includes a 1,200 seat theater, two indoor pools, a climbing wall, a senior center, fitness center and an art gallery among other amenities. It costs a resident family $564 per year to use the Cultural Center.

Being a resident of Dearborn has its privileges. Being a resident of Ann Arbor should have similar privileges, as well. To get there, it will mean changing the direction city staff want to take when spending our tax dollars. Should we follow the staff suggestions in the Capital Improvement Plan and drop $800,000 to update the terminal at ARB (Ann Arbor City Airport) so rich folks can jet in for the football games at U of M, or should we build a new public swimming pool on the south side of Ann Arbor, where there isn’t one? To me, that choice is clear: a new public pool for the residents on the south side of town. Should we pave our roads and rebuild our bridges, or follow the pie-in-the-sky, big buck-little benefit “vision” of city staff planning manager Wendy Rampson, and the misguided members of the city’s Planning Commission, who were quoted in the Press as wringing their hands because “all the entrances to town are ugly?”

The choice is clear to me: we pave our roads and rebuild our bridges. In Rome, there are triumphal arches that mark the entrances to the Eternal City. When our City Administrator conquers the budget and stops over-funding the various intra-governmental city-states, such as Solid Waste, Legal, Water & Sewer and IT, and budgets resident services first and fully, we’ll broach the subject of putting up triumphal arches at the entrances to Ann Arbor. 

Outside of City Hall last week, I ran into a city employee whom I’ve known for several years. This woman is a dynamo and incredibly bright. Standing on that corner, she threw out half a dozen fantastic ideas about how to get more use out of the city facilities we have. The encouragement of healthy living is her passion. Working for the City is her job. The whole time she was talking, I couldn’t help but think of her boss, whom I’d run into just a few moments earlier. Why on earth did this woman answer to someone as unenthusiastic and just plain off-putting as that person? I tried to imagine what it must be like for someone with as much drive and passion as she has working for someone who, it is quite clear, simply collects a paycheck. 

It should come as no surprise to anyone that morale at our City Hall is at the bottom of the fish tank. Employee morale was surveyed not once but twice several years ago (by the local Dension company), and both times the results were abysmal: people who work for the City of Ann Arbor (with the exception of those who work in the City Attorney’s Office and the Downtown Development Authority) indicated on their surveys that they were just plain demoralized. While it’s easy to shrug off the results of two city-wide employee surveys which revealed mass discontent, people who are unhappy in their jobs cost their employers money. In this case, those several hundred city employees who’d rather walk over hot coals than go to work every morning, cost taxpayers millions of dollars each year. How? Employee turnover is the first expense that results from low morale. It can cost up to 30 percent of the employee’s total base salary and benefits to conduct a hiring. Employees with low morale are prone to higher absenteeism, and have little desire to go the extra mile. Studies show that low employee morale comes out in all manner of ways, including outright theft and destruction of property; employees who are demoralized can develop drug and alcohol problems. I’m not writing these things to question the character or work ethic of Ann Arbor’s over 700 city employees. I’m writing this to acknowledge the obvious: the employee morale of those who work for the City has no where to go but up.

And up it must go.

Just to be clear, employee morale is not the purview of either the Mayor or City Council. The City Administrator sees to the day-to-day management of the City, and the day-to-day supervision of city staff. However, the ramifications of low morale appear on the agenda of Council meetings with alarming regularity. Let’s start with early retirement. I’m expecting to retire sometime after the age of 70. You probably have the same plan. The Social Security Administration would, I’m sure, like us to work until well past the age of 75. The enticement to do so is a higher monthly benefit offered albeit for the statistically shorter number of years we’ll live past the age of 75. In the City of Ann Arbor, employees with the requisite number of years worked can retire well before the age of 55. 

In talking to a union representative who bargains on the behalf of city employees, the individual told me quite frankly that members of that union are looking to get out as quickly as possible. I asked why. The answer was what I expected. Thanks to the virtually constant and unchecked threats of layoff made by the City Administrator (unchecked and uncommented upon by our elected officials), Ann Arbor’s city employees look to retire from city service as quickly as possible.  

In 2007 and 2008, Ann Arbor did citizen surveys. The results should give us hope as to what the future could hold for all of us with a focus on good management, accountability and resident services. Despite the fact that our city staff are demoralized and could use prescriptions for anti-depressants, they received high marks from citizens for their professionalism in the course of their duties. This is remarkable when you stop to think about it. They don’t like working for our city government, in general, perhaps even detest the management strategies that have been used over the past half a dozen years, but they push themselves to serve the public. They’re working for us through the pain of demoralization. 

In those same citizen surveys, only 13 percent of residents responded that the level of services they received in exchange for the taxes they paid qualified as an excellent value. That means, in essence, a huge percentage of residents feel that they’re being cheated (tip o’ the keyboard to Angel Morn)  every year out of the services they deserve in exchange for the amount in taxes they pay. 

It doesn’t take very much to imagine the performance and productivity our city staff would deliver if their morale were significantly improved. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that improved employee morale will directly impact the percentage of citizens who feel that the level and quality of services they receive is commensurate with the amount of taxes they are expected to pay.

At the moment, city government is run and tax dollars are allocated as if it is a privilege to live in Ann Arbor.

This mindset has led to the deterioration of our infrastructure, and a multi-million dollar unhealthy reliance on additional taxation (millages) to pay for a bloated managerial bureaucracy addicted to cash surplus mad money, expensive no-bid sweetheart deals, contracts for city work given to political friends, subsidies for developers, and consultants. All the while our city budgets have been balanced on backs of hard-working city staff, by hiking fees for services exponentially, and by small but steady service reductions. 

Why does it cost 2.5 times more for Ann Arbor residents to buy a summer pool pass than it does for Dearborn residents? Why, for that matter, does the 10th largest city in Michigan have twice as many public pools as the fifth largest city, with its substantially higher per capita property taxes? It’s time to ask these questions (among many others), get answers, and shape public policy that revolves around the premise that residency in Ann Arbor must have its privileges as opposed to the current mindset that merely living here is privilege enough.

Popularity: 46% [?]

February 6, 2010

The Politics of the PTO: A Stranger Is Just A Friend You Haven’t Met

Filed under: boards and commissions — Tags: , , , — A2 Politico @ 7:00 am
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rate this posting
Rating: 5.0/5 (9 votes cast)

Several years ago, when my eldest first began grade school, I attended a PTO meeting, looked around the table, and didn’t see a single parent of color among the six or seven people there. Since the school has a large non-white population, I wondered why there seemed to be little PTO participation from the wider community of parents, not just parents of color, but people from the larger community of parents from U of M’s North Campus Housing, folks from around the world. When it came time to rustle up volunteers for an upcoming event, I said I would stand in front of the school, if need be, and buttonhole parents as they dropped off their kids. I did just that, and found that most of the parents whom I approached were willing (if not always able).

I soon came to realize that the problem wasn’t a lack of interest on the part of the school’s parents, but that the long-time volunteer PTO parents were so busy keeping the PTO afloat, that reaching out to people other than those whom they knew was forever falling to the bottom of the to-do list. It happens in organizations and groups all the time. A few long-term volunteers do all the work and, when volunteers don’t just step forward, begin to believe no one is interested in helping them. 

Well, I’m a problem-solver. I got a copy of the PTO bylaws and read the rules on PTO elections. I volunteered to Chair the PTO Nominating Committee (the first one formed in, literally, five years). Getting more people involved, I reasoned, would be as simple as following the bylaws and election rules. The bylaws called for the formation of a Nominating Committee to put together a slate of candidates. The project involved lots of elbow grease. The Nominating Committee collected names of potential PTO officers and members-at-large. In fact, I phoned over 300 parents over the course of a month to ask if they’d like to be involved in the PTO as officers or a members-at-large. 

It was a great experience for me, personally. I spoke with a huge number of parents, and together with the other members of the Nominating Committee, put together a slate of candidates that, in effect, tripled the number of parents involved in PTO leadership, and drew in parents from the various communities of parents in the school. I did this, because I wanted to see a wider range of people have a voice at the table, and to have the PTO representative of the community at the school. 

Not everyone was happy, though, with having to follow the bylaws, or with the fact that I had asked practically every parent in the school to participate—strangers to those who’d been involved for years.

It’s understandable, but isn’t a stranger just a friend you haven’t met before?

This same thing has happened in our city government. At a recent City Council meeting, as the Mayor prepared to read a list of his nominees to several boards and commissions, he chuckled and said to the Council, who would vote on his nominations, “Several of these names will be familiar to many of you.”

There are about 270 hard-working volunteers on the city’s boards and commissions. Some people have asked me whether I think the number of boards and commissions could be reduced. To be sure, past administrations have combined, created, and purged boards and commissions as the need arose. However, participation in city government should be a grassroots affair. 

There are, however, a couple of things I’d do differently with respect to Mayoral appointments to boards and commissions: Let me elaborate.

1.  Having individuals serve on multiple boards is not a practice I would continue unless there were a compelling reason to do so. Just like the PTO, it’s going to take elbow grease and a commitment to recruitment and reaching out to potential volunteers. I would like to see an annual open house for Ann Arbor folks interested in serving on the city’s many boards and commissions, just as the School Board does for its potential board candidates. 

2.  The appointment application process is relatively straight-forward. There’s an application form for Mayoral appointments (available online). I’ve spoken to many, many people who’ve submitted an application to serve on a board or commission, and heard nothing. Not a peep one way or the other. It’s crucial to make sure all applicants get treated respectfully.

3.   Mayoral appointments are just that—made at the pleasure the Mayor and voted on by Council. I would like to see Council bring multiple recommendations to the table in addition to the Mayor’s, and to have deliberative, open discussions concerning Mayoral appointments. There are emails that were released to the public as a result of Freedom of Information Act requests made by citizens and various media outlets that show board and commission candidates questioned via email concerning how they would vote on particular issues. That kind of questioning, if pursued, must to be done openly. 

4.  I will, if elected, make bipartisan appointments to all of the city’s boards and commissions. I intend to encourage diverse points of view. 

Citizen involvement is democracy, and can get messy. However, I believe increasing the transparency of the appointment process, along with the number, and expanding the diversity and viewpoints of folks involved on our boards and commissions is well worth the time and effort.

Popularity: 35% [?]

February 2, 2010

The Politics of Falling From Grace: An Interview With DDA Board Member Jennifer Santi Hall

Filed under: boards and commissions — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — A2 Politico @ 9:59 am
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rate this posting
Rating: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast)

Jennifer Santi Hall was never convinced Ann Arbor needed an underground parking garage and more parking. As a board member of the current Downtown Development Authority, her opinion is akin to heresy. 

 

Santi Hall has spent the past seven years serving on various city boards and commissions. After Mayor Hieftje’s 2008 re-election, she wrote a glowing blog entry about Mayor Hieftje’s work as an environmentalist. The post appears on the Great Lakes Law blog, authored by Hall’s husband, Noah Hall. Detractors, in fact, refer to Jennifer Hall as John Hieftje in a skirt for her perceived unquestioning support of his initiatives. Hall writes in the August 2008 blog entry, “In 2003, he led a successful campaign for a dedicated millage to create a greenbelt of farmland and open space around Ann Arbor, including significant portions of the Huron River watershed. Leader of the Huron Valley Chapter of the Sierra Club, Doug Cowherd, will tell you he easily spent 1,000 hours crafting the greenbelt resolution and championed the cause well before Hieftje came on board.

 

Then, came the February 2009 letter of intent to file suit against the city. The  lawsuit aimed at derailing the Library Lot underground parking lot project was filed by the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center. The Law Center is headed by Jennifer Santi Hall’s husband, Noah. According to an entry about the lawsuit posted to the AnnArborChronicle.com, on August 13, 2009, “the complaint alleges violations of the Michigan Environmental Protection Act, the Michigan Open Meetings Act, as well as nuisance and trespass violations.”

 

Then came a public accusation made by Mayor Hieftje at the May 2009 DDA Board retreat that Jennifer Santi Hall had “a cloud hanging over her head” thanks to the lawsuit. The cloud over her head was interfering with the ability of a joint City Council-DDA committee moving forward with negotiations between the DDA and the city. City Council members refused to work with Hall, and the Mayor was disinclined to force the issue.

 

In an October 2009 A2Politico interview with former DDA Board member Rene Greff, Greff said, “At our annual Board retreat, I pressed the Mayor until he finally admitted publically what I had been saying for months, that the reason they were stalling on putting together their committee was that “some members of Council”  didn’t want to negotiate with Jennifer and me.”

 

There are some who are betting that Jennifer Santi Hall’s political career in Ann Arbor is over so long as Mayor Hieftje remains in office. A2Poltico caught up with Jennifer Santi Hall and asked her about her time on the DDA Board, the pending lawsuit, why she doesn’t support the Library Lot underground parking garage, and whether she will lose her seat on the Board of the Downtown Development Authority this summer, when her term ends.

 

1.  When Kim Groome left Ann Arbor, and the First Ward City Council seat became open, you were in the running for appointment to that seat. After all, you had been Chair of the Planning Commission, a Board Mayor Hieftje uses as a stepping stone for those whom he’d like to see on City Council. I’ve heard Groome’s vacant First Ward Council seat was promised to you, and that at the last moment, a friend of Council member Christopher Easthope’s was appointed instead. A very short time later, Mayor Hieftje appointed you to the Greenbelt Advisory Commission and then, almost a year to the day after you were passed over for that First Ward Council seat appointment, you were appointed by the Mayor to the DDA. Forgive me, but it looks suspiciously as if those two Board appointments were rewards for you having taken “one for the team,” when Chris Easthope’s college friend was appointed to the City Council seat promised you. Comments? 

 

First, a couple of clarifications to your statement above.  I don’t think it’s quite accurate to say that the Planning Commission has been used by Mayor Hieftje as a “stepping stone for those he’s like to see on City Council.”  In the 7 years I’ve been serving on city boards and commission, I can only recall two planning commissioners who have run for Council – Eric Lipson (ran against Marcia Higgins in 4th Ward, not endorsed by Mayor Hieftje) and Steve Kunselman (don’t recall if he was endorsed by the Mayor in 2006, not endorsed in 2009).    

 

Another clarification, I was appointed to the Greenbelt Advisory Commission upon its creation in May of 2004; Kim Groome left Council sometime in July or August of 2005. 


If the Mayor thought he was giving me a seat on the DDA board as a reward for “taking one for the team,”  he certainly didn’t let me in on his thought process.

 

As the end of my 3 year term on Planning Commission approached in spring of 2006, I scheduled a meeting with Mayor Heiftje.  I told him that I didn’t want to be presumptuous in thinking he would offer me a second term on Planning Commission, but in case he was thinking of reappointing me, I wanted to let him know that I wasn’t interested.  I was pregnant and then later a nursing mom during my term on Planning Commission and my husband and I were thinking about another child for our family, and I just couldn’t envision surviving the late night meetings during another pregnancy and infancy.  I was quite surprised when the Mayor asked if I would be interested in a citizen seat on the DDA.  He told me my background and also my experience on Planning Commission would make me a good fit for that board.

 

I don’t believe that I was ever “promised” the seat vacated by Kim Groome, but it is true that Leigh Greden (former Third Ward Council member) encouraged me to put my name in the running for the vacant seat and then gave me some advice about how to prepare and present myself during the process. Up to a point, I believe he was actively lobbying his colleagues to appoint me.  I don’t know all of what happened behind the scenes except that there were some on Council who didn’t want to see Tim Colenback appointed (who was really the Ward 1 favorite).  I had never met Tim and knew little of his background and involvement in city issues. Thanks to our mutual friend Jeff Irwin, Tim and I got to know each other better during the appointment process.  I wish that I had been introduced to Tim before I put my name forward for the seat —I certainly would have made a different decision.  I think Tim would have made (or someday will be) a great Councilperson.

 

I am actually quite happy that I was not appointed to that seat.  My time serving on city boards gave me great experience with policy issues, but I wasn’t as involved in the city politics.  Looking back, it’s clear that the council majority wanted someone that would simply go along with their agenda, and that’s not what the voters of the 1st ward wanted and not what I would have done.

 

2. You were appointed to the DDA in 2006, and former Board member Rene Greff told A2Politico that she holds great stock in your abilities as a Board member. One of the reasons Greff got booted was her outspoken defense of the DDA as an independent Board, both procedurally and financially. Some say the DDA Board must submit to the will of City Council. Others disagree because the DDA is an entity established and supported by City Charter, just as is the City Council. What is your view of the relationship between Council and the DDA? Who’s the alpha dog, as it were, or are there two packs at work here?


The Ann Arbor DDA was created in 1982, under the authority of the State of Michigan Act 197 (passed in 1975).  The State wanted to give municipalities a tool for downtown urban renewal—a way to combat the economic decline and structural demise that was affecting downtowns all across America. In creating the DDA in Ann Arbor, the City Council recognized the extreme importance that a downtown district has to the whole city’s vitality.  The downtown belongs to the entire Ann Arbor community and as such would benefit from a designated stream of resources to protect and nurture it. I was excited by an opportunity to serve on the DDA because I fundamentally believe in the general purpose of DDAs and the mission of the Ann Arbor DDA.  I am a true lover of downtown urban areas.  I like the excitement, the crowd of people, the entertainment, and cultural offerings.  Having all these things located close together means that they are very accessible to everyone. Vibrant downtowns are an important component to my environmental ethic —I believe a density of residents, employment, and activity is the only sustainable way to construct a city and to make transportation between work, home and play not dependent on an automobile.

 

I totally agree with Rene that the DDA should be an independent authority.  City Councils must make decisions about many areas of the city and appropriate resources across all types of competing community interests.  The DDA exists with a board independent from City Council expressly to protect the DDA area from having to compete with the rest of those interests.  That being said, I don’t believe the DDA has unchecked authority.  It is created by the City, overseen by the City, and can be dissolved if the City Council so desires.

 

The DDA has money (from the tax capture and from parking revenues) and the Council has the statutory oversight of our appointments, changes to our bylaws, approval of our budget.  Further, any infrastructure work we want to do in the downtown requires their approval because the city owns all the property (roads, parking structures, alleys, etc).  So the politics begins.  Some politics have a purpose, those games I understand.  Some other politics make no sense.

 

I wish Council provided the kind of oversight, check and balance that an independent agency such as the DDA (or AATA or any other authority) should have.  But they don’t always do that.  They don’t really look into our bylaws and make sure that we aren’t abusing our power.  They just won’t approve them (DDA sent bylaw changes to Council about 2 years ago and they were never placed on a Council agenda for approval) because some board members want them changed and certain council members don’t want those board members to have something they want. 


If the City Council wants unquestioned access to the DDAs resources, then it should disband the DDA.  It has the ability to do so, but if you were to look closely at the numbers, you would see that it would not make financial sense for the city to do so.  The DDA’s TIF capture comes from not only the City but also the County, AAPS, AADL, and WCC.  The DDA has given the City more than its share of TIF capture back in grants and other expenditures (like rent for the parking meters – the original source of the $2million question). 


3.  Mayor and a group of Council members including Leigh Greden, Margie Teall, Marcia Higgins, as well as Ann Arbor’s CFO Tom Crawford, have been pressing the DDA over the past 24 months for larger financial contributions to the City’s sagging General Fund. The DDA Board agreed, for instance, to pay $500,000 per year toward the cost of the bonds issued to build the new Court house. A past DDA member described this to me as an outrageous misuse of DDA funds. You voted in favor of the DDA-city bond repayment obligation, but against the underground parking garage project. Why should taxpayers care if Council demands millions from the DDA to put into the General Fund? It’s the city’s money, anyway, right?


I truly believe in the purpose and mission of DDAs.  The DDA exists to protect and nurture a communal resource.  If the City continually uses politics to coerce resources out of the DDA, I think our whole community loses.  I believe there are 3 big reasons why our community should care how the DDA spends its resources (and why we should care if those resources are given to the City’s General Fund).  

 1.  TIF money doesn’t just come from the City of Ann Arbor;  

 2.  Parking system revenues should be used for transportation; and

3. It’s disingenuous to have a DDA and then take the resources for other purposes.

 

All DDAs across the state are structured and financed differently.  In the case of Ann Arbor’s DDA, some of the funds come from the TIF captured by the DDA and some (a much larger amount) of funds come from parking revenues.  The DDA has maintained separate purposes for these funds – parking revenues support transportation (including operation and maintenance of the parking system and support for alternative transportation efforts like getDowntown and goPasses) and TIF funds are used for other work of the DDA (alley improvements, Fifth/Division, LED lighting, energy grants, and projects like the municipal center).  


The question presents 3 different and distinct issues regarding the use of DDA funds.  First, there’s the financial support the DDA gave to the municipal center project came from TIF funds.  The DDA was asked by the City for a certain amount of money (something like $8 million) and we decided it would be easier for us to contribute the money on a yearly basis (rather than in a lump sum cash payment) and so it made sense for us to pay the yearly bond payments.  I supported the DDA’s contribution to this project because I felt that was a good investment in the downtown.  It was very important to me to keep City Hall and city workforce downtown.  And the urban streetscape improvement the building addition makes to Fifth Ave. was really important to me as well.  I think public investment in downtown municipal buildings (city halls, librarys, court buildings, etc) is incredibly important to a vibrant, functional downtown.  I also supported the green elements the City added to the building. 


The second issue is the parking garage.  The DDA is paying for most of this project out of parking revenues, although some of the aspects of the project are paid out of TIF funds.  I voted against the parking garage for a several reasons:  

1.  I don’t believe we need more parking at this time in downtown;

2.  I think we can create more parking supply by increasing our investment in alternatives and managing our parking supply differently (the DDA is already doing this and I argued that we should wait to see the results of these investments and operational changes BEFORE building more parking, especially with such a big price tag);

3. I felt that investing $50 million in more parking was a bad environmental choice – think of what $50 million could do to create modern efficient transit choices; and

4.  I didn’t support how the project was being financed.  I’m disappointed that there was not more vocal opposition to the parking structure during the year or more that the DDA was designing and discussing the options and project details.  

 

There were a few voices questioning the giant parking garage (Steve Bean, chair of the city’s environmental commission for one) but not as many as there are now that the giant hole is being dug.  The City is on the hook for the bonds—so if parking demand should change, and we rely on revenue from all these new spaces to pay for the bonds, and there’s no revenue because we have too much parking supply, then what?

 

The third issue has been dubbed the “$2 million question.”  I would call this a raid on DDA resources.  

 

A bit of abbreviated history —5 years ago the DDA took over management and operation of the on-street parking meters.  The city was looking for more money for the General Fund at this time, and negotiated a deal with the DDA (I was not on the DDA at that time) in which the DDA would operate/manage the meters (and take the revenues – coins, not fines) and pay the City a “rent” payment for the use of the meters and other parking facilities in the amount of $1 million per year for 10 years.  


 The City also negotiated an option to take $2 million per year for 5 years. It is my understanding that the City had proposed eliminating the downtown beat cops due to budget limitations and the DDA felt that this rent payment would ensure that those needed cops wouldn’t go away. Nothing about the cops was written into the agreement, however.  2009 was year five of this deal and the city took its last $2million and they are now left with five more years of a “rent” agreement with no more rent to be paid.  Rene Greff and I had been quite vocal in saying that it is unfair for the city to ask for more money for an agreement that has been fulfilled on our part. This rent money comes from parking revenues.  I am totally OK with beginning a new discussion with City Council about another mutually beneficial agreement that the city and DDA could make—something whereby the DDA pays the city money in exchange for something that benefits the downtown or DDA.   

 

This big, heated discussion of the $ 2 million has quieted down as of late and I think there are a couples of reasons for that. Leigh Greden is no longer on City Council and he was very interested in getting another $2 million yearly payment out of the DDA.  Also, I think that City Council is looking for smaller ways to find mutually beneficial agreements with the DDA (or raid the DDA bank, if you will).  For example, a month or so ago, the City directed the DDA to give them the revenue from the old Y lot.  And that’s what the DDA did (I was absent from that meeting so didn’t participate in the discussion).

 

So, getting back to your question: Why should taxpayers care if Council demands millions from the DDA to put into the General Fund? It’s the city’s money, anyway, right?  Taxpayers should care because not all the TIF money comes from the City. Some comes from the library, the schools, the county, the AATA.  These entities have given up some of their tax capture to support the DDA and are not demanding the DDA support their straining budgets.  The DDA has always maintained that parking revenues should support transportation purposes.  I have no problem with starting a new discussion about parking revenues supporting some other purpose in the city—but I absolutely do not think that parking revenues should be used to bridge a gap in the City of Ann Arbor’s General Fund.  Do people who park in Ann Arbor want to pay higher rates to support the city’s administration budget?  And lastly, if the City desperately needs the DDA’s money, then it should disband the DDA and take back the parking system and TIF capture and redistribute it as it best sees fit.  It’s disingenuous to create a DDA under State Law to do one thing, and then take the money for the City’s general fund.

 

4.  Let’s talk about the library lot underground parking garage. You voted against that project. However, it was the lawsuit filed by two downtown businesses and the Great Lake Environmental Law Center that has resulted in some intensive political backlash against you from City Council members, DDA Board members and the Mayor. Did you expect your political career to be hobbled? One would imagine you’d seen what happened to others who “dissented,” or rocked the boat.


First, let’s just be open and clear about this. My husband is currently serving as the Executive Director of the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the City.  The bad feelings toward me started long before the lawsuit was filed.  I started “rocking the boat” not long after I joined the DDA board.  

 

From day one, I was skeptical of the need to build more parking, and continually pushed the DDA to invest more money into alternative transportation.  I was also a huge supporter of the DDA’s Fifth and Division improvement project (it was one of the projects I was most excited to join the DDA to work on).  For some reason, there was a lot of political maneuvering on Council about this project.  I don’t really know why some on Council didn’t support the project and why others on DDA who were supportive got cold feet.  When the first vote for the project came up at DDA (maybe only a few months after I started on the board), the Mayor called me before the meeting and asked if I would support a postponement of the project.  

 

He said he supported the project, but the timing wasn’t right and that maybe we could do it cheaper.  I told him I couldn’t support a postponement.  The DDA had worked very hard on this project, it had very popular community support and if this wasn’t the right time to invest in downtown, then when would be the right time? Fortunately for the project, the move to postpone was defeated and the project moved forward at DDA. Only to be stalled for over a year at City Council.  

 

Council refused to put the project on an agenda, knowing that it had broad community support and not wanting to have to cast a vote against it at the Council table.  After some time, Rene and I strategized about how best to move this project forward.  We asked our staff to organize another public meeting to bring the project some current attention (the meeting was very well attended).  And we lobbied City Council, a lot, especially Rene.  She was great.  All this time, the DDA was working out options for building more parking and then designing plans for the library lot underground structure.  

 

So, I’m outspoken about Fifth and Division to Council and very vocal in my opposition to building more parking.  I’m already a dissenter.  The letter sent by the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center (along with the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and several local residents) to the city raising concerns about the environmental impacts of this project, the FOIA requests made by the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center for council meeting emails, and the subsequent lawsuit filed by the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center and neighboring businesses was just the icing on the cake.  I don’t really think my political career has been hobbled.  I don’t really envision that I have a political career.  I don’t know what the next phase will be for me—but it can’t happen if I compromise my goals or my principles.

 

5. With Leigh Greden gone, do you think the relationship between the DDA and Council will change in any way? If so, how?


I think it’s fair to say that Leigh supported the basic premise behind having a DDA—invest in downtown and it will remain vital and prosperous.  Many people can support that general concept and all have a different set of priorities and a different way of implementing that agenda.  I believe that Leigh primarily saw the DDA as a big piggy bank for his priorities and did not respect the priorities or the autonomy of the DDA board. 


As a member of the Council budget committee, Leigh was the most vocal Councilmember in wanting to continue the $2 million payments from the DDA to the City (something I don’t support as a “blank check” payment).  He was very instrumental in getting the DDA to contribute to the Police/Courts building.  He even came to our board meeting the day we approved the contribution.  My most frustrating interaction with him during my time on DDA was his opposition to the 5th and Division streetscape improvements.  Of course, his opposition was never made public.  Instead, for over a year, he prevented the project from being placed on a Council agenda for consideration. 


So—yes, I think the relationship between DDA and Council will change now that Leigh is no longer in office. 


6.  Mayor Hieftje has been accused of stacking the DDA Board with appointees who will rubber stamp his ideas and simply do his bidding. In your opinion, who are the voices of dissent on the DDA Board. Is it necessary to have voices of dissent on the DDA Board do you think?


One of the powers given to Ann Arbor’s Mayor is his/her ability to make appointments to boards and commissions. Not all of them, however. City Council gets to make nominations to other boards, such as the Greenbelt Advisory Commission and Environmental Commission. Ever wonder about the politics involved in creating those boards and why that authority wasn’t given to the Mayor? The Mayor selects people that he thinks will be most sympathetic to his interests.  Even so, the vast majority of people that serve of city boards and commissions are independent minded, dedicated, and put a tremendous amount of work towards serving the city.  Even when I disagree with them on a specific issue, I respect their service and work.

 

Dissent, conflict, and differences of opinions are what lead to good public policy in my opinion.  The big questions are: how loud does it become, what are the politics involved, how personal does it get, and is it effective at serving a public good?  I have witnessed several situations which lead to dissent on city boards.  

 1.  The Mayor appoints new people to a board to replace those appointed by the previous Mayor.  That’s what happened when I was appointed to the Planning Commission almost 7 years ago.  I suspect that people are feeling more homogeneity of appointments of late because the Mayor has been in office for so long that ALL of the people serving on board and commissions have been appointed by him (or re-appointed in some cases).  

 2.  The Mayor misjudges a person’s goals and support for certain issues.  Or more significantly, the person has a stronger independent voice than thought.  It’s totally understandable.  You don’t take a test of loyalty or an oath to do whatever he says when you’re offered an appointment.  

 3.  The Mayor appoints someone he knows may be a voice of dissent, but does it as a token offering to a certain interest group he wants to make favor with.  (I think Dave DeVarti’s tenure on the DDA and Eppie Potts’s appointments to the Planning Commission illustrate this point)  

 4.  The Mayor actually changes his goals or maybe not his goals, but the priority of those goals, and his appointments no longer match those interests. (I think Fred Beal and Rob Aldrich are good examples here – they were good appointments when the primary issue of the day for the Mayor was downtown density, but not so much when the big issue of the day became getting another $2million from the DDA, so he didn’t reappoint them).

 

If it’s of interest to your readers, here’s a detailed sketch of my own relationship as an appointee with the Mayor to illustrate my points above.  I have spent 7 years on 4 different boards and commissions:  1 term on Planning Commission appointed my Mayor Hieftje (appointed in 2003, confirmed by City Council on a 6-5 vote); a year or so on the Environmental Commission (filling a spot designated for a planning commissioner, I was nominated by the Planning Commission and confirmed by City Council); in my 3rd term on the Greenbelt Advisory Commission (appointed in 2004, nominated by Council); and serving in my 4th year of my first term on DDA (appointed in 2006 by Mayor Hieftje and confirmed by City Council —not sure of the vote).

 

When I was first appointed to the Planning Commission in 2003, the Mayor was looking for someone who would sympathize with neighborhoods disgruntled with development, oppose tall buildings in the downtown, and someone who would be an environmental voice on the Planning Commission.  It was thought that I would do all these things (I was recruited for the position by Doug Cowherd and Bill Hanson, who were at the time close advisors of the Mayor, because of my background with conservation planning working for The Nature Conservancy.)  The vetting process for appointments is not all that rigorous (you don’t have to submit to any tests, go through days and days of Senate-like confirmation hearings or give over your first born child), and of course, it’s hard to know exactly how someone will think or grow as they get more knowledge and experience under their belt.  

 

I do have a strong environmental ethic, but as it turns out my self-defined environmental goals support some increased density in the downtown. Funny thing is, the Mayor changed his mind about density in the downtown. Downtown density (and some issues surrounding the formation of the Greenbelt Advisory Commission) fractured the relationship between Doug, Bill and the Mayor.  The Mayor later became more closely allied to Leigh Greden (who also was a proponent of downtown density).   

 

And what happened to me?  I ended up on the Greden/Heiftje “team” partly because they saw me as an ally to their position and partly because I was “shunned” and “demonized” by others in this town for my position about downtown density and other development issues.  It’s important for me to emphasize here that I never chose any of these teams.  My beliefs have never changed—although they have grown and been refined by experience and knowledge.  And I don’t mean to say that I’ve only been a pawn in all of this political shifting.  I have strong opinions and I’m not shy about stating them and working the issues.  I’ve used and I’ve been used and that’s all part of the game.  


I believe the Mayor appointed me to the DDA because I was an advocate for downtown density, but also because I was a supporter of alternative transportation, something also promoted by the Mayor.  After a few months on the DDA, the Mayor called me and asked if I would support delaying the decision on the 5th and Division project.  He felt the timing was bad and the project cost too much money. I didn’t agree with him—5th and Division was one of the DDAs projects that I was most excited about joining the board to work on. This was a turning point in my relationship with the Mayor.  I also didn’t support the parking structure project, advocating for more than a year that we do more transit demand management and invest more in alternative transportation before we spend so much money to build more parking.  Then I vocally opposed the city taking $2 million from the DDA for no express purpose.  Then the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center and other environmental groups (with my husband as the lead attorney) started raising legal issues with the parking structure and that’s when things really changed and the true hostilities started.

 

I think all boards need different opinions.  A good fight makes sure that an issue is really thought about before it’s done.  Debate and conflict are what make good public policy.  Some on DDA recall a happier time when the DDA was a “consensus board.”  I don’t think that made for good public policy.  I’m glad that there are voices of dissent, on any issue, even ones I support.  But, I think the dissent needs to be philosophical or pragmatic in nature.  Arguing for politics sake just wastes everyone’s time.

 

7. Rene Greff assumes you will not be reappointed to the DDA Board when your term expires. Is her assumption correct, do you think? Have you spoken to the Mayor about this? Do you want to be reappointed to the DDA Board?


As I said above, it is really up to the Mayor to decide if he wants to reappoint me to the DDA Board.  Given the chilly feeling I get from him, it certainly seems that Rene’s assumption is a good one.  I have a seat on the DDA board that is reserved for a citizen representative (other seats are reserved for downtown business owners and employees and one seat for a downtown resident).  I think it’s important to fill the citizen seats with people who do not also have a business or residential interest in the downtown.  The DDA was created in recognition that vibrant, successful downtowns benefit the whole of Ann Arbor, and it’s funded using tax money that could otherwise have a different public purpose.   

 

It’s important to me that the citizen representatives on the DDA not only serve the mission of the DDA, but are mindful of the broader context for that mission. 

Popularity: 37% [?]

January 12, 2010

The Politics of Puppetry: DDA Hires Consultant to Help With Library RFP Selection….Well…..Kinda

Filed under: boards and commissions, developers, money — Tags: , , , , , — A2 Politico @ 4:15 pm
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rate this posting
Rating: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast)

It was all over the news. In a matter of minutes after the beginning of the first meeting of the city’s Library Lot RFP Advisory Committee, the cast of characters, including several staff members who were never included in Council’s July resolution outlining the make-up of the Committee, eliminated the two open space proposals. One of the proposals was for a park, and the other for a town square. Neither required the citizens of Ann Arbor to put up any money for the construction costs of the projects.

However, according to a piece posted to AnnArbor.com, RFP Advisory Committee Chair, Second Ward’s Stephen Rapundalo, was quoted as saying, “…the two ‘public option’ proposals didn’t demonstrate a financial benefit to the city —one of the RFP requirements. In fact, he said, both might even have ended up costing the city money. The Ann Arbor Committee for the Commons, they provided no financials whatsoever – no cost estimates or even a basic description where the monies would come from,” he said. “In the case of the Dahlmann proposal, the only mention there was of a possible $2.5 million donation—again no cost estimates, and certainly no discussions about future operations and maintenance.”

Of course, unlike the Valiant Group, the partners of which had 18 months to polish their conference center proposal, the two open space proposals were put together in the time alloted between the issuance of the RFP (August 2009) and the deadline (November 2009). 

However, on January 6, 2010, A2Politico wrote about FOIAed emails that exposed the Valiant Group’s repeated contact with City Council members, DDA officials, and city officials prior to the issuance of the RFP. The emails revealed that a member of the Library Lot RFP Advisory Committee provided the Valiant Group with structural drawings of the underground parking garage, arranged meetings with Valiant Group partners, and arranged for information necessary to the preparation of their proposal well before the RFP process was discussed in public by City Council. 

As a result, there is now the impression that the RFP process has been rigged. AnnArbor.com editorialized on January 10, 2010, that “openness and hard analysis should drive the decision on the Library Lot.” AnnArbor.com’s Tony Dearing went on to write, “We hope the City Council will conduct an open and honest process.”

After being asked by resolution at a Council meeting to reconsider the open space proposals and refusing, Rapunds and Teall asked their cuddies on the RFP Advisory Committee to voluntarily “reintengrate” the previously eliminated open space proposals back into the “process.”

On January 9th, the open space proposals were returned to the committee for further consideration. 

Amen, Brother. Enter a new character in the drama. A….wait for it….wait for it….consultant.

Suddenly, Stephen Rapundalo, who has a Ph.D. and is the President and CEO of MichBio, who evaluates business and financial opportunities for a living, who sits on the Board of the LDFA and evaluates financial opportunities and the feasibility of business start-ups as a representative of the Ann Arbor City Council, suddenly finds he and his committee members, who include the city’s Administrator, Roger Fraser, can’t evaluate the feasibility of the proposed Library Lot projects.

So, the DDA kindly forked over a $50,000 “grant” to the City to hire a consultant. Here’s the best part. The job posting for the consultant was posted on January 5th. The responses from the interested consultants are due to Roger Fraser no later than January 13th. That’s right City Administrator Roger Fraser has alloted exactly one week to hire a consultant who will help the Library Lot RFP Advisory Committee decide which of the proposals to recommend to City Council.

To give the appearance of propriety, Fraser and the RFP Advisory Committee included this language in the RFP: 

The City of Ann Arbor must avoid any perception of influence or conflict on the part of its consultant. Therefore, the City will only consider submittals from professionals that have no operations based within Washtenaw County, and where these professionals have no financial ties or any other potential conflicts of interest with any member of any project team who has submitted an RFP to the City for its Library Lot project. This restriction includes all partners if the proposal is being submitted by a lead firm with additional partners or firms.

Notice what’s missing? The consultant can have financial ties to City Council members, any member of the RFP Advisory Committee, or city staff—just not anyone who has submitted an RFP to build atop the library lot.

If you think this omission was accidental, it wasn’t. Why? Because no city recruits and hires a consultant to help make such an important development decision in just a week unless someone has a friend in mind for the job. If the Library Lot RFP process was rigged. This latest RFP for a consultant to objectively evaluate the proposals is wired straight into the City Administrator’s office. Let’s watch and see who gets the nod.

This consultant is $50,000 worth of political cover for Rapundalo and Teall so that they can’t be held responsible for the ultimate choice of which proposal is recommended to Council. It’s a classic Ann Arbor politico attempt to legitimize a process that was dirty from the get-go.

Popularity: 19% [?]

January 10, 2010

County Commish Barbara Levin-Bergman Serves Up La Vengeance Froide And Ends Up With Egg On Her Face

Filed under: Washtenaw County, boards and commissions — Tags: , , , , , , , , , — A2 Politico @ 8:00 am
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rate this posting
Rating: 5.0/5 (5 votes cast)

Ann Arbor Washtenaw County Commissioner Barbara Levin-Bergman has been on the Washtenaw Board of Commissioners since James Madison was president. Elected shortly before the War of 1812, rumors abound that Bergman held off the British as they attempted to cross Washtenaw County on their way to Washington, D.C. to give Dolley Madison’s house at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue a make-over.  

As for Ann Arbor Grande Dem Bergman, recent actions show she is more concerned with maintaining the status quo, than in encouraging innovative policy-making and creative problem-solving. Thus, when Pittsfield Township newbie County Commissioner Kristin Judge and Barbara Bergman had a spat in public at a BOC’s meeting, it was clear that Bergman was not going to just sit back and let some uppity white woman from Pittsfield Township get away with not bowing and scraping to the uppity white woman from Ann Arbor who has been in office for two centuries.

But as French novelist Marie Joseph Eugène Sue wrote: la vengeance se mange très-bien froide. In English, “Revenge is a dish best served cold.”

Bergman’s personal chef du maison whipped up a dish of La Vengeance Froide, and Bergman served it to Kristin Judge on January 6th. At the County Commissioners’ first meeting of the year, where the Commissioners divvy up leadership positions, there was exactly one dissenting vote cast against exactly one County Commissioner. Can you fill in the blanks? 

Kristin Judge stood for re-election as co-Chair of the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners Ways and Means Committee. Barbara Bergman voted against Judge’s candidacy. Then, Bergman proceeded to explain for the record why she’d voted no on Judge’s candidacy. According to a January 8, 2010 piece posted to AnnArborChronicle.com, Bergman announced that “Judge had made a personal, unprovoked attack on her, and that it did not demonstrate leadership behavior.”

Frankly, I think unprovoked attacks demonstrate incredible initiative, but I digress.

Daguerretypes posted to the County’s web site, show Bergman with two blackened eyes and her jaw wired partially closed. Obviously, the unprovoked attack by Judge, whom photos on the County web site show with a sardonic smile and a slightly bruised ego, had been a political donny-brook. To read about the dust-up at the BOC Roller Derby at which Judge “attacked” Bergman, click here. 

In going after Judge, Bergman is forgetting whom she serves and why. Kristin Judge wants to make sure the public’s best interests are well represented when it comes to how the county spends the $190,000,000 dollars we give them. Thus, Judge has been going through the county’s budget line-by-line and Bergman, along with other Commissioners, have accused her of micro-managing. 

At the January 6, 2010 meeting, right after Barbara Bergman announced that Kristin Judge lacked leadership skills, Judge announced that she plans to disclose her expense account spending publicly. She is the first and only County Commissioner to do this. (To find out when Conan Smith blows $800 a night on hotel rooms, you’ll have to FOIA his credit card receipts.) It was Judge who turned in her county paid cell phone and announced that the county could save $370,000 by getting rid of that perk. She took a shellacking from Ann Arbor Commissioners Smith and Irwin for that “stunt,” and found herself accused of political “grandstanding.” It was also Kristin Judge who pushed for Commissioner Conan Smith’s ridiculous (and possibly illegal) attempt to stifle free speech at Board meetings to be rescinded this year. In 2009, when Smith was elected Chair of the Ways and Means Committee, he spearheaded the effort to change the Board’s rules and limit what topics the public could bring up during commentary before the Board’s Ways & Means Committee. He also moved to trim the time alloted from five minutes to three minutes. If you’re interested in reading why Smith wanted to stifle free speech, click here.

I say to Kristin Judge, grandstand and micro-manage to your heart’s content. Lord knows the four Ann Arbor Commissioners (Conan Smith, Jeff Irwin, Barbara Bergman and Leah Gunn) let retiring County Administrator Robert Guenzel have his way with them and the budget, and run the County $30 million dollars into the hole. Those four Ann Arbor Dem commissioners have often voted as a block in favor of Guenzel-inspired fiscal policies that were predicated on Guenzel’s belief that the county’s economy would forever grow, and the tax base would never shrink. Their lack of leadership demonstrated incredible fiscal naivité and more hubris than is healthy in even a politico. 

Washtenaw County residents desperately need more BOC leadership like that demonstrated by Kristin Judge, and for Ann Arbor Commissioners Smith, Bergman and Gunn to follow Guenzel to wherever it is that politicians go who leave trusting citizens holding the bag for huge structural deficits. 

As for Bergman, by wasting her vote to even a personal score, she ended up with egg on her face—a dish best never served at all.

Popularity: 20% [?]

January 6, 2010

The Ladies Doth Protest Too Much: “There is No ‘Predetermined’ Outcome,” Claim Rapunds and Margie T. (With Poll)

Filed under: DDA, boards and commissions, developers — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — A2 Politico @ 8:00 am
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rate this posting
Rating: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast)

At the January 4, 2010 City Council meeting, First Ward Council member Sabra Briere put forth one of her classic “resolutions.” She told the Press she didn’t want to step on the toes of anyone on the Library Lot RFP Advisory Committee, City Council, Santa and his elves, the Five Families of New York, or the entire populations of China and India combined. Sabra’s a politician, after all, careful never to step on anyone’s toes. Well, except the toes of those she represents in Ward One. Those toes get trampled regularly by Briere’s inability to represent the best interests of her constituents first, and worry about all those other toes at some other point in time. Lord knows Marcia Higgins isn’t worried about Briere’s toes. Higgins referred to Briere’s resolution as “insulting.” Briere wanted to have Council directly re-examine the two open space projects that were eliminated by RFP Advisory Committee.

The resolution was insulting and worthless. Worse still, Briere had all the evidence she needed to bring forth a different resolution. A resolution that would have shown her to be a leader and not scared of her own political shadow.

Briere could have come forth with a resolution to immediately disband the RFP Advisory Committee, rewrite the RFP with public input, and reissue it. She could have brought this resolution forward on the grounds that there is ample evidence that members of the RFP Advisory Committee, and members of our City Council engaged in ongoing private meetings and passed information to members of the Valiant Group—one of the six groups that submitted proposals. These discussions and meetings went on for months prior to the issuance of the RFP. Briere could have brought forth this resolution, based on the fact that there are members of the RFP Advisory Committee who, because of their ongoing communications with members of the Valiant Group, should not have been allowed to evaluate the proposals due to conflicts of interest. 

Marcia Higgins called Briere’s ineffectual and completely ridiculous resolution insulting, and then Marcia Higgins pulled the “trust” card.

Higgins lectured that Council and the public need to trust that the RFP Advisory Committee.

This advice came from a woman caught via FOIAed emails rigging votes for her own Council pay raise. Trust Margie Teall? Trust Stephen Rapundalo, Chair of the RFP Advisory Committee? That ship left the dock in June 2009 when the Ann Arbor News fingered Teall and Rapundalo (along with Higgins, First Ward Council member  Sandi Smith, Third Ward’s Chris Taylor, Second Ward’s Tony Derezinski and Fifth Ward’s Carsten Hohnke for allegedly deliberating via email during open Council meetings. The city is now embroiled in a lawsuit as a result of Teall, Taylor, Higgins, Derezinski, Rapundalo, Hohnke, and Smith’s alleged repeated violations of the Open Meetings Act.  

Second Ward Council member Stephen Rapundalo and Ward Four’s Margie Teall both told their colleagues on Council, and the turnips watching on CTN, that “the process” of selecting the proposal to recommend to Council is totally unbiased. The thought that the procedure is rigged or “fixed” is ridiculous, Teall and Rapundalo both said. 

The Process Queens doth protest too much. Here’s why.

Let me introduce you to the cast of characters on the RFP Advisory Committee:

Margie Teall – Council Member
Stephen Rapundalo – Council Member
Eric Mahler – Planning Commission
John Splitt – DDA
Sam Offen – Resident & PAC Member
Roger Fraser – City Staff
Jayne Miller – City Staff
Matt Kulhanek – Manager of the Ann Arbor Airport
Susan Pollay – DDA staff

Here’s the language from the resolution approved by Council on July 6, 2009 that outlines who will serve on the RFP Advisory Committee: The authorizing resolution (R-09-268, passed July 6, 2009)  contains the following Resolved 

RESOLVED, That the Mayor, prior to the deadline for submission of RFP’s for this project, will appoint an RFP Review Committee consisting of two members of City Council, one member of the Planning Commission, one member of the Downtown Development Authority, and one resident to review all properly submitted proposals. This committee will conduct a public meeting to solicit public input on the desired use of the site, as is consistent with current City practice. 

Anyone notice that all the members of the RFP Advisory Committee are appointed commission members or council members? If you did, move to the head of the class. Anyone notice the four staff who were magically added to the committee? Give yourself a gold star.

This change to the composition of the RFP committee was never brought to City Council for approval. 

At the January 4, 2010 Council meeting, Rapundalo, Higgins, Teall, Smith, Hieftje, Derezinki and Hohnke, all of whom voted against Briere’s resolution, talked about how important it was to respect the “process” and follow the rules. 

Again, the Ladies doth protest too much. 

This simple timeline taken from FOIAed emails should demonstrate just how our Mayor, City Council members and City Administrator have rigged the RFP process, and why it won’t be a shock if one of the losing groups files a lawsuit against the city.

January 2009: City Administrator Roger Fraser presents Council members with a plan for “a little convention center” at the Council’s retreat. The Ann Arbor News later reports that the plan is from the Valiant Group, of which Fritz Seyferth is a partner. According to Valiant’s proposal, Seyferth stands to split a $1 million dollar developer fee with his partners should the Valiant Group’s proposal be selected.

Setting the stage for the Valiant Group: Ann Arbor City Administrator Roger Fraser was in contact with the Valiant Group at least 9 months before the City Council voted to issue the RFP to develop the Fifth Avenue parcel. RFP Advisory Committee Council members Teall and Rapundalo were shown the Valiant Group’s plans for a convention center 9 months before the formal RFP was issued, and 13 months before the group’s proposal was submitted to the RFP Advisory Committee.

January 20, 2009: Via email Sandi Smith invites the Mayor, everyone on Council and Roger Fraser to a meeting at the DDA to talk about what they want to build atop the parking garage. No meeting agenda. No meeting minutes. No public notice of the meeting.

February 2009: Mayor Hieftje emails a constituent concerned with what will be built atop the underground parking garage. Hieftje writes that it will probably “be years” before anything is built on the Fifth Avenue parcel owned by the citizens of Ann Arbor.

February 11, 2009: Fritz Seyferth, partner in the Valiant Group, emails DDA representative and future RFP Advisory Committee member Susan Pollay. He writes,

“Susan,

Please call with any feedback you got on the meeting re what may go above the parking structure. We have received a more positive feedback from our concept from some on Council, so that is good.”

March 2009: Sandi Smith announces to Council that she plans to bring an RFP to Council for the group’s approval for the development of the Fifth Avenue library lot parcel.

April 6, 2009: Fritz Seyferth writes to DDA representative and RFP Advisory Committee member Susan Pollay:

“Susan -

Hope you are well.

Bruce Zenkel and Mike Bailkin (Seyferth’s Valiant Group partners) will be in town for University meetings. We would very much like to meet with you if you have time.

We would like to give and get updates on where we are on our projects…..

It was suggested I touch base with Sandi Smith….Any thoughts?”

Conflict of Interest/Ethics: Either Seyferth is lying to Pollay, or the Valiant Group met with “members” of Council and presented the Valiant Group’s “concept” for what was to be built atop the library lot months before the RFP was written and issued. Furthermore, Susan Pollay, a member of the RFP Advisory Committee, had contact with Seyferth prior to her appointment to the RFP Advisory Committee.

April 6, 2009: Susan Pollay schedules a meeting with the Valiant Group partners for April 21st or April 22nd.

April 21, 2009: Susan Pollay emails Fritz Seyferth:

Current design details [of the proposed underground parking garage] for your use….It was good seeing you earlier today. I look forward to talking to you again in a few weeks after your team has had another chance to meet with city folks.

May 5, 2009: Susan Pollay emails (in PDF format) Fritz Seyferth a dozen structural schematic drawings for the underground parking garage  for use in preparing the Valiant Group’s RFP. The drawings were provided by Michael C. Ortleib of the Carl Walker Company. 

July 2009: Ann Arbor City Council approves the issuance of an RFP for the development of the Fifth Avenue parcel.

Who were the members of Council with whom Seyferth met last February? Rapundalo? Teall? If so, neither has any business on the RFP Advisory Committee. Will those Council members with whom Seyferth met identify themselves? The DDA’s Susan Pollay should be replaced immediately, as should Roger Fraser, both of whom had extended and extensive contact with the Valiant Group’s partners prior to the issuance of the RFP.

Local blogger Vivienne Armentrout writes about the Valiant Group’s ongoing contacts with the Downtown Development Authority’s staff member Susan Pollay, as well Roger Fraser, City Council members, and other city officials. She refers to the contact as “the inside track.”

The inside track refers to a race where all of the runners start at the same time and one runner draws the inside lane. The Valiant Group was given a year-long head start in the race. The six proposals that came in on November 13th were, presumably, compiled between August 14th when the RFP was published, and November 13th, when it was due. Except for one, the Valiant Group’s.

All of this adds up to a rigged RFP process. It was rigged either through duplicity or sheer stupidity. Either way, Higgins’s demand that we trust the “process” is for suckers. The citizens of Ann Arbor deserve an honest RFP be written with public input, a fair and honest RFP competition be held, and an honest evaluation of the proposals submitted by a Committee comprised of individuals as per Council’s original July resolution, and headed by politicos we can respect and trust. That list certainly does not include Stephen Rapundalo or Margie Teall…..or Marcia Higgins, Carsten Hohnke, Christopher Taylor, Tony Derezinski or Sandi Smith—whose alleged Open Meetings Act violations for deliberating in secret via email during public meetings have plunged the city into a lawsuit.

Popularity: 27% [?]

January 5, 2010

The Politics of Parking: Free Downtown Parking For Residents in Towns Large and Small Across the Country (Why Not In A2?)

Filed under: best of A2Politico, boards and commissions, city council, money, transportation — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — A2 Politico @ 8:00 am
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rate this posting
Rating: 5.0/5 (5 votes cast)

At the December 21st City Council meeting, First Ward Council member Sandi Smith introduced a resolution to extend parking meter enforcement to 10 p.m. M-Sa. in order to keep parking meters our of First and Fifth Ward neighborhoods.

Here’s the real question: Why are people people of Ann Arbor always given the option by our City Council members of burning to death or freezing to death? Extend parking meter enforcement or put meters in First and Fifth Ward neighborhoods. How about some creative leadership?

There are so many place for Council to look in the budget to find the $90,000. Heck, there are places to find $9 million dollars, if Council members would just stop eating the financial rice cereal fed to them by City Administrator Roger Fraser and City Financial Officer Tom Crawford. The last bowl of rice cereal for the Council babies came in the form of a list of 18 program and service cuts proposed by Fraser at the December budget retreat to close a $3 million dollar budget gap (interestingly almost exactly the amount over budget the new Police-Court facility happens to be at the moment). The list included the immediate layoff of 14 firefighters. You gotta ask. When it was time to trim the number of police down 175, Roger Fraser and Council members told the public early retirement was the way to go. In fact, Police Chief Barnett Jones was quoted in AnnArbor.com in July of 2009 as explaining that,  ”the early retirement plan spared the police department from lay offs that would have been far more detrimental. Communities that lay off cops have problems recruiting experienced officers in the future….”

So firefighters looking for jobs must be addled from all the heat? Communities that lay off firefighters don’t have the same problem recruiting experienced firefighters in the future? Not a single soul elected to our City Council thought to ask that question, alas. Such a question would require putting two and two together and coming up with something rotten in the State of Denmark. Early retirements to the tune of $6 million for the police and pink slips for the firefighters? What’s it gonna take for Fifth Ward’s Mike Anglin, Third Ward’s Steve Kunselman and Chris Taylor, and Ward One’s Sabra Briere to wake up and smell the fiscal bullshit? Of course, maybe the firefighters got the bum’s rush because former Ann Arbor Fire Chief Sam Hopkins couldn’t be persuaded to tell reporters that without the 14 firefighters everything would be swell. At the time of the early retirements, Police Chief Jones was quoted in that same AnnArbor.com piece as saying, “Ann Arbor is just as safe as it was before. I am tired of people saying our community is not going to be safe. We’ve got police officers here that are stepping in and filling the gap. We’ve been cutting police officers since 2000, and has crime run amok because people are leaving? No.”

The early retirement of two dozen officers was followed by a sharp rise in crime in Ann Arbor, a wave of break-ins, and FBI crime statistics that showed a sharp rise in violent crime in our city. 

With their bibs tied on firmly in place, Council members sat quietly and swallowed what they were fed. Roger Fraser even issued a dare: Unless they told Fraser otherwise at the following Council meeting, he was going to lay off firefighters. Only Third Ward’s Steve Kunselman tried to stray from Fraser’s list. Kunselman was re-strapped into his highchair by city CFO Tom Crawford and the feeding continued. The city’s $7 million dollar IT department couldn’t be cut because the department had won “awards,” Crawford said. Second Ward’s Tony Derezinski (who miraculously showed up for the budget meeting—Derezinski is quickly closing in on Marcia Higgins [her recent absences aside] for the prize of Council member with the worst attendance record at committee and Council meetings—said that outsourcing the City’s $2.5 million dollar legal department was “off the table.” Off whose table? 

With the political implosion of Third Ward Council brat Leigh Greden, Ann Arbor ’s Mayor and City Council members are being exposed as terribly inept at crafting and implementing policy. Leigh Greden was their beard for half a dozen years, and now that he’s gone, the veteran Council member group (Teall, Higgins, Rapundalo and Hietje) is foundering badly. And thus we come to Sandi Smith’s resolution to extend parking enforcement until 10 p.m. I wrote about Smith’s resolution here on December 20th.

Several Council members claimed Smith had broadsided them with the resolution, and the ensuing discussion was comical in its sheer lack of, well, intelligence. One reporter at the Council meeting tweeted that Council members were attempting to craft a resolution “on the fly.” Those are always the best bits of legislation: the ones done with little forethought, planning, or research. At one point during the discussion of her resolution, Council member Smith railed against the “micromanging” of the City’s parking policies by City Council members. The micromanagement of parking, Smith claimed, was the sole discretion of the Downtown Development Authority (DDA), on which she sits. Smith’s comment showed her to have about as much understanding of the political chain of command as a Lance Corporal complaining about the “micro-management” of her superior officers. DDA members are appointed by our elected officials who, in turn, answer to voters. 

City Council members do tend toward comical micromanagement, discussing the dimensions of trash carts and wasting the city’s time, money and staff resources on Second Ward Council member Stephen Rapundalo’s grandstanding and useless “plastic bag ban” resolution, are classic examples. However, the oversight of boards, commissions and committees, such as the Downtown Development Authority, not to mention the questioning of resolutions brought to Council that address issues related to the DDA and parking, (particularly those sponsored or so-sponsored by Smith & Mayor Hieftje as both serve on the Board of the DDA as well as City Council) are not only appropriate, but crucial.

FOIAed emails revealed Sandi Smith called a secret meeting in January of 2009 at the DDA office and invited City Council and city staff. At that meeting, she wanted to discuss what was to the built atop the underground parking garage. A few months later, it was Sandi Smith (along with Fourth Ward’s Marcia Higgins) who brought us the famously “tailored” RFP for proposals to build atop the as-yet-unbuilt garage. Anything built on the Fifth Avenue parcel had to bring a financial return to the city, so demanded the RFP. That parking garage was never meant for the people of Ann Arbor; it’s for the use of the developer of the convention center or hotel that Council members want built atop that garage. 

So, on the one hand, we have Paul Saginaw co-founder of Zingerman’s working himself silly on programs to rally support for local business. On the other hand, we have Sandi Smith trying to force people to get up in the middle of dinner at Zingerman’s to run outside to feed the meters until 10 p.m. I ask you: who’s the more committed individual to downtown business? If you answered Sandi Smith and the DDA Board, stay after class for some electroshock therapy. While our DDA Board members and City Council propose policies to bilk the parking system and local residents to get millions to support Roger Fraser and Mayor Hieftje’s out-of-control building and construction habit, other towns with more responsible and creative leadership are rallying behind local business with programs to get residents downtown and make shopping not predicated on feeding a meter. Other cities are crafting and implementing free parking downtown parking programs for residents.

What follows is an example of what a DDA can do to actually support downtown businesses. It comes from Sausalito, California, and programs like it are spreading across the United States—in cities of all sizes. 

Read about these programs and weep. Then wipe your tears and email your Council members and Mayor Hieftje. Ask why it costs more per hour to park on street in Ann Arbor, Michigan than it does in Los Angles, California. L.A. City Council recently rolled back parking to $1.00-$1.25 per hour to foster downtown business. People with hybrid cars park for free in cities across the country, as well. Here’s a link to an NPR program on the trend.

In towns large and small across the United States, DDAs and Urban Renewal Agencies are crafting and implementing free parking programs for residents to bolster local downtown businesses. Frederick, Maryland (pop. 59,000)  has a free parking programs for residents, and Seattle is going to allow residents free parking near its light-rail stations for the next two years. In San Jose, California (pop. 948,000) residents get two hours of free parking through a downtown parking validation program. Medford Oregon’s (pop. 460,000) Urban Renewal Agency has a similar free parking program, as well.

We need to ask our elected officials (particularly Mayor Hieftje and Sandi Smith, who sit on the DDA and who led the way in raising parking rates by 40 percent this past August, and who are directly responsible for recommending parking policies to City Council—and then voting in favor of their own DDA recommendations) why Ann Arbor’s DDA doesn’t immediately craft a program for residents and downtown businesses similar to this one in Sausalito. 

 

SUPPORT YOUR DOWNTOWN SAUSALITO BUSINESSES !!!

3 Hours FREE Parking Downtown with a Residential Proximity Card !!!

A Residential Proximity Card entitles you a total of three hours free parking in the Municipal Parking Lots #1 & #3 per calendar day between the hours of 8:00 am and 6:00 pm, and unlimited parking from 6:00 pm from 8:00 am. Time accumulates for multiple visits, so be careful to park less than 3 hours total. (Please note that you will be charged at the regular hourly rate if you stay for more than 3 hours between the hours specified)

When you enter either of the parking lots, just waive your card in front of the sensor and the entrance gate will open. To exit, just waive your card again and the exit gate will open. It’s that easy. Just remember: Don’t take a ticket when you enter !!! 

Cost: Free to residents of Sausalito !!! Cards may be obtained at Municipal Parking Lot #1 (next to the ferry landing) between the hours of 9am and 8 pm weekdays or between 9am and noon on weekends. A $10.00 non-refundable fee and valid ID showing your Sausalito address is required, along with your vehicle registration.

THIS RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY CARD IS ONLY GOOD IN THE MUNICIPAL PARKING LOTS #1 and #3. 

Popularity: 22% [?]

December 17, 2009

Beehives, Tight Skirts and Salary Gaps Galore: The 50s Alive & Well in A2

Filed under: boards and commissions, economic development, taxes — Tags: , , , , , , , , — A2 Politico @ 12:40 pm
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rate this posting
Rating: 5.0/5 (5 votes cast)

On December 15th, I wrote “AATA Treasurer Ted Annis Pushes Increased Fiscal Transparency.” In that piece, I outlined the changes Annis wants to see the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA) make in order to provide the public with a more robust variety of data about the taxpayer-funded entity’s finances. One of those changes was to publish online the names, titles, and compensation of all AATA personnel beginning in January 2010 with 2009 payroll information. The Chair of AATA’s Board, Paul Ajegba was quoted in a December 17th AnnArbor.com post as saying this in response to Annis’s proposal to make salary data public and posted to AATA’s web site: “Board Chairman Paul Ajegba said he had concerns that posting salary information on the Web site would be ‘not good for morale.’ He said the agency already is transparent because all of that information is available through the Freedom of Information Act.”

First Ward Council member Sandi Smith has a long lost brother, it would appear. The FOIA twins. Both believe that Ann Arbor citizens can damn well file Freedom of Information Act requests for information if they damn well want to know anything about how their hundreds of millions of tax dollars are spent. 

For the moment, let’s give Ajegba a pass for the FOIA remark. Let’s zero in on the fact that he believes if AATA employees could find salary data, we might have to give them all scrips for anti-depressants—well not all of them. Ajegba’s comment can mean only one thing: there are salary gaps at AATA that the Chair of the Board would like to keep hidden from view. You remember salary gaps, right? They were those discrepancies in pay between women and men, minorities and whites, that were prevalent from the 1940s-1970s. Same job. Same title. Same qualifications. Women were paid 50 cents on the dollar. Blacks, about the same. White men, after all, had families to support. Women were just hanging around the office water coolers waiting to earn their M.R.S. degrees. 

Thanks the corner of Gott (in Himmel) and Miller that Ann Arbor is a bastion of liberality, passionate progressive values and social equality. Give me the tax returns of the Ann Arbor Ecology Center, headed by Mayor Hieftje’s BFF Mike Garfield or Avalon Housing, headed by Jayne Miller’s new BFF Michael Apple, and I’ll bet you my “I Like Ike” button that if the salary information from those non-profits became available to the public, that information might not be good for worker morale at those places either. 

Ok, in a minute I’m going to tell you the employer in Ann Arbor where there is the largest salary gap between men and women who hold the same job titles and qualifications. It’s actually an employer in the industry in the United States with one of the longest-standing and largest persistent salary gaps. However, let’s get back to the Eisenhower presidency, crinoline, Caddys with big fins, and Paul Ajegba. If releasing salary information to the public would be “bad for morale” at AATA, maybe what needs to happen is that the AATA Board needs to rectify the salary gaps instead of keeping the gaps a secret. No, that’s logical. Sorry. Sexism and racism are not logical. Pay parity for women and men, minorities and whites? I must be a Commie. 

Well, I have to tell you that I don’t have the tax returns for Avalon Housing or The Ecology Center. Yet. I do, however, have the 2008 tax returns for Ann Arbor SPARK (download the 990 here). You remember SPARK, right? The economic development boondoggle where the welfare daddies exaggerate to keep the public money flowing into their coffers. Since I am just that kinda person, (and know that you might be, as well) I looked at the salary data for those manly men and working girls employed by CEO Michael Finney at Ann Arbor SPARK. 

It was like having Old Fashioneds with Dwight D. and Mamie. In 2008, for every $1 dollar earned by SPARK’s managing director, a man, the woman with the same title was paid $.54 cents.  In fact of the five employees who draw paychecks higher than $100K, three men took 75 percent ($544,930) of the money allocated for salaries, and the two girls (both managing directors) split the remaining 25 percent ($208,552). CEO Michael Finney’s friends on the compensation committee paid him $258,423 in 2008, or 34 percent of the total $753,482 allocated for salaries for staff earning over 100K. Then, in the middle of the worst recession in 70 years, those same pals on the SPARK compensation committee gave Finney a $30,000 bonus. Taxpayers are a generous bunch, especially when they have no idea how their money is being spent. Michael Finney, however, is well aware of the salary gap, because he signed the tax return and, one has to imagine, read it.

As for Finney’s bonus, it couldn’t be linked to revenue gains, because Ann Arbor SPARK revenues dropped from $7.3 million in 2007 to $6.6 million in 2008. Compensation for staff, however, increased from $1.2 million in 2007 to $1.7 million in 2008. Nice work if you can get taxpayers to foot the bill for it.

Hiding behind the skirts of FOIA, as AATA’s Ajegba suggests his Board do to keep employees and the public ignorant, is nothing short of perpetuating a system that allows for the exploitation of workers. Eisenhower’s not president, and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 was signed by President Barack Obama on January 29, 2009. Michael Finney could use some training in equal pay for equal work, and the girls at Ann Arbor SPARK should take a minute and read about equal pay lawsuits.

If AATA is guilty of the same Old Boy pay differentials, perhaps labor lawyer and AATA Board member David Nacht could look forward to rustling up some business from among the disgruntled AATA staff. In the meantime, Paul Ajegba’s ”concerns” that posting salary information on the Web site would be ‘not good for morale’ should be taken by the other Board members, AATA staff and taxpayers alike that while low morale is not illegal, pay discrimination is, and hiding it is not an option because AATA’s money comes from taxpayers; taxpayers have a right to know and so do the employees.

Oh, and I promised to tell you the Ann Arbor employer with the largest persistent pay gap? It’s the University of Michigan. As an industry, higher education has one of the most pronounced and longest standing pay gaps between men and women and between whites and minorities in the United States.

Imagine what Miss Mary Sue C. would earn if she were a man. At least U of M publishes its salary data each year so everyone can see the ugly truth about racism and sexism and the art of avoiding pay equity. Click here to view the University of Michigan’s 2008 salary spreadsheet.

Popularity: 29% [?]

Older Posts »
Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes