AnnArborChronicle.com « A2Politico: Ann Arbor Politics Grilled To Perfection

August 5, 2010

The Politics of the Pen: A2P Changes Format

Filed under: on blogging — Tags: A2Politico, AnnArbor.com, AnnArborChronicle.com, Arborblahg, Craig E. Schubiner, Georgetown Mall, James Leonard, Leigh Greden, Margie Teall, Ryan Stanton, Sy Newhouse — A2 Politico @ 3:54 pm

Rate this posting

Rating: 5.0/5 (5 votes cast)

For over a year now, I’ve been writing A2Politico and having a grand time doing it. I’ve enjoyed the generally civil and always spirited debate and that A2P is a home for those of a variety of political opinions. As I was fond of saying as I campaigned, being the grand poobah of Ann Arbor was not a career move for me. I have a job, and as our company grows and demands more of my time, I have to make decisions about how best to spend it. A2Politico has, on several occasions, scooped the local newspaper and provided the local press with fodder for their lightbulb moments. The most recent was James Leonard’s somewhat retrograde revelation, some eight months after I broke the story, that former Council member Leigh Greden and his merry band of blackmailers had emailed mid-Council meeting and shaped a strategy to extort Prince John into pulling back on his promise to veto the Police-Court facility. The whole scenario made one pine for Aliénor d’Aquitaine.

Leonard writes in the AnnArborChronicle.com, “Emails [between council members] came out that show [mayor John Hieftje] was possibly intimidated into withholding his veto by the majority on city council who composed an email saying if you veto this, we will make it so that you can’t get anything passed,” Lesko told The Ann Arbor Observer in a June interview. “It’s like blackmail, right? Extortion? Which is the word we’re using nowadays?”

Except, of course, the June 2010 interview was seven months after I posted a Whisper about the email exchange, and pieced together the timeline that Leonard diligently copied and passed off as his own work. He did get quotes from Hieftje and Greden, both of whom stressed, while crossing their fingers and hopping on one leg, that Greden’s email was never sent or received. Leonard writes, “However, a look at the actual email makes it clear that the draft cited by Greden in his recent interview was not of text to be sent by email to the mayor. Instead, it was a draft of talking points for a meeting that Greden wrote should take place between councilmembers and the mayor: “Here’s what I propose. We schedule a mtng with him this week. We say the following: …”

Of course the email was never sent to Hieftje. It was a game plan. What fool emails his game plan to the opposition?

Like clockwork, AnnArbor.com and Ryan Stanton picked up Leonard’s revelation of my eight-month-old blog post. It was a classic case of the blind leading the blind—straight into a journalistic ditch. Tires spinning, Stanton’s piece is a copy of a copy of a copy. Welcome to what passes for newsflash investigative reporting in our town. Sy Newhouse is laughing at the people of Ann Arbor every time he pulls out a Ben Franklin to buy a roll of Tums.

Thus, we circle back to A2Politico. I got a call today from a developer who tried to buy the Georgetown Mall. Yep. He and his backers were ready to pay cash for the property and back taxes once it went into foreclosure (which it did, in April, 2010). The new developers were looking to put in an Asian Community Center and shops. However, rather than sell the land for cash and back taxes, since Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County are so flush with dough (yours), they’d prefer taxpayers pay to tear down the buildings at the Georgetown Mall for the current developer. Won’t that be nice for the Baron of Blight, Craig E. Schubiner? Public money will be used to improve the property that he has allowed to deteriorate.

We shouldn’t feel as though Schubiner is stalking Ann Arbor. He’s done the same thing to other communities. Check out this piece from the May 2010 Detroit News that outlines what Schubiner did in Bloomfield Township. It makes the Georgetown fiasco look like unwanted touching. He’s a serial blighter. Just as the Bloomfield Township supervisors could have looked at the Georgetown fiasco in Ann Arbor (Fourth Ward Council member Margie Teall doesn’t like to use the word, fiasco. She prefers something more neutral, such as the Georgetown Mall oopsy-doodle.) Ann Arbor City Council could have taken a gander at Schubiner’s previous development disaster movies and predicted the plot-line for the Georgetown Mall.

A2Politico is, by now, a popular blog with a large devoted following. It even has knock-offs, such as Arborblahg, anonymously written, peppered with profanity and even with a little unintentional parallelism now and again. A local journalist described that blog’s writing to me as, well, bad. I don’t know. Sometimes the blogger is clever, but then again 100 monkeys can crank out Shakespeare, right? Knock-offs are for people who can’t afford the original or without enough good taste the recognize the difference between kick ass prose, and writing that strains so hard to kiss ass that you just want to help the writer pucker up and get it over with already. Kids who copy from the smart kids are nothing new. Kids who copy from the kids who copy from the smart kids are the ones, my friend the psychologist tells me, seldom have an original neurosis in their head.

Attention knock-off artists: A2Politico will continue on, but with a new format. A trio of writers will take over the blog. All will post anonymously. I’ll have the option of posting, if I like, but will do so only sporadically. Those who want to send whispers and tips, should continue to do so using the link provided. Comments, as always, are welcome. Copycats are welcome, as well, as are knock-off artists, and local journalists for whom original thinking is more challenging than it should be.

The new format will be September 1st.

Popularity: 35% [?]

Comments (17)

April 25, 2010

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

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% [?]

Comments (11)

April 14, 2010

The Politics of Parking: Revenue Enhancement Versus Turnover, the Cage Match

Filed under: Mayor Hieftje, city council, city services, money, taxes — Tags: A2Politico, AnnArbor.com, AnnArborChronicle.com, Bureau of Labor Statistics, David Jesse, Downtown Development Authority, John Mouat, John Splitt, Main Street Area Association, Matt Horning, Newcombe Clark, Northside Community Center, parking, parking enforcement, parking fines, Rich Rodriguez, Roger Fraser, Sandi Smith, Tina Reed, Tony Lupo, Wines School — A2 Politico @ 5:56 am

Rate this posting

Rating: 5.0/5 (7 votes cast)

At the Ward 1 meeting, the room at the Northside Community Center was bright, cheery and not nearly filled to the capacity it is when needly neighborhood residents come out twice weekly to pick up food from the pantry located there. On AnnArbor.com, reporters David Jesse and Tina Reed continued on with what I consider some of the most important reporting being done locally. It’s a series titled: “Ann Arbor’s Hidden Poor.” Jesse and Reed have been reporting on the “hidden poor” in Ann Arbor intermittently for several months now. As a rule, their pieces don’t attract the number of comments say, a piece about the real estate woes of U of M coach Rich Rodriguez would, but that could be because people are simply at a loss for words when it comes to realizing that there are, yes, poor people struggling to feed their children, keep their homes, jobs and dignity in one of the most prosperous cities in Michigan.

In the course of walking door-to-door over the past few days in the modest neighborhoods around Wines School, I saw empty houses and talked with residents who were struggling to pay their property taxes thanks to lost jobs. There was an AAPS teacher unsure whether she and her son would be in Ann Arbor next year thanks to cuts proposed in the upcoming AAPS budget. She pieces together a full-time salary from several part-time jobs. The modest neighborhood through which I walked is beloved by its residents, but the edges of the cohesion are beginning to fray.

According to Money Magazine, between 2000-2008, our city lost almost 9.25 percent of its total jobs. Unemployment rose from 7.4 percent in February of 2009, to 8.9 percent in February of 2010, according to labor force data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In February of 2007, there were 8,847 people unemployed in Ann Arbor. By February of 2010, that number rose to 16,202 individuals, again according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. There are thousands and thousands of Ann Arbor residents struggling with job loss, job retraining, family income declines, and holding on to their dignity by a thread.

In the 2009 Money Magazine list of the top 100 places to live in the United States, Ann Arbor didn’t crack the top 100. Interestingly, Saline (68), Tecumseh (93) and Plymouth Township (28) did. Compared to the top 10 cities that Money Magazine selected as the best places to live, Ann Arbor fell short in several categories. The median price of a house in Ann Arbor was pegged at $206,707 and the average property tax bill totaled $4,641, a full $1,000 per year higher than in number 1, 2 & 3 cities on the list. Both property crime and personal crime rates were well above those reported, on average, in the top 100 cities that made the list. Ann Arbor has significantly fewer restaurants, bars, movie theaters, libraries than the average reported by the top 100 cities. This last statistic was the most interesting. The median age of a resident in Ann Arbor was listed as 29.2 years old. Within the top 10 towns singled out by the magazine as the best places to live, the media age of residents was between 34.9 years old and 40.9 years old.

All this being said, and with the caveat that I am a data junkie in my day job (higher education policy and publishing), it’s good to remember that magazines publish features such as these to sell advertising, single copies and subscriptions. Issues such as this 2009 list of the top 100 best places to live is meant to appeal to those looking to relocate obviously (in truth, a smaller and smaller percentage of Americans than ever before, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau).

At an early-April meeting of the First Ward Democrats, I listened as First Ward Council member and Downtown Development Authority Board member Sandi Smith told neighbors in attendance that the proposed extension of downtown parking meter enforcement until 9 p.m. had nothing to do with revenue enhancement; it was all about increasing “turnover” at downtown parking meters. The politically damaging discussion initiated in December of 2009 based squarely on the idea that extending meter enforcement hours was necessary to generate more money, has morphed into a parking “plan” that revolves around seven “strategies” not a single one of which, by some miracle, mentions increasing revenues.

The first stated “strategy”: Downtown curbside public parking should be managed to create turnover at the most convenient, commercial locations so these spaces can be more easily used by a large pool of downtown users.

Just in case you temporarily lost your ability to see through a blizzard of a snow job, increased turnover is meant to lead to enhanced revenue generation. Furthermore, City Council foisted off the dirty job of coming up with the brightly packaged gift of increased turnover to benefit Ann Arborites who want to park at a meter, on the Downtown Development Authority, a Board of political appointees, along with Sandi Smith and Mayor Hieftje (elected officials). Keep in mind that those same two elected officials, as members of the DDA, voted to approve the DDA’s new parking plan that calls for extending parking meter enforcement hours until 9 p.m. to increase “turnover.” On April 19th, Smith and Hieftje will walk into City Hall, and on behalf of the citizens who elected them, evaluate the merits of their own plan which they already approved over at the DDA.

Feeling taken for a ride? You should, but for heaven’s sake don’t park in downtown Ann Arbor. Several of the “strategies” put forth in the DDA’s new report focused on “managing parking” revolve around making it ever so much easier to pay the parking tickets you’ll get. How about paying right at any of the snazzy $15,000 solar-powered parking kiosks where you put your money in to park? In 2008, the city of Baltimore bought 280 of the same kiosks, but paid $8,600 per kiosk.

In December of 2009, Smith brought forth a resolution to City Council to keep the City from dealing parking on the DDA’s turf, as it were. City Administrator Roger Fraser had proposed installing meters in city neighborhoods in the First, Fifth and Third Wards to generate revenues. Smith’s resolution proposed extending downtown meter enforcement from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m., and giving the revenues from the old YMCA lot (Fifth and William) to the city. In exchange, the DDA’s monopolistic control over parking would remain intact.

I wrote about the resolution proposed by Smith in December of 2009 here. On December 21, 2009 I wrote:

There are 1,750 curbside meters. Click here to see a map of DDA meter coverage that includes the Council/DDA fantasy projection (in green) of extending parking meters outside of the DDA area into our neighborhoods. In May of 2009, when Council members and Roger Fraser came up with the bright idea to proliferate parking meters, the Ann Arbor News editorialized that the move “smacked of desperation and poor public policy.” On January 3, 2010, AnnArbor.com editorialized that, “…expanding metered parking hours into the evening to bring in $380,000 a year (and even the DDA is skeptical that much money would be generated) is a risky proposition that could backfire. It could ultimately cost the city more in lost tax revenue if it pushes even just a few more merchants to shut down because of lost business.”

On April 19th, the DDA’s parking report (parking hikes dressed up as a favor to Ann Arbor residents tired of having low-paid restaurant workers, bartenders and diswashers take up the city’s 1,700 parking meters) will be presented to Council for its approval. The AnnArborChronicle.com reports that,

“At the DDA board’s joint transportation and operations committee meeting the previous Wednesday, March 31, 2010, committee members hashed through a number of issues related to the parking report. Those ranged from presentational issues to more substantive questions. Among the presentational issues was the question of whether to include parking rates in the body of the report or put them in an appendix. Putting actual numbers in the body of the report, suggested Newcombe Clark, would make the report immediately dated. Transportation committee chair John Mouat suggested putting the numbers in an appendix. Board chair John Splitt feared that if they did not include the numbers for rates, they would lose control of the discussion: ‘They’re real numbers, why not put them in there?’ The rates will be included in an appendix.”

Is it any wonder the parking rate information is being stashed in the index? Talk of parking rates and money, you see, is so far removed from the DDA’s report on parking so as to make the report appear innocuous, at worst.

In talking with Main Street merchants, it’s pretty clear that they see this proposed meter enforcement extension as an attack on the viability of their businesses. Commenting on behalf of the Main Street Area Association (MSAA) Tony Lupo told the DDA Board that the MSAA had participated in the DDA’s process for soliciting feedback on the parking report. Lupo said that there was overwhelming opposition to extending the meter enforcement hours. However, he allowed that the MSAA understood the context under which extended hours were being considered—the city’s need for revenue.

On April 12th, city staff member Sue McCormick, the city’s public services area administrator, stood before Council and advised them to raise water and sewer rates because Ann Arbor’s $1.40 cost per 1,000 gallons of water and $4.02 cost per 1,000 gallons of wastewater placed the city at second lowest in the state, according to a report McCormick prepared. No matter that Ms. McCormick’s Water and Sewer Fund is already sitting on a multi-million dollar surplus, and that the current budget as proposed has multi-million dollar surpluses built into the allocations proposed for several departments under her direct control:

Stormwater Sewer System — $400,000 budgeted surplus (proposed)
Water Supply System — $2.52 million dollar budgeted surplus (proposed)
Sewage Disposal System — $2.9 million dollar budgeted surplus (proposed)

Our water rates are low, the logic goes among Ann Arbor city staff, so they need to be raised. Our parking fine structure hasn’t been revisited in five years, so went the logic of Roger Fraser and City Treasurer Matt Horning, in November of 2009, so we needed to “revisit” and raise the parking fines (after I questioned in an A2Politico entry the logic behind the need to “revisit” parking fines and the validity of the data in Fraser and Horning’s “study” presented to support their proposal, the idea was dropped). Now, parking “turnover” has suddenly become a problem, so we need to revisit the enforcement hours of metered parking. This kind of logic employed by city staff, and the DDA Board members, unchecked and unquestioned by City Council, simply leads to public policy decisions formulated and based on the supposition that the taxpayers exist to support city government above all else.

Some city has to have low parking fine rates and water charges, right? Evidently, according to our city staff, it sure as heck can’t be Ann Arbor. They need their accumulated and budgeted surpluses and additional revenue from parking.

The DDA’s sham report should be recognized for what it is: a power grab and snow job based on the purely anecdotal stories of DDA Board members like Smith who tell us because the mix of businesses as changed over the past 25 years from retail to restaurant, more blue collar workers are parking at the meters long-term for “free.” Purportedly, the idea behind extended enforcement hours is to move more people who are parking at meters long-term after 6 p.m. into the structures.

It won’t happen. Why?

Since Smith brings up parking meter use from 25 years ago (1984), I thought I might dig up a little data from the era. Data from a 1987 (Ann Arbor had 102,000 residents then) multi-day, observational study done by a University of Michigan researcher found that street occupancy hovered between 95-98 percent day and night. Furthermore, (and interestingly) the study concluded that metered parking was not impacted by the availability of off-street (garage) parking. The average stay was 42 minutes at a 2-hour meter. In 1987, the researcher concludes that:

“One of the major goals of on-street parking meters is to provide short-term parking at a short walking distance close to the final trip destination (i.e., for shopping, personal errand, etc.). As the length of stay becomes shorter, more drivers can utilize this premium limited space, which is so vital to bringing patrons to downtown. Tables 5 and 6 indicate that the average stay was of 41.5 minutes (standard diviation. Also, the median of 40.0 minutes was close in magnitude to the mean. Based on this measure, one has to conclude that the meters seem to do what they were designed for, to provide curb, short-term.”

Translation: People will circle like vultures for on street parking even if there are 5,000,000 open spaces in the parking garages. It’s the animal instinct— flight, flight or circle for parking. Garage parking signifies a long-term commitment, like an engagement ring. People don’t use meters long-term. They park near their destination for short term periods. At least they did in 1987. Have 25 years, a different mix of businesses, and 10,000 more residents completely changed the parking behavior of people in A2?

It’s time to stop treating Ann Arbor residents like their cash cows, and accepting city staff/DDA proposed fee increases on the flawed logic that Ann Arbor simply can’t have lower charges for services, hourly parking, parking fines, and fees for services and facilities than other communities. Why can’t we? Evidently, because the City Administrator believes, and City Council supports the policy that the DDA, Sue McCormick and other city staff need not only money for operating expenses, but mad money budget surpluses—tens of millions of tax dollars stuffed into the mattresses that are the DDA, Fleet, Water & Sewer and Solid Waste Funds.

Oh, and can I please see a show of hands from those who have little trouble finding a place to park downtown at meters after 6 p.m., and who are tired of being treated like golden geese?

Mine’s up.

Popularity: 54% [?]

Comments (13)

March 24, 2010

The Politics of Singing and Dancing: Eli Cooper’s $14 Million Dollar Variety Show

Filed under: city council, taxes, transportation — Tags: A2Politico, AATA, Amtrak, AnnArborChronicle.com, Eli Cooper, Henry Ford Museum, Jayne Miller, Jim Kosteva, John Hieftje, Leigh Greden, Park Advisory Commission, Roger W. Fraser, SEMCOG, Stephen Rapundalo, Sue F. McCormick, trains, Wolverine Service — A2 Politico @ 11:56 am

Rate this posting

Rating: 4.7/5 (9 votes cast)

By now, if you haven’t already read it, SEMCOG announced that there is no money for commuter train service between Ann Arbor and Detroit. The transportation cognoscenti around town have been saying this for the past 16 months. So why no cash for the commuter line? According to a March 19, 2010 piece in Crain’s Business Weekly, “A $100 million federal transportation funding earmark for the project was made in 2005, but studies show the route’s cost-per-rider ratio of more than $70 remains too high for SEMCOG to qualify for the money.”

Read that last sentence again. The cost-per-rider ratio of a commuter train between Ann Arbor and Detroit is more than $70. Put another way, it would be cheaper to hop on a Southwest Air flight, to well, any one of a dozen destinations. There are just not enough people who would ride a commuter to make the cost-per-rider costs reasonable enough for the project to qualify for available federal funding.

According to Crain’s, “The hope has been that the demonstration line would encourage additional ridership, and linking the route to a proposed regional mass transit system of bus and train routes would boost usage and bring down the cost so that SEMCOG can get the federal funding.”

The result? No new target date for the daily service has been set.

The only trains that will run will be operated by the company that has been running an east-west train service between Ann Arbor and Detroit for 40 years: Amtrak. Heck, you can hop on the Ann Arbor-Detroit Amtrak train today, if you like. It will take about an hour to get to the Detroit train station, located at 11 West Baltimore Avenue, near the Cass Corridor, and about a mile from the Wayne State University campus and the DIA.

Since the demise of commuter rail, the new idea is “special” trains. For instance, there will be a special train between Ann Arbor and Detroit for the Thanksgiving Day Parade. If you’ve never been, go, but drive your car, because the train station is, literally, miles from the parade route. There’s always loads of free on-street parking within one block of the parade. Hit Lucy & Ethels diner, located at 400 Bagley Street, for lunch after the festivities.

We’ll see you there.

There will also be “special” trains for University of Michigan football games. In other words, Amtrak will schedule service to coincide with Michigan’s home football games. We need a new train station for that? I think not. We need to be exponentially more concerned with how AATA is going to haul the people who take the trains to the games to Michigan Stadium from the Amtrak station. At the moment, Michigan Stadium is not a choice on the AATA Trip Planner page, and “Stadiums” is not an option in the drop down menu. Those are easily remedied issues, of course.

However, there are other more complicated issues associated with “special” trains bringing people to U of M football games: AATA. Buses in our city currently run infrequently on the weekends, and Saturday service ends early. Unless every Michigan fan who takes the “special” train to Ann Arbor and then takes an AATA bus to the Stadium is charged enough to cover the actual operating expenses incurred by AATA for the service, Ann Arbor taxpayers who pay the AATA’s millage, will be subsidizing the University of Michigan as it earns tens of million of dollars in football revenues each Saturday.

One solution would be for U of M to assess a transportation fee on the tickets it sells to football games and give that money to AATA. It’s either that, or the University of Michigan should use its own buses to transport its football fans to and from its stadium and the train station on Depot Street. I would argue that it’s a stretch to ask taxpayers to provide train service to the football games of one university in the entire state of Michigan.

At the March 16th Park Advisory Commission (PAC) meeting, a commission member asked the city’s Transportation Program Director, Eli Cooper, a very important question: Is the Fuller Transportation Station a transportation center or a parking structure? “I believe it’s a little of both,” Cooper said. Cooper went on to explain that “the project began as a transportation center then turned into a parking structure to meet the short-term need—while at the same time proving to potential partners, such as the federal government, that Ann Arbor is serious about commuter rail.”

Seriously? Public servants serious about representing the best interests of their constituents don’t allow city staff to throw away tax money, give away parkland, or cut police and fire service to build the University of Michigan a parking garage for its “short-term need.” Because that’s the “short-term need” to which Cooper is referring—the University of Michigan’s growing need for more parking for its employees.

So, why are our elected officials still allowing city staff to steam down the tracks and spend money on the “multi-phase” Fuller Transportation Station? The “joint” venture with the University of Michigan looks suspiciously like the scrawny kid (Ann Arbor) being taken for $14 million dollars in lunch money by the neighborhood smooth talker (U of M). The latest plans for the transportation station shown at the PAC meeting include exactly one edifice: a parking garage to be used by the University of Michigan.

At the March 16th PAC meeting, Eli Cooper explained exactly why he needs $14 million dollars the city doesn’t have to build a train station that we don’t need, and for which SEMCOG has made clear commuter trains will never stop. Cooper was quoted in the AnnArborChronicle.com as telling the city’s PAC members that:

…Amtrak anticipates doubling its ridership in the next 25 years. That’s not including potential commuter or high-speed rail. Right now, the Ann Arbor station, located on Depot Street, has 75 long-term parking spots. Their current location won’t accommodate future growth, Cooper said. He noted that the Ann Arbor station is the second busiest one on the Chicago-Detroit route – only downtown Chicago is busier. The Fuller Road Station is also intended to be an alternative for driving to the Detroit Metro airport, Cooper said. And though the Fuller Road Station didn’t get chosen in the latest round of federal funding, the project was approved, he noted – the feds just ran out of money.

First of all, Cooper’s explanation directly contradicts the March 19, 2010 Crain’s Business Weekly coverage that cited the cost-per-rider ratio as the reason the Ann Arbor to Detroit commuter project was turned down for federal funds. Next, in January 2010, the federal government awarded $40 million dollars to Amtrak to renovate two of their stations on the Detroit-Chicago route. Read about the allocations here. The Ann Arbor station was not selected; stations in Battle Creek, Dearborn and Troy will get money for the kind of expansions that Eli Cooper, Mayor and City Council are demanding that Ann Arbor taxpayers foot the bill for. The $40 million dollar federal allocation includes building a new train station, as well—just not in Ann Arbor, but rather near the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn.

Evidently, the federal government is not prepared to spend money for a new train station in Ann Arbor despite Cooper’s assertion that Amtrak needs one “because Amtrak anticipates doubling ridership in the next 25 years.” Perhaps this is because there are people in the federal government who are perfectly aware that Cooper’s assertions are patently absurd. In Michigan, specifically, on the Detroit-Chicago route, Amtrak officials do not expect ridership will double. Amtrak has not experienced ridership growth over the past three years. In fact, between 2007 and 2009, ridership of the Wolverine Service route between Detroit and Chicago dropped by 7.1 percent, according to ridership and revenue data from Amtrak provided to Trains Magazine and which the magazine published on November 20, 2009. Revenues on the Wolverine route dropped 7.8 percent ($1.4 million dollars) during the same period. Between 2008-2009, Amtrak lost 1.6 million riders costing the company a total of $140,000,000 in revenue.

So I ask, once again, why are Ann Arbor taxpayers being asked to pay the University of Michigan to build a parking garage on public-owned land that overlooks the Huron River? According to Eli Cooper it’s a multi-million dollar gamble to prove we’re “serious” about a commuter line between Detroit and Ann Arbor.

Let me tell you what I’m serious about: holding city staff accountable for their work and the taxpayer money they want to spend. The city needs to withdraw from the “joint” partnership immediately, and refund all of the money taken from the General Fund for the Phase I concept plan. I’m serious about putting an immediate stop to the use of any more taxpayer money for the construction of a 1,020 car parking garage for the University of Michigan on valuable river-front property owned by the people of Ann Arbor.

On November 5, 2009, former Third Ward Council member Leigh Greden, Mayor John Hieftje and Second Ward Council member Stephen Rapundalo presented Council with the Resolution to Approve Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan for the Development of the Fuller Road Station. See a video of the Council’s discussion of the MOU here. You will hear U of M’s spokesman Jim Kosteva tell Council that the parking garage for the University of Michigan is a “city-owned project.” The one-sided MOU was prepared by Eli Cooper, reviewed by Sue F. McCormick, Public Services Administrator and Jayne Miller, Community Services Administrator, and approved by Roger W. Fraser, City Administrator.

Our city officials landed none of the money they went before Council and said could be landed for commuter rail. Michigan received none of the $8 billion dollars in federal stimulus money for high speed rail between Detroit and Chicago. Does that mean we never will? Of course not. Does it mean we should give away parkland and spend millions to build U of M a parking garage to “prove” we’re “serious” about commuter rail? Wisconsin was awarded $810 million to upgrade and refurbish train stations and install safety equipment on the Madison-to-Milwaukee leg of a line that stretches from Minneapolis to Chicago. Elected officials in neither Madison nor Milwaukee spent a dime proving that their cities were “serious,” about rail prior to receiving the federal funds.

The Fuller Transportation is not a collaboration between Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan; it’s a giveaway of public land and public money to an entity that has already amassed over 1,700 acres of land in our city, and pays just a fraction of what it should for the city services it receives now. The MOU is a poorly negotiated, one-sided agreement supported by Greden, Hieftje and Rapundalo, and then unanimously approved by Council.

The MOU should have never been approved at all. Now that it’s clear that those citizen activists who said many months ago that there was no money to operate a commuter train were absolutely correct, it’s time for Council to step up and represent the best interests of the people of Ann Arbor. Those interests are in no way best represented by participating in a one-sided arrangement that seeks to give away our prime river front land and our money to our university neighbor.

If this is a “city-owned” project, as U of M’s Jim Kosteva said at the November 5, 2009 City Council meeting, City Council, by refusing to approve further funding and construction will, effectively, kill it.

Popularity: 49% [?]

Comments (18)

February 14, 2010

The Politics of Assumptions: Maybe Money Does Grow On Trees

Filed under: city services, developers, money, police — Tags: 15th District Court, A2Politico, AnnArborChronicle.com, Carsten Hohnke, Patricia Lesko, Police-Court facilty, Ryan Stanton, Tom Crawford — A2 Politico @ 6:11 pm

Rate this posting

Rating: 4.8/5 (4 votes cast)

I was never a fan of the new Police/Court facility. I thought it unwise to spend $47 million dollars in the midst of an economic meltdown rather than to renovate the old facility, and find new leased facilities for the 15th District Court (who, it was claimed, had to move from their space leased from the County). I toured the police facilities in 2008, and was appalled at the condition of the space in which the police were expected to work. Why hadn’t their space been renovated years ago? Why couldn’t city officials just find another rented space for the judges? For that matter, why couldn’t they re-up the lease on the current space occupied by the 15th District Court?

There is ongoing debate about whether County officials were willing to allow the 15th District Court to remain in its rented digs. There are Council members who swear that there was an opportunity to extend the $750,000 per year lease. There are others who swear that the lease simply could not be extended and that to have done so would have been a waste of money.

All of that is moot now.

The bottom line is that we are building a new 103,000 square foot Police-Court facility.

Now we’ll take a commercial break for a short review:

June 2008: Council approves bonds to build 103,000 square foot Police-Court facility. Public is assured by Mayor, staff, and Council members that the construction project will not impact city budget or services. Project is presented as fully funded.

May 2009: City Administrator, City CFO and City Council Budget and Labor Committee (Greden, Teall, Higgins, Hieftje, Rapundalo) present 2009 budget to Council for its approval. Budget projects a structural deficit, and 1-3 percent declines in revenues “for the foreseeable future.”

July 2009: As a necessity to balance the budget, 25 police officers retire early at a cost of $6 million dollars to taxpayers.

February 2010: CFO Tom Crawford tells AnnArbor.com that, “The premise of this thing [the Police-Court building] was we needed to build this within the resources we had. Now we’ve got less resources coming to the city than we had then, but we didn’t know that.”

In a February 14, 2010 piece about the Police-Court building project by AnnArbor.com’s Ryan Stanton, the City Administrator is quoted thusly:

“Fraser acknowledged the project budget is dependent on $3 million from the sale of city property at First and Washington – a deal that has stalled because the developer, Village Green, has had trouble coming up with financing. Fraser said the city continues to operate under the assumption that the sale eventually will happen.”

Then, we have the City’s CFO who, in June of 2008, allegedly had no idea the economy was tanking. In his February 2010 piece, Stanton quotes CFO Tom Crawford as explaining that, “The premise of this thing was we needed to build this within the resources we had. Now we’ve got less resources coming to the city than we had then, but we didn’t know that.”

To the extent that his explanation can be understood, I find it incredible that he would fall back on “We didn’t know that.” The 2009 budget had a statement on page 2 of the Administrator’s Budget Message that says, “Despite efforts to contain and reduce expenses, the city is still facing a structural deficit. For the foreseeable future, we will continue to experience 1-3% revenue shortfalls.” That Budget Message is dated July 2, 2008. Of course our City’s CFO and Administrator knew the city would have less money coming in. The two of them projected decreased revenues in the budget they worked to prepare months before Council voted to issue the bonds to build the Police-Court facility.

In February of 2009, according to a piece posted to the AnnArborChronicle.com, during a City Council meeting, Fifth Ward Council member Carsten Hohnke asked CFO Crawford this question: “Will the funding of the building come from a reduction in services? Crawford’s Answer: Over the last five years, the city has become more efficient and the building’s funding comes from savings through efficiency, and through debt services with existing cash flow.”

Audited financial statements from the City’s web site show that between 2006 and 2009, the cost of running city government increased by 35 percent, or $34 million dollars. The city had not become “more efficient,” as Crawford claimed, and the Police-Court building’s funding was coming from savings accumulated from service cuts and hikes in fees rather than efficiency. Between 2004-2009, for example, funding for culture and recreation fell from $10 million per year to $5 million per year. The cost to provide solid waste services rose 40 percent.

The construction project remains, in essence, $3 million dollars short until that First and Washington parcel sells. That’s about 6.5 percent of the $47.4 million dollar total price tag. So what’s the plan to replace the $3 million should the sale not ”eventually happen?” ”Value engineering” is a slick term for cutting construction expenses on the fly. Is there a plan to replace the $3 million that really has no impact on the city budget or services? If there’s not, there should be.

In addition, there are some hard questions that need to be asked about how financial information about this project was presented to Council and taxpayers. Why? First of all, Mayor and Council are legally obligated by the City Charter to hold the City Administrator accountable in the performance of his job. In addition, the next time we undertake a large capital project, and city staff make assurances to Council and taxpayers that the project won’t impact services, those assurances need to be absolutely true and backed up by accurate financial data. Lastly, to have the city’s CFO claim in the Press in 2010 that, in essence, he didn’t know the City would be bringing in less revenue is simply shocking. He presented a budget in July of 2009 that projected reduced revenues. His 2010 comment brings up some disturbing questions about the quality of the financial data prepared and presented by the CFO to Council and the public.

What our city staff need to focus on is a $3.3 million dollar “value engineering” plan that has a drop dead date by which the plan will be implemented. To simply plow ahead and spend money that we don’t have under the “assumption” that a parcel of land appraised for $3 million dollars 18 months ago will sell, is yet another emergency “budget shortfall” waiting to happen. Furthermore, it’s folly to imagine that the parcel is still worth $3 million dollars.

While we can’t get back the $47 million dollars budgeted for this project. We can “value engineer” the project down by $3.3 million dollars, so that if the First and Washington parcel doesn’t sell, or doesn’t sell for $3 million dollars, our city services won’t be impacted by any shortfall. We can also take away from this experience the clear understanding that city staff must be held to much higher standards, and be expected to present financial data that are absolutely accurate. Otherwise, Council members and taxpayers can’t make informed decisions about how best to spend the money we have, or the money we borrow.

Popularity: 31% [?]

Comments (10)

February 2, 2010

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

Filed under: boards and commissions — Tags: AnnArborChronicle.com, Christopher Easthope, Doug Cowherd, Eric Lipson, Great Lakes Environmental Law Center, Greenbelt Advisory Commission, Jeff Irwin, Jennifer Santi Hall, Kim Groome, Leigh Greden, Marcia Higgins, Mayor Hieftje, Noah Hall, Planning Commission, Rene Greff, Steve Kunselman, Tim Colenback, Tom Crawford — A2 Politico @ 9:59 am

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% [?]

Comments (11)

February 1, 2010

Weekend Poll: Mayor Hieftje “Considers” A Run…For the Mayor’s Office. Again. Will He Get Your Vote?

Filed under: Mayor Hieftje, campaigns, weekend poll — Tags: 52nd District House seat, A2Politico, AnnArborChronicle.com, Judy McGovern, Mayor John Hieftje, Ned Staebler, weekend poll — A2 Politico @ 8:04 am

Rate this posting

Rating: 4.8/5 (5 votes cast)

I’m reposting this poll in light of the Mayor’s recent celebrated performance in front of the Ann Arbor Rowing Community on January 28th. Can I just say, “I told you so?” He’s out of his little Burns Park bubble and running for re-election. He’s glad-handing all over town. What follows is a piece I wrote in October 2009. Below that is a poll posted in October. At the moment, A2 politicos who’ve voted are looking to see the end of Mayor Hieftje’s reign, so cast your own vote. Maybe for you, he’s the only person for job.

In September, free-lancer Judy McGovern caught up with Mayor Hieftje in the course of her coverage of the state legislative candidates. In a piece posted to AnnArborChronicle.com on September 12th, McGovern writes:

Ann Arbor Mayor John Hieftje says he’s been asked whether he was interested in either the Senate race or the chance to run for the House seat being vacated by Warren.

Although he said in 2008 that the mayoral race could be his last, Hieftje seems less ready to leave the job today. “Things are very difficult for local government in Michigan and I feel a responsibility,” he says.

Pursuing the Senate seat would presumably present a challenge for the five-term mayor, who would run up against out-county voters and their views of Ann Arbor liberalism.

Hieftje told McGovern he would decide by the end of October.

In early-October, Ned Staebler threw his hat into the ring for the 53rd (tip o’ the keyboard to David Cahill) District House seat, and held a pricey fundraiser right in the Mayor’s backyard. Many of those whom the Mayor would have had to count on to support any bid he would make for the seat turned up on the guest list for Staebler’s fundraiser. I wrote about Staebler’s posturing in Ives Woods event here.

So, John Hieftje being, well, John Hieftje, the Mayor never announced anything about a run for state office in October. Then again, he didn’t specify by which October he would decide. It’s entirely possible that in October of 2010, Ann Arbor’s Mayor will issue a press release to alert everyone that he’s decided against running for the 53rd District House seat.

As it turns out, Mayor Hieftje did issue a press release of sorts. He mentioned to a local politico on whom he could rely to leak the convo to at least 30,000 other people that Hizzoner is definitely not running for the 53rd District seat but “is considering” another run for the Mayor’s office. To say that John Hieftje “is considering” another run for the Mayor’s office is somewhat like hearing that Representative John Dingell “is considering” another run for the United States House of Representatives. Does either of them really have any other job?

Thus Mayor Hieftje provides A2Politico with some fodder for the Weekend Poll. When he does run again, will you vote for him again (presuming you did the last time), or has Mayor John Hieftje worn out his welcome?

Popularity: 48% [?]

Comments (17)

January 25, 2010

The Politics Of Email “Revelations”: Taking A MacBook To A Knife Fight

Filed under: Sabra Briere, city council, developers, politicians — Tags: A2Politico, AnnArborChronicle.com, Jesse Bernstein, Karen Sidney, Lady Gaga, LocalAnnArbor, Marcia Higgins, Mayor Hieftje, Michigan Open Meetings Act, Mike Anglin, Pam Byrnes, Rene Greff, Roger Fraser, Sabra Briere, Stephen Postema, Stephen Rapundalo, Steve Kunselman, Vivienne Armentrout — A2 Politico @ 8:00 am

Rate this posting

Rating: 4.6/5 (5 votes cast)

Ann Arbor is bleeding money.

Since 2006, the cost of running our city government has increased $33 million dollars, or 35 percent. We have fewer police and firefighters than we did in 2005, but pay $13 million dollars per year more than we did in 2005 for the dregs of the emergency services Mayor Hieftje and Roger Fraser haven’t “streamlined” yet. We’re stocking up on water buckets at our house. We’ll toss water at the fire until the two fire boys in the truck get here.

There are some people who have been trying to get this message out to the general public for several years now. Want some insider baseball? Of course you do. Why else are you frittering away time on this blog, right?

The once-derided political “conspiracy theorists” in Ann Arbor have the cred now, and the politicians are scrambling to pick up the broken shards of their integrity before the summer campaigning season is upon us. The AnnArborChronicle.com photo of political activist Karen Sidney chatting it up with State Senate wanna-be Pam Byrnes says it all. In a May of 2009 piece, the Ann Arbor News political writer Judy McGovern described Sydney as “a regular critic of City Council.” Read: crackpot complainer.

Sydney

Photo by David Askins, AnnArborChronicle.com

One short month later, in June 2009, thanks to a FOIA of Council emails, readers of the Ann Arbor News discovered that there was a conspiracy. There were vote-rigging, scripted debates, time spent on Facebook and planning judicial campaigns in the middle of City Council meetings.

Unfortunately some people never learn. Our local politicos are trying to defend their integrity by using the same old strategies they used before Ann Arborites read in June and July 2009 in front page stories in the Ann Arbor News about emails between Council members during open meetings that were, well, less than professional and, a pending lawsuit alleges, illegal under the auspices of the Michigan Open Meetings Act. Our Mayor and Council members are rationalizing, dissembling, and ignoring mounting citizen concerns and criticisms of the process under the auspices of which the Library Lot RFP proposals have been evaluated. That’s always the best way to inspire confidence. Even the newspaper weighed in with an editorial in which the writer hoped the RFP process would be “open and honest.”

It is a serious allegation to say that city officials colluded with a developer. It is equally serious to allege that city officials conducted a sham RFP process to develop the Library Lot parcel in order to cover up the collusion. First Ward Council member Sabra Briere recently circulated an email containing “clarifying information” to a select group of people hoping, of course, the email would be forwarded. In that email, she makes allegations that well before there was talk of issuing an RFP to solicit proposals to built atop the 1.2 acre Library Lot parcel, Mayor Hieftje, former Chamber of Commerce Jesse Bernstein and City Administrator Roger Fraser, settled on the idea that Ann Arbor needed a convention center.

Here’s a sad truth: she compounded the problem for citizens concerned about the transparency and honesty of the RFP process, not to mention the propensity of our elected officials to sneak around. Briere chose the worst possible medium for disseminating her allegations—an email sent to 120 people. There are 96,000 registered voters in Ann Arbor. She disseminated her “clarifying” information in such a way that allows those whose actions and motives she questions, to continue on, unfettered. The email leaves Briere free to throw up her hands and say, “But I told everyone what I knew!”

Feeling used and manipulated yet?

Briere did little except launch an email shitzu storm. Elected officials with integrity, and who believe they have allegations of wrong-doing, launch investigations. Yes, it would have been Briere’s word against the words of the Mayor, Bernstein and Fraser. However, that’s why the FBI has been showing up in towns across the U.S. (including cities in Michigan) to objectively investigate allegations of corruption in local government. This is from the FBI web site:

Does the FBI investigate graft and corruption in local government and in state and local police departments?

Yes. The FBI uses applicable federal laws, including the Hobbs Act, to investigate violations by public officials in federal, state, and local governments. A public official is any person elected, appointed, employed, or otherwise has a duty to maintain honest and faithful public service. Most violations occur when the official asks, demands, solicits, accepts, receives, or agrees to receive something of value in return for influence in the performance of an official act. The categories of public corruption investigated by the FBI include legislative, judicial, regulatory, contractual, and law enforcement.

There’s even a list of hotlines on the FBI web site that citizens can call to discuss their concerns about allegations of corruption on the part of local politicos.

People who have commented on the post in which I simply reproduced Briere’s email seem to have taken exception to the fact that I couldn’t seem to find the good in Briere’s release of the “information.”

Is it me? What information?

You can read Briere’s email here. She also shared it with AnnArbor.com. So far, none of those whom Briere fingers in her email have come forward to refute her claims. My guess is that none of them will. Why should they? They don’t have to say a word, and the train will just steam on down the track.

It would have been infinitely better for everyone if City Council member Sabra Briere had brought up her issues at a public City Council meeting. Those about whom she writes in her email would have, I’m sure, had something to say about the allegations had they been made during an open meeting. Then, the public and law enforcement agencies would have had a videotaped record.

Right now, what we have is an email from Briere sent to a limited group of about 120 people on her email list alleging, well, that Chamber of Commerce President Jesse Bernstein was upset because he thought the Valiant Group’s proposal should be fast-tracked. Briere writes, “At our meeting, Bernstein said he felt betrayed. He said that Valiant’s proposal for a conference center was a consensus project, and that it was not fair that Valiant should have to jump through all of these hoops.” Jesse Bernstein is free to feel betrayed about anything. Heck, he can feel betrayed because Lady Gaga won’t write a song for him and perform at his next birthday party, or because the democratic process slows down those with the belief that they know what’s best for everyone else. I think the term for people who find the democratic process way too inconvenient is “French aristocrat,” but I’ll have to check with one of my therapist friends. The real term may be something like “delusions of grandeur.”

Briere then alleges a June 14th meeting with Mayor Hieftje about which she writes, the Mayor “…loaned me a copy of a proposal titled ‘Ann Arbor Town Center’ from Valiant Partners LLD, dated May, 2009. On its cover was a green and white sticky note stating ‘Thanks, John. This is pretty interesting. Sandi.’”

Well, boychics, Briere ain’t got bubkas, so say the nice ladies at the Maj games going on around town. How my mother phrased it was slightly more prosaic: “She ain’t got diddly squat.” What we have, again, is Council member Briere’s word in an email against the Mayor’s, and no green and white sticky note, or copy of the proposal he gave to her.

Had she kept the proposal the Mayor gave her, and gone to the Press with it, or showed up at the next City Council meeting with it and asked just what in the name of Boss Tweed was going on with circulating such a proposal to City Council members from a group for a development project two months before the actual RFP was issued, we would be having a much different discussion in our city at this moment. One comment from my original post on the subject of Briere’s “clarifying” email was: “While I wish Council Member Briere had disclosed this information sooner, I believe the article focuses too much attention on that delay rather than on the content of her message. While it is perplexing why she might have held this information so long, it is wildly outrageous that others may have engaged in assisting one of the RFP developers over the last couple of years….Please provide more coverage of the misdeeds of those who seem to have made up their minds on building a conference center before releasing the RFP.”

Alas, timing is everything in this situation. It’s Briere’s delay that is the issue because the delay allowed those who were sneaking around behind the public’s back to keep doing so without being exposed or challenged by a member of the governing body on which they all sit. The public can come and speak before Council until we’re blue in the face (and regularly do), but it’s another matter entirely to have a member of City Council go on the record, in public, with the concerns that Briere chose to circulate via email to the people who will donate to her next campaign, or potentially vote for her in her next election.

It’s Sabra Briere’s delay and the way in which she “leaked” out her “clarifying information” that weakens the effectiveness of any coverage of the misdeeds of those who seem to have their minds made up on building a conference center before releasing the RFP.

I pieced together chain of repeated contact between RFP Advisory Committee members and the Valiant Group’s partners from FOIAed emails. The post is circumstantial evidence that city officials worked diligently to help the Valiant Group prepare its proposal, because it was the Valiant Group’s proposal City Administrator Roger Fraser, Chamber of Commerce former president Jesse Bernstein and Mayor John Hieftje wanted to have built—perhaps the three even promised the partners of the Valiant Group that their proposal would be built. LocalAnnArbor blogger Vivienne Armentrout has written on the RFP subject, and has provided what amounts to more circumstantial evidence that the RFP process was rigged. Armentrout writes about the Valiant Group as having had the “inside track.”

Sabra Briere, as her email shows quite clearly, had access to the people involved, and information circulated, that no regular citizen had. She chose to keep quiet because, one might posit, in June she was concerned with protecting her own political hide. Why? Because the deadline for filing petitions to run in the August 2009 City Council race was June 22, 2009. Briere ran unopposed from the Mayor’s camp. He showed her the proposal she mentions in her email on June 14, 2009.

So why send her “clarifying information” email in January 2010, an email that hangs Hieftje, Smith, Fraser and Bernstein (currently on the AATA Board) out to dry? My guess is that either Briere is entertaining the notion of running for Mayor, or that it has finally become clear to her that playing along with the Council majority will get her little, politically. Perhaps she has realized that she has alienated a growing section of her political base. Thus, Sabra Briere has, once again, become the Council member “concerned” enough about possible collusion, and alleged back-room deals to “expose” them. Sabra Briere wants her peeps to know she is not a part of the “Council cabal,” as former DDA Board member Rene Greff described Mayor Hieftje, Margie Teall, Fourth Ward Council member Marcia Higgins and Second Ward Council member Stephen Rapundalo in an interview with A2Politico.

I have to wonder if Sabra Briere shared her the information in her “clarifying information” email with any Council members other than Stephen Rapundalo in January 2010, some seven months after she was shown the Valiant Group’s proposal with a note that, purportedly, shows that Sandi Smith had been shown the proposal, as well. Did she talk to Third Ward’s Steve Kunselman or Ward Five’s Mike Anglin about the information in her “clarifying information” email?

Did Sabra Briere take her concerns to City Attorney Stephen Postema and ask for a written opinion on the legality of the Mayor showing around the Valiant Group’s Proposal to Council members months prior to issuance of the public RFP, and months before she could, potentially, be expected to vote on a proposal from the same group?

Sabra Briere’s “clarifying information” email did little for me except bring up a slew of discomforting questions. Furthermore, unless those named in her email are challenged directly during an open Council meeting by Council members with the cajones to do it, we can all look forward to business as usual: Mayor and Council will continue to run hell bent for leather to commit taxpayers to several more major multi-million dollar construction projects our city call ill-afford before August comes and, perhaps, people go to the polls with a “throw the bums out” mentality.

Popularity: 34% [?]

Comments (8)

January 21, 2010

How Cheaply Can A Councilmember Be Bought Off?

Filed under: campaigns, politicians, politics — Tags: A2Politico, Amanda Maxwell, AnnArborChronicle.com, Christopher Taylor, Leslie Morris, Liz Brater, Richard F. Winters, Sabra Briere, Steve Kunselman, Vivienne Armentrout — A2 Politico @ 2:14 pm

Rate this posting

Rating: 5.0/5 (6 votes cast)

We live in a small town. There are about 56,000 adult, non-student residents in Ann Arbor. That’s a relatively small political gene pool. I know of someone who won’t run for City Council simply because the Council member against whom he would have to run is his neighbor.

If you’re A2P, you think, “So what? May the best neighbor win.” However, we’re also midwesterners. Nice midwesterners. Well, mostly. There are some Council members, including the one referenced above, whom an investigative piece published in the Ann Arbor News last June showed to be well, not so nice.

In a comment on another post, local blogger and former county Board politico Vivienne Armentrout suggests that it’s absurd to think a local politico can be bought off for $100. Former City Council member Leslie Morris writes over at AnnArborChronicle.com (where there was a rousing discussion of a post about First Ward Council member Sabra Briere on A2Politico) that local politicos can’t be bought off for $500.

Morris writes: “The notion that an Ann Arbor city council member could be bought (or even alter a vote or position) for a $500 campaign contribution is ludicrous, insulting and demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the way our local political process operates. I spent six years on city council, worked on many campaigns for local office, and attended city council meetings as a citizen for years. During that time I observed (and participated in) many serious fights over controversial development projects, budget decisions, etc. As strange as it may seem to a naive and suspicious observer, the various participants in these fights actually believe in the positions they take, and are convinced that their opponents are wrong. City council members sacrifice huge amounts of their time, and considerable amounts of money to do their jobs. I have disagreed vehemently with many of them on numerous issues. I have even disliked some of them. But the thought that even a single one of them (including the ones I disagree with or dislike) could be bought for $500 is just plain silly.”

But that Leslie Morris and Armentrout were right. The truth is that Ann Arbor politicos can be impressed with miniscule amounts of money and opportunities to rub elbows with fat cat developers, state-level politicos, and the titled royalty who inhabit the University of Michigan. In our small town, it’s more about moving up the social pecking order than actual graft.

First off, let’s define by what we mean as “bought off.” Does this mean that the politico in question votes in favor of a particular project, or votes in favor of throwing city work to a particular individual? Does it mean that the politicos give political favors to their donors? Yes. Yes. And yes. Are we talking Blago-sized portions? Nope. I’m willing to bet the ranch that no one in local elected office is selling anything for $50,000 servings of greenbacks.

Third Ward’s Steve Kunselman ran for re-election to office on “ethics” and bringing back integrity to City Council. He has been in office since November, and the only guy singing and dancing about ethics is Third Ward Council member Christopher Taylor. I sent Kunselman an email asking where he is on his campaign promise to bring integrity back to Council. His answer?

“I ran. Chris championed. We’re meeting.”

Does that answer mean Steve Kunselman considers ethics and integrity little more than convenient friends while campaigning? I hope not. It’s not good enough for him to say he ran on the issues and Chris Taylor is the one who will “champion” ethics. As I’ve written before, Chris Taylor has absolutely no standing to champion ethics for his colleagues on Council. Furthermore, these are the same people who simply broke every rule they wanted to before being caught by FOIAed emails. They won’t adhere to an ethics policy; it’s clear the veteran Council members believed for years, literally, they were above common sense, common courtesy, common decency, Open Meetings Act laws and their own Council rules already in place.

Council’s self-appointed ethics expert (thanks to his experience as an entertainment and intellectual property attorney, and his experience getting fingered by the Ann Arbor News in June of 2009 for, well, behaving rather unethically during City Council meetings) demonstrated more hubris than ethical behavior. So where’s Council member Kunselman on ethics? Voters have come to expect empty promises, but it is particularly dangerous to run on ethics, get elected, and then go mute on the subject.

Lord knows the Mayor isn’t going to bring up ethics anytime soon. He’s too busy cashing his checks from the Univeristy of Michigan. It could be argued that the University of Michigan saves millions every year by giving the Mayor and his wife jobs that pay, in total, under $40,000 per year, almost equal to the salary paid to the Mayor by the city. The Mayor has pointed out that current Michigan State Senator Liz Brater worked for U of M when she was mayor of Ann Arbor. As my mother might have said to Hieftje, “Yeah, well, and if Liz Brater jumped off a cliff, would you jump, too?” It was just as unethical for Brater to cozy up to U of M as it is for our Mayor. At least Brater had a beard—her husband, Enoch, a tenured professor. Universities routinely hand out lecturer jobs to the spouses of tenured faculty. In the case of Mayor Hieftje, he has neither the tenured spouse nor the academic qualifications to teach graduate school at Michigan. So why is he there? Because he’s the Mayor of Ann Arbor, and it benefits the university of have our myaor in their pocket.

Luckily for local developers, and others who come to town to build, not to mention the University of Michigan, our local politicos are cheap dates. Small-town, small-plan, small-potato politicos who are happy with burger and fries-sized “donations” from people who make hundreds of boatloads of money off development deals.

Dr. Mary Sue Coleman, with her doctorate in playing hardball with our Mayor and City Council, has said that voluntary payments to the city in lieu of the millions in property taxes her non-profit doesn’t have to pay, just ain’t never gonna happen. (Coleman, of course, didn’t use the words “ain’t” or “gonna.”) Thus, for the Mayor with a B.A., a chance to teach at the University and pretend to be a “professor,” the chance to rub elbows with Deans and other titled nobility at U of M, and $16,000 a year is enough to co-opt him. The results of this relationship between our Mayor and the University? As opposed to negotiating with the university in the best interests of citizens, he recently gave U of M parkland on which to build a parking desk near U of M hospital. He even offered up $14 million dollars to help U of M build the parking garage. Ann Arbor citizens will not, however, be allowed to park in it “at first,” according to a a news piece about the parkland giveaway.

For Marcia Higgins, a $2,500 donation from the Firefighter’s PAC, while she chairs the Committee that negotiates labor contracts, doesn’t ring any ethical fire bells for her. However, that $2,500 donation was a huge amount of money in a campaign where the average donation was $50-$100. In Higgins’s campaign that PAC donation represented 40 percent of the total money she raised. In an Ann Arbor race, a $1,000 donation from a PAC is as close to feeling like a big-time player as any of our local politicos are ever going to get.

Interestingly, the Firefighter’s PAC stiffed Marcia Higgins this past August when she ran for re-election in a contested race, and soon thereafter found themselves threatened with layoffs, and subsequently forced to swallow a steep pay cut in exchange for a six month breather. Come June, the firefighters will find themselves once again the target of lay-offs or further reductions in salary and benefits. I’ll be watching their PAC donations closely this summer during campaigning season.

Add to this the interesting fact that Ann Arbor fits the profile developed by two researchers from Dartmouth of places where political corruption flourishes in the United States. Authors Amanda Maxwell and Richard F. Winters write in their paper “Political Corruption in America” that cities, “with well-informed and highly participant political cultures have lower rates of corruption.” In Ann Arbor’s last August primary election, fewer than 10 percent of registered voters went to the polls city-wide.

Of course, fitting a profile doesn’t mean there is political corruption. On the other hand, watching the Library Lot RFP twist & shout currently going on makes it hard to give Mayor and Council the benefit of the doubt. One of the six bidders had an 18-month head start and opportunities to pitch their “concept” in private to our Council members prior to the March 2009 vote to create the RFP to solicit proposals for the 1.2 acre Library Lot site. I wrote about the bidder’s contact with city staff and Council members here.

Perhaps what Ann Arbor suffers from most is advanced Cronyism. As I written before, the Mayor collected 35 percent of his campaign donations the last time he ran from those whom he’d appointed to the city’s many boards and commissions. In Illinois, that’s referred to as pay-to-play, but in Ann Arbor the amounts are so ridiculously low that to label it corruption seems a misuse of the term.

As always, I’d be interested to know what other A2 politicos out there think about the subject.

Popularity: 24% [?]

Comments (10)

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: A2Politico, AnnArborChronicle.com, Barbara Levin Bergman, Conan Smith, Jeff Irwin, Kristin Judge, Leah Gunn, Marie Joseph Eugène Sue, Robert Guenzel, Ways and Means Committee — A2 Politico @ 8:00 am

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% [?]

Comments (7)

Older Posts »

A2Politico: Ann Arbor Politics Grilled To Perfection

August 5, 2010

The Politics of the Pen: A2P Changes Format

April 25, 2010

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

April 14, 2010

The Politics of Parking: Revenue Enhancement Versus Turnover, the Cage Match

March 24, 2010

The Politics of Singing and Dancing: Eli Cooper’s $14 Million Dollar Variety Show

February 14, 2010

The Politics of Assumptions: Maybe Money Does Grow On Trees

February 2, 2010

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

February 1, 2010

Weekend Poll: Mayor Hieftje “Considers” A Run…For the Mayor’s Office. Again. Will He Get Your Vote?

January 25, 2010

The Politics Of Email “Revelations”: Taking A MacBook To A Knife Fight

January 21, 2010

How Cheaply Can A Councilmember Be Bought Off?

January 10, 2010

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

Look for new A2P blog entries on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays.

A2Politico.com has a Facebook fan page.

The A2Politico Tip Jar Is Open