A2Politico: Ann Arbor Politics Grilled To Perfection

March 24, 2010

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

Filed under: city council, taxes, transportation — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — A2 Politico @ 11:56 am
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
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% [?]

February 23, 2010

The Politics of Transportation: Getting Serious About Non-Motorized Transportation (With a Poll)

Filed under: transportation — Tags: , , , , , , , — A2 Politico @ 11:12 pm
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rate this posting
Rating: 5.0/5 (4 votes cast)

I know. I know. We live 45 minutes (in light traffic) from the Motor City. Cartown. Cars as status symbols. Cars as sex symbols. Cars are King, and non-motorized transportation is perceived by some as the Court Jester. It’s perceived as the mooching in-laws by others. Money for bike lanes? Money to plow walking paths through parks? That’s money that could be spent, well, on making the commute just that much easier for those who travel by car. 

We’re a long way from the Netherlands in more ways than one. There, 27 percent of all trips are made by bike and walking. In the United States, just one percent of all trips are made by bike and on foot. 

We’re a one car family; maybe yours is, too. We have four bikes and those bikes act, in essence, as our second car between April and November. We take the bus regularly, and walk, as well. As a rule, we drive fewer than 6,000 miles per year. We’re not nearly as virtuous as, say, our friends Chris and Lori, who moved to New York and left their car behind in Ann Arbor. However, it has been six years since we sold our second car and decided to make do with one. 

I have been a commuter bicyclist since I was in my 20s and living in Rome, Italy. I saved up my money and bought myself a spiffy red Olmo touring bike, complete with the requisite bell to which tourists in Rome never seemed to pay any attention. There, from April through December, I biked all over the Eternal City. In winter, I resorted to the dreaded bus/subway system. Oh, the system worked just fine. I preferred to bike because it was faster. On the bus or subway, it took 40 minutes from, say, the Vatican, where I taught, to the nearest Metro stop near my apartment. On my bike, I could zip home in half the time. 

Anti-pollution politics rule in Rome now, in place of the Caesars, so the percentage of trips made by bike is on the rise. The city has about 100 miles of on road bike lanes, an additional 33 (20 miles) kilometers of bicycle lanes are designed, and 30 (18 miles) kilometers more are planned. In September of 2009, the Italian Ministry of the Environment allocated 7.6 million Euro ($10 million dollars) as incentive money for individuals to buy bikes. As a result of the program, 70,000 new bicycles are expected to be sold in Italy over the coming year. 

I was talking to a Sierra Club leader, and he described the relationship between the non-motorized community and the City as similar to the relationship between an abused spouse and her/his abuser. The Ann Arbor non-motorized transportation community is glad for the crumbs of attention and financial support it’s given. I’m not sure I agree completely, because I have read posts to the Washtenaw Walking and Biking Coalition listserv in which members have expressed frustration at what they consider the meager financial and political support of non-motorized transportation. Others take the tack that something is better than nothing. Meanwhile, elected officials boast about increases in on road bike lanes by talking percentages. They run campaigns on the awards Ann Arbor has won for being a “bike friendly” community. We’re a “bike friendly” community, but are we a community with a plan and a political commitment to non-motorized transportation? Yes and no.

Let’s start with awards: some such awards to cities are handed out just for filling in the paperwork, others are truly prestigious and represent a win in the face of stiff competition. Awards recognize the hard work of our city staff, not the genius of our local politicos. The real measure of success however, is the daily use of Ann Arbor’s non-motorized transportation system by the people who live and work in our city. Right now, Ann Arbor has 42 miles of bike lanes, and according to data from the City, 2.4  percent of all trips downtown are made by biking and 16.5 percent by walking. That puts us just ahead of Bloomington, Indiana (2.8 percent and 15 percent, respectively), but well behind Berkeley, Cambridge and Iowa City. Over the past decade, about 3 miles of bike lanes have been added per year. In Boulder, there are currently 300 miles of bike lanes. New York City’s Bicycle Master Plan includes 900 miles of bike lanes. 

In Ann Arbor we’ve had a “Build it and they will bike,” strategy. However, the percentage of trips made downtown by bike and on foot has remained relatively unchanged for several years. Why? Because merely charging staff to build bike lanes and walking paths up the sides of major roads leading to downtown doesn’t guarantee people will use them. It’s a strategy based on miles of lanes. Because of chronic underfunding and regressive political policies, those few miles of lanes often quickly become unusable thanks to faded guard lines, garbage cart placement, leaf collection politicies, and snow removal issues. We need to couple the investment in miles of bike lanes with a political commitment to non-motorized transportation policy. This means setting measurable goals that are, well, actually measured and followed up on by Mayor and Council.

In this video (go to mark 17:54) from the City’s web site, we can see the City’s Transportation Manager, Eli Cooper, being (for lack of a better term) raked over the coals by Fourth Ward Council member Marcia Higgns. Higgins, frustrated, at the lack of progress on implementing aspects of the city’s non-motorized transportation plan, wants to know why little has been accomplished in four years. Good question.  

Our city has a plan. It’s had one since 2007. That year, a group of citizens and city staff formulated the 200 page City of Ann Arbor Non-Motorized Transportation Plan.

This comes from the “Vision” section of the Plan: “It is further envisioned that this environment will result in a greater number of individuals freely choosing alternative transportation modes (walking, bicycling, mass transit, etc.), which will lead to healthier lifestyles, improved air and water quality, and a safer, more sustainable transportation system.”

Walking. Bicycling. Mass Transit. 

Mass transit is, of course, motorized. So what’s it doing in the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan? Good question. The answer may help us understand why many of the goals relating to our non-motorized transportation plan have gone uunmet. A look at the percentage and amount of money devoted to non-motorized transportation should give us another clue. This comes from the 2007 City of Ann Arbor Non-Motorized Transportation Plan: 

“The City Council passed a Resolution –R-216-5-04, which includes the annual dedication of 5% of the City’s funds received under Public Act 51, Michigan Transportation Fund (MTF) dollars, toward completing a system of non-motorized routes. This amounted to approximately $350,000 per year out of the total $7 million dollar earmark in 2004-2005. The funds allow for supporting maintenance activities, planning and design of capital improvements and as resources for direct investment in new facilities.”

Five percent is a token amount, not a serious commitment to implementing the recommendations of the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan. So what is the present state of the bicycling environment in Ann Arbor according to our own Non-motorized Transportation Plan? This comes from page 152 of the 2007 report:

“The approach to handling bicycles in the City is inconsistent and incomplete. In older areas of town there are some isolated bike lanes, in newer parts of town bicycles are expected to use sidewalk bikeways. Even together, the on-road and off-road facilities do not make for a complete system and transfers between on-road and off-road facilities are not logical or convenient. In short, there is no cohesive system.”

What to do? First, stop simply throwing money at non-motorized transportation just so that politicos can have bullet points on their résumés and photo ops. Page 167 of the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan lists several strategies which would increase walking and biking downtown, and help Ann Arbor work toward some concrete, if you’ll pardon the pun, and very important environmental goals.

Mass transit should not be included in our non-motorized transportation plan. There is certainly synergy between mass transit and non-motorized transportation, but so long as mass transit is included as a part of our City’s Non-Motorized Transportation Plan, it will continue to be allocated exponentially more staff time and funding. Having a non-motorized plan since 2007, the bulk of the recommendations of which have been ignored, is playing politics with transportation policy and what ought to be a very clear commitment to the environment. I’d like to see us, as a community, work seriously to meet the goals set forth in the 2007 Non-Motorized Transportation Plan.  

Those who crafted the Plan write that they’re unsure why people ultimately refuse to bike in our downtown area. Researchers in the Netherlands have answered that question definitively: bikers of all ages have to feel safe, and both bikers and drivers must be educated about sharing the road. 

Ann Arbor may have won an award as a bike “friendly” community in 2006, but between 2007-2010, we’ve done little but coast on our two-wheel laurels. It’s time to get serious about non-motorized transportation. Let’s increase the funding, but tie the increase to benchmarks which must be met, measurable increases in trips made downtown by bike and walking. Let’s launch a sustained initiative that focuses on education and safety for bikers of all ages. Let’s challenge and inspire city staff to meet the goals set forth in the 2007 Non-Motorized Transportation Plan of increasing from 2.4 percent to 6 percent the total number of trips downtown made by bike.  

Let’s work to become a city of actual bikers and walkers, and not just a place where politicos brag about awards given by people who don’t ride our roads, but rather sift through piles of neatly written applications.

 

 

 

In Summer, what keeps you from biking downtown? This is a multiple choice poll. You may choose as many of the options as apply. If you do or don’t bike downtown, I’d be interested in hearing your opinions on non-motorized transportation in Ann Arbor. Is this a public policy we should fund and pursue more aggressively in your opinion? 

Popularity: 32% [?]

February 8, 2010

The Politics of Priorities: Firefighters, Police or Capital Improvements?

Filed under: money — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , — A2 Politico @ 10:13 pm
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rate this posting
Rating: 5.0/5 (11 votes cast)

On Sunday February 7, 2010, citizens read in AnnArbor.com that our City’s General Fund is projected to come up $5.2 million dollars short due to falling property tax revenue. The bulk of the cuts proposed to close the fiscal gap will impact public safety. City officials informed taxpayers that, “On the chopping block are 20 positions in the Fire Department and 17 in the Police Department.”

Cutting emergency and other citizen services is an absolutely unacceptable and unnecessary solution to closing this projected gap in the budget. We should also remember that since 2003 City Administrator Roger Fraser has repeatedly predicted there will be losses in the General Fund, and when the actual numbers have come in, the city’s General Fund has registered surpluses. The only exception was 2009, when Fraser projected a $10.4 million dollar General Fund deficit related to the early retirement of 27 police officers, and the cost of the police/courts building. That projected loss was inflated by $2 million dollars. Such consistent inflation of losses brings into question the budgeting processes used, as well as the fiscal assumptions relied upon by the City Administrator when making budget predictions. This is a serious issue that needs to be resolved. Projecting loses

I have over 20 years of experience in finance as the CEO of a national higher education publishing group headquartered in Ann Arbor. I’ve studied the City’s budget, its audited financial statements, as well the Budget Impact document released to City Council members on Friday February 5th. There’s an obvious alternative to cutting services in order to close that budget gap.

Cut Capital Improvement Projects NOT Police and Firefighters

The City’s Economic Development Fund is slated to contribute over $5 million dollars for the Fuller Intermodal Trasportation Station (FITS). Thus far, the only source of revenue for the Economic Development Fund has been a $2.1 million dollar transfer from the General Fund. The City’s General Fund pays for our emergency services. FITS was described in the Ann Arbor Observer by the city’s Transportation Director, Eli Cooper, and by the Mayor, as a gamble. I’m not a gambling woman when the safety of our citizens and the jobs of our police and firefighters are on the line. At the moment, FITS is a proposed 1,000 car parking garage for U of M, bus stop, and parking for a few bikes. Our city doesn’t have the cash on hand to partner with the University on the FITS project. It’s irresponsible to lay off police and firefighters so that millions can be diverted from the General Fund to the Economic Development Fund to pay for a parking garage for U of M employees and visitors. The remaining money in the Economic Development Fund should be transferred back to the General Fund. 

When the current administration approved the police/court facility bonds in 2008, Ann Arborites were assured the projected expenditure wouldn’t impact the delivery of services. Today, thanks to the city’s inability to sell a parcel of land included in the project’s financing package, the project faces a $3 million dollar shortfall. In 2009, Ann Arbor lost 27 police officers through $6.7 million dollar early retirement offer—some of our most experienced police officers. It’s time to economize significantly, wherever possible, on the design, finishes and furnishings of the police/court facility, and to look for additional savings on that project. In addition, the downtown library underground garage project should be suspended. It represents an absolutely unnecessary capital expenditure.

In the recently released 2008-2013 Capital Improvements Plan, the plan calls for cuts to improvements in parks, street repair and the sanitary sewer system, and a $5 million dollar increase to alternative transportation, the FITS project. It’s called robbing Peter  to built the FITS for the University of Michigan.

We have 187 miles of roads that are classified as in poor condition. The Stadium bridges are, literally, falling down. Because the repairs of the bridges were put off, our city lost $750,000 in federal funding, and now must use its road repair money on the bridge. 

Here’s how we can clean up this mistake.

I’m in favor of halting the Library Lot underground parking garage project. According to officials from the SEC, those Library Lot bonds may be repurposed. We could, then, use half  of the Library Lot bonds to reconstruct the Stadium bridges. We could then invest the remaining bond money in Treasury bills for the mandatory five year waiting period before the bonds could be repaid early. There will be a penalty for early repayment ($4-$8 million dollars). The Downtown Development Authority has $14 million dollars, collectively, in its Parking and DDA Funds. The penalty not covered by the interest earned over the five years the bond money was invested in T-bills, would be made up by taking the money from the DDA’s funds. Taxpayers would save, approximately, $50 million dollars over 30 years.

The Stadium bridges would be reconstructed. Our street millage money would, then, be freed up to repair our crumbling streets.

Popularity: 39% [?]

January 6, 2010

A2Politico Grillin’ the Media: The Ann Arbor Observer and “A Leap of Faith”

Filed under: journalism, political reporting, transportation — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — A2 Politico @ 5:51 pm
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rate this posting
Rating: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast)

Let me preface by saying that I read the Ann Arbor Observer cover-to-cover every month. I have done so for more years than it’s anyone’s business to know. I believe the AAO sits in a unique position in our community as a monthly publication with the time and page count to delve into and investigate what can be complicated issues, particularly political issues. It’s a journalistic Grande Dame navigating the dark, dangerous alley of periodical publication. As someone commented to me recently, the issues keep getting thinner. I know the company has been forced to lay-off staff to make ends meet, and fortunately did not make a move to new digs that might have spelled financial ruin. Publisher Patricia Garcia and Editor John Hilton, who own the monthly tabloid, bought it from the Hunts, who founded it. It is my sincere hope that Hilton and Garcia will have an asset to pass on when they are ready to retire. They’ve worked hard and deserve to reap some financial reward.

Now, all that being said, the political reporting in the January 2010 issue was something I might pull from the lint trap on my dryer. David Askins gets better results from free-lance political-reporter-about-town Judy McGovern, I think, because with one sorry exception about which I wrote here, the AnnArborChronicle.com sticks to, well, chronicling information and events. I read McGovern’s piece for the January 2010 Ann Arbor Observer, titled “Leap of Faith,” and thought I saw a faint trace of lipstick on the page where Mayor Hieftje and city transportation czar Eli Cooper got big editorial smooches—instead of having to answer probing questions about some very serious transportation decisions. 

First of all, the piece skims right over the unprecedented gift of parkland by our City Council members to the University of Michigan for an 800 space parking garage. Don’t you feel generous? If the land had been sold to the University, Mayor Hieftje and Council would have been forced to bring the question before the citizens for a vote. But the Charter amendment Hieftje crafted several years ago to “protect” parkland from being sold without the permission of residents says nothing about just giving it away or leasing our parkland. Now you know why. Feeling tricked yet? You should. The omission regarding the giveaway and leasing of parkland was absolutely deliberate. McGovern skips right over the gift of the public parkland to U of M, and moves right into swallowing the explanation of elected and city officials as to why taxpayers should not only give the University of Michigan parkland, but also pay $14 million tax dollars toward building a parking garage for the university’s employees to park in. 

The $14 million contribution is from a city whose elected leaders are “struggling” to keep from closing public pools and senior centers. It’s a $14 million dollar gamble by a City Council that last year cut two dozen police, and this year pink-slipped 14 firefighters. It’s a $14 million dollar crap shoot from a City Council that has repeatedly voted to backdoor tax residents by hiking water and sewer rates. The “gamble” was described by McGovern as a “bet that parking cars is the key to improved train travel.” Eli Cooper, transportation manger for the city described the millions as a “down payment to lure additional transportation investment.” Since when do Ann Arbor taxpayers give land to the University and pay to build parking garages for the billion-dollar free-loaders on State Street? That’s not fiscal collaboration; it’s a scene devised by the Marquis de Sade, and our Mayor and Council are the firm bottoms ready to be whipped by the dominatrix at her mansion on South University.

Mayor Hieftje told McGovern no money for the project would come from the General Fund. Do you remember when he told us building the Fifth Avenue Temple to the judicial goddesses—currently $3 million over budget—would result in no cuts to services and would cost no more than the amount of the bonds borrowed by the city? Do you remember when last ran for re-election and said it was ridiculous to believe candidates who alleged that there was a cabal controlling things on Council, and that there were secret back room political deals being made by that cabal of Council members? Pardon me if I doubt Mayor Hieftje’s assurances concerning the safety of the taxpayers’ money in the general fund from his model train fetish. We’ve got our very own King John on the throne, and his Fair Fraser of Nottingham. 

Interestingly, James Kosteva, U of M’s director of stiff-arming, buddying up to, and above all pacifying Ann Arbor City Council was quoted as saying, “At Fuller we have 20,000 workers within a quarter-mile of their destinations—the medical center and Wall Street.”

According to the article “thousands” of U of M employees live along the commuter train corridor. This past summer, City Administration Roger Fraser presented a “study” to Council that claimed 70,000 people commute into Ann Arbor daily to justify putting a city income tax on the ballot. While campaigning against Leigh Greden, Third Ward’s Steve Kunselman asked where the city got its data? Kunselman then pointed out that the “study” contained no source for the figure of 70,000 commuters descending on Ann Arbor daily. McGovern didn’t bother to ask Kosteva exactly how the University had determined that “thousands” of its employees live along the proposed train corridor, or how University officials know those same people would be inclined to take a train to work. For that matter, does Madam Minerva, Dean of Prognostication at U of M, use her crystal ball to figure out who’ll be employed at U of M in the future, and where they will live?

Then there was the Mayor’s blowsy assurance that funding light-rail was “right up AATA’s alley.” Judy McGovern didn’t pause, journalistically, for a second. She might have asked the Mayor how funding trains is right up AATA’s alley when only 51 percent of Washtenaw County residents surveyed said they would support a 1 mill regional transportation tax for AATA to administer regional transportation, including light-rail. 

The only thing that’s right up AATA’s alley is Hieftje, the Grand Poobah of New Urbanism’s grandiose scheme to bring light-rail to Ann Arbor to encourage growth.

The scheme is little more than ass backwards transportation policy, and a waste of Ann Arbor’s taxpayer money. Even my tot knows that when playing the computer game Sim City, one never invests in a train system until one’s simulated city has reached a critical mass of Sim (simulated) citizens. What Hieftje and Cooper are trying to sell us are Sim employees at the University of Michigan who may or may not live along the Sim train corridor.

The Ann Arbor Observer gave us Sim coverage of the giveaway of public park land and the potential throw-away of $14 million in public tax dollars on bicycle parking and a gamble. Judy McGovern didn’t question the gamble or the leap of faith in any way. Writing with religious reverence about a prayer and a crap shoot that a parking garage will attract future funding for light-rail transportation, was a disservice to the Observer’s readers, who deserve more objective and critical coverage of such issues. What we don’t need is more Sim coverage of what may be turning into yet another very real and expensive political boondoggle.

A2 Related Poll: On October 16th, I posted a poll. If you’d like to see the results thus far and vote in the poll, visit the link: Weekend Poll: Should Mayor John Give Dame Mary Sue Parkland at Fuller Park For Her Parking Garage?

Popularity: 22% [?]

November 2, 2009

Cyclist Run Down: Hieftje & Hohnke Still Not Looking Both Ways

Filed under: city council, transportation — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , — A2 Politico @ 7:00 am
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rate this posting
Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)

I happened to be watching the June 15, 2009 City Council meeting at which Mayor Hieftje and Fifth Ward City Council member Carsten Hohnke introduced a resolution for “Support for Non-motorized Safety Education Outreach Campaign.” I’m a cyclist, and share the road with care and respect with my neighbors who drive to work beside the on-road bike path I use on a regular basis. It’s an imperfect relationship. On garbage days, garbage carts block the on-road bike path. At the moment, there are mountains of leaves in the on-road bike path I use, so I find myself having to go out into the road, into traffic. I’m an experienced cyclist who rode for several years in traffic in a major capitol city—traffic one could only describe as chaotic. 

You know what, though? Those drivers were some of the most careful and respectful of cyclists I’ve encountered in all of the places where I’ve ridden a bicycle. Here in Ann Arbor, I’ve been hit once, many, many years ago when I was a college student. The driver paid for the bike to be repaired, as well as my medical bills. In all the time since, I’ve not had any problems sharing the road. Well, let me qualify that. On football Saturdays, when there are out-of-towners more concerned with navigating the city’s one-way streets and finding a parking spot than anything else, I am particularly mindful when biking in traffic downtown.

So on June 15th, I was delighted to listen to the Mayor pat himself on the back (usually his cloying, self-congratulatory speeches that preface his introductions of his own resolutions make me irritable), then introduce a resolution of “Support for a Non-motorized Safety Education Outreach Campaign.” Fifth Ward Council member Carsten Hohnke got a bullet point for his political résumé by riding in the Mayor’s bicycle baby carrier and co-sponsoring the resolution. 

The resolution to support a nonmotorized safety education outreach campaign had actually been brought forward first at the previous City Council meeting by Eli Cooper. Cooper manages Ann Arbor’s transportation program. The Bullet Point Brothers (Hieftje and Hohnke) simply gave Cooper a helping hand, then basked in the political afterglow of a good old resolution romp. The resolution provided city staff with “guidance” on how to spend the $10,000 allocated to the safety outreach program that came from the alternative transportation fund created, in turn, from Act 51 funds. Cooper stood before Council and explained that the new safety campaign had already been developed. He boasted that it would include brochures, radio spots, and video spots.

According to a piece about the June 15th City Council meeting posted on June 18th to the AnnArborChronicle.com, “Hohnke asked Cooper to explain how the various constituencies would be engaged through the campaign.” It was a classic City Council Council performance. Organ grinder (Council member) asks questions to which s/he knows answers, then asks staff member (Capuchin monkey) to sit on shoulder, do tricks and attract attention while Council member turns handle of duplicating machine to crank out campaign literature.

According to AnnArborChronicle.com, “Cooper cited the slogans themselves as reflective of targeting all users of the roadway, not just motorists: ‘Share the road’ and ‘Same road same rules.’ He [Cooper] described the brochure that had been developed as a tri-fold that when opened displayed a motorist on the left and a cyclist on the right.”

On July 28th, Timothy Pincikowski, a 45-year-old bicyclist from Saline, was run down and killed on Maple Road, in Pittsfield Township. According to a piece published in the Saline Reporter in September 11, 2009, “The driver of a vehicle that struck and killed Saline resident Tim Pincikowski on his bicycle last July in Pittsfield Township was recently charged in Washtenaw County District Court. Nicholas Wahl, 20, was arraigned Thursday morning on one count of negligent homicide….”

It’s November now, and I have to wonder just how long it takes Ann Arbor City staff in Eli Cooper’s department to launch the bicycle-car safety program that Cooper told Mayor and Council in June had already been designed, and for which Hieftje and Hohnke took political credit. As for Hohnke and Hieftje, I wonder why neither of them hauled Eli Copper back in front of Council in August, after bicyclist Timothy Pincikowski was run down just a two miles outside of the city, on Maple Road. Why haven’t the Mayor or Council member who sponsored the resolution in “support” of the bicycle safety program noticed that, well, there is no program?

Just what in the name Lance Armstrong  is the hold-up with the “Share the road” and “Same road same rules,” campaign launch? Hells Bells. Putting out radio spots and nifty tri-fold brochures isn’t nearly as complicated as figuring out which gear to choose when biking uphill during the Giro d’Italia or the Tour de France.

On November 1st, AnnArbor.com’s Tony Dearing published an editorial calling for the need for a “culture of respect” between bicyclists and motorists. In his piece, Dearing mentions the recognition Ann Arbor got from the League of American Bicyclists in 2005 and renewed in 2009. Dearing mentions the 26 additional miles of on-road bike paths the Mayor announced in a press release that the City plans add to the 48 miles of on-road bike paths that exist only in the mind of Mayor John Hieftje. (When queried by A2Politico last month about the exact number of miles of on-roads bike paths in Ann Arbor, Eli Cooper never responded. He did confirm that Ann Arbor had 31.7 miles of on-road bike lanes in June of 2009, and added 1/2 mile of additional on-road lanes between June and September of 2009. In September of 2009, Carsten Hohnke gave the Mayor a long, deep, political smooch when he announced at a Council meeting that Ann Arbor had increased its on-road bike lane miles 500 percent, from 8 miles to 48 miles.)

You know what topic Tony Dearing never mentioned in his editorial? Eli Cooper’s bicyclist safety campaign “supported” by resolution and vote of Council, and funded in June 2009 at Hieftje and Hohnke’s request. 

Perhaps Cooper, Hieftje and Hohnke are waiting for Christmas to launch their bicyclist safety campaign? It could be their gift to the biking community. Copper could have a tri-fold that, when opened, displays a picture of a bicyclist on black ice on the right and a picture of a motorist on black ice on the left. Both can spin out-of-control and the tagline could read: “Same hospital room, same nurses.”

Tony Dearing wrote on November 1st, “We’d love to see Ann Arbor continue to move up to the gold and platinum level, not just for public policies that encourage biking, but also for a culture where bicyclists are welcome on our streets, and return that respect and courtesy to motorists.”

Amen. Hallelujah. Praise Miguel Indurain. 

I’m not suggesting, of course, that the non-existent non-motorized safety outreach program could have saved  Timothy Pincikowski’s life. I am suggesting that it’s way past time our fine elected officials who voted to fund the Hieftje and Hohnke sponsored non-motorized safety outreach program, hauled Eli Cooper’s rear fender before Council and asked why a safety program he described as ready to go, has never gone anywhere. And what about Cooper boss, Roger Fraser? Is there some reason Council hasn’t asked him what his employee has been doing to launch a program described as “ready to launch” over the past five months?

That, alas, would require Hieftje and Hohnke to actually take responsibility for the political initiative they put forth so easily last June with girlish smiles, loads of mutual air kisses, and visions of political sugar plums for their re-election résumés.  Unfortunately, these two are cut from the same bolt of slippery political cloth. That material’s called “Take Credit for Everything, and Take Responsibility for Nothing,” and the cloth routinely costs taxpayers millions per yard.

I’m hoping that Third Ward Council member Steve Kunselman will put Cooper and the missing safety outreach program on his to-do list when he gets back into his Council seat in November.

Popularity: 18% [?]

November 1, 2009

The Politics of A2 Parks: Mayor John and the Dame of North Campus

Filed under: parks — Tags: , , , , , , — A2 Politico @ 11:00 am
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rate this posting
Rating: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast)

First a joke (well, it’s actually not funny): So what do you give the University President who has everything? You give her a public park for her to build her parking garage on! 

Next, a name:  Doug Cowherd. Do you know it? You should.

Doug Cowherd is the long-time co-Chair of the Huron Valley Group of the Sierra Club. He represents about 2,500 members, about 1,000 of whom reside in Ann Arbor. That’s a lot of green power, as it were. Cowherd is a tall man with wire-rim glasses. He speaks precisely, quietly and slowly, measuring every word. It doesn’t take a lot to realize quickly that Doug Cowherd is as careful as he is calculating. Above all, Doug Cowherd, it is said, hates to lose a political battle. 

That’s a bad trait for any general. It is said that President Lincoln fired General George McClellan for having just the same trait: McClellan would not go to battle unless he was assured of a victory. 

A quick look at the Huron Valley Sierra Club’s Local Issues page will give you an oversight of the battles Cowherd and his Sierra Club members have taken on. There was the 2004 Greenbelt Proposal. There was also the 2003 Ann Arbor Township Proposal B for Land Preservation.

What I’m wondering is whether the local Sierra Club will finally get green and get involved in any substantive way to thwart the City Council’s current plan to use parkland for the The Fuller Intermodal Transportation Station project parking garage. Yes, the Mayor has proposed giving away our parkland to the University of Michigan. FITS is a joint venture between the University of Michigan and Ann Arbor that would include 900 parking spaces in a multi-level structure, across from Fuller Pool (tip o’ the keyboard to SBean). 

At a recent October Ann Arbor Park Advisory Commission (PAC) meeting, PAC commissioners questioned Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation manager, about  FITS. There was a question about the classification of the city-owned land being used: In the city’s master plan, the space where city and university officials want to locate the parking deck is  designated as parkland. However here in Ann Arbor, parkland is classified under the category of “public land.” Public land, my fellow politicos, thanks to a convenient loophole in the zoning laws, can include transportation uses. 

Enter the local Sierra Club. Will Doug Cowherd and his forces step up to stop the give-away by City Council of public city parkland to the University of Michigan? Will the Sierra Club rally to force City Council to amend the zoning law that allows “transportation” uses of public property designated as “parkland?”  This parking deck on city parkland is being built in place of the two parking decks the University proposed building in the middle of the First Ward Wall Street neighborhood last year. Wall Street neighbors rallied to fight the project and the University with little help from Mayor Hieftje and First Ward Council members. Here was the extent of help the Wall Street neighbors got. In July of 2008, the Mayor and First Ward City Council member Sabra Briere put forth the ballsy, “Resolution Calling for Increased Cooperation between the City and the University of Michigan in Planning for Redevelopment of the Wall Street Area.” You go, Girls! Right over to Dr. Mary Sue Coleman to trade fist bumps and lip gloss with the U of M Prez. Needless to say, Mary Sue Coleman responded to the resolution with swift action. I don’t know exactly which recycling bin she put it in, but that woman would never have just thrown away a piece of paper from our Mayor and Council. She probably had someone do it for her. Maybe the Dean of the School of Natural Resources, or the VP of Pacifying Ann Arbor City Council.

The gesture of giving away public land to the University reminds me of Queen Victoria’s gift of Mount Kilimanjaro to her grandson, the future Kaiser Wilhelm. Alas, the sun never seems to set on the crooked dealings of the Mayor John who would be King and his merry band of Eight. They who seek use a zoning loophole to give away the parkland of the people to a Dame who owns 800 acres of land we all know as the Dutchy of  North Campus.

Will the local Sierra Club and Doug Cowherd play a starring role in this MGM classic, or is all of Ann Arbor watching the opening scenes of Fuller Park Gone With The Wind?

Popularity: 19% [?]

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes