A2Politico: Ann Arbor Politics Grilled To Perfection

August 20, 2010

The Politics of Retaining Gen Y: Why? Why? Why?

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rate this posting
Rating: 5.0/5 (8 votes cast)

“Michigan is becoming the nation’s ex,” writes former Concentrate Media Gen Y blogger Katie Rose in a kerchief waving, not-so-tearful farewell/kiss-off to Ann Arbor. Off to a better job in California, Rose pens a blog entry in which she struggles to deal with her own decision to relocate from Google in Ann Arbor to a job at YouTube. Why she struggles with the decision would be a better blog entry, but nonetheless Ms. Rose struggles mightily and Concentrate Media, ever open to punctiliously promulgating blog angst from the Gen Y folks who allegedly trawl the site, duly posts the woman’s “gut wrenching” decision.

Katie Rose spent her previous blog posts at Concentrate Media lecturing to the ether about exactly what Ann Arbor needed to do to make her life more scintillating, make her housing options more affordable and, generally, make her want to live in Ann Arbor. Rose writes in her post-collegiate confessional, “But first, a gut-wrenching confession of epic proportions: I have left Michigan. As winter turned to spring this year, I was offered a PR job at YouTube in California, and the inner conflict began.  When you publicly announce your loyalty to the state — and subsequently abandon those principles for a bigger career opportunity — it’s time to face the music.”

In 1851, Giuseppi Verdi came up with the perfect phrase to describe the situation. One need only purchase a ticket to Rigoletto, and you’ll hear it sung by the cynical Duke of Mantua: “La donna è mobile. Qual piuma al vento. Muta d’accento — e di pensiero.” For those who were dozing during Rigoletto when the subtitles were scrolling, here’s a translation: “This woman is flighty. Like a feather in the wind. She changes her voice — and her mind.” Click here to hear a 1908 recording of Enrico Caruso singing the “La Donna e’ mobile.” 

Katie Rose is fickle. She’s young and fickle. She’s young, fickle, and left an electronic record of a promise. Rose writes, “In the transition, however, there was a lot of reflection…so back to why I think Michigan has become the nation’s ex. I don’t need convincing that this is a great place to have a life, but as I’ve seen more and more friends depart the state, it’s becoming apparent that there are people who do.  But it’s not always the right fit, and sometimes the romance fizzles.”

Yes, sometimes the romance fizzles. Sometimes people realize that having an inexperienced, needy lover who is forever nitpicking isn’t a Love Boat cruise, but rather a romantic nightmare. In such cases it’s entirely appropriate to, well, dump the bitch/bastard, or jump overboard hoping that a passing luxury liner will happen to be plying the waters nearby. Please note: Being adrift in the Sea of Love, then being picked up by a luxury liner is an art form. Elizabeth Taylor is a faculty emeritus at the academy where the skill is taught, so is George Clooney. Tuition is very expensive at that particular academy, and the graduation rates are very low, just so you’re prepared.

Basically, Katie Rose writes that one reason she is leaving Michigan is because her friends are leaving. This is where her youth peeks through. After you get to a certain age and have wasted enough time justifying yourself, you stop. You just do what you want to do, suck it up, and live with the consequences. However, Rose justifies her decision by writing, “If Michigan wants to compete with the other ‘magnetic places’ for youth, it’s going to need to keep up in more categories. We’ll never be a state with the flashing lights of New York, but we should also refuse to accept the consolation prize. We can compliment parks and our small town feel ’til we’re blue in the face, but that makes Ann Arbor a ’safe date’ with a ‘nice personality’ and not someone that inspires you to drop to one knee and make a long-term commitment to.”

Not to be unkind, but the Katie Roses out there are no great prizes, demographically. I wrote in a January 2010 entry titled “The Politics of Demgraphics: Why All the Political Hand-Wringing and Fuss Over Gen Y?”:

Looking for what is called a reliable voter? Look for a white woman aged 70 and above (a Baby Boomer), according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Looking for the least reliable voter on whom a candidate should think twice about wasting time, money and literature, the voter who goes to the polls with the least frequency? Look for a white woman aged 18-20, a so-called, Millenial (Gen Y) voter. Spending power? Gen Y’s spending power pales in comparison to that of the peak age group. According to data from U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics, the average Gen Y individual spends $25,000 per year, and has an annual household income barely above that, somewhere around $35,000 per year. The big earners and big spenders? Those are people in the 35-45 year-old age bracket, Gen Xers. They pull down salaries that average $70,000-$80,000 dollars per year and pump into the local economy, on average, double what Gen Y individuals part with in a year.  

In April of 2010, I wrote in “The Politics of Development: If You Think It’s About Urban Density and Affordable Living, Think Again”:

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 Pew Social Trends 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.

In October of 2009 Katie Rose wrote in another blog entry that Gen Y “demands” are few:

  • Monthly rent between $600-$900
  • Close proximity to work and social scene (walking/biking distance)
  • Option to live alone affordably
  • No ‘cookie cutter’ condos – we want places with character
  • Flooring that has not seen the ravages of six years of lost beer pong tournaments

These several months later, after she’d left Ann Arbor for Mountainview, California, Katie Rose looks back over her shoulder and electronically quips:

“I would challenge Ann Arbor to commit itself to these three things, which would have made my decision to leave all the more difficult, if not completely obsolete.”

1. Job diversification. I didn’t want to “dump” Michigan. 

2. A dynamic downtown. We lack discovery of new places, and I don’t think the fact that Ann Arbor’s a small town is an excuse. Give us something to explore and keep the chains out. 

3. Knock off the “Us vs. Them” development wars. Before I left, I participated in a few meetings where young people discussed development issues coming before Council. The tone was hopeful, but felt combative. 

Here’s a thought: Maybe being dumped by the Katie Roses of the world isn’t such a tragedy. Google filled her entry-level job with another new grad, no doubt (well, maybe a little doubt, since Google never created the 1,000 jobs it promised when it came here, and demanded tax-subsidized parking). Her apartment has been rented (or at least there’s a 90 percent chance it will be, since Ann Arbor has a 10 percent rental apartment vacancy rate city-wide, at the moment), Starbuck’s and the other chains that have come into the downtown are still slinging hash, selling cups of java, and providing free Wi-Fi. In short, Gen Y is like a footprint in the sand, and the tide of time quickly washes away the slight traces of their residence among us.

I wish Katie Rose luck; I’ve enjoyed her posts even if I’ve not agreed with her conclusions, or found all of her insights illuminating. What I know is this: sometimes breaking up ain’t so bad. What our city is sorely in need of are people who will relocate their established businesses here, provide real jobs, buy houses, pay taxes and be fickle every now and again—but have the money, maturity and good sense to realize that they don’t have to justify it to anyone. Ever. 

Popularity: 21% [?]

August 18, 2010

The Politics of Prying: Borders Gets Tight-Lipped

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rate this posting
Rating: 5.0/5 (8 votes cast)

Here’s a recent headline from AA.com: “How many people now work at Borders’ headquarters in Ann Arbor? Borders won’t say”  Sigh. When you pry, or at least try to pry into the business of other companies, it’s good to be slightly more industrious. The piece reveals little about Borders. I always chuckle, of course, when AnnArbor.com makes big noise about other companies being tight-lipped about their businesses. In December of 2009, when a reporter from the radio show “Marketplace” asked for specifics from AnnArbor.com Kontent King Tony Dearing, she got stiff-armed. I wrote about it here, and Dearing subsequently shared the information with A2Politico he’d refused to give to “Marketplace.” 

Of course, MediaBistro did an even worse job of prying about the Borders layoffs. The go-to media industry site provided a Cliff Notes version of the AnnArbor.com piece:

Today AnnArbor.com broke the news that Borders Group had cut more employees at the bookseller’s corporate headquarters in Michigan. A spokesperson declined to say how many people were laid off.

The company provided this statement: “we have made changes to our staffing levels so that the right people are in the right positions and that those positions are aligned with our strategic objectives.”

Earlier this month, we noted that Borders will cut another 100 workers in its distribution facility located in La Vergne, Tennessee. When asked about those cuts, the company provided the same statement.

At Borders, this latest round of lay-offs was, in fact the fifth round the bookseller made in 2010. This round came just seven days after the company made its fourth round of lay-offs. Prior to the most recent round of cutting, Borders employed some 650 employees at its Ann Arbor headquarters. On the UsedBookBlog, Borders employees, evidently, were slightly more forthcoming about the life-saving measures being implemented. One Borders employee writes:

From the front lines, those “strategic alternatives” included getting rid of managers and supervisors, eliminating the employee gift card of $25/mo. for full time employees, eliminating time and a half for all employees working holidays and the thing that is guaranteed to save their rosy butts — charging employees 35 cents for tea and coffee that had been previously free.

We have also been vigorously sending back music and book product to the vendors in order to get quick credit back at the expense of our empty bookshelves and music/DVD units …

… managers have been asked to cut back on supply ordering, and necessary repairs are not being completed.

My brother works for Borders and he said that they have just cut out the employee of the month program (probably because there was a $25 gift card given to the recipient).

I guess if I’d implemented a money-saving strategy that included getting rid of the employee of the month program, I’d be pretty tight-lipped, as well, because I’d be terrified shareholders would roll their eyes and laugh at my incredibly short-sighted business decision. After all, tending to employee morale is so passé. Everyone knows preventative medicine is for managerial pantywaists such as Sergey Brin and Bill Gates

Well, all of this makes me miss Pud, who oversaw FuckedCompany.com. The site was a dot-com dead pool, but posts from employees fired from all kinds of companies shedding dead, live and other employee weight, popped up with regularity. There’s no one quite as willing to share information as a recently sacked employee, particularly low- to- mid-level employees. 

Over at LiveJournal, a site where Borders employees shoot the breeze about their employer’s financial viability (a sort of micro-FuckedCompany), there is an entry dated August 12th in which the poster writes “About 55 people were laid off yesterday….If your not actively applying for a different job at a different company, let me be the first to tell you; your sucking a life. Everyone working at Borders needs to be actively searching for another job.” Another LiveJournal poster writes: “I urge everybody to actually read the quarterly statement when it comes out (on Sep 1st I believe). It doesn’t take much Googling to get copies of past years and compare them. There’s a LOT of information if you know how to read between the lines and translate the corporate speak into what it really means.”

Having company headquarters in a town provides politicos with bragging rights and photo opps—of which the current bunch in office avail themselves liberally. When Borders celebrated the grand opening of its first nationwide concept store in the Waters Place shopping center, Hizzoner was on hand for the festivities and ribbon-cutting. Now that Borders is in a death spiral, it’s likely the only dismissed Borders employee to receive Hieftje’s sympathies was, perhaps, Fourth Ward Council member Marcia Higgins, who was among the many people the company has let go in its many rounds of lay-offs.  

So should we care that Borders, Google, AnnArbor.com and other companies that do business is our town get light-lipped when the going gets tough, revenue projections and employee head counts fall short? Absolutely. Pfizer’s departure was blamed by every incumbent who was recently re-elected for the disaster that is Ann Arbor’s slash-and-burn budget. That voters couldn’t figure out losing a paltry 4.68 percent of property tax revenues couldn’t possibly explain the desire to privatize Huron Hills Golf course, cut police and fire staffing, boggles the mind. Then again, a recent New York Times piece about the economy of Italy placed the blame for the disaster that is Italy’s debt-ridden, anemic, stagnant economy on the fact that primarily older voters in Italy go to the polls—people loathe to see the status quo disturbed. Couple cronyism, local politicos willing to tell whoppers, and invent whatever they need to invent to keep up appearances for the old folks and, as one CPA told me, we have a city that will be insolvent in five years unless things change drastically. Borders, you see, is not the only tight-lipped organization in an economic death spiral. Thus, the advice from the Borders employee who counseled colleagues to study the company’s financial statements, and to be making plans to relocate seems startlingly prescient and apt. 

A member of the Ann Arbor Parks Advisory Commission (PAC) with a wicked sense of humor and a wonderful sense of the absurd put it to me this way: Ann Arbor politics is controlled by the canes and walkers, ex-hippies who think the city should be encased in lucite for the benefit of said canes and walkers. It was an astute observation. A look at the rolls of regular voters in Ann Arbor, and you will see that the list is dominated by Boomers, as well as canes and walkers. Around 10 percent of registered voters decided local elections this past August. 

Don’t expect AnnArbor.com to pry about city finances any time soon. In July, the company passed the one-year mark necessary to have official announcements printed in the pages of its newspaper. AnnArbor.com, I predict, will soon get a boatload of new advertising from the City of Ann Arbor, and while editorial departments at papers of record such as the Washington Post and New York Times fight for editorial independence from advertising concerns, it’s quite clear that no such struggle goes on at AnnArbor.com. Otherwise, instead of headlines like “How many people work at Borders?” we’d have investigations into the financial malarky presented as the Gospel truth by local politicos, and city staff—starting with CFO Tom Crawford’s fabrication that the now over-budget Police-Court Tin Can would cost exactly $44.7 million dollars.

Popularity: 17% [?]

May 28, 2010

The Politics of Economic Development: Let’s End Taxpayer Support of Crony Capitalism & Chart A Better Course

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rate this posting
Rating: 5.0/5 (10 votes cast)

The Michigan Economic Development Corporation is taking a beating in the Press. In case you don’t know, the MEDC is a state-funded entity that gives tax credits and tax dollars to venture capital firms, individuals and businesses through a variety of programs aimed at job creation. The results, alas, have been uneven. The MEDC did create in-house jobs for two local politicos — 53rd District House Wanna-be Ned Staebler, and Fifth Ward City Council member Carsten Hohnke.

As if my natural proclivities toward the sensible use of tax money weren’t sufficient, it was revealed in March 2009 that the MEDC had approved giving $9.1 million in tax credits to the business of a convicted embezzler. Mistakes happen, and less than a week after the national media got hold of that bit of news and used it to make MEDC look as though it were run by the Three Stooges, the Michigan Legislature rushed through a bill that called for background checks of applicants who want to live large off of MEDC largesse. Now no crooks needs apply. At least crooks with criminal records. Crooks who haven’t yet been caught, and crooks-in-training are still welcome to fill out the application, go through the process, and take their chances in the MEDC multi-million dollar giveaway sweepstakes. 

In November of 2009, I blogged about the tendency of the people at the MEDC and it’s creation, Ann Arbor SPARK, to focus on “promised jobs” when putting out press releases and glossy annual reports. Since the whole point of the billion dollar job creation machine is to create jobs, the jobs damn well better be created, right? Why is focusing on “promised jobs” a problem? Because to quote (with a slight variation) Samuel L. Goldwyn, promised jobs are as good as the paper they’re written on. The latest newspaper piece about Michigan’s billion dollar corporate welfare industry was published on May 23, 2010 in the Detroit Free Press. Titled “Bold experiment produces few jobs,” reporter Katherine Yung writes: 

Four years after Michigan launched the 21st Century Jobs Fund to diversify its economy and create jobs, the first of two major initiatives under the 10-year, billion-dollar program have generated mixed results so far. A handful of small companies that received loans look promising, a handful have failed and only a small number of direct jobs have been created. Venture capital firms outside the state that were awarded millions have been slow to invest in Michigan businesses. And the majority of the grants, loans and investment dollars went to recipients in one city: Ann Arbor.

According to research published in the Free Press, only 1,147 direct jobs had been created, about 33 percent of the jobs promised, according to a report from the MEDC. Free Press reporter Yung writes, “Excluding jobs created by the research projects, most of which are temporary, only 935 direct jobs have been added.” 

In 2006, Ann Arbor SPARK received $8 million dollars from the MEDC under the auspices of the $134 million dollar 21st Century Jobs Fund. Between 2006 and 2009, according to a March 2009 presentation to City Council by then LDFA Chair Richard King (the LDFA contracts with SPARK and sends tax dollars to SPARK through a tax increment financing scheme), about 600 direct jobs had been created in Ann Arbor, all of which would have otherwise been created without giving a dime to the LDFA and SPARK. According to information from the Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic Growth, since 2008 Ann Arbor has experienced a net loss of 5 percent of our city’s jobs. Since 2006, the year Ann Arbor SPARK received its $8 million dollar grant from the MEDC, Ann Arbor has lost 9.5 percent of its jobs. 

In this election season, local politicos will tout the fact that Ann Arbor’s economy isn’t as bad off as it could be thanks to their valiant efforts. The Detroit Free Press and reporter Yung offer an alternative plot-line. Since 2006, the MEDC has funneled two-thirds of the $137 million dollars spent in 21st Century Fund business loans, and millions in grants to one city in the state of Michigan: Ann Arbor. Since 2006, Ann Arbor’s economy has, in part, been propped up by state tax dollars in the form of loans and grants to local start-up businesses, only  handful of which, according to the piece published in the Detroit Free Press, are doing well. State revenue sharing might have fallen by $350,000 per year between 2006 and 2009, but over the same period the MEDC poured millions in tax dollars per year into Ann Arbor via the 21st Century Jobs Creation loan/grant programs.

These are tax dollars that could have gone instead to education, infrastructure (think Stadium Bridges and the state’s crumbling roads) or been spread among the state’s established small and medium-sized businesses to foster expansion. Instead, millions were given in corporate welfare to start-ups in just four industries: advanced manufacturing, alternative energy, life sciences, homeland security and defense. The result was that Ann Arbor came away with a net 9.5 percent loss of jobs in our city, while ex-Pfizer employees and University of Michigan faculty members who launched businesses that were funded through the MEDC “jobs creation” program promised to create new jobs, until their start-ups crashed and burned. Since 2006, local politicos have dined out and run on the successes and expansion of Ann Arbor’s labor market—including those promised jobs. The thousands that have been promised, but have not yet materialized. 

On June 3rd, I’ll be speaking to the members of the Main Street Area Association. In preparation for the meeting, I’ve been talking to the Main Street business owners. I wanted to know whether the merchants who own small and medium-sized local businesses think our city is a place that works to foster the expansion and growth of established businesses. The word from Main Street? A resounding “No!” Ann Arbor’s city government, according to many of the Main Street merchants, works against local business. All whom I spoke with pointed to most recent obvious bungle: the extension of enforcement of metered parking. Many also believe the Downtown Development Authority is failing in its mission to support the downtown business district.

So what can be done to make Ann Arbor a more attractive home to existing local small and medium-sized businesses, and a magnet community where existing small and medium-sized businesses would choose to relocate and bring with them actual new jobs?

First, we can reverse the wrong-headed extension of parking meter enforcement before it damages the bottom lines of businesses in Ann Arbor. In Oakland, California, the City Council there extended parking meter enforcement until 8 p.m. in July of 2009. The move was reversed in October of 2009 after a recall effort to oust the entire city council was launched, and 5,000 signatures quickly collected. According to a piece published in the San Francisco Chronicle on October 7, 2009, an Oakland, California council member was quoted as saying, “Clearly, the parking regimen has been very unwelcome. As bad as our budget problems have been, it’s clear this is unacceptable. People don’t like feeling we’re balancing the budget on their backs.”

According to research on local economic development from the World Bank, most local economic growth is generated by small- and medium-sized businesses that are already established in the community, not from throwing money at start-ups, regardless of the industry. What our city government can do in Ann Arbor is to provide a helping hand to these existing local small and medium-sized businesses in the form of advice, support and resources. Ann Arbor doesn’t need to offer tax breaks, or subsidies through the Downtown Development Authority, the city shouldn’t be in the business of floating loans or handing out grants. Rather, local government should focus on making sure that merchants needs are clearly understood, and that our local government works with established small and medium-sized businesses and not against them:

1.  For starters, the city needs to survey existing firms to figure out exactly what the challenges are that these local companies face doing business in our city. I got an earful going shop-to-shop, and that’s cathartic for the merchants, but an actual needs-based survey would give us a solid beginning toward a more synergistic relationship between local government and local business.

2.  Next, Ann Arbor should implement a program to streamline local bureaucracy. We should begin by reviewing existing regulations and laws, consult with stakeholders and develop necessary remedial plans. A program to minimize the complexity, costs and bureaucracy associated with permit approval processes, for example, will improve the chances for our local small and medium-sized businesses to thrive and grow.  

3.  Another opportunity to help existing local businesses thrive is to offer technical advice and assistance. This can include broad-based management and marketing programs, to more specialized support. The focus here should be on providing accredited, demand-led, technical assistance that can be paid for on a fee-for-service basis. 

4.  As opposed to skimming tax dollars from education, and spending the bulk of our economic development money on launching start-ups, almost half of which fail after 5 years, money that has been allocated from the General Fund to SPARK and the LDFA should be spent on recruiting established small and medium-sized businesses to Ann Arbor.

The MEDC isn’t taking the criticism of its lack of results, and failure to create large numbers of actual jobs, quietly. On May 26, 2010, the entity’s 17-member executive committee issued a statement which read, in part:

“We are deeply concerned that the recent surge of unwarranted criticism leveled against the MEDC will undermine Michigan’s efforts and ability to attract business investment,” MEDC’s executive committee said in a statement issued to the Michigan Legislature and the media. “All states are in fierce competition for stable, well-paying jobs – across all sectors and industries. Political in-fighting is a clear warning to business that a state lacks a cohesive climate for economic development and a clear signal to invest elsewhere.” 

The state-wide media have finally clued into the fact that the Emperors at the MEDC have no clothes, and are beginning to question whether these tax dollars could be better spent. I’m still waiting for the local media to notice the naked truth about Ann Arbor SPARK, but I have my doubts this will happen any time soon. On May 20, 2010, it was announced that AnnArbor.com Executive VP Laurel Champion was named the Treasurer of the Ann Arbor SPARK Board. On May 23rd, the MLive.com site picked up Yung’s May 23rd Free Press piece and reprinted parts of it on the MLive.com Michigan Job Search page. Interestingly, all mention of the MEDC’s funneling of two-thirds of the 21st Century Jobs Fund money to Ann Arbor start-ups/companies was edited out of the MLive.com piece.

On May 25, 2010, AnnArbor.com’s business reporter Nathan Bomey posted a piece titled, “MEDC says ‘unwarranted criticism’ threatens economic development efforts.”  Bomey’s post made no mention of the May 23, 2010 Free Press piece, nor did it link to the May 23rd MLive post.

Popularity: 59% [?]

February 21, 2010

The Politics of Money: Capriccio Economico

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rate this posting
Rating: 5.0/5 (5 votes cast)

*Capriccio

February 18th was Ann Arbor Public Schools’ Orchestra Night. All of the middle and high school orchestras came together for a music student-a-palooza that began at 7 p.m. and finished with the last note from the Pioneer High School orchestra at 9:30. My middle schooler’s orchestra played the first notes of the evening. The entire week before, he’d been coming home with tales from the practice room that the orchestra teacher was driving the kids like musical mules in a field of flats and sharps. Evidently, she was making them rehearse and practice—making them play the first measures of their opening piece, Capriccio Espagnol, something like 5,000,000 times. Pre-teens somehow suddenly lose the ability to count: they start at 1 and jump from there to 5,000,000.  

However, my bassist had not exaggerated a bit. He and his orchestra mates nailed the opening of the piece. In fact, they played the entire piece with a level of technical precision I never expected—there was no fuzzy fingering from the violinists, and nary a missed beat from the basses and cellos. Their orchestra teacher is a young woman who, in my opinion, is one of those teachers. You know the ones. They inspire, push and take a genuine interest in their students. Every school district needs more teachers like her, and to compensate them generously for their devotion to their students, teaching, and the results they get.

Unless you just got back to Ann Arbor from your isolated private island in the Pacific, you know that the AAPS is facing a multi-million dollar deficit. There is a passionate and wide-ranging debate as to why there is a deficit. There is a passionate and wide-ranging debate about how to close the budget gap. District officials floated the idea of privatizing several hundred union jobs. According to a piece posted to AnnArbor.com on February 17th, there are several companies “vying to replace the district’s custodians, maintenance workers and bus drivers, it could save nearly $2.4 million a year.”

I’m going to switch classrooms now. Walk with me.

I was going through the City’s checkbook register, which is now online, and saw a $75,000 withdrawl from the General Fund for Ann Arbor SPARK. I have written about Ann Arbor SPARK several times over the course of the past months. Click here to read my most recent entry about SPARK. Ann Arbor SPARK was created to “incubate” start-up businesses in the Ann Arbor area. It was headed by Republican Gubernatorial candidate Rick Snyder for several years. Our tax dollars don’t fund SPARK directly. That’s what the (Local Development Finance Authority) LDFA is for. Here’s a good description of the LDFA from a January 2009 piece in the now defunct Ann Arbor News, written by  Stefanie Murray, “The LDFA is an Ann Arbor City Council-appointed committee that oversees the capture of part of the property taxes from Ann Arbor’s downtown development district. It gives some of that revenue to Spark and is responsible for overseeing how Spark spends it.”

Sounds pretty innocuous, huh? “The capture of part of the property taxes from Ann Arbor’s downtown development district.” No harm. No foul.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The LDFA was formed to divert taxes from a single sector: public education. It contracts with Ann Arbor SPARK to “provide services.” In fact, the bulk of the money the LDFA diverts from our public schools goes to Ann Arbor SPARK. Second Ward Council member Stephen Rapundalo sits on the LDFA Board. Fifth Ward Council member Carsten Hohnke sits on the SPARK Board. In November 2009, I wrote about the resolution which Rapundalo brought to Council: “Resolution to Amend the Fiscal Year 2010 SmartZone LDFA Budget for Increased Business Accelerator Services.” In my November 2009 post I wrote:

“Ann Arbor SPARK is the public-private boondoggle supported by Mayor and Council with your tax dollars that has created no new jobs that would not otherwise have been created, according to an April 2009 statement before City Council by the Chair of the LDFA, Richard King.  And SPARK has done it all for you since July 2006 for a mere $3+ million dollars. Who could want less for more? It’s a Bernie Madoff Special—no actual job creation in return for millions in public money. How long will it take the public to realize that they’re being robbed?”

Both Carsten Hohnke and Stephen Rapundalo voted in favor of giving the LDFA $205,000 additional dollars to pass on the Ann Arbor SPARK. Those were dollars taken from the Ann Arbor Public Schools. Here is a link to a video from the City Council meeting at which Council voted 11-0 to give the LDFA and Spark more tax money. You’ll see Skip Simms from SPARK tell Council that all of SPARK’s “incubator” money comes from the LDFA. All of the LDFA’s money is diverted directly from the Ann Arbor Public Schools. Do you understand the connection now?

According to the city’s budget, in fiscal year 2009, the LDFA SmartZone diverted $1.1 million dollars in property taxes from new development downtown. In fiscal year 2010, that amount increased to a projected $1.27 million dollars, and in 2011, the LDFA expects to divert $1.4 million in property tax dollars from our public schools to give to SPARK. 

In this piece, I wrote about the $753,000 in salaries paid to just five employees of SPARK. 

Now, we have the Ann Arbor Public Schools poised to cut over 200 union jobs to save $2.4 million dollars. If the Mayor and City Council dissolve the LDFA immediately, and Ann Arbor SPARK is spun off, in 2010-2011 the AAPS will collect an additional projected $2.67 million dollars in tax revenues. That money, along with some good faith bargaining for concessions from the unions involved could save the jobs of hundreds of long-time employees—custodians, maintenance workers and bus drivers in our community.

Public schools, or so said my son’s orchestra teacher, reflect the soul of a community. I agree with her. Right now, our soul is troubled. Business investment is important, but it can’t come at the expense of our own public schools. It’s time to stop diverting property tax dollars away from the public schools, and realize that owners of established small and medium-sized businesses choose to relocate to communities with exceptional schools, and residents choose to stay in communities with exceptional public schools.

Either our public schools can be given back the LDFA’s $2.67 million dollars and retain hundreds of jobs for custodians, bus drivers and maintenance workers, or Mayor and Council can continue to support a failed economic development system under the auspices of which no jobs have been created that wouldn’t have otherwise been created. Mayor and Council can continue to give public school tax dollars to the LDFA to dole out to Ann Arbor SPARK—an organization that paid five of its employees over $753,000 in salaries in 2008.  

To me, the choice is clear. The time has come to shape new economic development programs that will give taxpayers objectively verifiable and carefully tracked returns on all tax dollar investments—something that has not been done over the past five years. It’s time to get back to the basics, and for our local politicos to face the music: they’ve diverted millions from our public schools to fund the LDFA and, in turn, Ann Arbor SPARK. Dissolving the LDFA and spinning off Ann Arbor SPARK could, actually, save hundreds of existing jobs in our community, and benefit our public schools.

Popularity: 43% [?]

January 22, 2010

The Politics of Business: Risk-taking Is For Suckers AKA Taxpayers

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rate this posting
Rating: 5.0/5 (6 votes cast)

I have a tot who is a chef. Seriously. The kid can cook and bake like nobody’s business, and enjoys it. The word from the mouth of the babe is that perhaps we should start saving for tuition at the Le Cordon Bleu, or the Culinary Institute, in New York. I worked in the kitchen of a ritzy country club while in college. Let me share with you industrial kitchen virgins out there  that cooking in a high-class joint for a living can be a kick-ass job. Where else will you get paid to watch a 55 year-old pantry worker wrap herself in plastic wrap and sing “Hey Big Spender” in her Catalan accent, and dance around the Sous Chef provocatively? “Da menute jew walked in the yoint….”

I still miss that country club job. If you can take the heat, the industrial kitchen in a ritzy eatery is a great place to work.

My advice to my budding chef  is that you go to the local community college for a two-year degree in culinary arts and at the same time knock off the prereqs for a degree in business administration. Then, you transfer to Michigan and finish up a BBA at the B-School. After that, you’re off to make your mark on the culinary world. In addition to being a kick-ass chef, you’ll have the ability to speak intelligently to a banker when you want more money than I’ll probably have to give when you want to open your own “yoint,” where the big spenders will surely come to eat. 

Food service is a risky business. The profit margin in that industry is way too small for my tastes. Show me a business with a 40-60 percent profit margin, and  now we’re talking organic, free-range turkey. On AnnArbor.com today business reporter Nathan Bomey has a piece   that argues Michigan entrepreneurs need to “embrace risk.” I like Bomey’s writing, as a rule, and appreciate the fact that he tackles the usual topics from unusual angles. As luck would have it, Malcom Gladwell has a piece in the Janaury 18, 2010 issue of the New Yorker that, in fact, argues that successful entrepreneurs do not take risks. This comes from Gladwell’s article:

“In a recent study ‘From Predators to Icons,’ the French scholars Michel Villette and Chatherine Vuillermot set out to uncover what successful entrepreneurs have in common. They present case histories of businessmen who built their own empires—ranging from Sam Walton of Wal-Mart, to Bernard Arnault, of the luxury-goods conglomerate L.V.M.H.—and chart what they consider the typical course of a successful entrepreneur’s career. The truly successful businessman, in Villette and Vuillermot’s telling, is anything but a risk-taker. He is a predator, and predators seek to incur the least risk possible while hunting.”

I read Gladwell’s article recently and found myself realizing that I am simply not a predatory entrepreneur. However, the argument of the successful entrepreneur as the limited risk-taker made perfect sense to me. Of course the most successful hunters take the fewest risks! It was a sobering read for me as a business owner, and I am still trying to decide whether it’s too late for me to become a predator in my industry. This gets into the who nature/nuture discussion, however, and that’s a blog entry for another time.

Then, I chanced upon Bomey’s AnnArbor.com piece in which he argues that for the sake of the economy, “…taking risks is essential for Michigan.” Bomey also writes, “A key element of reconstructing Michigan, however, is culture change. Michigan residents are largely averse to risk taking.” 

Hell yes we are! We’re midwesterners. Risky business is not the culture of assembly-line workers at any of the Big Three. Our state’s politicians didn’t take risks, but blindly supported a single-industry to the detriment of the state and its residents. Our U.S. senators and representatives have pork-barreled money for the auto industry for decades. They have ignored environmental issues and global warming. In Time magazine, Representative John Dingell was accused of “pandering” to the interests of Michigan’s auto companies. These folks failed to realize that putting all your eggs in one sedan would eventually cause the state’s economy to implode.

Bomey writes, “This generated a culture defined by an incredible work ethic and a suspicion towards entrepreneurialism.”

Let me give you some free advice: those so inclined should be very suspicious of becoming entrepreneurs. According to data from the U.S. Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy, ”Two-thirds of new employer establishments survive at least two years, and 44 percent survive at least four years, according to a new study. These results were similar for different industries.”

Think carefully Padawan Jedi Entrepreneur: Would you take a job where there was a 56 percent chance you wouldn’t earn enough money to feed your kids or pay your mortgage? Yeah, me neither. Well, actually, it turns out I am kind of a risk-taker, but I didn’t choose food service, and my profit margins are pretty close to that free-range, organic turkey I mentioned earlier. 

Now let’s talk economic development. The current economic development mantra in Ann Arbor is to fund start-ups. Ann Arbor SPARK and its LDFA master throw taxpayer money at what amounts to some very risky business investments. Neither Ann Arbor SPARK nor Board members on the LDFA have shown that the success rates for taxpayer financed start-ups are any higher than those of non-taxpayer financed start-ups. In other words, 56 percent of start-ups funded with our tax dollars will fail within four years.

Business investment is always a calculated risk—ask any banker or venture capitalist. The losses, one hopes, are offset by the wildly successful businesses that survive. If the Small Business Administration survival numbers for small business are accurate (and we have no reason to believe the SBA is out to exaggerate the numbers—like some local economic development outfits I know), this means that when economic development is focused on start-ups, there will be a return on the investment only 44 percent of the time. Those are not odds I like for taxpayer dollars. 

That’s why bankers don’t generally get involved in funding start-ups without secured assets, either someone’s house or a loan guarantee from the U.S. Small Business Administration. Bankers give lines of credit to, and fund the expansion plans of, firmly established businesses. Heck, it’s tough for a start-up to rent office space. Landlords don’t want to sign three-year leases with companies that might fold in less than two years. It’s a brutal world out there for business start-ups because the folks with the money know the odds of start-up successes are under 50 percent.

This is also why Ann Arbor City Council needs to dissolve the LDFA, revoke the entity’s TIF, and return that money to our schools, library and transportation. Council needs to spin off Ann Arbor SPARK. SPARK should go and gamble its own money on start-ups.

Me? I’m all for an economic development plan for Ann Arbor that focuses on attracting and recruiting established small and medium-sized businesses to our city by expanding services, minding our infrastructure, paying real attention to non-motorized/alternative transportation, and offering economic development services through a city-controlled Office of Economic Development. 

I don’t agree with Bomey that risk is going to rescue Michigan’s economy. Start-up entrepreneurism isn’t, statistics show us, the silver bullet solution to the economic woes our city and state face. We need to make Michigan and especially Ann Arbor magnets, and do it through offering the caliber of schools, city services, recreational opportunities and infrastructure that will attract established small and medium-sized businesses.

Popularity: 30% [?]

January 18, 2010

The Politics of Buying Local: Why I Haul My Lumber From Fingerle in My Japanese Car

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rate this posting
Rating: 5.0/5 (6 votes cast)

I’m old enough to remember when the U.S. auto companies launched their “Buy American” marketing campaigns in response to another deep recession brought on by an oil crisis that had gripped the U.S., along with growing competition from foreign automakers. Lee Iacoca took charge of Chrysler and saved the company from bankruptcy. The Buy American marketing campaign doesn’t evoke the same sense of urgency that it did when it looked as though the economy (and their own business practices) was going to take out one of Detroit’s Big Three. Buy American has transformed into “Buy Local.” If you think about it, it’s not exactly the same idea, but evokes the same sense of consumeristic camaraderie. The Buy Local slogan is meant to do that, of course.

“We are in this together,” Buy Local murmurs, “so why not help me out?”

I know why I should buy local, and I do buy local. However, A2P being A2P, I find myself questioning the Buy Local movement as closely as I question the Buy American movement. I was at a local metropark one summer, and a man walking past my Japanese car yelled, “Way to buy American!” I stopped and explained that when an American car company could match the resale value of my Japanese model, its reliability, safety and performance, I would gladly Buy American. I researched Fords and Chevys before I settled on my Japanese model. It was a totally Machiavellian purchase. In a decade, the car I chose will have retained much more of its value than any of the American models that I comparison shopped. The overall reliability record was better than the American models, according to Consumer Reports, and its performance was rated as superior, as well. The model was, in fact, a Consumer Reports Best Buy in its category.

Should I have bought American? For the life of me, I just can’t justify spending $25,000 on anything simply because of the geographic locality of the parent company as opposed to taking more objective criteria into consideration. For that matter, that Ford you’re driving may have been put together in Mexico with parts made in Canada. My Japanese car was built in Ohio by American workers. 

I have the same issue with the current Buy Local movement. It seems a one-sided proposition, as if I exist as a consumer to keep local businesses in business. Isn’t that the job of the owner? Isn’t competition a basic tenant of capitalism—not to mention the Darwinism of business? I suppose what got me thinking about this was a comment made by a reader about the piece I posted about Ann Arbor Restaurant Week. He writes, “I will say that I have had great experiences with Ann Arbor Restaurant Week, and already have set up three reservations for next week. The food is great, fairly priced and it’s important to me to support our local businesses and economy.”

I pay attention to where I shop, but in a different way. I won’t step into Home Depot, because the company donates almost primarily to the national Republican Party. I refused to donate to George W. Bush’s campaign simply by staining my deck. I shop at Lowes, or our nearby hardware store. I always buy lumber at Fingerle Lumber, or one of the nearby mills. I do it because the lumber at Lowe’s is of an inferior quality, in my opinion, not because I want to support the Fingerle family’s business. I also do it because the customer service at Fingerle is unbeatable. 

I can’t say that for all of our local shops. I am a member of the People’s Food Co-op, but the overall customer service blows. It has been inferior for as long as I’ve been a member—a looooooong time.  I’ve come to conclude that it’s a culture within the organization. Gen Yers in raggedy jeans and dreadlocks don’t think they need to say “thank you,” or “hello.” That was fine in 1980, when Fourth Avenue was Whole Wheat Street. Back then, the Co-op was offering a unique product and experience, but there’s lots of competition for my business now. Kroger has organic produce that puts to shame what the Co-op stocks at higher prices. 

Should I buy local, or buy the best looking organic beets and lettuce at the neighborhood K-Roger? I’m just asking, because I want the Co-op to succeed, but I also have a limited amount of money to spend on food. Should I eat over-priced food at local restaurants just because the restaurant is geographically “local?” Several Main Street and State Street businesses are chains, for instance. Do I eat at Tios, where I find the food not to my liking, or do I get my tacos at Chipotle on State Street, where the ingredients are of a better quality? Do I buy my tea at Starbuck’s on State or Sweetwater’s on Washington? (For the record, it’s Sweetwater’s.)

Berkeley, California’s Office of Economic Development has a Buy Local web page:

Buy Local Berkeley uses the definition for “locally owned and independently operated business” established by Business Alliance for Local Living Economies.

The five qualifying questions are:

My business/organization is privately held (not publicly traded). [Non-profits are considered privately held organizations]

The business owners, totaling greater than fifty percent of the business ownership, live in the 9 county San Francisco Bay (Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma)? [Non-profits: Does 50% or more of your Board of Directors reside in the Bay Area]

My business pays all of its own marketing, rent and other business expenses (without assistance from a corporate headquarters outside the Bay Area).

My business can make independent decisions regarding its name and look, as well as all business practices, purchasing and distribution.

My business is registered in California, with no corporate or national headquarters outside of the Bay Area.

Would most Main Street and State Street Ann Arbor businesses meet the same qualifications that a Berkeley business does to be considered “local?” Ben & Jerry’s on State Street? Nope. Sweetwater’s Cafe on Washington? Absolutely. What About Real Seafood and Gratzi, that are a part of Main Street Ventures, Inc.? How about the restaurants on State Street? Cosi? Chipotle? Under the Berkeley system of identifying local businesses, neither would qualify. The Red Hawk Grill would, though.

I think in Ann Arbor, as opposed to Berkeley, Buy Local means something entirely less radically and honestly local. What if Ann Arbor Restaurant Week were limited to local restaurants that met the qualifications such as those outlined by the Berkeley Office of Economic Development? That would mean making some very hard decisions, and no doubt there would be some very angry “local” business owners. However, if Buy Local is simply a tent where every local business owner is welcome, doesn’t it cease to stand for true support of locally-owned and operated business?

Bob Dascola of the State State Area Association is a strong proponent of local business. He is also a vocal critic of absentee landlords who own our downtown buildings and charge rents that local business owners simply cannot afford to pay. Thus, on Main Street and State Street, we get chain businesses, perhaps owned by locals.

I think in Ann Arbor, the Buy Local trend is better interpreted as “Support Your Local Business Owner.” That keeps all of us, including the Board of the Downtown Development Authority, and local politicos, who should be grappling with these policy questions, from having to address the more complicated issues of what it means for local government to support local business owners. 

What do you think? Would you support political policy and a movement to clearly differentiate between kinds of businesses as the Berkeley Office of Economic Development has done?

Popularity: 18% [?]

January 4, 2010

The Politics of Demographics: Why All The Political Hand-Wringing and Fuss Over Gen Y?

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rate this posting
Rating: 5.0/5 (6 votes cast)

Looking for what is called a reliable voter? Look for a white woman aged 70 and above (a Baby Boomer), according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Looking for the least reliable voter on whom a candidate should think twice about wasting time, money and literature, the voter who goes to the polls with the least frequency? Look for a white woman aged 18-20, a so-called, Millenial (Gen Y) voter. Spending power? Gen Y’s spending power pales in comparison to that of the peak age group. According to data from U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics, the average Gen Y individual spends $25,000 per year, and has an annual household income barely above that, somewhere around $35,000 per year. The big earners and big spenders? Those are people in the 35-45 year-old age bracket, Gen Xers. They pull down salaries that average $70,000-$80,000 dollars per year and pump into the local economy, on average, double what Gen Y individuals part with in a year.  

So why, here in Ann Arbor, have our elected politicos been fibbing, clawing and straining to convince us that we need urban density, light-rail, to all stand on one leg, and bow down to the god Loki to attract and create businesses that will hire and/or retain Gen Y workers? State-level politicos have handed over billions in tax breaks to companies that promise to create so-called “knowledge-based” jobs, such as those 200 or so jobs created by Google here in Ann Arbor, and filled by those “coveted” Gen Y workers. Just to be clear, Google rode into town in 2008 promising to create 1,000 jobs by 2011, but no one talks about that now, especially not the politicians currently running for statewide office. They should be. In fact, state officials should use such failures as casebook studies on the waste of tax subsidies by the state and subsidies from our own local government. 

Just to be clearer, according to a blog entry posted by Concentrate Media in October of 2009 written by a Gen Y Googlette, Gen Y “demands” are few:

  • Monthly rent between $600-$900
  • Close proximity to work and social scene (walking/biking distance)
  • Option to live alone affordably
  • No ‘cookie cutter’ condos – we want places with character
  • Flooring that has not seen the ravages of six years of lost beer pong tournaments

I was charmed by the last “demand.” Then again, beer pong was never my tournament game of choice.

Gen Yers want to live alone affordably. To begin, that $600 monthly rent is very close to what is paid by those occupying what little low income housing Ann Arbor has to offer. If you’re a Gen Xer sitting in your house, you’re muttering something like, “$900 bucks is a house payment….” It is. Just one little problem, our Gen Y writer casts homeownership thusly: “I alternate between the dream of putting in new kitchen counter-tops and the nightmare of realizing that I could have spent six months wandering Buenos Aires for the price of them.”

So go wander South America, say I. I did my wandering; you should do yours, as well. When you come back, be prepared to live in a cramped apartment or find a roomie, get a job that pays $35-$40K and work your way up the ladder. It’s what the Boomers did. It’s what Gen Xers are doing. It’s what that “coveted” Gen Y generation must be prepared to do. But they’re not, and politicos in Ann Arbor, not to mention in Lansing, are encouraging an entire demographic of young people (currently Gen Y is aged 7-24) in their tragic delusions that society needs to provide them low income housing (with character, and good flooring, no less), the ability to live alone affordably, a “social scene” and a job right out their front doors. 

My eldest tot wants to be appointed the president of a company some day, preferably right out of college. I’d like to “discover” a 1957 Thunderbird convertible, red with white interior, in a barn somewhere and get it for $1,000. Alas, some wishes are just that, wishes never to be fulfilled. When the tot works hard and moves up through the ranks, I’m sure the presidency and a corner office will await. When I have a spare $35,000-$45,000, that Thunderbird will be mine. Until then, I drive a more utilitarian vehicle, and the tot continues to dream and scheme.

I encourage the dreams and schemes up to a point, and this I think is where local politicos have lost their hold of reality and are simply grasping at trendy straws and kissing the wrong asses, politically. When the tot waxes on about starting at the top of the corporate ladder, I kindly but firmly point out that, as a rule, one climbs the corporate ladder unless one is prepared to launch one’s own business. Then one must be prepared to work one’s proverbial rear-end off. Thus, when Mayor Hieftje, Council members, and even state-level politicos wring their hands, mewl and puke about retaining and attracting Gen Y workers, I have to admit I am a total loss as to why we want to attract people to our state who vote infrequently, need low income housing, who would rather walk or bike than use public transportation (light rail jumps immediately to mind), and who pump only half the amount yearly into the local and state economy that a worker ten years older does. 

Since John Hieftje has pursued his visionless and perverted folly of urban density over the past decade, the population of Ann Arbor has dipped slightly. We’ve lost residents to the surrounding communities of Saline, Dexter and Chelsea. Truth be told, an influx of thousands of Gen Y workers would generate exponentially less overall local spending and tax revenues than, say, an influx of thousands of 35-45 year-old individuals with or without families. Gen Xers would also bring their established businesses with them as they own 26 percent of all businesses in the United States.

So why aren’t local politicos standing on their heads, staying up nights, devising policies, encouraging development, and city projects tailored to attract Gen Xers to a Ann Arbor? Namely why don’t they disband the LDFA and stop skimming millions from our schools for Ann Arbor SPARK? Why don’t they budget to expand parks and recreational facilities and opportunities? Why don’t they spend money to create an excellent infrastructure? Why don ‘t they make it a priority to fund citizen services as opposed to building Temples to judicial dieties and Necropoli for cars? Why not make Ann Arbor a Gen X magnet city?

Well, first off, that would mean cutting off Council members Stephen Rapundalo and Carsten Hohnke from their positions as crony capitalist enablers from their seats on the Boards of the LDFA and Ann Arbor SPARK, respectively. Politicos hate to cut their cronies and political donors off at the public trough.  

Here’s a suggestion: Let the few Michigan Gen Yers who want to go to the cities that already have jobs and “scenes” right out the front door—the big cities, Chicago, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, New York, L.A. 

Would the local economy collapse? Would Ann Arbor cease to be a “cool” city (whatever the hell that means)? Of course not. Know why?

The truth is that the majority of Michigan’s current Gen Yers won’t just up and leave Michigan if their “demands” remain unmet. Why? There’s one last bit of research you should keep in mind. According to migration research by the Pew Social Trend group, Michigan is the fifth most “stickiest” state in the union. Just behind Wisconsin by a single percentage point, 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.

In reality, focusing political policies, time, money and effort on attracting Gen Y is a waste of political capital for any community that hopes to grow its economy reliably and diversely. Having a large pool of workers who earn, on average, $25,000-$30,000 less than the median income in our city will not expand the tax base. An influx of 5,000 Gen Xers who would buy houses would. Having a large pool of Gen Y workers serves employers, such as Google, who make pie-in-the-sky promises of job creation that give small town politicos like ours campaign bullet points and political hard-ons. Such a labor pool serves start-ups, such as those allegedly “incubated” by Ann Arbor SPARK. Ann Arbor SPARK serves up juicy bullet points for political résumés—just look at 52nd District House wanna-be Republican Mark Ouimet, Rick Snyder and Demublican John Hieftje’s campaign literature and campaign finance disclosure forms. Googlesque schemes give people like 53rd District House wanna-be Ned Staebler and his pals—such as Fifth Ward Council member Carsten Hohnke—at the Michigan Economic Development Corporation jobs doling out billions in tax incentives. Tragically for Michigan’s taxpayers, the MEDC has neglected to track actual number of jobs created and actual returns on billions of dollars of taxpayer investments. At MEDC, the idea, my fellow politicos, is simply to spend the tax dollars; not to spend the tax dollars wisely.

It’s the same principle at work in Ann Arbor and Michigan chasing Gen Yers. The point is to simply attract and retain “young people.” Where are the studies that show Gen Yers are the demographic that best for Ann Arbor to chase? Ironically, our Ann Arbor politicos are chasing a demographic group that, in this recession, according to another study done by the Pew Social Trend group, is moving back home with their parents in record numbers. They’re not moving into “work force” housing proposed by developers such as Alex de Parry with his Heritage Row Apartments development proposed for South Fifth Avenue.

Who knows, maybe the tot will graduate from college and immediately replace Steve Ballmer at Microsoft. Maybe I’ll find that Thunderbird, too. Pipe dreams are always fun, but the fact that our Mayor and City Council majority have wasted almost a decade crafting public policy around the pipe dream of meeting the “demands” of Gen Y has cost our city dearly, and will continue to do so as long as they are allowed to remain in office and play out their own Boomer fantasies of moulding Ann Arbor into little Portland or baby Chicago. 

It’s time for Ann Arbor to embrace it’s identity as a midwestern college town. There are almost exactly as many 15-24 year-olds in Ann Arbor as 25-45 year-olds. It’s the mid-range of that latter demographic, the Gen Xers, who will come, settle, buy houses, pay taxes and vote. We must educate, encourage, support and nurture our native-born Gen Yers so that they’ll want to return home once they’ve sown their wild oats in Buenos Aires, Portland or Chicago. We should embrace the Gen Yers we have as guests in our state while they attend our universities.

However, our Boomer politicos need to start kissing some Gen X ass if they are serious about fostering the economic viability of our city and the economic rebirth of our state.

Got suggestions on how city government could pucker up for Gen X and their families in Ann Arbor? Let’s hear ‘em!

Here’s my suggestion:

How about a coupon for a free rental at any canoe livery in town tucked in with the summer property tax bills?

Popularity: 40% [?]

December 17, 2009

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

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% [?]

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes